It's "colder" but you have to understand that the universe cooled rapidly in the time immediately after the big bang. as the U expanded, the energy contained it was spread over a much larger volume, which effectively means that said volume had a lower temperature as time went on. The same is true for the quark-gluon plasma described in the article. Roughly speaking, this QGP would have the same properties that the universe had roughly 1 microsecond after the big bang (my estimate, could be off by quite a bit). The goal in all this is not necessarily to recreate the big bang, but to probe the properties of the QGP, which is a very interesting condition. The other goal is to be able to examine the "freeze-out," when the expansion of the plasma lowers its temperatures enough that it's no longer a soup of free quakes & gluons, but instead those gluons condense into particles like protons, neutrons and exotics.
The reason the QGP is interesting is that it's a prediction of quantum chromodynamics ("QCD") that says that when you have high energy densities (ie high temperatures) in very small regions, quarks gain "asymptotic freedom" fom each other and are no longer forced to be bound into doublets and triplets (aka mesons and hadrons). This is exactly the opposite of the low-energy case, where it's theoretically not allowed for single quarks to be observed directly.
Long and short of it, this experiment allows physicists to study conditions that prevailed shortly after the big bang, and to test QCD in ways that we haven't been able to pursue until recently. It's pretty cool, 5.5 TK temperatures notwithstanding .
It's clear that Microsoft is terrified of Apple and feels the need to do "something, anything" to be seen as innovative. Of course, being innovative is not easy, and in my opinion MS lost their ability to innovate quite a while back. Metro is new, so MS is grabbing on to it like a shipwreck survivor grabs onto anything that floats.
Of course, "new" is not necessarily "good," and in this case I think the jury is definitely out on whether Metro is good.
Uh....what on earth would make you think/say that? The thermal expansion properties of water are (a) well understood and (b) essential to life on earth.
See this page for more info...search it for 'water' and you'll find lots of references -- including the thermal expansion coefficients.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_expansion
The Fishbowl project was covered in great detail at the RSA conference a month ago. NSA has already built it, certified it, and conducted trials. Unless Boeing is just replicating Fishbowl, they may find it a tough sell.
I went through this entire decision myself just over a year ago. Here's what I did, and what I like and don't like about my setup.
1. Tube: I bought a Celestron 8" Schmidt-Cassegrain. I love this tube. It's relatively easy to carry around, has good light-gathering power, and gives me satisfactory images of both planets and deep-sky objects (nebulae). No complaints with the tube at all, although I would love to trade it on an 11" tube now that I know what I'm doing.:)
2. Mount: Celestron's "german" equatorial mount, with go-to. This is where I went wrong. I convinced myself that I just had to have the ability to do astrophotography, which means an EQ mount. OK, so a year later and dozens of viewing sessions and I have never even purchased the gear to mount my camera...and the mount is a pain in the ass to set up. I'm a die-hard gadget freak so I have finally figured out how to do it quickly and reasonably well, but all in all a "fork" mount would probably have been a better choice for me. Forks (also known as "alt-az" or "altitude-azimuth" mounts) take a whole lot less time to set up, are cheaper, and have only one major drawback compared to EQs (photography, and even then you can do good photos on a fork)
That said, the "GO TO" feature rocks. Ignore all those people who say that go-to's let you avoid learning exactly where everything in the sky is. They're right, but you know what? When you want to set up for an hour of viewing, the go-to lets you see 10 different things in your hour, whereas if you had to learn how to point the scope and star-hop, you'd see maybe one or two. A year later, I pretty much know where everything is in the sky, but I learned by letting the 'scope teach me instead of the other way around. And really, when your sweetie wants to see the ring nebula the first night you set up the scope (because she read something about it on/.), you'll be a hero with the go-to and a goat without it.
Another advantage of the go-to is that there are lots of faint objects that even you pointed at them manually you'd convince yourself that you didn't point it properly and give up before you see them. With the go-to, you'll become convinced pretty quickly that the object just has to be in the field of view, and probably close to dead center, and you'll keep staring until the great "a-ha" moment arrives. You'd be amazed at how many times the thing you wanted to see was there the whole time...
3. Eyepieces: get a decent wide-angle eyepiece, something in the 30-35mm range. You'll want this for larger objects like the Great Nebula in Orion. Even with that, you won't see the whole thing in one shot. Also get a good eyepiece in the 10-15mm range, something like the Orion Stratus lineup. They're priced right, and "almost" as good as the high-price jobs...at least, a year later I can't tell much difference between my Orion and my buddy's Nagler. I'm sure there's a reason people pay for the Nagler, but I'm not good enough to see it yet. And get a good Barlow. No excuse for not having one.
4. Other accessories:
a. Red LED flashlight (a must)
b. green laser pointer (a crowd pleaser, especially when you want to show people what the scope is pointed at)
c. software: stellarium rocks. Google Sky sucks massively (gasp!) and is unfit for use by even the most casual astronomer (gasp! gasp!)
d. car battery jump-start kit ($30 at Wal-mart) -- you can use these to power the motor on the go-to mount. They're cheap, portable, and typically power a scope for 2-3 good long observing sessions (about 16 hours total)
All told, I have spent less than $2k on everything above, probably closer to $1500. You can shave another $500 if you drop down to a 6" tube, but I'd fork over the extra $ for the 8" 'scope if I had it.
Oh, and whoever said "apochromatic refractor" must be a troll. That's the worst possible advice you could get.
Slashdot Mirror
It's "colder" but you have to understand that the universe cooled rapidly in the time immediately after the big bang. as the U expanded, the energy contained it was spread over a much larger volume, which effectively means that said volume had a lower temperature as time went on. The same is true for the quark-gluon plasma described in the article. Roughly speaking, this QGP would have the same properties that the universe had roughly 1 microsecond after the big bang (my estimate, could be off by quite a bit). The goal in all this is not necessarily to recreate the big bang, but to probe the properties of the QGP, which is a very interesting condition. The other goal is to be able to examine the "freeze-out," when the expansion of the plasma lowers its temperatures enough that it's no longer a soup of free quakes & gluons, but instead those gluons condense into particles like protons, neutrons and exotics.
The reason the QGP is interesting is that it's a prediction of quantum chromodynamics ("QCD") that says that when you have high energy densities (ie high temperatures) in very small regions, quarks gain "asymptotic freedom" fom each other and are no longer forced to be bound into doublets and triplets (aka mesons and hadrons). This is exactly the opposite of the low-energy case, where it's theoretically not allowed for single quarks to be observed directly.
Long and short of it, this experiment allows physicists to study conditions that prevailed shortly after the big bang, and to test QCD in ways that we haven't been able to pursue until recently. It's pretty cool, 5.5 TK temperatures notwithstanding .
It's clear that Microsoft is terrified of Apple and feels the need to do "something, anything" to be seen as innovative. Of course, being innovative is not easy, and in my opinion MS lost their ability to innovate quite a while back. Metro is new, so MS is grabbing on to it like a shipwreck survivor grabs onto anything that floats.
Of course, "new" is not necessarily "good," and in this case I think the jury is definitely out on whether Metro is good.
All in all, this feels like a death rattle to me.
Uh....what on earth would make you think/say that? The thermal expansion properties of water are (a) well understood and (b) essential to life on earth. See this page for more info...search it for 'water' and you'll find lots of references -- including the thermal expansion coefficients. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_expansion
The Fishbowl project was covered in great detail at the RSA conference a month ago. NSA has already built it, certified it, and conducted trials. Unless Boeing is just replicating Fishbowl, they may find it a tough sell.
The republicans will scorn the theory, deny the evidence, publicly attack the scientists who produced it, and insist on doing nothing.
I went through this entire decision myself just over a year ago. Here's what I did, and what I like and don't like about my setup.
:)
/.), you'll be a hero with the go-to and a goat without it.
1. Tube: I bought a Celestron 8" Schmidt-Cassegrain. I love this tube. It's relatively easy to carry around, has good light-gathering power, and gives me satisfactory images of both planets and deep-sky objects (nebulae). No complaints with the tube at all, although I would love to trade it on an 11" tube now that I know what I'm doing.
2. Mount: Celestron's "german" equatorial mount, with go-to. This is where I went wrong. I convinced myself that I just had to have the ability to do astrophotography, which means an EQ mount. OK, so a year later and dozens of viewing sessions and I have never even purchased the gear to mount my camera...and the mount is a pain in the ass to set up. I'm a die-hard gadget freak so I have finally figured out how to do it quickly and reasonably well, but all in all a "fork" mount would probably have been a better choice for me. Forks (also known as "alt-az" or "altitude-azimuth" mounts) take a whole lot less time to set up, are cheaper, and have only one major drawback compared to EQs (photography, and even then you can do good photos on a fork)
That said, the "GO TO" feature rocks. Ignore all those people who say that go-to's let you avoid learning exactly where everything in the sky is. They're right, but you know what? When you want to set up for an hour of viewing, the go-to lets you see 10 different things in your hour, whereas if you had to learn how to point the scope and star-hop, you'd see maybe one or two. A year later, I pretty much know where everything is in the sky, but I learned by letting the 'scope teach me instead of the other way around. And really, when your sweetie wants to see the ring nebula the first night you set up the scope (because she read something about it on
Another advantage of the go-to is that there are lots of faint objects that even you pointed at them manually you'd convince yourself that you didn't point it properly and give up before you see them. With the go-to, you'll become convinced pretty quickly that the object just has to be in the field of view, and probably close to dead center, and you'll keep staring until the great "a-ha" moment arrives. You'd be amazed at how many times the thing you wanted to see was there the whole time...
3. Eyepieces: get a decent wide-angle eyepiece, something in the 30-35mm range. You'll want this for larger objects like the Great Nebula in Orion. Even with that, you won't see the whole thing in one shot. Also get a good eyepiece in the 10-15mm range, something like the Orion Stratus lineup. They're priced right, and "almost" as good as the high-price jobs...at least, a year later I can't tell much difference between my Orion and my buddy's Nagler. I'm sure there's a reason people pay for the Nagler, but I'm not good enough to see it yet. And get a good Barlow. No excuse for not having one.
4. Other accessories:
a. Red LED flashlight (a must)
b. green laser pointer (a crowd pleaser, especially when you want to show people what the scope is pointed at)
c. software: stellarium rocks. Google Sky sucks massively (gasp!) and is unfit for use by even the most casual astronomer (gasp! gasp!)
d. car battery jump-start kit ($30 at Wal-mart) -- you can use these to power the motor on the go-to mount. They're cheap, portable, and typically power a scope for 2-3 good long observing sessions (about 16 hours total)
All told, I have spent less than $2k on everything above, probably closer to $1500. You can shave another $500 if you drop down to a 6" tube, but I'd fork over the extra $ for the 8" 'scope if I had it.
Oh, and whoever said "apochromatic refractor" must be a troll. That's the worst possible advice you could get.
Cheers,
D