[HN Gopher] Shouldn't distant objects appear magnified? ___________________________________________________________________ Shouldn't distant objects appear magnified? Author : frabert Score : 429 points Date : 2023-08-20 13:29 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (astronomy.stackexchange.com) (TXT) w3m dump (astronomy.stackexchange.com) | psychphysic wrote: | Love this, there are a few topics you hear about in class and you | don't realise how mind boggling they are until someone less says | hold up... | | The interpretation of the Poynting vector is another. | NHQ wrote: | "Give us one free miracle and we can explain anything!" - | Terrance McKenna on modern science. | ww520 wrote: | And based on the size of the magnification of the galaxies | throughout time, we can tell whether the universe is expanding at | a constant rate or accelerated or decelerated at certain point. | cvoss wrote: | Take this a further step. Assuming we had telescopes big enough | and sensors sensitive enough, what does the structure of the | deepest parts of space look like? Are there pre-galaxy-formation | structures which are smaller than galaxies and yet take up huge | swaths of sky? Are there structures from some point in the past | that take up so much space on the sky that not very many of them | can "fit", and, if so, do the calculations work out so that an | equivalent explanation for having not very many of them is that | the [region of the] universe [which is observable to us] was just | that much smaller back then? | MaxikCZ wrote: | The furthest we can see is the physical limit of universe: we | can literaly see thefirst photons after universe became | transparent. That is the CMB (cosmic microwave background, and | you can easily google a real picture). The problem is, while | these are the oldest photons we will ever be able to see, they | still are from when universe was cca 400 000 years old, and by | that time it was 100 million lightyears wide. That picture | tells us that the universe was extremely homogenous (altho not | perfectly), and basically no such structures you talk about. | | If we would like to see even further, we must give up on | photons completely, and probably probe the ultra deep space | gravitation waves. Those should give us picture even of | completely opaque universe, as it was before then. So far we | can only "see/hear" the brightest/loudest events in the | universe with our gravitational waves observatories, but the | fact we can even do that is astounding nontheless: we built a | new sense for humanity, that no other known creature in the | universe posses. LISA project should hear more. | skykooler wrote: | Neutrinos should also allow seeing back before the CMB, | though they're nearly as hard to detect as gravitational | waves. | waynecochran wrote: | Fascinating. A related question: When we look at Andromeda, which | has a diameter of 220,000 light years, we are looking at it | slightly edge on. Shouldn't the stars on the back edge be in a | relatively different place in the sky than the stars on the front | edge since the galaxy has moved relative to us over that 220K | light years? | Filligree wrote: | Yes. And, of course, they are. | waynecochran wrote: | They appear as if I am looking at the front and back edge at | the same point in time -- i.e. not 220K years apart. | hughes wrote: | How would you expect it to look that is different from its | current appearance? | tekla wrote: | /gif head exploding meme | waynecochran wrote: | I would expect something kind of stretched out and warped | like taffy. i.e. the front edge of the galaxy would be | stretch out ahead of the back edge of the galaxy since | the back edge is running behind time-wise. | ahazred8ta wrote: | > stretched out ahead | | You have apparently not figured out (1) by how much? and | (2) in which direction? - Andromeda rotates so slowly | that after 220K years the far side has made only 1/1000th | of a rotation. Please draw on a picture of Andromeda how | far the far side moves after 1/1000th of a rotation. | That's how small the image warping is. | waynecochran wrote: | Thank you. The "how much" is too small to stretch it out | visually. Need a much larger spiral galaxy to see the | effect I am thinking of. | dmbche wrote: | Makes me think of this : | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrell_rotation | | How when going at relativistic speeds, you start to appear to | rotate to obervers even if you are going straight - you can even | see behind the object! | vikingerik wrote: | Took me a minute to wrap my head around it, that explanation | isn't worded that clearly, but then I got it. | | That happens because time is a factor in how light from | different parts of the object will reach the observer. Light | from its far side takes longer and in that time the object | continues to move. You can see behind the object, because its | rear end moves out of the way of the light coming from itself | during the travel time of that light. | someplaceguy wrote: | Man, the universe is weird... Whoever created it was not a fan | of the KISS principle. | fallingknife wrote: | I have to disagree. The fundamental laws are quite simple. | All the complexity arises from their interaction like in | Conway's game of life. | nickpeterson wrote: | I think our senses are just imprecise and it undermines all | our thoughts and perceptions of the universe when things | approach limits. | dredmorbius wrote: | Our senses are evolved to maximise our fitness function | within our immediate reality. There's a view that our | senses don't reflect _truth_ so much as _evolutionary | fitness_ , which involves both compromises and biases.[1] | | Our evolutionary environment for the most part has excluded | relativistic effects. | | Though that raises the interesting question of what sense | perceptions of an organism evolving under such | circumstances might be. | | ________________________________ | | Notes: | | 1. Donald Hoffman is the principle proponent of this that | I'm aware of: <https://www.quantamagazine.org/the- | evolutionary-argument-aga...>. I'm not _entirely_ sold on | the hard-line version of his argument; it seems to me that | there 's a _general_ tendency for adherence to truth to be | more parsimonious than outright fabulation, in which the | _nonessential_ inaccuracies of the sensing system incur | additional costs. | he0001 wrote: | Frankly, it may very well be KISS because the other options | were so much more complex. Or they said that if we put speed | of light to constant to make it simple, there were so many | unforeseen edge cases because of it. The devil is in the | details, perhaps? | potamic wrote: | You haven't seen this other post today | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37197977 | lamontcg wrote: | That should be "all of physics in 6 lines, two flawed | overly simplistic arguments and one crackpot theory (and 18 | particles and 27 constants buried in the last two items)". | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30733666 | lamontcg wrote: | Nah, its real simple. SR just comes about because you want to | keep chemistry working the same on a rocket doing 99% of the | speed of light as it is at rest. | | Working out all the implications becomes very complex. | | But then you probably wouldn't have life to observe it if the | simple rules didn't have complex emergent behaviors. | ilyt wrote: | Just look at near any 30+ years long programming project and | then extrapolate the growth of complexity and weirdness into | billions of years | wheelerof4te wrote: | Spaghetti code? Try "The Big Bang code". | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | I actually think the opposite is true. The way I've heard it | phrased and explained that makes the most sense to me is | "everything moves through spacetime at the same rate" - it's | basically the clock speed of the universe. It's just that if | you move faster in a space dimension that your relative | movement in the time dimension slows down. | | It only seems weird to us because our senses and minds | evolved in an environment where things we can perceive never | differ by relativistic speeds. | someplaceguy wrote: | While I do like that intuitive explanation, it's lacking in | describing all other aspects of the universe. | | Like, how the energy required for an object with mass to | approximate the speed of light in spacial dimensions goes | to infinity, even though it's already traveling at that | speed through spacetime. | | Or quantum mechanics. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | Sure, one simple sentence is not going to explain the | universe. But, at least from the simple relativity side | of things, essentially _everything_ falls out of (that | is, it 's a consequence of) that simple sentence. I.e. | starting from that you can derive other consequences. | E.g. "how the energy required for an object with mass to | approximate the speed of light in spacial dimensions goes | to infinity" is actually a direct consequence of that | statement: every amount of energy you push into an object | with mass causes it to accelerate, but due to the | essential "clock speed of the universe", that | acceleration is less and less as you approach the speed | of light, and thus it takes an infinite amount of energy | to reach the speed of light. Another way to think of it | is that if it took anything less than an infinite amount | of energy to reach the speed of light, then the speed of | light couldn't be the universal speed limit, because you | could add more energy that would accelerate it further. | | On the other hand, my understanding is that quantum | mechanics is another beast entirely, and one of the | biggest problems in physics, and to developing a "theory | of everything", is to unify quantum mechanics with | general relativity. | DougMerritt wrote: | Although nothing will explain everything, still it's fine | with the first point: increasing the rotation vector of | momentum in spacetime increases mass. The rest follows, | since you know that the more mass, the more energy | required to accelerate still more. | | But if you are interested, a significant amount of the | basics of quantum mechanics follow directly from Fourier | transforms -- which unfortunately are harder to self- | study than spacetime rotations. | rakoo wrote: | Or, they just set the speed of light as a #define and left | the rest as undefined behaviour | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | Perhaps nit picky, and I know you were joking, but I think | this is the wrong way to think about it. It's not that the | other behavior is undefined, it's you essentially have all | of these functions that use "C" in their definitions, and | then you have "#define C ..." in a header file somewhere. | combat-banana wrote: | It's very simple depending upon your context. (God's object) | russdill wrote: | A limit to the speed of causality makes physics _so_ much | simpler. Without it you 'd need to factor in the interaction | of every particle with every other particle in the universe. | someplaceguy wrote: | Don't you need to do that anyway, because of gravity? | | Wouldn't the causality speed limit just cause those gravity | interactions to arrive with a time delay rather than being | instantaneous? | | Which means that to simulate the universe you essentially | have to keep a history of how gravity is propagating, which | requires keeping more information than if interactions were | instantaneous? | | In a sense perhaps this applies to light too, because since | it has a finite velocity now you have to keep track of how | all the photons individually propagate through spacetime, | whereas if light traveled instantly this would not be | necessary? | | EDIT: The advantage I see in a speed limit is that you | should be able to compute what happens in a point of | spacetime based only on the information that is around that | point (which still might have come from any or all other | particles in the universe, mind you). For me, this | emphasizes how important locality must be and it basically | converts the popular "spooky action at a distance" claims | into nonsense to me. | | I guess that's why I'm a fan of the Many Worlds | Interpretation. | BiteCode_dev wrote: | Gravity is not instantaneous. | knome wrote: | https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/gravitational-waves/en/ | | Gravity waves also travel at the speed of light. | someplaceguy wrote: | Isn't that what I was saying? | | Since they have a speed limit you have to keep track of | all gravity waves associated with all particles of the | universe throughout all time and space. | | So all particles still interact with all other particles, | all the time, it's just that they do it with a time | delay. | | If there wasn't a speed limit it would be much simpler | because all gravity interactions would be instantaneous | and you wouldn't have to keep track of gravity waves. | depressedpanda wrote: | If light acted instantaneously you would have to | calculate the effect of it's rays everywhere all at once, | which I think is quite expensive given how _vast_ space | is. | | However, since the speed of light is miniscule compared | to the size of the universe you can ignore all but the | most local interactions, and just schedule a computation | sometime in the future when you know that the light | vector will interact with something. | | While instant calculations would perhaps make for a | simpler system conceptually, the speed limit and locality | principle ensures that less processing power is needed | (at the cost of a lot of memory). | tshaddox wrote: | What's unique about gravity with what you're talking | about? The Coloumb force also applies between every pair | of electrically charged particles, right? And with the | same inverse-square function of distance? | someplaceguy wrote: | > What's unique about gravity with what you're talking | about? | | Nothing, it was just the most obvious example (to me). | wheelerof4te wrote: | As someone already mentioned, you would have to account | for all the interactions with light -> everywhere at | once. | | With a effective speed limit to space-time, you can | "localize" the computation to the spaces where light has | reached. And who knows, maybe light can't travel forever, | it might just disappear after crossing some distance we | still haven't measured (how we'd do that, who knows). | | Giving yet another evidence to the "grand simulation" | theory. "The universe" is just a group of simulated | worlds connected by interacting photon particles (light). | someplaceguy wrote: | Right, that's what I meant when I said that the advantage | of a speed limit is locality. It allows you to compute | the next state of a point in spacetime based only on the | points around it. | | But my point was that this also makes the universe more | complex than an alternative fictional universe where | information can be accessed instantaneously across any | distance (which still allows for distributed computation, | if synchronization or lazy computation is possible). | wheelerof4te wrote: | Possible alternative, but what would be a factor of | locality in such an universe? And how would the universe | store the infinite "light matter" in it's "memory", since | light particle beam being instant means that it has no | limits to where it can reach, and will grow depending on | distance traveled (which is infinite)? | | Some processes that are outside of scope we can sense | seems like a too cheap explanation. | cmpalmer52 wrote: | A universe is a computer that simulates a universe. | wheelerof4te wrote: | We actually don't know and can't really know what | simulates the universe. | | But we can deduce from various cues that it is being | "simulated". | | The Double slit experiment is one, experience of deja-vu | another, dreams that partly manifest in reality after | some time, the apparent speed limit of light, out of body | experiences, the fact we are the only local top | intelligent lifeform in this part of galaxy, etc... | | All signs of processes and memory "bugging out". Except | the last one, that one seems to be by design. | LadyCailin wrote: | Tangential question: is the speed of causality | coincidentally the same as the speed of light? Or are | they the same because of some underlying principal that | inherently links them? | squeaky-clean wrote: | Not an expert, but can't resist chiming in anyways... One | thing to think about it what exactly is causality? | There'll be tons of different definitions, but they'll | all have one thing in common, events that cause "later" | events, and/or events that depend on "earlier" events. | | And in a physics sense what is an event? An interaction | between two things, right? And since there doesn't exist | any force that can interact instantaneously across | distance, the speed limit of causality is equal to the | speed of our fastest forces. | | If we discovered some scifi-esque Tachyon particle that | traveled at 2C, we could no longer say the speed of light | is the speed of causality. | mr_mitm wrote: | I'm an expert, and an event is just a point in spacetime. | someplaceguy wrote: | I'm not an expert either, but I like to think that the | speed of causality is the speed at which a piece of | information (e.g. a particle, a gravity wave, etc) is | traveling through space. | | So the speed of light / gravity is essentially the | maximum speed of causality, because nothing can travel | faster than that. | | EDIT: Or you can think in terms of how information | propagates through _spacetime_. In this point of view, | the speed of causality is always the speed of light, for | everything, including particles with mass. | squeaky-clean wrote: | Yeah that's what I was trying to work towards. Basically | that causality is an abstraction, or at least a "higher | level" idea. And if we look at the components of it, we | can see that interaction between two things is a central | part of it. And an interaction between two things in our | universe has a maximum bound of the speed of light (and | gravity and so on). The speed of causality is just the | speed of the fastest thing. | satvikpendem wrote: | Correct, the speed of light is actually the speed of | causality, we just so named it after light because that | was what we first discovered as going at _c_ , but many | other things in the universe also due because it's the | same underlying principle. That is why gravitational | waves also travel at _c_ , ie if you removed the sun | instantaneously from the solar system, the Earth will | continue to orbit for 8 minutes, as that is how long | light (and the gravitational force) takes to get from the | sun to the Earth. | someplaceguy wrote: | I'm not a physicist, but AFAIU the speed of | travel/causality for light is only the maximum speed of | causality because photons have a mass of literally zero. | | If photons had non-zero mass they could only travel | slower than the maximum speed of causality (which would | probably be called speed of gravity rather than speed of | light, in this alternative universe). | d1sxeyes wrote: | They are the same, because there's no such thing as the | "speed of light". | | Theoretically as I understand it, everything moves at | exactly the same speed through space-time, whether it is | light, the Earth, etc. | | At non-relativistic speeds, this means moving along the | time axis at approximately one second per second, with | the rest of the movement in space. At relativistic | speeds, higher proportions of the "speed" of an object | are along the time axis. | | As the energy requirements for moving massive objects | through space at relativistic speeds are huge, we can | only really observe this phenomenon with light, which has | no mass, and therefore does not need huge amounts of | energy to move through space. | | As a result, we call 186k miles per second the "speed of | light" when actually it is just the maximum speed | anything can travel through space, and due to light being | massless, it happens to be the speed that light travels | through space too. | brabel wrote: | That's amazing. I've watched lots of videos about length | contraction and I don't think any of them ever mentioned this | (the shape of an object moving a near light speed won't change | to an observer, it will just appear as if it had rotated | instead of being "squeezed" as every video about this seems to | imply)! | rand0mx1 wrote: | This video might change your perceptive. | | https://youtu.be/watch?v=uTyAI1LbdgA | MayeulC wrote: | You rather showed the opposite. While interesting, this | video only explains length contraction, not the Terrell- | Penrose effect. In this video, the passing spaceship would | appear to be rotated to the observer, not just contracted, | as, to quote Penrose via Wikipedia, _the light from the | trailing part reaches the observer from behind the | [spaceship], which it can do since the [spaceship] is | continuously moving out of its way "_ | ricksunny wrote: | This nascent series on YouTube , Hypercubist Math, sets | out to make four dimensions intuitive to our three- | dimensions-accustomed brains. Baseline is just basic | calculus, which the inaugural video provides in context: | | https://youtu.be/XfWgfZ5V2qI | h1fra wrote: | Reminds me of this video | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge_j31Yx_yk explaining the | Terrel rotation (and other effects) in a video game engine. | yokem55 wrote: | This is kind of mind blowing to me. The linked xkcd is a | fantastic (if exaggerated?) illustration of this effect. | | Objects in mirror may be further then they appear. | [deleted] | Etrnl_President wrote: | https://xkcd.com/2622 | | Turn up brightness, and zoom in... | SquareWheel wrote: | Larger version for others who are visually challenged. | | https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/angular_diameter_turnaround_2x.. | .. | kortex wrote: | I love that the battery depletes slowly over time. Though | it's a bit ominous that the most recent one shows battery | in the red... | xnx wrote: | This would be a fantastic little toy/demo in VR. | soligern wrote: | What am I looking for? | baq wrote: | spoiler alert: | | The oldest phone doesn't fit the comic strip... | usrusr wrote: | Clearly because Munroe hasn't adjusted for screen size | inflation. If we extrapolate based on whatever Samsung or | Apple are selling these days and the 8210, will we even | see meaningful redshift before the Planck constant chimes | in? | miquong wrote: | The dimmest phones are larger than any others | accrual wrote: | The included explanation is mind boggling to me: | | > Things that are far away look smaller, but things that | are REALLY far away look bigger, because when their light | was emitted, the universe was small and they were close | to us. | dav_Oz wrote: | This educational paper [0] titled "Expanding Confusion" (2003) is | a classic on the general topic and well worth the read. | | Holding the two concepts of an accelerated (!) (in terms of | objects [1]) expanding universe and the fixed finite speed of | light simultaneously in one's Euclidean head can be dizzying, so | be prepare to draw and enjoy the hard earned manual labor of | counterintuitive conclusions. | | [0]https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808.pdf | | [1]https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/universe- | expansion-n... | misio wrote: | You write like an LLM designed to provide references, enjoyable | as that may be. | baq wrote: | [flagged] | xen0 wrote: | Is it reasonable to view the Cosmic Microwave Background | Radiation as being the limit of this? The remains of the big | bang, maximally scaled up and red shifted as far as things can be | today? | __MatrixMan__ wrote: | I think there's a coherent explanation of the cmb be had there, | but it's not the conventional explanation. | | Under this alternative, the universe cooled to light | transparency some time before the moment depicted by the cmb, | and anything "further away" than that hugely magnified scene | just happened outside of our light cone. That is to say, it's | "elsewhere" (a technical term | (https://web.phys.ksu.edu/fascination/Interlude1.pdf)). | | Seems to me that in this alternative, cosmic expansion could be | explained as gravitational attraction between elsewhere-matter | and matter in our light cone. | | Imagine there's some argument to be made for why this is not | the case, but I don't know it. It would require a bit of | explaining re: why that point in history and not some other? | | - Is it that the maximal distance is constant and that the cmb | is subtly changing in ways we havent noticed (as the point of | most-distant-past moves forward in time) | | - Or maybe something caused the speed of light to change at | that time, pruning the rest of the universe from our view. | drorco wrote: | So essentially one giant blob of cosmic background radiation | was at the time its light was emitted, the size of an atom or | so? | ben_w wrote: | Kinda but different scale, the CMB era universe was about | 1100 times smaller than that now, so still huge. | | There may be a neutrino background behind the CMB, where the | universe was even smaller, and the gravitational wave | background behind that with even more of a size difference. | bloopernova wrote: | Would the universe in those other 2 older events have been | 2 orders of magnitude smaller still? Have there been any | estimates made for the sizes in each "event"? | | Are there even more events further back, or is the next one | after gravity the big bang? | | What a fascinating subject, thank you for expanding my own | little universe! | bozhark wrote: | Plays right into the white hole theory, interesting | bloopernova wrote: | As in a white hole is the big bang? That has a kind of | poetic symmetry to it, with black holes (big crunches?) | being the end, and white holes being the beginning of our | particular universe. | | But our universe has black holes in it. Forgive the | layman thinking, but does that mean we're just one of an | infinite series of "nested" universes? | pelorat wrote: | The energy in our universe is not unlimited, so perhaps | each black hole spawns a new universe, and each has less | and less energy in it. Think about, WHY is there a | certain amount of energy in the universe? Why not more or | less. Maybe it's just universes all the way down. | devoutsalsa wrote: | The cosmic microwave background radiation didn't appear until | the universe was about 380,000 years old. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background | oneshtein wrote: | So CMB is just 14B years old? Then why we see objects older | than CMB? Moreover, why these older than CMB objects | appearing in front of CMB? | jvanderbot wrote: | We dont see galaxies older than CMB. | oneshtein wrote: | Yep. This is the problem. Why CMB is emitted at the edge | of our Universe only? Where are atoms, which produced the | CMB? | wolfendin wrote: | Because the "edge" of our universe where we see the CMB | is not a point in space we are viewing in real time that | is currently emitting the CMB. | | That edge is a sphere in space that was far enough away | when the CMB was emitted in the past that we only see the | light from it now. | [deleted] | bigbillheck wrote: | > Why CMB is emitted at the edge of our Universe only? | | I thought CMB was emitted everywhere. | oneshtein wrote: | CMB is produced by atoms, right? We see darker/lighter | regions in CMB, so we should see a transition somewhere. | 300M years is very short period of time, unless | everything cooled very very uniformly, which is not the | case. Sometimes, somewhere there must be a galaxy past | CMB. | bigbillheck wrote: | > a transition somewhere | | A transition from what to what? | | > which is not the case. | | Why not? | | > Sometimes, somewhere there must be a galaxy past CMB. | | If there is we'd have to wait for the light from it to | get to us, by which time the CMB will have receded | further and it would then be in front of the CMB. | oneshtein wrote: | > A transition from what to what? | | A transition from plasma to the cold mater in the form of | galaxies we see. | | > Why not? | | As you see, there are big clusters everywhere. It means | that some regions were cooler from the start, to form | these cluster in so short period of time. It means that | regions around them were hotter, thus they should emit | light longer. | | > If there is we'd have to wait for the light from it to | get to us, by which time the CMB will have receded | further and it would then be in front of the CMB. | | 300My is a short period of time. Why they cannot | sometimes overlap? | ben_w wrote: | > 300M years is very short period of time, unless | everything cooled very very uniformly, which is not the | case | | ~300M years is the time between the Big Bang singularity | and the CMB, but not really relevant. The entire universe | was _everywhere as hot as the surface of a star_ at the | time of the CMB, so any evidence of galaxies forming | before that is surprising. | | The surprisingly high uniformity of the temperature of | the CMB -- isotropic to roughly one part in 100,000 -- is | one of the reasons the Big Bang model replaced one of the | older competing hypotheses (continuous creation IIRC). | | So it is in fact the case that everything cooled very | very uniformly and I'm not sure why you think otherwise? | | I'm also not clear what you're saying with | | > so we should see a transition somewhere | | Given the CMB is itself the transition that we see. | | > Sometimes, somewhere there must be a galaxy past CMB. | | I think here you're mixing up space and time. | | It's reasonable (please permit my use of conventional | language rather than 4-vectors) to assume that a galaxy | exists on the other side _in space_ of the CMB _as we see | it now_ , but that happens at a point in _time_ after the | recombination epoch began and space became transparent, | and light from that event hasn 't reached us yet; when it | does, the apparent distance of the CMB will be large | enough for the galaxy to appear on this side. | | Are you familiar with light cones and the convention of | one space axis and one time axis? It might help you | visualise it if you draw what's going on. | devoutsalsa wrote: | There were no objects before the CMBR. The universe was | so hot that atoms couldn't even form. Once it cooled to | the point where hydrogen atoms came into existence, the | CMBR became possible. I'm talking at the limits of my | knowledge, so allow me to refer you to this video by | Fermilab that's pretty good. | | _What is the Cosmic Microwave Background?_ -- | https://youtu.be/AYFDN2DSVgc | TheCapeGreek wrote: | I think OP's question related to the _observable_ | universe vs what is beyond. We see the CMB (and thus our | limit of light) only to a point, but that doesn 't mean | there's nothing beyond that - otherwise we'd be the | literal center of the universe (I recall an old | minutephysics video[0] on this). | | [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4c-gX9MT1Q | thayne wrote: | Huh. That would make such objects even harder to detect, since | the light is spread out over a larger area, so the amount of | light hitting each pixel of the detector is less than if it | wasn't magnified. | | On the other hand, it means you can see details you might not be | able to otherwise. | _dain_ wrote: | man that's fucked up. i dont want to look at the sky anymore. | sulam wrote: | Is there an xkcd for _everything_?!? | oneshtein wrote: | > xkcd for _everything_ | | https://xkcd.com/968/ | dentemple wrote: | Better question: If there's no XKCD of it, does it really | exist? | tomjakubowski wrote: | I've heard of "adjusting for inflation" but this is ridiculous! | beltsazar wrote: | Speaking of the expansion of the universe, in a very distant | future when the expansion speed is so high that most of the | galaxies won't be visible from earth, their astronomers will be | thinking the whole universe contains only a few galaxies. But | wait, what if the universe we observe today also misses some | parts that can't be observed anymore? | | Neil deGrasse Tyson explained it more clearly: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=436&v=TgA2y-Bgi3c | | That's probably why it's called the _observable_ universe. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-08-20 23:00 UTC)