I suggest you tattoo the inverse of the dimensionless fine structure constant (1/alpha) to as many digits as it is currently measured (137.035999). As a dimensionless quantity that pops up quite naturally in quantum mechanics, it is truly universal*, as it is the same regardless of one's system of measurements (SI, cgs, Imperial, CowboyNeal Units, etc.).
I am an astronomer, and I can tell you that, in most of our opinions, Adaptive Optics is a complete load of crap. A lot of money has gone into that technology for very little science return. The price per scientific paper for Adaptive Optics is far higher than for other technologies.
Yes, the technology can make images a bit sharper, but due to its intrinsic properties, results in those images being completely impossible to calibrate. Making a measurement is only 1% of science; 99% of the challenge is understanding the context of the measurement, its reliability, and uncertainties. Without the ability to calibrate the image, it is useless. With adaptive optics, there are image artifacts that vary in time and can mimic details for which you are searching. If you see a new point of light around the star you are imaging, is it really a distinct object, or just an artifact of the image?
Also, adaptive optics requires bright stars as guides, because the system must operate faster than the atmosphere varies (generally 1 kHz). Very little of the sky has a bright enough star nearby for this to be useful on many objects.
You can use lasers to make artificial guide stars. You still need an actual star for one stage of the correction that the laser isn't sensitive to (because it goes round-trip), but it can be fainter, and this opens much more of the sky. However, it's still far from complete sky coverage.
Finally, background light is higher for ground-based observatories. Hubble can still see fainter than ground telescopes because of this.
For versatility, large sky coverage, and faintness in high resolution imaging, you just can't beat going to space.
I've frequently advocated that the current generation animal I would most like to eat is the elephant. This is primarily because it is the most related to the mammoth.
I figure that during the modern human's evolutionary cycle is when we developed our innate sense of what tastes "good" and what tastes "bad".
Those that felt items that best guaranteed our survival were tasted "good" most likely survived. The others did not.
For example, sugar can give us immediate energy. That helps survival. Of course, most of us think sugar is really quite tasty.
When modern man was evolving, mammoth was the meat of choice. Thus, those most disposed to eating mammoth survived and passed on their pro-mammoth genes. Since mammoth has become extinct: 1. the timescale is less than that for evolution to modify, and 2. mankind has pursued non-survival-of-the-fittest survival routines due to morals (i.e. helping the helpless, a noble pursuit in my opinion).
Thus, we are possibly pro-eating-mammoth genetically selected. It might taste like crap, but likely it is really good. But I'm at least wanting to have one bite of an animal that might be the best tasting meat of all, due to my genetic heritage. [Enter Vegan Flame Wars Here, but Meat Is Yummy.]
I'll let you know, if I ever get the chance to take a bite out of the (unfortunately endangered) elephant, or the descendants of the cloned mammoth.
I'm also an astrophysicist.
I second the suggestion of Introduction to Modern Astrophysics by Carroll and Ostlie. This is the only book I needed to pass all of MIT's Ph.D. coursework in astrophysics. It efficiently goes from introduction to deep and advanced, and covers all topics very thoroughly and as up-to-date as you will find in any textbook.
By the way, the lead researcher happens to be one of the guys reappearing yearly on slashdot as the students who built a breeder reactor for the University of Chicago Scavenger Hunt.
It's been said: "There's a time and a place for everything...and that's college."
Seriously, keep in mind that there's a lot more to college than academics. This will most likely be your first experience out of your parents home, where you will be free to make all your decisions for yourself. You will surprise yourself with how you choose your priorities differently than you do now, when subconciously much of your choices reflect your parents' ambitions for your future. In a year from now, you will almost certainly be a completely different person.
I had similar grades and qualifications. I was accepted to a range of schools for undergrad study. In the end, I went to the public university and scholarships covered everything.
BUT...I found the state school offered things those prestigious schools didn't have. First was diversity---it's a worthwhile experience to interact with those less academically inclined, and an elite school just doesn't allow for that. Partying is another. Make no mistake about it, you need to get it out of your system sometime in your life. There were also more aspects of dating and socializing to explore, and explore them you should. You should join lots of extracurriculars that you never considered before, the more random the better. Lots of those will not appeal to you, some will, and those will open you to becoming a more complete person. That will help you understand what situations you are most comfortable in and design your future personal life. If all the school offers is intellectual snobs, you're only going to have a chance to explore socialization around the AD&D board.
The academics at the state school weren't too shabby either. Look for one with an honors division and get into it. The quality of education in such a program is at least as good as at any elite private school.
After undergrad, I earned a PhD from one of the two target schools you mentioned, and saw firsthand that my undergrad education was just as good as anyone else's. Then I went to the other for a postdoc. If you are really interested in academics, save these elite schools for graduate study, and enjoy your undergrad years.
The undergrads at those schools are not well-rounded. Unless you already know that your only idea of a relaxing evening is AD&D or building a rocket (activities still available elsewhere), and are sure that wild parties have nothing to offer (they're severely under-rated), don't go to the places you mentioned. Hey, there's nothing wrong if you're the first type (I could have gone that route), but be sure that's who you really are.
On my machine (2.2 GHz P4 laptop, 1 GB ram), the first load of OO.o writer took about 14 seconds. The second was six seconds. Opening again while another instance was running was less than 2 seconds.
However, MS Word still won't open. It never has, no matter how long I wait. You see, I'm using this other (apparently SCO-based) operating system instead of Windows, and I refuse to be forced to pay for Windows just to be able to use another MS product.
Yes, it is good for us open-sourcers that mono exists. I run linux, and tried to install.NET, but afterwards I couldn't find it--".NET" didn't appear anywhere when I ran "ls" afterwards. It appears to have been hidden....
(This is a very funny unix joke. Ok, maybe not "very", or "funny", but a unix joke anyways.)
The wikipedia entry says "Michael Kelly" is a founding member, and links to this bibliography. That's some trick, him being a founding member, as the bibliography says he died in 1826....
He must have flown his privately funded spacecraft too close to a time warp.
Isn't the current iMac just a head with keyboard and mouse? So what's a "headless iMac"? Particularly since the mini doesn't ship with a keyboard or mouse.... $499 well spent.
Although I have never seen it in a photograph, couldn't this have been caused by visual waves caused by the atmosphere?
I believe that you may almost be on to something. IAAA (I Am An Astronomer) and the "visual waves" you speak of are called "seeing"--atmospheric turbulence tends to blur out the images of stars. Though stars are generally sized 1/1000 of an arcsecond (the largest is about 50/1000), the atmosphere blurs on a scale of a few arcseconds. So if the "corkscrew" were caused by seeing, one would expect the stars to be blurred by an amount similar to the amplitude of the "corkscrew", which we do see in the image.
However, seeing (turbulence) is random. The "corkscrew" is clearly not--it appears sinusoidal. A much more likely explaination is that the telescope mount is vibrating--this would cause sinusoidal smearing of all objects in the field. the meteor, which is moving, becomes a corkscrew; the stationary stars get smeared in the direction of the vibration (as is seen in the picture). The meteor appears about 1 minute into the "2 minute exposure", and has "25 corkscrews", so the vibration is at about a half a hertz. Thus it is likely that his mount wasn't quite sturdy enough for the 'scope, or winds were abnormally high that night. Alternatively, since he apparently accounts for sidereal motion (the telescope has electronic drives to track stars, compensating for the earth's rotation), maybe the drive motors have noise at half a hertz....
Is it some 100% theoretical stuff or will it have technical repercussions in the short term ?
I just attended Frank Wilczek's press conference. He was asked this very question. His answer, in short, was "No." In medium, "The are no real-world applications I can think of." In long, "Maybe, someday, it could benefit nuclear power production because we better understand the nucleus. And there are side-benefits: the WWW was developed at CERN, and young people are inspired to science-related careers."
You're confusing science and news announcements. For those of us outside the field (like, say, me) it's interesting to hear about now, instead of two years later.
True, but nobody ever hears the part two years later when they say "oops, turned out we were wrong." It doesn't make the news. You are left instead with a mis-informed public. Then, when someone really does image a planet, and confirms it, the reaction is only "didn't they already do that?"
You are correct to point out they clarified it in the end of the article. But since many people only read the headlines, the headline itself could mislead the public. When choosing a headline, one should keep that in mind.
Indeed. If it's bright enough to be observed optically, shouldn't your first reaction be, "Wait--this must be a binary system with a dim companion"?
Normally the difference in brightness, or "contrast" between a star and a planet is very large--the stars is brighter by about 100 million times in visible wavelengths, and 1 million in the infrared (for something like Jupiter). However, the star in this case is not as bright as most stars--it is a brown dwarf. Brown dwarves are much, much fainter than regular stars. Astronomers know how bright brown dwarves tend to be. In this case, the astronomers measured the brightness of the companion spot relative to the brightness of the brown dwarf in the picture. The difference in brightness is such that if the companion object is equally far away from earth as is the brown dwarf, it would have the brightness one would expect a planet to be.
(well, I don't know exactly how big it is, but since it's on Hubble, it can't be too big) telescope on Hubble: the resolution of such a picture can't be too good.
Actually, the telescope used on that link was Hubble itself, not some additional instrument stuck to Hubble. Hubble is 2.4 meters in diameter. The largests single (non-interferometer) optical telescopes in the world are the Keck Telescopes, the SALT telescope, and the HET, each at 10 meters diameter. So Hubble is pretty big. Being in space, Hubble's resolution is limited only by its size. At the wavelengths Hubble works at (visible), this is about 50 milli-arcseconds (mas).
Today's announced "planet image" comes from one of Europe's 4 VLT telescopes, using adaptive optics. These are 8 meters in diameter. The resolution of these ground-based telescopes is limited by the atmosphere (seeing) and their diameters. Normally, the sky is completely dominant. In the infrared, a technique called Adaptive Optics (AO) can correct for the atmosphere in special circumstances. Right now, AO technology only works in the infrared, not at visible wavelengths. AO on a 8-10 meter ground-based telescope, in the infrared, gives a resolution of about 50 mas, same as Hubble in visible wavelengths.
It is often over-looked that AO has flaws. It only works on bright stars, so Hubble can see things much fainter, with high resolution simultaneously. Also, Hubble can look at things all over the sky--AO only works when a bright star is in the image. Of the most concern, AO is not a perfect correction for the atmosphere--some flaws remain in the image. These are extremely difficult to calibrate, making it difficult to use the data for high-precision work. But that's another topic entirely.
This announcement was premature, at best. It is not responsible science.
The planet is not yet confirmed as such. It could very easily be a background star. This has happenned before, and the scientists got an awful lot of egg on their faces. Another unconfirmed "planet" image can be seen here, this one around a white dwarf.
The responsible thing to do is wait a few years to determine if the objects have common proper-motions--if they move through the sky together, they are probably physically linked, and one can determine that the companion object really is a planet. Without this confirmation, the simplest explanation is not that it is a planet.
Many teams of astronomers have images of planet candidates like this one. The responsible astronomers are the ones you aren't hearing from yet--the ones waiting to verify they have planets.
The press-release title should be "A dim spot imaged near a brown dwarf." Any further conclusions have no basis.
concern about this is that there would still need to be peer-review before publishing, even if it is just online.
An officemate had a solution to this a few months back: download slashcode, and apply it to online journals. We have a perfectly good peer-review system right here!
You list the costs associated with "mainstream" magazines (i.e. Time, Sports Illustrated). However, there is another cost that Scientific Journals have that those don't--archiving.
Scientific Journals are expected to keep archives of their works for hundreds of years, and put a lot of effort into making sure there is no way that past issues will be lost. Commercial magazines certainly prefer to have records of old issues, but it is not as devastating to them if archiving fails.
Because government money goes to the page charges, archiving is a necessity, not just a nice option.
That being said, I agree that there must be a better solution than paying $1500/paper.
When scientists look for life out side the solar system, why don't they focus on moons of Jupiter like planets instead of finding Earth like planets.
Actually, they have looked for moons around extrasolar planets that eclipse their star. The main example (so far) of the "transiting technique" is HD 209458b, a hot Jupiter in a 3-day period. This transit has been observed using Hubble, with a sensitivity that would allow one to detect Saturn-like rings or moons as small as twice the size of Earth. None were found. More information here.
Of course, a 3-day period planet's moon would still be unable to harbor life as we know it (too hot). But these are the first steps being taken to look for such objects. As more transiting planets are detected, this technique will tell us a lot about moon systems around these planets.
Moons of giant planets in temperate zones may indeed be the key to finding life-sustaining bodies. Our own Moon stabilizes the rotational axis of the Earth, which prevents many extreme climatic changes. Compare this to Mars, which has no large moons (only two small ones) that lead to the same stability. A giant planet would have a similar affect on the dynamics. This is just one example of how a second body (in our case, the Moon) aids the development of life. One can ponder how much the probability of life drops off if such a body does not exist, though I'm not sure anyone has a convincing answer, yet.
We can barely image planets that are twice the size of Jupiter and you are suggesting we should image MOONS!?
So far, scientists have been unable to image any extra-solar planets at all. The planets have been detected indirectly--by looking at the effects of the planet on the star. An overview of these techniques. Astronomers have directly imaged brown dwarfs, which are somewhat like both planets and stars. We can't yet image exoplanets, but we can still learn a lot about them.
Direct imaging of planets may be made with the Keck Interferometer in Nulling Mode (a similar setup is being designed for the LBTI in Arizona, and the European VLTI), or with "Extreme Adaptive Optics", or finally with the Terrestrial Planet Finder.
That nuclear material could have an unmeasureable detrimental effect on any life there is there, so NASA needs to be damn certain that this baby will not contaminate the surface even if the worst case scenario was to occur.
The possibility of contamination is precisely why the Galileo satellite was purposefully crashed into Jupiter. It was to prevent earth-based microbes (not nuclear material) from contaminating Europa, in the chance that it would eventually crash there after loosing power. Preventing biological contamination of enviroments in which life may have independently originated is of prime importance.
Concerns of biological contamination could be addressed in future missions via proper sterilization of the spacecraft. This was not done with Galileo because there was no reason to do so at the time. It may have been sterile, but had not been checked as such.
Though nuclear contamination was not the issue, Galileo did have nuclear material onboard for power (but not a fission reactor). This led to some folks speculate that NASA was trying to detonate Jupiter, which is nicely debunked here.
Europa's oceans are thought to be at least 2 times as voluminous as all of Earth's oceans combined
One of the main points of the mission is to confirm the existence of these oceans. The oceans are only inferred: we believe that there is a large liquid water ocean because of Europa's magnetic moment. The salt-water is conductive, and as Jupiter's magnetic fied varies, it induces a field in Europa. As Europa moves through various parts of Jupiter's field, the orientation varies. We detect this field and its variations, and deduce a large ocean. More information is here.
Slashdot Mirror
I suggest you tattoo the inverse of the dimensionless fine structure constant (1/alpha) to as many digits as it is currently measured (137.035999). As a dimensionless quantity that pops up quite naturally in quantum mechanics, it is truly universal*, as it is the same regardless of one's system of measurements (SI, cgs, Imperial, CowboyNeal Units, etc.).
Alternatively, you could go with the Arecibo Message, the Pioneer Plaque, or the Voyager Golden Record.
*Note: universality not guaranteed at exceptionally large red shifts.
I am an astronomer, and I can tell you that, in most of our opinions, Adaptive Optics is a complete load of crap. A lot of money has gone into that technology for very little science return. The price per scientific paper for Adaptive Optics is far higher than for other technologies.
Yes, the technology can make images a bit sharper, but due to its intrinsic properties, results in those images being completely impossible to calibrate. Making a measurement is only 1% of science; 99% of the challenge is understanding the context of the measurement, its reliability, and uncertainties. Without the ability to calibrate the image, it is useless. With adaptive optics, there are image artifacts that vary in time and can mimic details for which you are searching. If you see a new point of light around the star you are imaging, is it really a distinct object, or just an artifact of the image?
Also, adaptive optics requires bright stars as guides, because the system must operate faster than the atmosphere varies (generally 1 kHz). Very little of the sky has a bright enough star nearby for this to be useful on many objects.
You can use lasers to make artificial guide stars. You still need an actual star for one stage of the correction that the laser isn't sensitive to (because it goes round-trip), but it can be fainter, and this opens much more of the sky. However, it's still far from complete sky coverage.
Finally, background light is higher for ground-based observatories. Hubble can still see fainter than ground telescopes because of this.
For versatility, large sky coverage, and faintness in high resolution imaging, you just can't beat going to space.
I've frequently advocated that the current generation animal I would most like to eat is the elephant. This is primarily because it is the most related to the mammoth.
I figure that during the modern human's evolutionary cycle is when we developed our innate sense of what tastes "good" and what tastes "bad".
Those that felt items that best guaranteed our survival were tasted "good" most likely survived. The others did not.
For example, sugar can give us immediate energy. That helps survival. Of course, most of us think sugar is really quite tasty.
When modern man was evolving, mammoth was the meat of choice. Thus, those most disposed to eating mammoth survived and passed on their pro-mammoth genes. Since mammoth has become extinct: 1. the timescale is less than that for evolution to modify, and 2. mankind has pursued non-survival-of-the-fittest survival routines due to morals (i.e. helping the helpless, a noble pursuit in my opinion).
Thus, we are possibly pro-eating-mammoth genetically selected. It might taste like crap, but likely it is really good. But I'm at least wanting to have one bite of an animal that might be the best tasting meat of all, due to my genetic heritage. [Enter Vegan Flame Wars Here, but Meat Is Yummy.]
I'll let you know, if I ever get the chance to take a bite out of the (unfortunately endangered) elephant, or the descendants of the cloned mammoth.
I'm also an astrophysicist. I second the suggestion of Introduction to Modern Astrophysics by Carroll and Ostlie. This is the only book I needed to pass all of MIT's Ph.D. coursework in astrophysics. It efficiently goes from introduction to deep and advanced, and covers all topics very thoroughly and as up-to-date as you will find in any textbook.
Many scientists are religious and find no contradiction between science and religion. As an excellent example, the Nobel Laureate Inventor of the Laser recently received the Templeton Prize for his writings about the convergence of science and religion (scroll down to the 2005 prize). The text of his writings can be found here.
And Still The Best Theory of Everything
By the way, the lead researcher happens to be one of the guys reappearing yearly on slashdot as the students who built a breeder reactor for the University of Chicago Scavenger Hunt.
It's been said:
"There's a time and a place for everything...and that's college."
Seriously, keep in mind that there's a lot more to college than academics. This will most likely be your first experience out of your parents home, where you will be free to make all your decisions for yourself. You will surprise yourself with how you choose your priorities differently than you do now, when subconciously much of your choices reflect your parents' ambitions for your future. In a year from now, you will almost certainly be a completely different person.
I had similar grades and qualifications. I was accepted to a range of schools for undergrad study. In the end, I went to the public university and scholarships covered everything.
BUT...I found the state school offered things those prestigious schools didn't have. First was diversity---it's a worthwhile experience to interact with those less academically inclined, and an elite school just doesn't allow for that. Partying is another. Make no mistake about it, you need to get it out of your system sometime in your life. There were also more aspects of dating and socializing to explore, and explore them you should. You should join lots of extracurriculars that you never considered before, the more random the better. Lots of those will not appeal to you, some will, and those will open you to becoming a more complete person. That will help you understand what situations you are most comfortable in and design your future personal life. If all the school offers is intellectual snobs, you're only going to have a chance to explore socialization around the AD&D board.
The academics at the state school weren't too shabby either. Look for one with an honors division and get into it. The quality of education in such a program is at least as good as at any elite private school.
After undergrad, I earned a PhD from one of the two target schools you mentioned, and saw firsthand that my undergrad education was just as good as anyone else's. Then I went to the other for a postdoc. If you are really interested in academics, save these elite schools for graduate study, and enjoy your undergrad years.
The undergrads at those schools are not well-rounded. Unless you already know that your only idea of a relaxing evening is AD&D or building a rocket (activities still available elsewhere), and are sure that wild parties have nothing to offer (they're severely under-rated), don't go to the places you mentioned. Hey, there's nothing wrong if you're the first type (I could have gone that route), but be sure that's who you really are.
On my machine (2.2 GHz P4 laptop, 1 GB ram), the first load of OO.o writer took about 14 seconds. The second was six seconds. Opening again while another instance was running was less than 2 seconds.
However, MS Word still won't open. It never has, no matter how long I wait. You see, I'm using this other (apparently SCO-based) operating system instead of Windows, and I refuse to be forced to pay for Windows just to be able to use another MS product.
..when I see multiple peer-reviewed articles reporting that others have been able to duplicate this experiment. :P
Do you believe it now?
Yes, it is good for us open-sourcers that mono exists. I run linux, and tried to install .NET, but afterwards I couldn't find it--".NET" didn't appear anywhere when I ran "ls" afterwards. It appears to have been hidden....
(This is a very funny unix joke. Ok, maybe not "very", or "funny", but a unix joke anyways.)
The wikipedia entry says "Michael Kelly" is a founding member, and links to this bibliography. That's some trick, him being a founding member, as the bibliography says he died in 1826....
He must have flown his privately funded spacecraft too close to a time warp.
Isn't the current iMac just a head with keyboard and mouse? So what's a "headless iMac"? Particularly since the mini doesn't ship with a keyboard or mouse.... $499 well spent.
Although I have never seen it in a photograph, couldn't this have been caused by visual waves caused by the atmosphere?
I believe that you may almost be on to something. IAAA (I Am An Astronomer) and the "visual waves" you speak of are called "seeing"--atmospheric turbulence tends to blur out the images of stars. Though stars are generally sized 1/1000 of an arcsecond (the largest is about 50/1000), the atmosphere blurs on a scale of a few arcseconds. So if the "corkscrew" were caused by seeing, one would expect the stars to be blurred by an amount similar to the amplitude of the "corkscrew", which we do see in the image.
However, seeing (turbulence) is random. The "corkscrew" is clearly not--it appears sinusoidal. A much more likely explaination is that the telescope mount is vibrating--this would cause sinusoidal smearing of all objects in the field. the meteor, which is moving, becomes a corkscrew; the stationary stars get smeared in the direction of the vibration (as is seen in the picture). The meteor appears about 1 minute into the "2 minute exposure", and has "25 corkscrews", so the vibration is at about a half a hertz. Thus it is likely that his mount wasn't quite sturdy enough for the 'scope, or winds were abnormally high that night. Alternatively, since he apparently accounts for sidereal motion (the telescope has electronic drives to track stars, compensating for the earth's rotation), maybe the drive motors have noise at half a hertz....
Is it some 100% theoretical stuff or will it have technical repercussions in the short term ?
I just attended Frank Wilczek's press conference. He was asked this very question. His answer, in short, was "No." In medium, "The are no real-world applications I can think of." In long, "Maybe, someday, it could benefit nuclear power production because we better understand the nucleus. And there are side-benefits: the WWW was developed at CERN, and young people are inspired to science-related careers."
You're confusing science and news announcements. For those of us outside the field (like, say, me) it's interesting to hear about now, instead of two years later.
True, but nobody ever hears the part two years later when they say "oops, turned out we were wrong." It doesn't make the news. You are left instead with a mis-informed public. Then, when someone really does image a planet, and confirms it, the reaction is only "didn't they already do that?"
You are correct to point out they clarified it in the end of the article. But since many people only read the headlines, the headline itself could mislead the public. When choosing a headline, one should keep that in mind.
Indeed. If it's bright enough to be observed optically, shouldn't your first reaction be, "Wait--this must be a binary system with a dim companion"?
Normally the difference in brightness, or "contrast" between a star and a planet is very large--the stars is brighter by about 100 million times in visible wavelengths, and 1 million in the infrared (for something like Jupiter). However, the star in this case is not as bright as most stars--it is a brown dwarf. Brown dwarves are much, much fainter than regular stars. Astronomers know how bright brown dwarves tend to be. In this case, the astronomers measured the brightness of the companion spot relative to the brightness of the brown dwarf in the picture. The difference in brightness is such that if the companion object is equally far away from earth as is the brown dwarf, it would have the brightness one would expect a planet to be.
(well, I don't know exactly how big it is, but since it's on Hubble, it can't be too big) telescope on Hubble: the resolution of such a picture can't be too good.
Actually, the telescope used on that link was Hubble itself, not some additional instrument stuck to Hubble. Hubble is 2.4 meters in diameter. The largests single (non-interferometer) optical telescopes in the world are the Keck Telescopes, the SALT telescope, and the HET, each at 10 meters diameter. So Hubble is pretty big. Being in space, Hubble's resolution is limited only by its size. At the wavelengths Hubble works at (visible), this is about 50 milli-arcseconds (mas).
Today's announced "planet image" comes from one of Europe's 4 VLT telescopes, using adaptive optics. These are 8 meters in diameter. The resolution of these ground-based telescopes is limited by the atmosphere (seeing) and their diameters. Normally, the sky is completely dominant. In the infrared, a technique called Adaptive Optics (AO) can correct for the atmosphere in special circumstances. Right now, AO technology only works in the infrared, not at visible wavelengths. AO on a 8-10 meter ground-based telescope, in the infrared, gives a resolution of about 50 mas, same as Hubble in visible wavelengths.
It is often over-looked that AO has flaws. It only works on bright stars, so Hubble can see things much fainter, with high resolution simultaneously. Also, Hubble can look at things all over the sky--AO only works when a bright star is in the image. Of the most concern, AO is not a perfect correction for the atmosphere--some flaws remain in the image. These are extremely difficult to calibrate, making it difficult to use the data for high-precision work. But that's another topic entirely.
This announcement was premature, at best. It is not responsible science.
The planet is not yet confirmed as such. It could very easily be a background star. This has happenned before, and the scientists got an awful lot of egg on their faces. Another unconfirmed "planet" image can be seen here, this one around a white dwarf.
The responsible thing to do is wait a few years to determine if the objects have common proper-motions--if they move through the sky together, they are probably physically linked, and one can determine that the companion object really is a planet. Without this confirmation, the simplest explanation is not that it is a planet.
Many teams of astronomers have images of planet candidates like this one. The responsible astronomers are the ones you aren't hearing from yet--the ones waiting to verify they have planets.
The press-release title should be "A dim spot imaged near a brown dwarf." Any further conclusions have no basis.
It's like comparing Apples and Oranges.
No, this is comparing Apples and Oranges.
I'm surprised that some common fundamental numbers didn't make the list:
271 (or 271828, 2.71, etc).
314 (or 3.14, 314159, P!=3.14, etc).
137
and so on.
concern about this is that there would still need to be peer-review before publishing, even if it is just online.
An officemate had a solution to this a few months back: download slashcode, and apply it to online journals. We have a perfectly good peer-review system right here!
You list the costs associated with "mainstream" magazines (i.e. Time, Sports Illustrated). However, there is another cost that Scientific Journals have that those don't--archiving.
Scientific Journals are expected to keep archives of their works for hundreds of years, and put a lot of effort into making sure there is no way that past issues will be lost. Commercial magazines certainly prefer to have records of old issues, but it is not as devastating to them if archiving fails.
Because government money goes to the page charges, archiving is a necessity, not just a nice option.
That being said, I agree that there must be a better solution than paying $1500/paper.
There's a book that's been published that is pretty much the same thing, by MIT Physics Professor Philip Morrison and others. It can be found here.
When scientists look for life out side the solar system, why don't they focus on moons of Jupiter like planets instead of finding Earth like planets.
Actually, they have looked for moons around extrasolar planets that eclipse their star. The main example (so far) of the "transiting technique" is HD 209458b, a hot Jupiter in a 3-day period. This transit has been observed using Hubble, with a sensitivity that would allow one to detect Saturn-like rings or moons as small as twice the size of Earth. None were found. More information here.
Of course, a 3-day period planet's moon would still be unable to harbor life as we know it (too hot). But these are the first steps being taken to look for such objects. As more transiting planets are detected, this technique will tell us a lot about moon systems around these planets.
Moons of giant planets in temperate zones may indeed be the key to finding life-sustaining bodies. Our own Moon stabilizes the rotational axis of the Earth, which prevents many extreme climatic changes. Compare this to Mars, which has no large moons (only two small ones) that lead to the same stability. A giant planet would have a similar affect on the dynamics. This is just one example of how a second body (in our case, the Moon) aids the development of life. One can ponder how much the probability of life drops off if such a body does not exist, though I'm not sure anyone has a convincing answer, yet.
We can barely image planets that are twice the size of Jupiter and you are suggesting we should image MOONS!?
So far, scientists have been unable to image any extra-solar planets at all. The planets have been detected indirectly--by looking at the effects of the planet on the star. An overview of these techniques. Astronomers have directly imaged brown dwarfs, which are somewhat like both planets and stars. We can't yet image exoplanets, but we can still learn a lot about them.
Direct imaging of planets may be made with the Keck Interferometer in Nulling Mode (a similar setup is being designed for the LBTI in Arizona, and the European VLTI), or with "Extreme Adaptive Optics", or finally with the Terrestrial Planet Finder.
That nuclear material could have an unmeasureable detrimental effect on any life there is there, so NASA needs to be damn certain that this baby will not contaminate the surface even if the worst case scenario was to occur.
The possibility of contamination is precisely why the Galileo satellite was purposefully crashed into Jupiter. It was to prevent earth-based microbes (not nuclear material) from contaminating Europa, in the chance that it would eventually crash there after loosing power. Preventing biological contamination of enviroments in which life may have independently originated is of prime importance.
Concerns of biological contamination could be addressed in future missions via proper sterilization of the spacecraft. This was not done with Galileo because there was no reason to do so at the time. It may have been sterile, but had not been checked as such.
Though nuclear contamination was not the issue, Galileo did have nuclear material onboard for power (but not a fission reactor). This led to some folks speculate that NASA was trying to detonate Jupiter, which is nicely debunked here.
Europa's oceans are thought to be at least 2 times as voluminous as all of Earth's oceans combined
One of the main points of the mission is to confirm the existence of these oceans. The oceans are only inferred: we believe that there is a large liquid water ocean because of Europa's magnetic moment. The salt-water is conductive, and as Jupiter's magnetic fied varies, it induces a field in Europa. As Europa moves through various parts of Jupiter's field, the orientation varies. We detect this field and its variations, and deduce a large ocean. More information is here.