Large Hardon Collider

[zoobernut]

32 planets discovered outside solar system - CNN.com

Don't know if this article was posted yet I found it very interesting.

(CNN) -- Thirty-two planets have been discovered outside Earth's solar system through the use of a high-precision instrument installed at a Chilean telescope, an international team announced Monday.
This artist's rendering shows one of the so-called exoplanets, or planets outside our solar system.

This artist's rendering shows one of the so-called exoplanets, or planets outside our solar system.

The existence of the so-called exoplanets -- planets outside our solar system -- was announced at the European Southern Observatory/Center for Astrophysics, University of Porto conference in Porto, Portugal, according to a statement issued by the observatory.

The announcement was made by a consortium of international researchers, headed by the Geneva Observatory, who built the High Accuracy Radial Velocity Planet Searcher, or HARPS. The device can detect slight wobbles of stars as they respond to tugs from exoplanets' gravity. That tactic, known as the radial velocity method, "has been the most prolific method in the search for exoplanets," according to the European Southern Observatory statement.

The instrument detects movements as small as 3.5 km/hr (2.1 mph), a slow walking pace, the observatory said.

With the discovery, the tally of new exoplanets found by HARPS is now at 75, out of about 400 known exoplanets, the organization said, "cementing HARPS's position as the world's foremost exoplanet hunter." The 75 planets are in 30 planetary systems, the European Southern Observatory said.

"HARPS is a unique, extremely high precision instrument that [is] ideal for discovering alien worlds," Stephane Udry of Geneva University, who made the announcement on behalf of the international consortium that built the instrument, said in the observatory statement. "We have now completed our initial five-year program, which has succeeded well beyond our expectations."
Don't Miss

* Astronomy fans disappointed after lunar impact
* NASA's strike on moon worked, mission official says
* First rocky planet found outside solar system

"We are on the road," Udry told CNN in a phone call from Portugal. "The end of the road is finding life and other planets like our own, but we have to go step by step."

HARPS has also boosted the discovery of so-called super-Earths -- planets with a mass a few times that of Earth. Of the 28 super-Earths known, HARPS facilitated the discovery of 24, the European Southern Observatory statement said. Most reside in multiplanet systems, with up to five planets per system.

Although only 32 were announced Monday, the team knows of many more exoplanets, although more observation is needed before they are formally announced and papers are written about them. "We have tons of them," Udry said.

In return for building HARPS, the consortium was provided 100 observing nights per year over five years to search for exoplanets, one of the most ambitious searches ever implemented on a global basis, the European Southern Observatory said.

"These observations have given astronomers a great insight into the diversity of planetary system and help us understand how they can form," team member Nuno Santos said in the statement.

The HARPS findings confirm the predictions of those who study planetary formation, Udry said. "Moreover, those models are also predicting even more ... Earth-type planets."

An important find for the study of planet formation was that three exoplanets were around stars that are metal-deficient, Udry said. Metal-deficient stars are thought to be less favorable for planet formation; however, planets the size of several Jupiters were found orbiting such deficient stars, the European Southern Observatory said.

In addition, the discovery gives "a very strong push" to projects attempting to find and study such exoplanets, Udry said.

According to its Web site, the European Southern Observatory is the foremost intergovernmental astronomy organization in Europe and describes itself as the "world's most productive astronomical observatory. " It is supported by 14 European countries.

[Woozie]

I didn't see it mentioned explicitly, but I assume HARPS specifically looks for Earth-like planets (as opposed to the giant hot jupiters we've been finding for years)? So does this mean 32 terrestrial planets, or just 32 planets period? Because if the latter, it's kinda useless since we already know of tons of planets out there.

Edit: Nevermind. After rereading this, HARPS have discovered at least 24 terrestrial planets.

[Denchi]

This been talked about before? Few academics claiming that the nature of the Higgs Boson would make it unobservable because of worm-holes and time travel or something. amg explain! LHC FOR NOTHING?!?!?

A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz0UQP2giYE

[Woozie]

There are tons of theories out there explaining why we'll never be able to see the Higgs Boson for different reasons, and tons of theories explaining why we can.

Now, obviously the standard model predicts that the higgs boson is observable, and that the energies of the LHC are sufficient to produce it. If this weren't the case, I'm not sure if it would have still been built. I mean, the Higgs isn't the only reason the LHC was built, but it was one of the major motivations.

We'll know the answer to this for sure in a few years.

Edit: Wait, this is the same thing that was posted twice already. It's BS as far as I'm concerned.

[zoobernut]

I didn't see it mentioned explicitly, but I assume HARPS specifically looks for Earth-like planets (as opposed to the giant hot jupiters we've been finding for years)? So does this mean 32 terrestrial planets, or just 32 planets period? Because if the latter, it's kinda useless since we already know of tons of planets out there.

Edit: Nevermind. After rereading this, HARPS have discovered at least 24 terrestrial planets.

Yeah it mentions that the find is significant because they are rocky planets.

[Max™]

The timeloop thing is utter bullshit.

Time does not work that way.

[Eliseos]

The timeloop thing is utter bullshit.

Time does not work that way.

But hypothetical situations are totally real!!!

Also, I'm going to post another homework question if people don't mind. I have to derive the constant in Wein's Displacement Law from Planck's Radiation Law. For quick reference, Wein's is lambda(max)*T = 2.898 x 10^-3 m*K, and the Planck equation we are supposed to use is (forgive the ugliness of the notation I have to write it in, I don't know how Woozie makes those cool equations) ((8*pi*h*c)/(lambda^5)) *(1/(e^((h*c)/lambda*k*T))-1)). My issue is getting rid of the exponential in the denominator. I know if you have just an exponential, taking the natural log will get rid of that, but the -1 in the denominator, and the numerator are throwing me off. If I bring the denominator to the numerator and use a -1 exponent, I still get issues with taking the natural log of -1. Any thoughts? Maybe take the derivative with respect to lambda?

[Max™]

Wolfram|Alpha

Link to that equation.

http://www2.wolframalpha.com/Calcula...image/gif&s=23

http://www2.wolframalpha.com/Calcula...image/gif&s=23

http://www2.wolframalpha.com/Calcula...image/gif&s=23

Etc, etc, etc.

Best math site in the history of anything ever.

[Eliseos]

Yeah, Wolfram is awesome, but that didn't really answer my question =p Also, I noticed my parenthesis were messed up, so here is the right equation:

((8*pi*h*c)/(lambda^5)) *(1/(e^((h*c)/(lambda*k*T))-1))

And a picture:
http://www1.wolframalpha.com/Calcula...image/gif&s=34

[Max™]

Ugh, I'm with you, swapping from the 8 to the 5th power and the -1 on the bottom is ugly.

[Eliseos]

Been brooding over this one in my mind ever since it was assigned, can't seem to get around that -1. I do know that the constants in the e term give .01438.... m*K, so those units are right, but nfc how to get a proper scaler out of the rest.

[Max™]

Wouldn't the -1 rotate around the imaginary units? i, -1, -i, 1, -1?

"I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is imaginary, please multiply by i and try again."

[Quicklet]

You are probably going to have to Taylor expand the exponential at some point in order to get rid of the 1 (or make some other small exponential approximation).

[Khamsin]

The entire sum of the (x,y,z,t) dimensions is a conserved value.

Obviously, since the entire (x,y,z,t) is just a static, unchanging, hypercube representing the universe everywhere, everywhen. It may as well be collecting dust sitting in some old nth-dimensional guy's attic somewhere.

It's like saying the entire sum of colors in a rubik's cube is a conserved value. But, it's trivial because it never changes (since you've taken all dimensions into consideration at once). It becomes relevant only when we consider all but one of the dimensions, using the last as a timeline, and ask whether the sum of colors are conserved when going from one planar slice of the cube to the next.

My question was regarding why there's conservation of energy from one cubic (x,y,z) slice of the universe to the next going in the t direction, but not when taking cubic slices of (x,y,t) going in the z direction, for example.

[Max™]

Hmmm, it isn't an unchanging hypersphere btw.

Energy is a property that arises when you bend a spatial direction, this involves bending it through a temporal direction, as you can't bend a spatial direction along another spatial direction without losing the identities involved.

So, conservation of energy is speaking to the process of bending spatial dimensions through temporal dimensions, and we observe it as only mattering along the temporal axis.


Watching a distorted state travel along the z axis while keeping the others unchanged would still preserve the conservation laws, but only if locality is preserved.


It is hard to pull back out of the concepts I'm usually thinking in and reduce them back to basic english sometimes, sorry.

[Max™]

Oh, and because (x, y, z) are dimensions which emerge with a unique ordering property against themselves, and (t) emerges only as a way to define changes in the (x,y,z) dimensions.

[Khamsin]

Hmmm, it isn't an unchanging hypersphere btw.

If it's not unchanging at 4 dimensions, then by definition, that makes it an unchanging 5-dimensional structure.

A changing 3-dimensional structure is an unchanging 4 dimensional structure (because it includes all of the temporal dimension that defines the changes over time, so no more change because it's all laid out before you as an extra dimension).

If it changes (meaning, it has time), then just add another dimension, call it time, and boom... unchanging.

[Max™]

If it's not unchanging at 4 dimensions, then by definition, that makes it an unchanging 5-dimensional structure.

A changing 3-dimensional structure is an unchanging 4 dimensional structure (because it includes all of the temporal dimension that defines the changes over time, so no more change because it's all laid out before you as an extra dimension).

If it changes (meaning, it has time), then just add another dimension, call it time, and boom... unchanging.

The extent of the 4th dimension may be set, but the state of the 3 spatial dimensions is not defined.

[Kaylia]

Spoiler: show

I have question, since I'm failling hard time today. I'm trying to simplify the top equation using dimensionless variable (bottom 2 equality). I know I should be getting something simple in the end, but it cant be simplified.

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/76/radial.jpg


I must be doing something wrong when I move from du/dr to du/dzeta, but I don't get it...it shouldnt be a problem

[edit]

Ok... I simply forgot a fucking negative sign when I did my derivative. Blamming the fucking greek alphabet for making huge mess on my sheet, and missed it every time.

[Eliseos]

You are probably going to have to Taylor expand the exponential at some point in order to get rid of the 1 (or make some other small exponential approximation).

Oh wow, you're absolutely right. My professor even did this in class to simplify Planck's equation, and in my early morning drone student state I completely forgot about it, even though it's in my notes lol. Thanks for the tip.