backtop


Print 47 comment(s) - last by freeagle.. on Dec 23 at 2:23 PM


The towering E-ELT will begin construction within 3 years and will sport an awesome 40 m diameter. Check out the white car in comparison to the telescope.  (Source: European Union)

The James Webb Space Telescope pictured here launches in 2013, and promises an exciting upgrade to the Hubble. It works in the infrared and visible light ranges.  (Source: NASA)

This is a brief timeline of the History of the universe, with important cosmological events noted. Notice the first stars period and the dark gap between it and the Afterglow Light Pattern. The first stars marked the start of the Reionization Period.  (Source: NASA)

The VertexRSI unit-1 antenna and North American ALMA Project Scientist Al Wootten (in hard hat) at the ALMA Operations Support Facility in Chile. A Melco antenna can be seen in the background (left center).  (Source: NAASC and NRAO)
New telescopes are in the works for space, on the ground, in all shapes and sizes thanks to international support

From the early designs of astronomer Ibn al-Haytham and Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei to the Hubble telescope and large radio and infrared ground based telescopes, the history of the telescope has been long, complex, and full of breakthroughs.  Now new designs are aiming to push the limits of telescopes beyond their capabilities and let them see literally farther back in time.

Telescopes in their many forms detect electromagnetic radiation, which was produced by celestial bodies hundreds of millions, if not billions of years ago.  The older the radiation, the more it is scattered across the universe in many directions, and thus the fainter it will appear.  Thus, in order to pick up older stuff the basic rule of thumb is the more power, the better. 

Also valuable is implementing different telescope designs to catch different types of electromagnetic radiation, as some celestial bodies are prone to emit more of a certain type of ray, i.e. gamma rays or infrared.  Large-scale telescope designs generally fall into three categories: reflecting telescopes (includes infrared and visible light designs), radio telescopes, and high-frequency (gamma and X-ray) telescopes.

Some exciting new designs are being constructed and worked on that promise to both enrich the variety of designs and pump of the power from the previous generation.  These designs take advantage of modern computer processing as well as innovative physical designs.  Many of these telescopes are going to be towering giants, while others will be massive arrays of many smaller telescopes.

One of the new "young gun" telescopes is the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), which is scheduled to launch in 2013 as a replacement to the aging, yet venerable, Hubble.  The telescope will be bigger than the Hubble, with a tennis court sized sunshield and massive mirror (6.5 m in diameter) that will unfold, once the telescope reaches its intended L2 orbit.  The telescope is infrared optimized, but also offers strong capabilities in the visual light range.

Meanwhile, smaller radio telescopes are combining their powers to form a massively powerful network, which should have record setting resolution and sensitivity when finished.  The network combines telescopes across three continents.  It will combine the Atacam Large Millimeter/Submillimeter Array (ALCA), located in Chile; the LOFAR network in Europe; and the Square Kilometer Array (SKA), which is planned to be constructed in either Africa or Australia.

Finally, there are new designs for singular Extremely Large Telescope (telescopes with dishes bigger than 20m in diameter) that should be under construction soon.  There are ten active ELT projects worldwide; none are fully complete yet.  However, Europe is forging ahead strongly, looking to implement its E-ELT, the European Extremely Large Telescope.  The E-ELT will have a dish size of 40m and thanks to a 57M € grant from the European Union, will begin construction within three years.

These new telescope designs promises to help mankind see back to the start of the reionization period.  The reionization period is an important cosmological event which occurred approximately 13 billion years ago.  While the early universe was hot and ionized, after cooling, protons and electrons paired up into neutral hydrogen.  The neutral hydrogen emitted little light, despite being around 3,000K.  The universe went largely dark, then for millions of years.  Then, hydrogen collapsed due to the weight of gravity and began to form stars which reionized, producing visible light.  The period in which visible light began to be produced again is called the reionization period.  While no current telescopes have the power to detect the faint traces from this period, these new designs hope to begin to approach it as they travel back through time.

Forging ahead with these designs is a tremendously ambitious undertaking, but one which will ultimately benefit all of mankind with a richer understanding of our universe.  The designs will require enormous funds and international cooperation, but the great deal of support they are receiving promises to make these dreams a reality.  It should be an exciting next decade for the cosmology and astronomy enthusiast.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What's at the end?
By SilentSin on 12/18/2007 4:02:17 PM , Rating: 5
My mind is too simple to comprehend such physics, but the ideas behind light have always interested me. Even before I learned about Einstein I too wondered what you would see if you were traveling at the speed of light. Now with this telescope technology I have to wonder is there a VISIBLE (not necessarily physical) limit to the universe?

If you think about light traveling to hit a telescope, a distant object can take many millions of light years to get to us. Meaning that objects we see in telescopes could in fact not even exist anymore, just their light signatures that were radiated millions of light years ago and have just now been intercepted by our telescopes. This brings to my mind a sort of "edge" to the universe that we can observe.

Take for example an object that is 4.5 billion light years away. That means that any light we observe was radiated 4.5 billion years ago. Simple enough. But what happens at very large distances? Say an object is 6 billion years old but is over 50 billion light years away. For the sake of this post imagine the object exactly opposite earth, has always been farther away than light has had time to travel, and is traveling away from us. That means that light from this object cannot have reached us yet, it hasn't had enough time.

What I'm imagining is a sort of boundary at the very visible edge where things would "pop in" to view the instant that the light has had time to travel here. Similar to draw-in distance in video games, ie- things very far away are not rendered until they are close in order to reduce the processing load creating a boundary beyond which there is nothing to be seen.

This may already be a known phenomenon. When I google for farthest known object from earth it returns something from about 13 billion light years away. Yet do the same research for the diameter of the universe and it is estimated as high as 150 billion light years across. What is in this outer ring beyond the 13 billion light year diameter that we can observe? It can't just be emptiness.




RE: What's at the end?
By FITCamaro on 12/18/2007 4:26:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What is in this outer ring beyond the 13 billion light year diameter that we can observe? It can't just be emptiness.


Likely other galaxies. We just can't see them yet because the light hasn't reached us yet. The whole "edge of the universe" thing is one we'll never be able to answer because if its true that a) the speed of light is the fastest you can go and b) the universe is expanding outward at the speed of light, you'll never be able to reach it.

And yes, you're right. Entire galaxies could have existed and perished before the light from them ever reaches us.


RE: What's at the end?
By timmiser on 12/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: What's at the end?
By kyp275 on 12/18/2007 9:29:28 PM , Rating: 2
and just how is light from over 13 billion light years away supposed to be here if they haven't had enough time to get here? it's not like they can take the subway and get here faster :P

this is all assuming of course, that the universe has been expanding at light speed since the beginning.


RE: What's at the end?
By SiliconAddict on 12/19/2007 1:49:18 AM , Rating: 1
That also assumes that light is always traveling at the same speed. There is still a lot of crap we don't know about our world, solar system, galaxy, universe, etc. We know that light can be slowed down (At least in a lab setting.) and supposedly sped up under certain conditions. Who knows what the heck is out there. That is why space is so damn exciting. The concept of a sure thing is not exactly a sure thing in cosmology


RE: What's at the end?
By NullSubroutine on 12/21/2007 7:48:44 AM , Rating: 2
To my understanding, the speed of light is still constant in all settings.

The only thing that changes is the manipulation of space/time that makes light 'appear' to go slower.

If you send a beam of light around a large gravitational field (like the sun) you will see that the 'stright' light beam bends.

But the light beam is not bending, gravity is 'warping' space/time around the large gravitational object. Simplest way I can explain is like drawing a line on a rubber band with a marker, then stretching out the rubber band.


RE: What's at the end?
By MozeeToby on 12/18/2007 4:36:14 PM , Rating: 5
This concept it known as the Hubble Volume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_volume). We know from experience that what's outside this volume is very much similary (although much earlier in time) to what is inside it.

This is one of the little mysteries of cosmology that hasn't been totally solved yet, how the mass and temperature of places widely seperated can be so similar. If two locations are more light years apart than the universe is old they should not have had any time to equalize. It was this problem that led to the Theory of Cosmic Inflation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_theory).


RE: What's at the end?
By SilentSin on 12/18/2007 7:29:12 PM , Rating: 2
Oh was 'Hubble Bubble' just too obvious for them? ;) Interesting reads, I knew someone else out there had thought about this and put a name to it I just didn't know where to start.

The idea of cosmic inflation is still a bit beyond me tho. What makes it different than the big bang? As I read over the wiki page and a few links off it, I kept thinking to myself about adding water to a dry sponge to make it expand, as opposed to sticking a firecracker in the middle and exploding it to bits. Bad analogy but that's really all I could come up with. I wish they had a video model or something so I could see what they were talking about visually. I can't wrap my head around this "false vacuum" idea.


RE: What's at the end?
By 457R4LDR34DKN07 on 12/19/2007 12:55:47 AM , Rating: 3
Inflation is what caused all the forces of energy to be distiguishable. As first atoms started to condense and form the laws of gravity, electromagnetic (strong and weak)to become distiguishable from the singularity. It's not that huge of a concept to understand but the best analogy I can say is like writing on a rubber band and stretching it.


RE: What's at the end?
By Mitch101 on 12/18/2007 4:47:26 PM , Rating: 1
I would guess if it were possible to travel at the speed of light you would almost certainly have to be traveling through alternate dimensions.

quote:
What I'm imagining is a sort of boundary at the very visible edge where things would "pop in" to view the instant that the light has had time to travel here. Similar to draw-in distance in video games, ie- things very far away are not rendered until they are close in order to reduce the processing load creating a boundary beyond which there is nothing to be seen.


Which is faster the expansion of the universe or light?


RE: What's at the end?
By MozeeToby on 12/18/2007 4:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
Assuming eternal inflation, the universe is still expanding faster than the speed of light. Actually, much faster since the change in distance between to points goes up the farther the points are from each other.


RE: What's at the end?
By 16nm on 12/18/2007 6:29:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would guess if it were possible to travel at the speed of light you would almost certainly have to be traveling through alternate dimensions.


Don't you mean traveling through time? At least that's how I've always come to understand what traveling at the speed of light means.

Alternate dimensions?? I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of multiple universe. It seems alternate dimensions could describe this same concept, though. Isn't time and space the 4th dimension? Heck, someone wake me from the Matrix please. I want my red pill.


RE: What's at the end?
By 16nm on 12/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: What's at the end?
By Runiteshark on 12/18/2007 10:01:42 PM , Rating: 2
The 150b year estimate was vastly incorrect and was misinterpreted. The universe is actually around 13.7b years old, according to current observation.


RE: What's at the end?
By SilentSin on 12/18/2007 11:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
That was 150 billion light years. That figure was an outlier in my google results but I did see it more than once and on credible-looking sites. And without the universe being more than 35.4 bly across the rest of my post wouldn't work :D

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_mond...

This is the sort of topic where facts change from day to day so take it all with grains but it sure as hell is interesting to think about.


RE: What's at the end?
By supremelaw on 12/19/2007 12:01:52 AM , Rating: 2
> The universe is actually around 13.7B years old, according to current observation.

The "visible boundary theory" mentioned in the
original post postulates a universe that is
actually much older than 13.7 Billion years.

If an object emitted light 10 Billion years ago,
but it was 12 Billion light-years distant from
planet Earth at that time, that light won't reach Earth
for another 2 Billion years, assuming a constant
velocity of 186,000 miles per second.

Thus, that object will be effectively invisible
to observers on planet Earth for another 2 Billion years.

There would be two competing explanations
for that "darkness" beyond a distance of
13.7 Billion light years:

(1) one explanation says that there is darkness
or a complete "void" beyond that distance,
because there are no objects at that distance
to emit any light whatsoever;

(2) the other explanation says that there is
a richly populated group of objects beyond
13.7 light-years, but their light just hasn't
reached us yet, and that's why we can't "see"
any of those objects (not yet, anyway).

I'm reminded of the Distant Galaxy Cluster
which the Hubble Space Telescope discovered
by doing a very long time-lapse exposure of a
very small aperture that was thought to be
totally dark -- read "no matter whatsoever".

That Distant Galaxy Cluster ended up having
thousands if not millions of GALAXIES,
all of which were very VERY far away!!

I tend to prefer explanation (2) above:
it just makes more sense (to me, anyway).

I predict that the known universe will get larger
as the power of our telescopes improves over time.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Webmaster, Supreme Law Library
http://www.supremelaw.org/


RE: What's at the end?
By supremelaw on 12/19/2007 12:06:58 AM , Rating: 2
correction:

(2) the other explanation says that there is
a richly populated group of objects beyond
13.7 Billion light-years, but their light just hasn't
reached us yet, and that's why we can't "see"
any of those objects (not yet, anyway).

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Webmaster, Supreme Law Library
http://www.supremelaw.org/


RE: What's at the end?
By TestKing123 on 12/19/2007 12:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I think you may have some misconceptions about the age of the universe, the visible universe, and the actual size of the universe. The age of the universe is in fact, shown to be 13.7 billion years old with precision accuracy. The mapping of the cosmic background radiation helped pinpoint this number greatly. The visible universe is a perfect sphere of the same distance, which is limited by the speed of light. However, the actual size of the universe is estimated to be anywhere from 46-76 billion light years across.

So how can a (let's assume) a 76-billion light year wide universe be only 13.7 billion years old? It all has to do with cosmic inflation after the big bang, and the current acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

More can be read from this informative website:
http://www.universetoday.com

You can browse the forums as well, which are populated by physicists, astronomers, and generally very knowledgeable people. Q&A forum is especially recommended and resourceful.


RE: What's at the end?
By rodrigu3 on 12/19/2007 12:57:26 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure, but from what I remember, the speed of light itself is not relative. You can't run away from light because the photons are always traveling at the speed of light, regardless of the reference frame. So the light from some object traveling away from Earth would still be seen although events later in the object's life would get dimmer.

As I understand it, the light from objects very far away is probably now just a record of the events that occurred in the past. Think about it this way, if our sun exploded and we had no telescopes or satellites in space, we wouldn't know the sun had exploded until several minutes later, since it takes about 8 minutes for the light of the sun to reach us. For someone standing on Pluto at the same time the Earth sees the sun explode, everything would be normal to them until about 5 hours later when they notice that the sun had exploded.

One thing that has always puzzled me is what would happen for two objects capable of near-speed-of-light travel. If they start from rest and begin moving away from each other at nearly the speed of light, how would you perceive the other object? Imagine you are standing on one of the objects and have a very powerful telescope and can track the other object as it moves. I can only imagine a situation in which the object you are observing seems to slow down in time and get dimmer as it moves further and further away from you, approaching the speed of light. This makes me think that given we can perceive the expansion of the universe, it must be expanding faster than we think, because of the phenomenon I have explained above.


RE: What's at the end?
By Alias1431 on 12/20/2007 2:11:00 AM , Rating: 2
You have to remember that the universe is only around 13 billion years old anyway. There's nothing to see anymore if you peer that far back in time.


RE: What's at the end?
By freeagle on 12/20/2007 1:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
AFAIK, according to Einstein, no two objects can travel faster than the speed of light. Even if you could manage to accelerate two objects to the speed of light, and they would travel in opposite directions away from each other, they would relatively to each other travel at the speed of light, and not twice that much. So, basing my thoughts on this, I'd say that the universe, if sphere-shaped, does not have DIAMETER more than 13.7 billion light years, or that basic rule would be broken.


RE: What's at the end?
By TestKing123 on 12/21/2007 1:35:19 PM , Rating: 2
That's actually a common misconception. With the confirmation of inflation and the discovery of dark energy that's accelerating the expansion of the universe, we already know that although the "visible" universe is 13.7B light years across, the "actual" universe is magnitudes greater.

Inflation and expansion does NOT violate relativity at all. Relativity puts limits on the propagation of matter and energy, NOT space itself (early inflation occured at a rate that would be considered many times greater than the speed of light).

Even the current expansion rate of the universe gives an illusion of faster than light travel for distant galaxies receding. However that can best be described below (taken from an excerpt from universetoday.com):

Imagine a cube filled with points which are regularly spaced apart throughout its 3 dimensions (the points are held in place by invisible strings that can stretch as much as required!). This cube is 1 meter along its edges, and it is filled with points that are spaced 10cm apart.

Now imagine that cube expanded over time until it was twice its original size and was now 2 meters along its edge. Each point would now be 20cm apart. The cube continues to expand and is now 10 meters along each edge and the points are now all 1 meter apart.

So from the point of view of a point within that cube, the distances to the other points in one direction started as 10cm, 20cm, 30cm, 40cm and 50cm but those distances ended up as 1m, 2m, 3m, 4m and 5m. This means that the further away a point is, the faster it has apparently receded from you. The nearest point moved from 10cm away to 1m away, meaning it has receded by 90cm. But in the same amount of time, a point that was 50cm away has moved to 5m away! That more distant point has receded by 4.5m in the same time that the nearest point only receded 90cm!

However fast the box expands, if the box continues to expand there will come a time when a point at a certain distance is apparently receding from another at the speed of light, and any points more distant than that other would be apparently receding at speeds faster than light.

I say apparently receding, as none of the points are moving within the box relative to its edge - they are not moving through the space in the box in any way. The box increases in size and so the points naturally become further apart due to that increase in size.

Now imagine that the box is so large that when you are inside it you cannot see its edge, as the light from the edge hasn't had time to reach you during the lifetime of that box! You can see the points in all directions, and you know how close they were to begin with and how close they are now. If the box is so big that nobody can see the edge wherever they are in that box, then everybody would see the same thing - the closest point moving away relatively slowly whilst the furthest points seem to move away faster than light!

Any point can consider itself to be the "centre of expansion" as all points seem to be moving away from that point, and the further you look from that point, the faster they recede. The reason is that they are all inside the thing that expanded. It might have a geometric centre, but that centre is arbitrary as matter has always been relatively evenly distributed throughout the universe, and there is no actual centre of any expansion itself. If we take the box back to its smallest size possible size, when all the points were presumably touching or overlapping and expand it from there, only an observer sitting outside the box could point and say "That is where it all started!". Inside the box, no point seems more special than any other, as all points were inside the thing that expanded. There was no concentration of points in any special place within the box at any time during its expansion, all points are always the same distance apart (in this example!).


RE: What's at the end?
By freeagle on 12/23/2007 2:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
If so, shouldn't all the objects in scale with the growing size of the universe? Those points in the box inside, lets say they are the elementar particles. So if the box gets bigger, the distances between the particles should also increase. Planets, for example, are made of hell of a lot of these elements. So planets should also grow bigger and bigger with the same factor as universe does.


The new SETI?
By Mitch101 on 12/18/2007 3:41:04 PM , Rating: 4
Could we network all the trailer parks around the nation with 6ft dishes next to double wides together to form one super massive dish thus eliminating the cost of building new ones?




RE: The new SETI?
By mabright on 12/18/2007 3:57:46 PM , Rating: 2
They actually did something like that in a really bad sci-fi movie called The Arrival (1996).


RE: The new SETI?
By Mitch101 on 12/18/2007 4:22:32 PM , Rating: 2
Wasn't that the Charlie Sheen movie? I will take your word for it because I don't think I can sit through that again.

Worse thing is I think it had a sequel.


RE: The new SETI?
By FITCamaro on 12/18/2007 4:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
The original I actually kind of liked. The "sequel" I've seen on the TV guide but I've never seen the whole thing. From what I have seen of it, I don't want to.


RE: The new SETI?
By Mitch101 on 12/19/2007 9:40:52 AM , Rating: 2
Dont vote me up this means I have wasted time at my current career and should have been a screen writer for B movie scripts.

Then again I think some B movies are the most innovative low budget movies out there. Hmmm.


RE: The new SETI?
By JackBeQuick on 12/20/2007 2:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, we're still pulling incredible ideas out of pulp sci-fi.


there was no Iraq 1100 years ago
By teuron on 12/18/2007 3:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
Ibn al-Haytham was from Mesopotamia (now where modern day Iraq sits)... this does not make him an Iraqi.




RE: there was no Iraq 1100 years ago
By JasonMick (blog) on 12/18/2007 3:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
Well there was no Italy in Galileo's time either...

Or Germany, etc. Still historical figures are often referred to by the current country/nationality that exists in their home region. For example Galileo is typically referred to as Italian, Albrecht Durer is refered to as a German Painter (Germany was a bunch of scattered states at the time), etc...

It may be somewhat of a misnomer, but Ibn al-Haytham is as much Iraqi as Galileo is Italian, and you will find both designations in standard literature. I specifically recall reading a textbook which referenced Ibn and referred to him as Iraqi, so really, it is pretty standard...


RE: there was no Iraq 1100 years ago
By Strunf on 12/18/2007 7:15:12 PM , Rating: 3
Ya it is but think how awkward it would be if now the US was taken over by the Russians, how would you speak of Niel Armstrong or Ronald Reagan?


By GeorgeOrwell on 12/18/2007 11:36:28 PM , Rating: 4
Quietly, with no one around besides my stolen bottle of vodka.


But but....
By FITCamaro on 12/18/2007 3:50:36 PM , Rating: 1
Isn't the universe and Earth only 4-6000ish years old since thats all the Bible tells us about? While I do not deny the existence of a higher power as everything had to have started somewhere, to dismiss all the fossils and what not which exist here on Earth that clearly show things millions, tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of years old is just plain ignorance. There's nothing wrong with having faith but to take the writings of people from a few thousand years ago as something that should be interpreted literally word for word is just insane. I mean these same people believed blindness and leprosy were punishments from being a bad person in your previous life or a punishment for your parents being bad.

Anyway, I think these telescopes are awesome feats of engineering. Anything we can do to better understand the vast universe we exist in should be done. I just hope one day we'll actually be able to get out there and explore some of it. I doubt we'll ever make it out of our own galaxy just due to the size of the universe, but hey, our galaxy is big enough.




RE: But but....
By Mitch101 on 12/18/2007 3:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
Yup I love hearing that 4-6000ish years old stuff as if Dinosaurs were mythology.


RE: But but....
By Homerboy on 12/18/2007 3:59:38 PM , Rating: 2
why the hell would you even bring that up here? WTF is you point?


RE: But but....
By GhandiInstinct on 12/18/2007 4:00:32 PM , Rating: 1
If the bible is the word of a celestial being with infinite power, why no mention of anything that we see in science today? Stem cells, computers, nano-tech etc...

There's nothing in that book that would hint of an all knowing being. If he's a divine creator, why make all the rest of the planets in our solar system dead? Not much of a design path..


RE: But but....
By Schadenfroh on 12/18/2007 4:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
Every time there is a post about something like this, we get the same dang troll posts.


RE: But but....
By Machinegear on 12/18/2007 4:33:17 PM , Rating: 2
Aye. Such a detailed article commented down to simple prejudice and balant ignorance.

With the advent of console gaming, maybe we should separate the website into "gaming news" and "tech news." Keeping them together, as has been done for years, results in a mix bag of cognitive responses that do not necessarily flow.

Now, back to the article at hand...


By daftrok on 12/18/2007 3:44:07 PM , Rating: 4
Giggity.




By Bladen on 12/19/2007 4:28:48 AM , Rating: 2
The Big Bang happened all that time ago, and the matter that compromises this solar system was spewed out from the Big Bang and took aeons to condense and form.

So how did we get so far past the light from the early days of the Big Bang in order to be able to see back into it?




By JS on 12/20/2007 6:34:34 AM , Rating: 2
If I remember correctly the matter we and our solar system are made of (apart from hydrogen and helium) is actually the remnants of supernovas which formed after Big Bang. All heavier elements came into existence this way.

As for your question I am not sure, but I imagine that what we are seeing is the light that went "the other way" so to speak. But I don't know, when discussing cosmology "normal thinking" often does not really apply ...


End of the universe
By TheNuts on 12/19/2007 1:35:34 PM , Rating: 2
I've always wondered...If the universe is constantly expanding, what does it expand into? i.e., what is on the other side of the "edge" of the universe? Nothingness? Can something be made from nothing?




RE: End of the universe
By TestKing123 on 12/19/2007 5:02:09 PM , Rating: 2
The universe is expanding, but it's not expanding into anything as if there's something beyond the universe. And there's no "edge" either.

This link will answer most of your questions:
http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/cosmology...


Obligatory.
By helios220 on 12/18/2007 4:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
Herschel Telescope
By Eckstein on 12/18/2007 7:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot to mention one of the most important instruments - the ESA Herschel Space Observatory that will be launched next year.
It observes in far infrared with a 9.6m² collector at L2.




What blows my mind...
By justkuz on 12/21/2007 12:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
Imagine if they suddenly find a reflective layer of material a few billion light years away be it gas or something else. That gives us the possibility to watch the actual creation of our planet! Now how interesting would that be!




"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki