Voyager says Goodbye

[Serial_Apologist]

"In all Things, all Things service do to all:
And thus a Sand is Endless, though most small.
And every Thing is truly Infinite,
In its Relation deep and exquisite."

Thomas Traherne [1636-1674] Christian Ethics


“You never enjoy the world aright, till you see how a sand exhibitith the wisdom and power of God”

Thomas Traherne Centuries 1. 27

"Suppose a river, or a drop of water, an apple or a sand, an ear of corn or an herb: God knoweth infinite excellencies in it more than we: He seeth how it relateth to angels and men; how it proceedeth from the most perfect Lover to the most perfectly Beloved; how it representeth all his attributes; how it conduceth in its place, by the best of means to the best of ends: and for this cause it cannot be beloved too much."

Thomas Traherne Centuries 2. 67

There's a grain of truth in all that...

[Pabmusic]

...After the genuinely shocking discovery that won this Nobel prize, it looks as though the universe will continue to expand, speeding up as it does so, until Earth will be so distant from anything else that we can no longer see any stars...

Here's Lawrence Krauss at a book signing in La Jolla, giving a potted version (still an hour!) of a longer lecture called "A universe from nothing". It's quite recent and sums up current thinking very well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdUYw59ztyw

[johncorrigan]

I thought this programme about Voyager on Beeb 4 this week was very interesting indeed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nj48v

[Ferretfancy]

I thought this programme about Voyager on Beeb 4 this week was very interesting indeed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nj48v

It was excellent, and for once it wasn't disfigured throughout by deafening music. I do wish that somebody would present an explanation of how scientists are able to measure and use the tiny signals received from Voyager and others. Also, how can they align satellites and space telescopes like Hubble with the incredible degree of accuracy required, given that these are moving platforms. I know that very sophisticated gyroscopes are involved, but TV documentaries usually gloss over the details in the interest of the big picture.

Incidentally, the three part series Prehistoric Autopsy featuring our primate ancestors was superbly done, with really detailed explanations of the science as three famous fossils were studied and reconstructed.

[Pabmusic]

It was excellent, and for once it wasn't disfigured throughout by deafening music. I do wish that somebody would present an explanation of how scientists are able to measure and use the tiny signals received from Voyager and others. Also, how can they align satellites and space telescopes like Hubble with the incredible degree of accuracy required, given that these are moving platforms. I know that very sophisticated gyroscopes are involved, but TV documentaries usually gloss over the details in the interest of the big picture.

Incidentally, the three part series Prehistoric Autopsy featuring our primate ancestors was superbly done, with really detailed explanations of the science as three famous fossils were studied and reconstructed.

I agree. Some information on how it's done is always interesting (to me, at least). I don't know about positioning satellites that have left Earth's magnetic field (and presumably move in and out of other magnetic fields) but I do know that onboard gyroscopes prevent satellites spinning off course because of variations in our magnetic field. They can also be set spinning when they are released from the launch vehicle to achieve the same effect.

I also agree with you about the Prehistoric Autopsy series, but be careful not to suggest that Neanderthals were our ancestors - they were cousins, a different species of human (usually called hominids).

[Dave2002]

Incidentally, the three part series Prehistoric Autopsy featuring our primate ancestors was superbly done, with really detailed explanations of the science as three famous fossils were studied and reconstructed.

I could quibble slightly - I thought it was well done, rather than superbly. However, there seems little chance of an immediate repeat, and my PVR failed to record one of them. I will endeavour to fill in the bits I missed using iPlayer.

In the meantime my licence fee goes towards funding Eastenders and a whole lot of other rubbish, much of which is repeated, so my bigger complaint is that we don't get enough exposure to even half way decent programmes on science, or even other less science based programmes such as social history and philosophy, and when we do we have to grab the chance as it may not come round again. I suppose TV "has" to be democratic, hence Strictly and BBC Three - or at least some think so, and I fear that this reinforces poor awareness of some interesting subjects, some of which may even br relevant today.

Much of the TV output, even if moderately well done in terms of filming and acting, is fundamentally rubbish, perhaps designed to fill our time, since obviously most of us don't have anything better to do with it. Curiously, while the TV situation in the US is even more dire, it doesn't affect a lot of people in some places, eg. CA, as people really do have better things to do than watch TV for hours each day.

[Ferretfancy]

I agree. Some information on how it's done is always interesting (to me, at least). I don't know about positioning satellites that have left Earth's magnetic field (and presumably move in and out of other magnetic fields) but I do know that onboard gyroscopes prevent satellites spinning off course because of variations in our magnetic field. They can also be set spinning when they are released from the launch vehicle to achieve the same effect.

I also agree with you about the Prehistoric Autopsy series, but be careful not to suggest that Neanderthals were our ancestors - they were cousins, a different species of human (usually called hominids).

Pabmusic

Yes, that was a slip about the Neanderthals. One thing that is very exciting is that more and more hominid fossils are coming to light, and this together with improved dating techniques will open up the field. Some years ago I had a behind the scenes visit to see the Natural History Museum's collection of pre- human fossil material laid out on a table top for us to study. A tiny collection !
Regarding satellites, I would still like to know how astronomers have the technical ability to measure such tiny variations in light caused by the orbiting of a planet round a distant star, and what methods they use to achieve this degree of accuracy.

[Pabmusic]

...Some years ago I had a behind the scenes visit to see the Natural History Museum's collection of pre- human fossil material laid out on a table top for us to study. A tiny collection !...

Fascinating! You might find this quite recent research interesting:

http://phys.org/news/2012-10-dating-encounters-modern-humans-neandertals.html

[Sydney Grew]

The expansion of the Universe is not absolute - it is merely relative is it not? We have still not learned that we are not at the centre.

[Pabmusic]

The expansion of the Universe is not absolute - it is merely relative is it not? We have still not learned that we are not at the centre.

The latest thinking is that the expansion of the universe is infinite. There will come a time when most of the stars we now see will be too far away for their light to ever reach us - so we'll not be able to see them. This talk that I posted earlier is to the point exactly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdUYw59ztyw

He specifically covers the 'we are the centre of the universe' point - everywhere, if fact, is the centre!

[Sydney Grew]

What I mean is that it could equally well be said that:

1) the distance to the stars remains the same but we are growing smaller;

OR that

2) our concept of what we call "light" is too rigid;

OR that

3) there is something wrong with the invention we call "time";

OR that

4) an immense ineffable force is "deeply and exquisitely" parading all our empiricisms, and that our "explanations" - mere ooh-aahs after all - are punier than those of the astrologers.

[Pabmusic]

What I mean is that it could equally well be said that:

1) the distance to the stars remains the same but we are growing smaller;

OR that

2) our concept of what we call "light" is too rigid;

OR that

3) there is something wrong with the invention we call "time";

OR that

4) an immense ineffable force is "deeply and exquisitely" parading all our empiricisms, and that our "explanations" - mere ooh-aahs after all - are punier than those of the astrologers.

I see. Of course, any of these things could be said. We could even say that it's all magic, but no amount of saying these things would make them true.

I'm not a physicist, but as to your (1), I do not believe there is any evidence that we are getting smaller, and as the distances involved are multiples of light years we would have to be shrinking almost infinitesimally. And shrinking in a logarithmic way - if there could be such a thing - so that the further away a star is, the more we shrink in relation to it. But at the same time, we don't shrink as much in relation to closer stars. Mmm...

As to (2), 'light' is the name we give to a range of wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum, something that demonstrably exists and that we can measure (and have been able to since Newton's time).

The exact nature of 'time' (point 3) is still unknown, though we have understood for the last 90 years that it is an aspect of space, and that it varies with speed. Again, something that is demonstrable, even if difficult to comprehend (Arthur Eddington demonstrated it in 1919, for instance). If we were not correct in our understanding, GPS systems would not work and satellites fall to earth. Indeed, we would never have been able to send up, or control, Voyager, if time were not what we believe it to be.

As to your (4), well perhaps everything is contained within a flea on the back of a giant cosmic dog, but - again - there is no evidence of it, and all the evidence we have (a huge amount) suggests that the universe is very much as we see it to be.

If we are the subjects in a giant 'game' controlled by something, then that 'something' must have deliberately caused everything to look as though it were started 13.75 billion years ago in ways which we begin to comprehend.

So no, it could be said, but not equally well.

[Resurrection Man]

What I mean is that it could equally well be said that:

1) the distance to the stars remains the same but we are growing smaller;.........

My trousers tell me that this is NOT the case

[Pabmusic]

It seems that Voyager has not yet left our solar system, but that there's lots of interesting things happening:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/science/space/going-going-still-going-voyager-1-at-solar-systems-edge.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0&_r=0

[greenilex]

Thanks for that amazing link.

"Heliosheath depletion zone" - wow.