Replying to myself... I could be wrong, but from what I read on replies below and on Wikipedia, it seems that the orientation isn't a spatial movement like waves on a jump rope moving up and down, but rather an intrinsic, non-classical property like spin. At least, that's what I gather.;)
Actually it's the other way, but that's more complicated. If the bars (i.e. molecules aligned such that they conduct electricity) are vertical, the vertical polarized light resonates with the bars and gets dissipated and the horizontal makes it through. But that's just technical matters.
THIS is *exactly* the sort of specific answer I was looking for. Thanks so much... it's not quite spelled out that plainly on Wikipedia.
Now, another question that wasn't quite answered below yet: I've long understood that polarization is changing the orientation of the propagating wave, but exactly how does this work for light? As far as I'm aware, light doesn't take a zig-zaggy, wavy motion through space, so how is it analogous to sending waves down a jump rope or similar? (I have a feeling the problem I have in understanding this issue has to do with the preceding sentence.) Thanks in advance, and thanks to all the people below this author who have also responded.
Undergrad: Professor! Our SNR is dropping! What should we do? Professor: I've got CSI on speed dial, I think they have some tools that can help us get a message out of this nonsense!
Thanks, but I read the page and a couple others, but still didn't get my answer.:( I don't see how separating two telescopes and connecting them by interferometry increases the resolution so dramatically.
Can somebody please explain why this is? I understand the difference between total collecting area and actual resolving power, but I'm missing something fundamental. It doesn't seem like two telescopes linked by interferometry should increase the resolution just because they are separated by a large distance. To me, I can only imagine an increase in resolution because the total collecting area is increased, but not due to their separation.
My question is, why does separating two telescopes by distance greatly increase resolution? I can also imagine an extreme case where the two telescopes are separated by such distance that they are viewing different sides of the object.
Oh, thanks a lot for the quick reply! I do now know exactly what you are talking about. Once a post has received one visible mod description, it seems to dictate the way the majority of modders will vote, regardless of the comment's merit.
Yes, but it sounds misleading to say that the US has never donated troops since the 1950s when it still has a 50+ year agreement going with SK where there are around 30,000 US military personnel stationed there.
But otherwise, I'm surprised (and therefore a little suspicious of the fact!) that the US hasn't donated troops under a UN command since then.
Dave Chappelle: "Black President Bush" Okay, United Nations, why don't you sanction us? Sanction is with your army. Oh, that's right! You don't have an army! Well, I guess you'd better shut the fuck up!
Moreover, I'd say it's worth shooting an asteroid headed for even (say) Antartica, if only as an experiment. After all, we've never done this before, and if it doesn't work out as hoped, we'd like to know that for when one does come at us ourselves.
Actually, that's a very interesting idea. I doubt you're the first to come up with it, but I've certainly never heard it before, and I like the research opportunities this would bring!
As far as I'm aware, troops in South Korea are still under UN command and aren't scheduled to be switched over until 2012 or so (according to previous agreements) at the soonest.
If had enough velocity to escape its home system, it wouldn't be captured by "us" either.
What kind of physicist? You should know good and well several things:
1) An object could leave the solar system with a final asymptotic speed of, say, 1m/sec relative to our sun. Or 100m/sec. Or 10km/sec. It depends on its initial speed, position, and path out of the solar system. The quoted statement here is simply nonsensical.
2) Even if an object left our solar system going 100km/sec, that's only the speed relative to our sun. That says nothing about its speed relative to another sun. Just because most stars are in orbit around the galactic center doesn't mean there are huge local variations.
3) There's not a "three". These should be obvious to any physicist or any layman. The statement you made and the response are just silly!;)
It's been a while since tags went from "most popular tags" to "the submitted tags that a few admins pick from to use for a story". There was a week or two period where it became apparent that the tagging system had undergone a fundamental change.
Even less than a secular Christmas, some of us just plain like the social give-and-take that results from present exchanges. I like buying people thoughtful presents and I like receiving them!
Slashdot Mirror
AT&T is eyeballing the Symbian platform
The ladies will get a kick out of this one. ;)
Replying to myself... I could be wrong, but from what I read on replies below and on Wikipedia, it seems that the orientation isn't a spatial movement like waves on a jump rope moving up and down, but rather an intrinsic, non-classical property like spin. At least, that's what I gather. ;)
Actually it's the other way, but that's more complicated. If the bars (i.e. molecules aligned such that they conduct electricity) are vertical, the vertical polarized light resonates with the bars and gets dissipated and the horizontal makes it through. But that's just technical matters.
THIS is *exactly* the sort of specific answer I was looking for. Thanks so much... it's not quite spelled out that plainly on Wikipedia.
Now, another question that wasn't quite answered below yet: I've long understood that polarization is changing the orientation of the propagating wave, but exactly how does this work for light? As far as I'm aware, light doesn't take a zig-zaggy, wavy motion through space, so how is it analogous to sending waves down a jump rope or similar? (I have a feeling the problem I have in understanding this issue has to do with the preceding sentence.) Thanks in advance, and thanks to all the people below this author who have also responded.
Can somebody explain what polarization is, and how some materials can block certain "orientations" of polarization?
I've been looking for metamoderation recently and couldn't find it. I didn't even know it had changed. Where can I find it?
Undergrad: Professor! Our SNR is dropping! What should we do?
Professor: I've got CSI on speed dial, I think they have some tools that can help us get a message out of this nonsense!
Thanks, but I read the page and a couple others, but still didn't get my answer. :( I don't see how separating two telescopes and connecting them by interferometry increases the resolution so dramatically.
Can somebody please explain why this is? I understand the difference between total collecting area and actual resolving power, but I'm missing something fundamental. It doesn't seem like two telescopes linked by interferometry should increase the resolution just because they are separated by a large distance. To me, I can only imagine an increase in resolution because the total collecting area is increased, but not due to their separation.
My question is, why does separating two telescopes by distance greatly increase resolution? I can also imagine an extreme case where the two telescopes are separated by such distance that they are viewing different sides of the object.
And he died from trying to hold in his piss during a drinking game.
Berlusconi is not the president of Italy. He's the prime minister. The president is Giorgio Napolitano.
I enjoyed the info and the reply. Thanks!
Oh, thanks a lot for the quick reply! I do now know exactly what you are talking about. Once a post has received one visible mod description, it seems to dictate the way the majority of modders will vote, regardless of the comment's merit.
It's a quote from the Chappelle video I linked, not an excerpt from some PhD dissertation. Don't be silly. ;)
Yes, but it sounds misleading to say that the US has never donated troops since the 1950s when it still has a 50+ year agreement going with SK where there are around 30,000 US military personnel stationed there.
But otherwise, I'm surprised (and therefore a little suspicious of the fact!) that the US hasn't donated troops under a UN command since then.
Dave Chappelle: "Black President Bush"
Okay, United Nations, why don't you sanction us? Sanction is with your army. Oh, that's right! You don't have an army! Well, I guess you'd better shut the fuck up!
Moreover, I'd say it's worth shooting an asteroid headed for even (say) Antartica, if only as an experiment. After all, we've never done this before, and if it doesn't work out as hoped, we'd like to know that for when one does come at us ourselves.
Actually, that's a very interesting idea. I doubt you're the first to come up with it, but I've certainly never heard it before, and I like the research opportunities this would bring!
As far as I'm aware, troops in South Korea are still under UN command and aren't scheduled to be switched over until 2012 or so (according to previous agreements) at the soonest.
I just think the users' insistence on rewarding funny's with karma has unwanted consequences.
Hmm, what sort of consequences? I can't think of any except for from some metamodder who is being far too strict for anybody's good.
around the galactic center doesn't mean there are huge local variations.
Replying to my own post, I meant "doesn't mean there aren't huge local variations".
Also, I have the feeling I got trolled, and I bit.
If had enough velocity to escape its home system, it wouldn't be captured by "us" either.
What kind of physicist? You should know good and well several things:
;)
1) An object could leave the solar system with a final asymptotic speed of, say, 1m/sec relative to our sun. Or 100m/sec. Or 10km/sec. It depends on its initial speed, position, and path out of the solar system. The quoted statement here is simply nonsensical.
2) Even if an object left our solar system going 100km/sec, that's only the speed relative to our sun. That says nothing about its speed relative to another sun. Just because most stars are in orbit around the galactic center doesn't mean there are huge local variations.
3) There's not a "three". These should be obvious to any physicist or any layman. The statement you made and the response are just silly!
-1 knowledge of basic physics
It's been a while since tags went from "most popular tags" to "the submitted tags that a few admins pick from to use for a story". There was a week or two period where it became apparent that the tagging system had undergone a fundamental change.
Even less than a secular Christmas, some of us just plain like the social give-and-take that results from present exchanges. I like buying people thoughtful presents and I like receiving them!
Sorry in advance, but I actually liked the ribbon on the new MS Office.
Next thing you'll be telling me is Windows didn't invent the concept of OS.