Large Hardon Collider

[Woozie]

Gravy guns would be the best scientific invention of all time.

[pahnphoenix]

if you want less spent on defense and more spent on science, have criminals take over science. problem solved.

[Cruzizzle]

just posting cool stuff for the cool thread.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/4...091208-540.jpg

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has made the deepest image of the universe ever taken in near-infrared light. The faintest and reddest objects in the image are galaxies that formed 600 million years after the Big Bang. No galaxies have been seen before at such early times. The new deep view also provides insights into how galaxies grew in their formative years early in the universe's history.

The image was taken in the same region as the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF), which was taken in 2004 and is the deepest visible-light image of the universe. Hubble's newly installed Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) collects light from near-infrared wavelengths and therefore looks even deeper into the universe, because the light from very distant galaxies is stretched out of the ultraviolet and visible regions of the spectrum into near-infrared wavelengths by the expansion of the universe.

This image was taken by the HUDF09 team, that was awarded the time for the observation and made it available for research by astronomers worldwide. In just three months, 12 scientific papers have already been submitted on these new data.

The photo was taken with the new WFC3/IR camera on Hubble in late August 2009 during a total of four days of pointing for 173,000 seconds of total exposure time. Infrared light is invisible and therefore does not have colors that can be perceived by the human eye. The colors in the image are assigned comparatively short, medium, and long, near-IR wavelengths (blue, 1.05 microns; green, 1.25 microns; red, 1.6 microns). The representation is "natural" in that blue objects look blue and red objects look red. The faintest objects are about one billionth as bright as can be seen with the naked eye.

These Hubble observations are trailblazing a path for Hubble's successor, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), which will look even farther into the universe than Hubble, at infrared wavelengths. The JWST is planned to be launched in 2014.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hu...pest-view.html

[Mizango]

I posted this back on page 5 or so, but yeah I cant wait for the TW telescope to get launched and operational. I cant tell you for friggin' stoked I am for that baby to get working, although I love Hubble and all it has done for us and I hate to see it killed off QQ

[Woozie]

That picture always makes me feel so insignificant.

[Mizango]

That picture always makes me feel so insignificant.

Absolutely.

[Max™]

I posted this back on page 5 or so, but yeah I cant wait for the TW telescope to get launched and operational. I cant tell you for friggin' stoked I am for that baby to get working, although I love Hubble and all it has done for us and I hate to see it killed off QQ

No no, this is the NEW far infrared UDF shot!

[Mizango]

No no, this is the NEW far infrared UDF shot!

I just saw that, fucking awesome.

[Max™]

I meant near-infrared btw, but far away in time/space, depth wise.

[Kaylia]

Whoever invented "second" and "minute" as a measurement for angle need to be shot. Why cant they indicate degree as a fraction of Pi.

[Eliseos]

This is why the TI-89 plat. is god. It does all your conversions for you.

Also, do not want Pi/100000 or something

[Kaylia]

I love money.

This is why the TI-89 plat. is god. It does all your conversions for you.

Not everyone swim in money like you do! All we have is a chalk,and a blackboard. Actually, it's two half of a chalk, I accidently broke it earlier.



But really, having degree and radian is stupid. We don't need to different measurement for the same thing. Not to mention that converting something in base 60 sucks.

[Woozie]

I can't remember the last time I actually used degrees to measure an angle. It doesn't even make sense to have those units.

[Eliseos]

I think the only time I used seconds and minutes was for a single problem in my astronomy class, we had to compute the angular diameter of a star on a lens. I had to learn minutes and seconds just for that single problem, and never used it ever again.

EDIT: Also, I hate when an exam seems too easy. I had a vector analysis exam today on Stokes'/Divergence/Green's theorem, and the problems seemed more easier than they should have been Everyone else in the class thought the same thing.

[Kaylia]

Yeah, I think everyone in sciences used "seconds" once in their students life, and it was to calculate the diamater of an object in space (or Ultra Deep Field).


Be happy you were able to answer all of it easily, because it's definitively better than leaving the room with 30% answered

[Woozie]

Exams are always easier than they should have been in my experience. Usually the final is easier than the midterms. Partially because you get twice as much time but the test is only 25% longer. But the actual content also seems easier, and I don't know why that is.

The only class I can think of where the final was actually as hard or harder than the actual exam was philosophy.

[Eliseos]

Seeming easy and being easy are two different things. I'm just worried that I forgot to do or missed something completely. I just realized that the problem on Green's theorem on the exam was in vector notation:
http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?...\cdot%20k%20dR

He gave us that equation and gave us A, and we were to compute the integral. When I computed the curl of A, I only got a k vector, so hopefully I did that one right. Another we were told to compute

http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?...cdot%20n\%20dS

Where F was given, over the surface of the unit sphere. My calculator's batteries died right when I got to this problem so I couldn't do the sin/cos integrals when I switched to polar coords. I can never remember trig indenties

[Kaylia]

I suppose exam are often easy, but I tend to fuck up anyway because I'm too nervous or insecure. I will end up wasting 1h on something as stupid as a trigonometric laws or logarithm rules that I've been using for 10 years. I'm rarely able to works efficiently with no reference book around to make up for my shitty memory. That, and the language issue I have. I can't fucking remember how to write the symbolism most of the time.

Anyone (I'm looking at you woozie!) know how to demonstrate geometric progression for complex number? I know it works, but I tried a few things that failled miserably. I can do it easily for real number, and it makes sense for complex number, but I can't word it.

It's the first few lines of the presentation I'm doing tomorrow on diffussion. Teacher give us a short chapter, and we are evaluated on the clarity of the explanations we give (both mathematics and physics). Right now, it's the only thing that is causing me some issue
http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/451...rogression.jpg.

[Woozie]

I have no clue how to do that for a complex number. I don't think I've ever even seen it before.

My first thought would be to turn the exponent into sines and cosines so that way you have a series of a real number plus i times a series of real numbers. But I have a feeling that this either wont work or is going to be way overly complicated. I'll probably look over it tomorrow (I wont be awake much longer today).

Edit: wait a minute, that's not even going to infinity. I don't think this will be that hard. Let me take a closer look at this.

Edit2: Well, my sleeping pills are already in effect, so there's really no point in me trying it now. My brain stops working when my pills kick in. I'll look at it tomorrow.

Edit 3: What exactly am I trying to prove? It looks like they've already shown how they got their answer. It's hard to be sure though because it's in french. Since it's finite, I don't see why this would be any different than the real numbers case. In the proof for showing the sum of a finite amount of terms in a geometric series, we don't actually assume what we're summing is real.

[Kaylia]

I have no clue how to do that for a complex number. I don't think I've ever even seen it before.

My first thought would be to turn the exponent into sines and cosines so that way you have a series of a real number plus i times a series of real numbers. But I have a feeling that this either wont work or is going to be way overly complicated. I'll probably look over it tomorrow (I wont be awake much longer today).

Edit: wait a minute, that's not even going to infinity. I don't think this will be that hard. Let me take a closer look at this.

Well, exp (i x) is always shorter than 1, so it should always converge.


I know it works because addition is the same between complex number and real number, but I'm not sure it's a valid argument here. Turning it into cos + isin is what I was doing, but I couldnt obtain the 1+ exp(ix) form using moivre/euler.


And don't worry about it if it's late. My presentation is tomorrow morning, and it's already completed. I'm just trying to cover my ass because I got an easy chapter, and if someone ask why, I want to be able to answer it.