News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by pjscott on Monday May 16, 2011 @10:47PM (#2555073)
It's 20 light years away, so that could take a while. (I still want to do it, though.)
Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by blhack on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @12:11AM (#2555234)
Why aren't we sending probes out right now? Yeah, we're not going to hear anything back for (probably) 100 years, but why not start now? If we had sent a probe out back in the 60s, this would be something that I'd see results from within my lifetime.

Of course, this is assuming that we can build fast interstellar transit systems...which is a huge if.

Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by fhars on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @01:45AM (#2555421)
Because anything we might start now would be overtaken before it is one tenth there by anything we might start five hundred years from now. And if we won't be able to start anything faster by then, there would be no technological civilization left to receive the results. So it would be pointless, space is just too big. Once we can reliably reach 1/10 c we might think about sending a probe to Alpha Centauri, although even that would have more symbolic value as a technological demonstration than scientific value. You would have to wait more than half a century for a science mission of at most a few hours, because decellerating would require so much time and fuel to make the whole mission infeasible. A mission to Gliese 581 is a distant fourth or fifth project after that, and sending a planetary probe like the one we send to mars is even more distant. (For reference, it took several years of swing by maneuvers to get a probe out of the orbital plane of the planets into an orbit that allows to examine the poles of the sun, and that takes far less energy than even reaching 1/100 c.)
Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by nopassrecover on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @01:02AM (#2555334)
It takes light 40 years to get there and back at 1,079,252,849 km/h, and the fastest spacecraft we have currently are the Helios Solar Probes at 252,792 km/h - it would take over 170,000 years before the probe returned.
Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by pohl on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @09:00AM (#2556191)
Let's grant the speed of light on the return side. Say we invent a method of transmitting probe data using radio waves or something.
Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by nooneelse on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @11:02AM (#2556551)
Getting data back via radio seems physically realistic using the gravitational lensing of EM by our sun. It would require us to put a receiving and relay station very var out beyond the planets, at least 550AU, I think. But by the time we are sending a probe several light years, then 550AU should practically be child's play.

A good paper about using such lensing: "Interstellar radio links enhanced by exploiting the Sun as a Gravitational Lens" by Claudio Maccone.

Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by arethuza on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @09:00AM (#2556190)
"Why aren't we sending probes out right now?"

Same reason we aren't doing a lot of other things - nobody wants to pay and sending an interstellar probe would be extremely expensive and full of engineering difficulties. It probably makes terraforming of Mars look quite feasible.

Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by StrawberryFrog on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @06:27AM (#2555942)
Why aren't we sending probes out right now?

Agreed. Don't send a man to do a machine's job, and this is definitely a machine's job.

Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by palish on Monday May 16, 2011 @11:52PM (#2555192)
Question:

In the year 2200, if a 10 year old child were to travel to the planet at a speed of 0.9999c, then were to immediately turn around and travel back to Earth, they would be approximately 50 years old. However, what year would they arrive back on Earth?

Assumptions:

- no acceleration or deceleration time.

- the planet is exactly 20 light years away.

- the velocity of the ship remains exactly 0.9999c while in transport.

(The answer is not 2240. It's much greater. My question is, how much greater?)

Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by btilly on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @12:25AM (#2555276)
Your problem statement is wrong.

The child is traveling 40 light years at 0.9999c, which takes about 40 years + 35 hours. However the child won't arrive back 50, the child will not yet be 11. See http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=time+dilation+traveling... for the exact age.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox for more on this, including an explanation of why your belief about the age of the traveler is wrong.

Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by palish on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @12:31AM (#2555285)
How can this be?

If the child were moving at 0.9999c (which is less than 1.0000c) and the planet is 20 light-years away, then how could it take less than 20 years for the child to reach it? Let alone ~0.5 years?

EDIT: Here's an explanation from a friend:

  light always travels at c even if you're already moving close to c
  but it's impossible for anything to travel faster than c
  so if you're traveling at .9999c
  the passage of time must be scaled for the traveler
  to make light on the ship appear to move at c
  even though it's only moving at 1-.9999c
That's... awesome.
Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by Confusion on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @12:48AM (#2555311)

  If the planet is 20 light years away, you're saying we 
  could reach it in less than a year if we attain a velocity
  of 0.9999c?
Yes. In the reference frame of the traveler, very little time passes. However, when he returns, people on earth will have aged more than 40 years.

This is also why particles traveling at c cannot possibly decay: no time passes for them. A photon is everywhere at once, from its own point if view.

Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by aik on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @01:21AM (#2555373)
Amazing. I hope to some day wake up and have a deep conceptual understanding of the relationship between velocity and time in relation to the various bodies at play.

I also hope to have an understanding of what it means for a photon to be everywhere at once, from its own point of view.

In the end, I guess I just want to understand the universe just a bit more than I do.

Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by dodo53 on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @04:25AM (#2555721)
Special relativity is actually quite accessible and really interesting - find a good book or set of lectures on iTunes U or something. (General relativity, the generalised version including acceleration and gravity, is what makes people think relativity is hard).
Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by shazow on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @01:23AM (#2555376)

  This is also why particles traveling at c cannot possibly
  decay: no time passes for them. A photon is everywhere at
  once, from its own point if view.
That's a really great explanation. For the first time, I've been able to visualize how light can be both a particle and a wave. Thank you.
Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by DavidSJ on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @03:16AM (#2555603)
Time dilation (special relativity) has nothing to do with wave-particle duality (quantum physics). The infinite time dilation of photons is due to their velocity, not their wave-like nature.

Furthermore, all particles (electrons, protons, quarks, etc.) have wave-particle duality just as much as photons do.

Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by blots on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @05:59AM (#2555900)
Wave-particle duality is even observable with larger molecules: http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.100404
Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by shazow on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @02:38PM (#2557347)
Thanks for the correction. s/wave/continuous beam/.
Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by btilly on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @01:18AM (#2555367)
According to the traveler you're traveling as fast as you think the traveler is traveling. The only way to make that work out is that to the traveler the destination is much closer than it is for you. This is called length contraction.

And rounding it out, different observers disagree on which events are simultaneous. In particular until the traveler turns around, the traveler thinks that the Earth was left recently. After the traveler turns around, in the new reference frame the traveler left the Earth close to 40 years prior.

Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by iwwr on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @02:32AM (#2555533)
Relativistic travel would be one-way essentially. It would allow one to travel the visible universe within a current human lifespan (of course, with ridiculous power requirements). Anything left behind would have experienced thousands of millions of years of time.

Sci-fi dealing with this topic: Forever War, Ender's series, a few stories from Niven's Known Space universe.

Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by robin_reala on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @03:48AM (#2555655)
See also the anime Gunbuster, which has teenagers piloting giant robots (so far no surprise) into deep space at measurable percentages of c. Getting back after saving the world they find their school friends have grown up and had kids.
Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by Jeema3000 on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @10:13AM (#2556411)
Right. Time/space dilation effectively makes the trip shorter for the person traveling near c.

Here's a really mind-blowing thing: If you were able to accelerate at a fairly reasonable rate indefinitely - say - using an interstellar ramjet, you could conceivably circumnavigate the entire universe within a human lifetime (in your own frame of reference, of course)

Of course, interstellar ramjets might not actually work in practice... but still, the concept of time/space dilation holds.

Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by nooneelse on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @11:21AM (#2556604)
Last I heard from the hard science fiction people, such ramjets have an upper speed limit imposed by some sort of drag. Can't remember for certain... maybe Atomic Rockets has something on them... yeah, http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/slowerlight.php#Bussard_Ram... . They say 0.12c is the best speed for ramjets.
Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by DavidSJ on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @12:11AM (#2555228)
I think you've got it reversed. From Earth's perspective, it would take exactly 40 years, but the child would age very little.
Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by forensic on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @12:13AM (#2555246)
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=time+dilation+traveling...

2828 years + 2200 = 5028 A.D. says wolfram alpha

Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by palish on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @12:26AM (#2555278)
Fascinating.

  40 years at 0.90000c =   91.76 years
  40 years at 0.99000c =  283.55 years
  40 years at 0.99900c =  894.65 years
  40 years at 0.99990c = 2828.00 years
  40 years at 0.99999c = 8944.00 years
Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by Confusion on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @12:53AM (#2555316)
With the caveat that nobody will be traveling at 0.99999c for 40 years. You'd be really really far away by then.
Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by splat on Tuesday May 17, 2011 @01:21AM (#2555374)
Well, you'd still be less than 10,000 light-years away. That's still well within the galaxy.
Re:First habitable exoplanet discovered? by svrocks on Monday May 16, 2011 @11:57PM (#2555197)
5028