Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ever Closer to the Far Off Question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ever Closer to the Far Off Question

    Hot on Trail of ‘Just Right’ Far-Off Planet


    NASA; JPL; Cornell University; Michael Benson
    Mars may be on the edge of the habitable zone, but this image, taken in 2004 by the Mars rover Opportunity at Endurance Crater, shows a barren landscape.

    By DENNIS OVERBYE

    CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — What does Goldilocks want?

    At least four times in the last few years, astronomers have announced they have found planets orbiting other stars in the sweet spot known as the habitable zone — not too hot, not too cold — where water and thus perhaps life are possible. In short, a so-called Goldilocks planet fit to be inhabited by the biochemical likes of us.

    None of these claims are without controversy, but astronomers who are making discoveries with NASA’s Kepler spacecraft are meeting next week in California to review the first two years of their quest, which seems tantalizingly close to hitting pay dirt.

    “Sooner or later, Kepler will find a lukewarm planet with a size making it probably Earthlike,” said Geoffrey Marcy of the University of California, Berkeley, who spends his time tracking down candidates identified by Kepler. “We’re no more than a year away” from such a discovery, he said.

    Sara Seager, a planetary astronomer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, put it this way: “We are on the verge of being those people who will be remembered.”

    All this has brought to the fore a question long debated by geologists, chemists, paleontologists and cosmologists turned astrobiologists, namely: What does life really need to get going, flourish and evolve on some alien rock?

    The answer depends of course on whom we expect to be living there. We might dream of green men with big eyes, ants with hive minds, or even cuddly octopuses as an antidote to cosmic loneliness, but what we are most likely to find, a growing number of scientists say, is alien pond slime.

    Microbes can spring up anywhere that is wet and warm, astronomers say, although biologists are not so sanguine. But the emergence of large creatures, let alone intelligent ones, as evidenced by the history of the Earth, depends on a chain of events and accidents — from asteroid strikes to plate tectonics — that are unlikely to be repeated anytime soon. “If you reran Earth’s history, how many times would you get animals?” asked Donald Brownlee, an astronomer at the University of Washington. He and a colleague, the paleontologist Peter Ward, made a case that we live on a lucky planet in their 1999 book, “Rare Earth.”

    Single-cell life might be common, given the right simple conditions, explained Dr. Marcy in an e-mail. “But the steady, long-term evolution toward critters that play improv saxophone, write alliteration poems, and build heavy-lifting rocket boosters may depend on a prohibitive list of planetary prerequisites,” he added.

    Even warm and wet is a rare condition, however, occurring now on only one of the eight official planets in our solar system and three of the several dozen moons. Mars was once wet, but it is now a desert. And after billions of dollars spent exploring Mars and the remains of space probes littering the planet, we still do not know if a single microbe ever lived there.

    But nobody really knows how rare or common are planets like Earth and its brand of life. “I would be more comfortable with that argument if it were not so Earth-o-centric,” Steven Benner, a chemist at the Foundation for Molecular Evolution, said in an e-mail.

    For instance, he said, low-temperature water mixed with ammonia can substitute for water alone as the liquid necessary for life. So could liquid methane, which forms lakes on Titan, Saturn’s slushy frigid moon, and Dr. Benner and others have advocated looking for life there. “We are limited by our imaginations,” said Natalie Batalha, a leader of the Kepler team.

    Some scientists deplore the emphasis on animals like us, saying it is hopelessly parochial and unimaginative — the scientific equivalent of the drunk searching for his car keys under a street light because that’s where the light is.

    “Animals are overgrown microbes,” said Paul Falkowski, a biophysicist and biologist from Rutgers. “We are here to ferry microbes across the planet. Plants and animals are an afterthought of microbes.” So, we should hardly be disappointed if we find our neighbors are microbes. After all, on Earth, microbes were the whole story for almost four billion years, paleontologists say, and now inhabit our intestines as well as every doorknob.

    Dimitar Sasselov, an astronomer turned astrobiologist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said he was all for the existence of a microbial planet. “Don’t assume microbes are simple,” he said, noting that 99 percent of the genes in our bodies belong to microbes inhabiting us and without which we could not live.

    Looking for Goldilocks

    A blue-ribbon committee of chemists convened by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that there was only one ironclad requirement for life, besides energy: a place warm enough for chemical reactions to go on. So, determining how warm a planet’s atmosphere keeps it — through assumptions, calculations or just plain guesses — has been crucial in reaching a verdict about its potential habitability.

    This is how it has gone with the potential Goldilocks planets orbiting Gliese 581, a small cool red star about 20 light-years from here in the constellation Libra that has been at the center of exoplanet fantasies and speculation for the last few years. Depending on whom you talk to, it has five or six planets, three of which have at one time or another been claimed to be habitable.

    The first in what would become a chain of potential Goldilocks planets, identified in 2007, was a presumably rocky ball about five times as massive as the Earth and orbiting only about seven million miles from Gliese 581, close enough within the small star’s shrunken habitable zone to have a warm surface. “On the treasure map of the universe, one would be tempted to mark this planet with an X,” Xavier Delfosse, one of the astronomers who discovered it, said at the time.

    But before budding interstellar explorers could even begin conceiving of booking passage to Gliese 581c, as the planet is poetically called, other astronomers took a closer look and concluded that if the planet’s geology and atmosphere resembled those of Earth, it would be a stifling greenhouse, no place to set solar sail for. Attention then shifted to a farther planet in the system, Gliese 581d, which had been dismissed as too cold. Could the same greenhouse effect that would torch the inner planet thaw the outer one and make it livable? The answer was yes, but only if it had “loads of carbon dioxide” and an atmosphere seven times thicker than Earth’s, said Lisa Kaltenegger, a climate modeler at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg. Otherwise it would be freezing cold.

    Meanwhile yet another planet was claimed for that system, smack between the other two, by a team led by R. Paul Butler of the Carnegie Institution and Steven S. Vogt of the University of California, Santa Cruz. “This is really the first Goldilocks planet,” Dr. Butler said at a news conference last year organized by the National Science Foundation in Washington.

    But the Geneva team that had discovered the earlier Gliese 581 planets could not find any evidence of the new planet’s existence in their own data. For now, anyway, most astronomers have dismissed that planet. Pending the publication of new results by the Geneva team — one of the most prolific in the planet-hunting business — Dr. Butler said, “We are in a holding pattern.”

    In September, what some astronomers called the best and smallest Goldilocks candidate yet was announced by the Geneva team. About 3.6 times as massive as the Earth, it circles a faint orange star in Vela known as HD 85512 at a distance of some 24 million miles, about a quarter of the Earth’s distance from the Sun. Dr. Kaltenegger and her colleagues calculated that this planet would be habitable if it had an Earth-type geology and at least 50 percent cloud cover. “So, so far we only have two great targets to search for atmospheric signatures of life,” Dr. Kaltenegger wrote.

    So goes the history of astrobiology, as well as its future.

    The problem, as many astronomers point out, is getting any more information about these planets. “Astronomers are going to have to learn to live with ignorance,” Dr. Seager said.

    Some exoplanets, like the Gliese worlds, were discovered by the “wobble method” — looking at the motions they induce in their parent stars — which allows their masses and orbits to be measured. Other planets, like the ones identified by Kepler, are found by watching for the blinks when they pass in front of their stars; that also allows their sizes to be determined.

    If, if, if

    To date, none of the Goldilocks candidates have been observed to transit their stars, and thus none have been assigned both masses and sizes, which would allow astronomers to calculate their densities and compositions and find out if they are water worlds, rocks or gassy fluff balls.

    Kepler fixes its gaze on a patch of stars in Cygnus that are hundreds if not thousands of light-years away — too far for any wobble detections that would assess the abundance of Earthlike planets in the galaxy or any other close scrutiny.

    We are liable to never know anymore about those planets than we know now, astronomers say. The brute reality, astronomers admit, is that even if there are thousands or millions of habitable planets in the galaxy, only a few hundred of them are within range of any telescope that will be built in the conceivable future.

    Luckily there is some renewed hope for life on those nearby planets. David Charbonneau of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics runs a project called MEarth that looks for planets around nearby stars. He pointed out that of the 300 stars within 25 light-years of here, 260 are red dwarfs like Gliese 581.
    Until recently it was thought that habitable-zone planets around such stars would have to hug the star so closely that they would be tidally locked, like the Moon, keeping one face locked to the star and roasting, the other freezing.

    But new studies have concluded that a proper atmosphere could spread the heat around.

    Which is good. “These stars,” Dr. Charbonneau said, “are our only hope for studying life in the universe in the coming decades.”

    In the original scheme of things, Kepler was to be succeeded by a space observatory called the Terrestrial Planet Finder, which would be big enough to find and study planets up to 100 light-years distant.

    But plans for that telescope have collapsed, because of NASA’s continuing fiscal woes and disagreements among astronomers, as well as the technological challenges involved.

    Some astronomers hope that some of these functions can be performed by the James Webb Space Telescope — NASA’s Hubble successor, overdue and over budget, now scheduled for a launch in 2018.

    Equipped with a “starshade” that would blot out the glare of a planet’s sun, the Webb could detect and study the pinpoint of light from an exoplanet itself.

    But the starshade would be hostage to the same political and fiscal pressures that are threatening to decimate NASA’s scientific programs. At best, scientists say, the search for life elsewhere has been postponed for decades.

    “I’m beginning to despair that I will see it in my lifetime,” said James Kasting of Pennsylvania State University.

    Geology Is Destiny

    Earth got lucky early. Fossil evidence suggests that microbial life was already inhabiting the Earth as early as 3.8 billion years ago — only 700 million years after the planet collapsed into existence, and a geological instant after the end of a rain of comets and asteroids that brought just the right amount of precious water in the form of ice from the outer solar system to what would otherwise be a dry planet, astronomers say. “The question of whether the Earth is unique because of its water abundance is perhaps the most interesting one in the arsenal of Rare Earth arguments,” said Dr. Kasting, who explained that calculations showed that the planet could have easily had too much or too little water.

    The planet has remained comfortable ever since thanks to a geological feedback process, by which weather, oceans and volcanoes act as a thermostat. Known as the carbonate silicate cycle, it regulates the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, where it acts like a greenhouse — trapping heat and keeping the planet temperate and mostly stable. Rain washes the gas out of the air and under the ocean; volcanoes disgorge it again from the underworld.

    Without greenhouse gases and this cycle — which Dr. Brownlee called “this magic thing” — the Earth would have frozen into a snowball back in its early days when the Sun was only 70 percent as bright as it is now. Still, with all this magic, it took four billion years for animal life to appear on the Earth.

    The seeds for animal life were sown sometime in the dim past when some bacterium learned to use sunlight to split water molecules and produce oxygen and sugar — photosynthesis, in short. The results began to kick in 2.4 billion years ago when the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere began to rise dramatically.

    The Great Oxidation Event, as it is called in geology, “was clearly the biggest event in the history of the biosphere,” said Dr. Ward from Washington. It culminated in what is known as the Cambrian explosion, about 550 million years ago, when multicellular creatures, that is to say, animals, appeared in sudden splendiferous profusion in the fossil record. We were off to the Darwinian races. Whatever happened to cause this flowering of species helped elevate Earth someplace special, say the Rare Earthers. Paleontologists argue about whether it could have been a spell of bad climate known as Snowball Earth, the breakup of a previous supercontinent, or something else.

    In other words, alien planets that have been lucky enough to be habitable in the first place might have to be lucky again. “The big hurdle” for other planets, said Dr. Brownlee, is to have some event or series of events to trigger their own “Cambrian-like” explosions.

    Eventually though, Earth’s luck will run out. As the Sun ages it will get brighter, astronomers say, increasing the weathering and washing away of carbon dioxide. At the same time, as the interior of the Earth cools, volcanic activity will gradually subside, cutting off the replenishing of the greenhouse gas.

    A billion years from now, Dr. Brownlee said, there will not be enough carbon dioxide left to support photosynthesis, that is to say, the oxygen we breathe.
    And so much for us.

    “Even Earth, wonderful and special as it is, will only have animal life for one billion years,” Dr. Brownlee said.


    Habitable Zones

    Astronomers are searching for planets orbiting distant stars at the right distance to support surface water and life. Below, halos show habitable zones around different classes of stars, where liquid water might appear on the surface of a planet with suitable mass and atmosphere.




    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/sc...ef=todayspaper

  • #2
    Re: Ever Closer to the Far Off Question

    We get these interesting articles about where (and how) life might exist in other worlds, whenever NASA needs more federal funding.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Ever Closer to the Far Off Question

      Which is no bad thing.
      It's Economics vs Thermodynamics. Thermodynamics wins.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Ever Closer to the Far Off Question

        No bad thing at all.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Ever Closer to the Far Off Question

          Originally posted by StSt
          We get these interesting articles about where (and how) life might exist in other worlds, whenever NASA needs more federal funding.
          Originally posted by T
          Which is no bad thing.
          Originally posted by jtabeb
          No bad thing at all.
          Even when NASA's charter changes to marketing?

          http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...ng-...-to-this.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Ever Closer to the Far Off Question

            Give me a break, you don't think every gov agency is out there trying toot their own horn and preserve their slice of the budgetary pie in light what's comming down the pike.


            No I dont fault them for playing politics when it comes to saving their budget. ( ESP. Since they actually accomplish something to advance the human condition and the fact that they are of far more societal benefit than the squids of the fire economy any day)

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Ever Closer to the Far Off Question

              Originally posted by jtabeb
              Give me a break, you don't think every gov agency is out there trying root their own horn and preserve their slice of the budgetary pie in light what's comming down the pike.

              No I dont fault them for playing politics when it comes to saving their budget. ( ESP. Since they actually accomplish something to advance the human condition and the fact that they are of far more societal benefit than the squids of the fire economy any day)
              I'd say, show me the accomplishments.

              What exactly has NASA accomplished in the past 2 decades?

              And how does their new charter lead to renewed research and/or other tangible accomplishments?

              I have no objection to government spending on fundamental research, but then again I do object to spending with few or no results beyond 'marketing' and 'feeling good'.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Ever Closer to the Far Off Question

                Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                I'd say, show me the accomplishments.

                What exactly has NASA accomplished in the past 2 decades?
                Are you serious? Did you actually read the article? Have you ever read anything about science results out of NASA?

                Recommend you spend some time on nasa.gov. Read some of the press releases just in the last year.

                A personal top ten list of NASA science (not human space flight or aeronautics) results and activities:

                1) leading the way in exoplanet research (as noted in the article), first using Keck, more recently Kepler.
                2) determining the age of the universe to be 13.7 billion years, with an error of +/- 1%.
                3) confirming (with observational data) the existence of black holes - previously only theorized.
                4) first to orbit, and land on, an asteroid.
                5) repeatedly landing on Mars (something no other nation has done successfully, despite multiple attempts), and building the evidence for past and current liquid water on Mars.
                6) slamming a copper bullet into a comet nucleus to help characterize its composition.
                7) orbiting and mapping Mercury, Venus, Mars (of course), Jupiter, and Saturn. Flying by Uranus, Neptune, and (soon) Pluto.
                8) measuring changes in groundwater aquifers, showing how they are being depleted by extraction.
                9) providing imagery from space, and from both piloted and drone aircraft, to help fight wildfires and respond to oil spills and natural disasters.
                10) building and launching all of the nation's civilian weather satellites for NOAA. No, the Weather Channel doesn't build its own.
                11) both Voyager spacecraft still operating ~34 years after launch, well beyond Pluto.
                12) discovering that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating, rather than being slowed by gravity.

                Not good enough for you? Then what would be?
                Last edited by peakishmael; December 05, 2011, 09:32 AM. Reason: sorry, I keep coming up with more for the list. A few corrections and elaborations added.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Ever Closer to the Far Off Question

                  Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
                  We get these interesting articles about where (and how) life might exist in other worlds, whenever NASA needs more federal funding.
                  Your assertion is silly and wrong. NASA is already funded through 9/30/2012, and has been since November 18.
                  Last edited by peakishmael; December 04, 2011, 10:16 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Ever Closer to the Far Off Question

                    +1 Hubble Space Telescope

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Ever Closer to the Far Off Question

                      Originally posted by peakishmael View Post
                      Are you serious? Did you actually read the article? Have you ever read anything about science results out of NASA?

                      Recommend you spend some time on nasa.gov. Read some of the press releases just in the last year.

                      A personal top ten list of NASA science (not human space flight or aeronautics) results and activities:

                      1) leading the way in exoplanet research (as noted in the article), first using Keck, more recently Kepler.
                      2) determining the age of the universe to be 13.7 billion years, with an error of +/- 1%.
                      3) confirming the existence of black holes - previously only theorized.
                      4) first to orbit, and land on, an asteroid.
                      5) repeatedly landing on Mars (something no other nation has done successfully), and building the evidence for past and current liquid water on Mars.
                      6) slamming a copper bullet into a comet nucleus to help characterize its composition.
                      7) orbiting and mapping Mercury, Venus, Mars (of course), Jupiter, and Saturn. Flying by Uranus, Neptune, and (soon) Pluto.
                      8) measuring changes in groundwater aquifers, showing how they are being depleted by extraction.
                      9) providing imagery from space, and from aircraft, to help fight wildfires and respond to oil spills and natural disasters.
                      10) building and launching all of the nation's civilian weather satellites for NOAA.
                      11) both Voyager spacecraft still operating 24 years after launch, well beyond Pluto.
                      12) discovering that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating, rather than being slowed by gravity.

                      Not good enough for you? Then what would be?
                      +1 (nice to see that thumbnail review of some great accomplishments)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Ever Closer to the Far Off Question

                        Originally posted by peakishmael
                        A personal top ten list of NASA science (not human space flight or aeronautics) results and activities:
                        A good list - and there are some accomplishments there. However, note these little niggling details:

                        Originally posted by peakishmael
                        1) leading the way in exoplanet research (as noted in the article), first using Keck, more recently Kepler.
                        NASA itself did no research; it provides funding as does a number of other government institutions for exoplanet research - these other institutions include the NSF. Keck is a non-profit, was built via private funds, and NASA joined as a 'partner' in 1996.

                        Kepler is a nice mission with actual relationship to NASA's original charter.

                        Kepler itself was built by LASP and Ball Aerospace; the former having been created before NASA and the latter being a corporation.

                        Originally posted by peakishmael
                        2) determining the age of the universe to be 13.7 billion years, with an error of +/- 1%.
                        Yes, this was accomplished via a NASA launched and built satellite, though the actual scientific work was performed by outside parties.

                        Originally posted by peakishmael
                        3) confirming (with observational data) the existence of black holes - previously only theorized.
                        Absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with NASA other than its titular partnership with Keck: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1210173609.htm

                        Originally posted by peakishmael
                        4) first to orbit, and land on, an asteroid.
                        A genuine accomplishment.

                        Originally posted by peakishmael
                        5) repeatedly landing on Mars (something no other nation has done successfully, despite multiple attempts), and building the evidence for past and current liquid water on Mars.
                        Another genuine accomplishment.

                        Originally posted by peakishmael
                        6) slamming a copper bullet into a comet nucleus to help characterize its composition.
                        A future accomplishment - assuming success.

                        Originally posted by peakishmael
                        7) orbiting and mapping Mercury, Venus, Mars (of course), Jupiter, and Saturn. Flying by Uranus, Neptune, and (soon) Pluto.
                        Most of these were launched more than 2 decades ago.

                        Originally posted by peakishmael
                        8) measuring changes in groundwater aquifers, showing how they are being depleted by extraction.
                        A genuine accomplishment, though NASA rarely if ever builds the actual satellites. It is primarily providing the launch systems.

                        Originally posted by peakishmael
                        9) providing imagery from space, and from both piloted and drone aircraft, to help fight wildfires and respond to oil spills and natural disasters.
                        This is a repeat of 8)

                        Originally posted by peakishmael
                        10) building and launching all of the nation's civilian weather satellites for NOAA. No, the Weather Channel doesn't build its own.
                        Another repeat of 8). In fact, the weather satellites are not built by NASA.

                        Originally posted by peakishmael
                        11) both Voyager spacecraft still operating ~34 years after launch, well beyond Pluto.
                        Clearly not in the last 2 decades...

                        Originally posted by peakishmael
                        12) discovering that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating, rather than being slowed by gravity.
                        Either a reprise of WMAP or a reference to Hubble. Hubble was launched in 1990.

                        All of the actual accomplishments you note above comprise perhaps 1/3 of NASA's budget.

                        In the meantime, the Space Shuttles are discontinued; ISS maintenance is outsourced to Russia.

                        Again, I've never said that NASA does no work; much of the JPL related efforts (Mars and outer planet work) is very efficient and effective.

                        However, NASA's charter is for improvement of space access as well as overall aeronautics work.

                        Do you see any significant improvement in launch costs since the Moon landings?

                        I certainly don't.

                        Then when I start seeing things like $180 million for education in 2011, $1 billion plus in Civil Service Labor and Support for 2012, $2 billion for facilities management (out of $18 billion budget), and I have to wonder just how focused NASA is on its charter.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Ever Closer to the Far Off Question

                          Astronomers Find Biggest Black Holes Yet



                          An artist's concept in the central figure of the black hole discovered in the galaxy NGC 3842.

                          By DENNIS OVERBYE

                          Don’t get too close.

                          Astronomers report that they have taken the measure of the biggest, baddest black holes yet found in the universe, abyssal yawns 10 times the size of our solar system into which billions of Suns have vanished like a guilty thought.

                          One of these monsters, which weighs as much as 21 billion Suns, is in an egg-shaped swirl of stars known as NGC 4889, the brightest galaxy in a sprawling cloud of thousands of galaxies about 336 million light-years away in the Coma constellation.

                          The other black hole, a graveyard for the equivalent of 9.7 billion Suns, more or less, lurks in the center of NGC 3842, a galaxy that anchors another cluster known as Abell 1367, 331 million light-years away in Leo.

                          “These are the most massive reliably-measured black holes ever,” said Nicholas J. McConnell, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, in an e-mail, referring to the new observations.

                          These results are more than just cool and record-setting. Observations with the Hubble Space Telescope over the years have shown that such monster black holes seem to inhabit the centers of all galaxies — the bigger the galaxy, the bigger the black hole. Researchers said that the new work could shed light on the role these black holes play in the formation and evolution of galaxies.

                          The previous record-holder was in the galaxy M87, a member of the Virgo cluster some 54 million light-years from here, where a black hole weighed in at a mere 6.3 billion solar masses. The new black holes, however, were even larger than astronomers had predicted based on the earlier measurements, suggesting that there is something special about how the most massive galaxies are built.

                          “Measurements of these massive black holes will help us understand how their host galaxies were assembled, and how the holes achieved such monstrous mass,” Mr. McConnell said.

                          Mr. McConnell and his thesis advisor, Chung-Pei Ma, led a team of astronomers who used telescopes in Texas, Hawaii and outer space to weigh the black holes in the centers of galaxies by clocking the speeds of stars zooming around them; the faster the stars are going, the more gravity — and thus mass — is needed to keep the stars from flying away. They report their work in the journal Nature, which will be published online on Wednesday. Martin Rees, a cosmologist at Cambridge University, called the new work “an incremental step,” noting that the study of these monsters has been a part of his life for a long time. “It’s good to learn about even bigger ones,” he said.

                          Black holes, regions of space where gravity is so intense that not even light can escape from it, are among the weirdest of the predictions of Albert Einstein’s curved-space theory of gravity — general relativity — so weird that Einstein himself did not believe it. He once wrote to a friend that there ought to be a law of nature forbidding such a thing.

                          But he was wrong. And some of his successors, like Dr. Rees and a colleague at Cambridge, Stephen Hawking, have spent their careers studying the implications for physics of objects that can wrap spacetime around themselves like a magician’s cloak and disappear.

                          Such is the fate, astronomers agree, of some massive stars once they run out of fuel and collapse upon themselves. Indeed the galaxy is littered with stellar-mass black holes detectable by the X-rays spit by doomed matter swirling around them like water in a drain. And there seem to be giant ones in the heart of every galaxy.

                          One question astronomers would like answered is how these black holes got so big, billions of times bigger than a typical dead star. Dr. Ma described it as a kind of nature-versus-nurture argument, explaining that black holes could grow by merging with other black holes as galaxies merge to get bigger — “nature” — or by swallowing gas around them — “nurture.”

                          “It’s a bit like asking: Are taller children produced by taller parents or by eating a lot of spinach?” Dr. Ma wrote in an e-mail. “For black holes we are not sure.”

                          Astronomers also think the supermassive black holes in galaxies could be the missing link between the early universe and today. In the early days of the universe, quasars, thought to be powered by giant black holes in cataclysmic feeding frenzies, were fountaining energy into space.

                          Where are those quasars now? The new work supports a growing suspicion that those formerly boisterous black holes are among us now, but, having stopped their boisterous growth, they are sleeping.

                          Mr. McConnell said, “Our discovery of extremely massive black holes in the largest present-day galaxies suggests that these galaxies could be the ancient remains of voracious ancestors.”

                          Let’s try not to awaken them.

                          http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/sc...ef=global-home


                          Last edited by don; December 05, 2011, 05:20 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Ever Closer to the Far Off Question

                            I would like to do lots of things such as visiting Greenland or visiting Antarctica--- places with all kinds of interesting things to learn. But I don't do things like that because I am bound by the imperative of living within my means.

                            What I find notable is that at a time of great economic hardship in America, a time when we are deep in the Great Recession with apparently 22% unemployed ( because so many have given-up looking for work ), the federal government is funding NASA to explore the universe. Not only is the federal government running record deficits and "kicking the can down the road" for our children to pay, but the federal govn't is funding exploration of the universe with borrowed money and digging the debt hole deeper.

                            Wouldn't trips to Mars be something that rich nations like China should be doing? Maybe Russia, Saudi-Arabia, Qatar, or Brazil might be able to do this because they are richer than America. Or maybe our kids might have the common-sense to junk the windmills and solar panels and build real power plants that produce more energy than our kids might need. Then our kids might be able to enjoy the luxury of sending probes into space and exploring the universe with money that they DO HAVE.

                            Dead-beats ( including dead-beat nations like the U.S. ) do not have the luxury to pee-away money on anything except paying their bills and digging-out of their economic mess. The whole paradigm in America has to change.

                            And similarly, what in the hell is Washington doing funding the development of exotic weaponry? What is Washington doing funding nation-building adventures in Afghanistan? What is Washington doing funding the EPA and its junk science about so-called "global warming"? Imagine: carbon credits, carbon banking, Kyoto Accords, polar bear censuses, preservation of the "rare and endangered San Francisco field mouse"--- and all of this crap on borrowed money that our kids will have to pay back twenty-years or so down the road!
                            Last edited by Starving Steve; December 05, 2011, 03:07 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Ever Closer to the Far Off Question

                              Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
                              What I find notable is that at a time of great economic hardship in America, a time when we are deep in the Great Recession with apparently 22% unemployed ( because so many have given-up looking for work ), the federal government is funding NASA to explore the universe. Not only is the federal government running record deficits and "kicking the can down the road" for our children to pay, but the federal govn't is funding exploration of the universe with borrowed money and digging the debt hole deeper.
                              That is certainly a reasonable position. Contrary arguments can (and are) made, that basic research (even on astronomy) is important seed corn for future economic growth and encourages scientific/technical literacy and competititiveness. It's clear you disagree, and I won't try to change your mind. At some level I even agree with you. But your initial allegation (that any time a major media outlet like the NY Times publishes an interesting story about space, that it's because NASA needs money) is still full of crap.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X