Showing posts with label astronomy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label astronomy. Show all posts

Jupiter and Venus

If you've been looking in a generally westerly direction in the early evening, you've, no doubt noticed the two exceptionally bright 'stars'.  Those are Jupiter and Venus, also exceptionally close to each other.  On one view, they're awfully close -- about 3 degrees, or 1/30th of the distance between directly overhead and the horizon.  To a different view, however, they're very far apart -- about 6 full moons would fit between them.

Technology keeps advancing.  In the 1970s, it was about all I could do to get a photograph of a nearly full moon through my telescope.  A fair amount of patience was needed to get the focus right, avoid contaminating light, and so forth.  Below is my phone photo of Jupiter (the fainter one) and Venus.  I was in a well-lit parking lot, and it wasn't much past sunset (hence the bright lower portion of the photo), and had just aimed the phone in the general direction of the planets.


I'll invite you all to contribute your own photos of the planets. 

Odds and Ends -- July 2011

A number of interesting items that are a little more time-related than I normally talk about.

Some sociology for amusement:
Nation's Climatologists Exhibiting Strange Behavior h/t Michael Tobis.

Regarding some of Roy Spencer's latest Well, give me more than 30 parameters, and I can fit a trans-dimensional lizard-goat ... by Barry Bickmore. I've downloaded the other recent paper and will take it up as my time and interest permits. A couple people have already asked about this, so read Barry's notes in the mean time.

Some fun science, and a reminder to beware of gifts bearing Greeks:
Phil Plait on Earth's first Trojan Asteroid
... and the NASA press release on it.

Trojan asteroids do not, it turns out, contain Greeks. Apparently that is limited to a horse in the Iliad. What happens is that if you have two bodies that are very much more massive than a third, like, say, the Sun and Earth compared to an asteroid, you can park an asteroid on the earth's orbit, but 60 degrees ahead or behind. And it will pretty much stay there. The 60 degrees ahead or behind are called the 'Trojan points'. We've long known of bunches of Trojan asteroids for Jupiter. As Phil's title suggests, this is the first time we've found one for the earth.

That's a bit about the doing of science: There was every reason to believe that the Earth had trojan asteroids. It would actually have been quite remarkable if we didn't -- gravity is supposed to work the same way for us as for Jupiter (allowing for the fact that we're so much less massive). Still, we're happier to see what we expected.

Where is north?

Where is north is actually intensely tied to the question of What is a day?.  At least we wind up defining it in much the same way(s) as we define the day.  In the previous post, I gave a definition for north/south.  Namely, the line of a shadow cast by the sun at solar noon (itself define by the fact that it's the shortest shadow of the day) is north/south.

As happened for the day, we find our most accurate definition from examining the stars other than the sun.  The 'pole star' isn't actually one that we use for this.  It's almost a full degree away from the actual pole of the earth's rotation.

What we do instead is look for day to day differences in the location of stars passing overhead or nearly so.  This approach dates farther back than Seth Carlo Chandler, in the 1890s.  But we'll be coming back to Chandler.  If the earth has wobbled a little to the north, then the star will pass the zenith a little to the north of where it did yesterday.  If you've got a good telescope and other instruments, you can observe this to pretty good precision.  Chandler was working with accuracy of 1 second of arc or somewhat better for single measurements.  Because of the power of using multiple measurements he was able to examine earth wobbles that were less than 0.1 seconds of arc.

This turned out to be quite useful, as the earth wobbles by about 0.3 seconds of arc.  It's how he discovered what was promptly called the Chandler Wobble.  This translates to about 3 meters motion in where the pole is.

The orientation of the earth is, as with the rotation rate, tied to where the mass is and where it moves to.  The earth's orientation is believed to have changed by some millionths of an arc second due to the earthquake.  The variations of a few tenths of a second of arc are caused by ... other things.  Atmosphere and ocean circulations are what I'm most concerned about, but also the earth's inner core, and the moon, and ....  It's a messy business.

As for the length of day, your scientific source for observations is the International Earth Rotation Service.  Which, itself, owes something to Chandler.

What is a day?

Some friends have been puzzled about how an earthquake or a tsunami could change the length of a day.  This question comes, of course, from the tremendous earthquake in Japan.  I trust you're all aware of it, the severity, and are doing what you can.  Given how late I am to comment at all, I'll take up my friends' puzzlement.

As is common in science, once you get detailed about just what you are talking about, you also understand much about the thing.  So: What is a day?  There are really at least 4 different definitions of 'day' that we can fairly easily point to.  Only two of them are still in serious scientific use.  One is commonly used, kind of.  And the one with the longest history is no longer in use.

What we need, in order to define a day, is something that takes 1 day to happen.  The longest history for a meaning of 'day' is: "The time between maximum elevations of the sun."  Almost equivalent would be time between sunsets or sunrises.  Maximum elevation of the sun is a much easier and accurate measurement to make.  Don't look at the sun!  You also don't need to.  Get yourself a stick and put it straight in to the ground (on a desk, sheet of paper, ...).  Be sure that the ground is flat and the stick is vertical.  Every so often through the day, mark where the shadow ends.  At some point, the shadow will reach its greatest shortest length.  That's solar noon.  The direction of the shadow (if you're in the northern hemisphere mid or high latitudes) is north.  (There's more fun to be had by repeating this exercise many days through the year.)

This notion of 'day' is affected by earthquakes, since it depends on how fast the earth is rotating.  (This also makes it one of the more obscure ways of showing that the earth does rotate.)
As we got increasingly accurate mechanical time pieces, and our understanding of astronomy improved, we realized that this definition of 'day' had problems.  Even if we consider the earth as rotating at an absolutely constant rate (which turns out to be a pretty good assumption), the motion of the sun through the sky is not nearly as constant.  The thing is, the earth's orbit around the sun is not a perfect circle.  When we're closer to the sun than usual, we move faster than usual.  When we're farther away, we slow down.  This shows up in the motion of the sun through the sky.  The time between successive solar noons is then not very constant.  The excess accumulates to several minutes each way.  Consequently, we invented something called the 'mean solar day', declaring it to be exactly 24 hours long, and the hour was defined out of how clocks measured time.  It's variable by something like 3 seconds per day.  3 parts in 100,000.  For a long time, this was pretty good.

Contemporary with those increasingly accurate time pieces was inventing the telescope.  Even before the telescope, this principle was understood.  Namely, we could look to the motion of something other than the sun through the sky.  The wanderers (planets) were not useful.  But the fixed stars could also observed.  Once we knew where north/south was -- and you can find many ancient observatories which are laid out with obvious knowledge of north/south -- we could observe the time between successive passings of the star across the north/south line (meridian).  This is slightly shorter than passages of the sun, about 23.934 hours.  It defines the sidereal day -- the star day.  The difference between the mean solar day and the sidereal day is because of the motion of the earth around the sun.  (Which means that if you have a very good watch, you can observe the earth's orbit by comparing the solar day to the sidereal day, day by day.)

With the telescope, we could be very precise about just how long it was between successive passages of a star across the meridian.  Even a modest telescope (60 mm lens) can observe something that is 2 seconds of arc fairly easily.  The earth rotates through 15 seconds of arc in 1 second of clock time.  So with a good clock, and even modest telescope, you can measure the sidereal day to better than 0.2 seconds (2 parts per million) .  Without the telescope, the limit was about 2 minutes of arc, so about 12 seconds (1 part in 100,000, not much better than mean solar day).  The people who do this professionally, the International Earth Rotation Service (IERS), measure the earth's length of day (sidereal day) to 0.001 seconds, for an precision of about 1 part per hundred million.  Again, this notion of day is affected by the rotation of the earth -- the passage of stars through the sky.

Our fourth, and by far most accurate, notion of day is based from atomic clocks.  For them a second is some number of vibrations of some atom between particular atomic states.  Last I recall, the atomic clocks are more precise than 1 part per trillion (10^12).  Perhaps that's quadrillion (10^15).  A day is then 86400 atomic seconds.  This notion of day is completely unaffected by the earth's rotation.

The fact that the high precision day as observed by the IERS is independent from the atomic clock day is what leads to the fact that we have both UTC and UTC1 time, and the occasional 'leap second'.  Some parts of society are tied to the sun and stars, still, and some go with the atomic clocks.  The leap seconds bring things back together.  (Most of this is due to the moon, rather than earthquakes, but that's another post.)

So 3 of our days -- the solar day, the mean solar day, and the sidereal day -- are affected by the earth's rotation.  The atomic day is not.  Anything that can affect the earth's rotation affects the length of day, for those 3 definitions.

The thing we need to complete our understanding is to answer: "How could an earthquake change the earth's rotation rate?"  Now that we understand what a 'day' is, we see why the earth's rotation rate matters.  The cryptic answer is 'conservation of angular momentum'.  The visual answer is:

The skater starts out with her mass mostly away from the center of her body.  As she brings her arms and legs in, she speeds up her spin.  Conservation of angular momentum is the principle involved.  Angular momentum is mass times how far from the line of rotation times how fast she's rotating.  The arms and legs have some mass, and that isn't changing.  But when she pulls her arms or legs in towards her torso, she decreases the distance.  A conservation law means that the thing can't change -- in total.  Since the 'how far' is decreasing, the 'how fast' has to increase.  And as you see at the end, when she puts her arms out, she slows right back down.

For the Japanese earthquake, a part of the earth moved towards or away from the pole.  Mass that is at the pole has zero distance from the line of rotation, so doesn't contribute to the earth's angular momentum.  Something at the equator has the greatest distance from the pole.  As a plate moves towards the north or south, then, it is decreasing (or increasing) its distance from the earth's line of rotation.  The earth's rotation rate increases (or decreases) correspondingly.

The amount is very small, a matter of a microsecond or so for this earthquake (which means 10 parts per trillion in the length of day).  Several microseconds for the Sumatran earthquake a few years ago.   You see how drastic to humans something that is small to the earth can be.

Bad Astronomy: The Wonders of the Universe

Somewhat in the vein of asking about links that you-all think might be good to add to the blogroll (I'll get there, honest!), I'll mention a blog that I read and isn't on the blogroll.
One such is Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy. Not that he needs the advertising, but I do read and enjoy his blog for reasons relevant to my own aims here. Namely, he regularly has articles (I'll list a few below; apparently 'dozen' should follow the 'few') that illustrate my own feeling -- that the universe is a wonderful and interesting place, and doing science is a way to embrace that wonder.
The Moon is Shrinking
Bad Universe Premier August 29, 2010
Low mass black hole?
Planetary triangle 6 August 2010
Saturn's rings and a tiny moon
Sunset from space
Possible Naked eye Comet (8 June 2010)
Hubble at 20  -- still amazing!
The Red Lagoon (Nebula)
Amateur Astronomy and the newest new moon ever
The amazing Mimas (no, Saturn's moon, not some circus performer!)
90% of the distant universe
How big is a Billion?
Star at birth
Saturnian moon dance
The Whirlpool Galaxy revisited
Otherworldly eclipse
Cassini craft 10 years (9) since Jupiter
Norway spiral
Fermi and the shape of space
What was before the Big Bang?  Nobel Laureate answer
Winter solstice 2009
Top 10 astronomy pictures of 2009
More planets found
Apollo 12 footsteps photographed
Adler Planetarium giga-galaxy image  (The Adler Planetarium in Chicago is one of my favorite places to visit.  I have this on my list for next time I'm in Chicago.)
Scale of the Solar System (Something I've previously tried my hand at illustrating.  It's truly hard to convey, and the author did well.)
Dark Matter
Water on Moon, 2009
Beautiful Hubble
Lunar Landing revisited
Lunar Eavesdropping
When Worlds Collide
To be or not to be
Apollo landing site images
Optical delusions
Summer Solstice, 2009
Death From the Skies: Magnetars
Moon Occulting Antares, 2009
The Amazing Sun
Differential elemental ablation of micrometeoroids  (If that seems intimidating, rest assured that it isn't, really, and maybe have a look at my own Science Jabberwocky
100 hours of Astronomy, 2009
Galileoscope
(My own plans to distribute a few were bitten by a supply chain bug.  Still, one of these days, I'll be engaging my several nearby schools in something similar.)
Nerdity on parade (I'd probably lose, but I could actually enter a nerdity contest with Phil.)
Galileo and the Moon
2009 Perihelion

Solar Science and Solar Cycle 24

Time for the sun!  Coincidence had a question about solar cycle 24 (what is it, how long are they) hitting my email box the day before I ran in to an astronomer friend who is working with the recently-launched solar dynamics observatory.

For the first, the obvious answer is the correct -- this is the 24th time since records started that the solar cycle has been on the increase.  'solar cycle increase' meaning, in part, the sunspot counts are increasing.  But the sun does a lot more than just get spots.  The Space Weather Prediction Center keeps an eye on the sun, including these other things (go have a look, see the sun as if you had x-ray vision!).  And, naturally, tries to predict things that are influenced by solar activity.  The cycles average something like 11 years, but vary greatly from cycle to cycle (8-15 years).  The activity minimum we are now leaving was unusually deep and unusually long.

On the second, I'll mention that he (William Bridgman) blogs at Dealing with creationism in astronomy.  An article that I'll be taking a look at, and encourage the more technical readers to do likewise, is his The Cosmos in Your Pocket: How Cosmological Science Became Earth Technology. I 
Here's his abstract:
Astronomy provides a laboratory for extreme physics, a window into environments at extremes of distance, temperature and density that often can't be reproduced in Earth laboratories, or at least not right away. A surprising amount of the science we understand today started out as solutions to problems in astronomy. Some of this science was key in the development of many technologies which we enjoy today. This paper describes some of these connections between astronomy and technology and their history.

Science Anniversaries

150 and 400 years ago, two major events in the history of science occurred.

400 years ago, the telescope was invented and started to be used for astronomy.  For $100-$150 you can now get a telescope far superior to what Galileo used to carry out a major revolution in our understanding of the universe.  More in a moment.

150 years ago yesterday (November 27th), Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection was published. Different major revolution in our understanding of the universe.  You can read this for yourself.  I don't actually recommend reading it unless you are really interested in history of science, and like Victorian-era writing.  (If you like my style, you're a couple steps in that direction.  My wife noted that I write something like Trollope, a prolific Victorian whom she likes.)  We've learned an awful lot in the 150 years since then, and many things that were mysteries to Darwin, such as how inheritance occurs, are well-known to us now.  Instead I'll suggest you read the evolution sections of modern biology texts.  Two such texts recommended by my biologist friends are Futuyma's, and Campbell and Reece.



For the telescope side, since this is a time when a lot of people buy telescopes, a few words about how to shop for one.  The first thing to do is ignore magnification levels.  In looking through the atmosphere, you can only magnify so much before what you're seeing is the turbulence in the atmosphere instead of anything astronomical.  A fairly good rule of thumb is 50x for each inch of the main lens/mirror, or 2x for each millimeter.  Many telescopes advertise much higher than this, but the extra is somewhere between useless and actively harmful.  Your children will not have much fun exploring atmospheric turbulence when they expected to be seeing the moons of Jupiter or the rings of Saturn (and even small telescopes can show these!)

The diameter of the main lens or mirror is more important 'score' than magnification -- this controls how much light the telescope catches.  Bigger = catch more light.  Galileo's telescopes were about 40 mm diameter (1.6 inches).  The typical small telescope you can buy today is at least 40 mm, typically 60 mm lens.  It isn't hard to find telescopes with a main mirror 150 or 200 mm (6 or 8 inches), though they'll be more expensive.  (If you're especially gung-ho, it isn't hard to find 20 inch, 0.5 meter, telescopes!)  Note that the size we're talking about is the mirror, not the length of the tube.  Length of tube doesn't help you collect light.  For lens telescopes (and eyepieces) you want to test that the images don't have rainbow halos.  If they do, it's bad optics, not that the universe really does have rainbow halos around everything.

Last major element in telescope hunting is a stable mounting.  If the image keeps shaking for some time (tens of seconds) after you make a minor adjustment, or a slight breeze passes, it's hard to pay attention to the astronomy when the universe seems to be swimming about before your eyes.

So, for not terribly much (this time of year you can often do better than the figures I quoted), you and your child can discover the universe and carry out a revolution in your own understanding.  For myself, I prefer the discovery/revolution approach, over the 'hunt down other peoples' lists of objects'.  For one thing, if you're in an urban area, many of those listed objects will be invisible to you.

On the other hand, many people really enjoy chasing the object lists, and astronomy clubs and societies often have guides and guidance on which ones to look for, and how to do it.  Great accessory to the telescope itself is an astronomy club.  A place to start your looking for local astronomy clubs is the Astronomy League, which also has a number of lists of things to go looking for.  Internationally, you can try this, but their links seem often to be broken.
Older Post ►
eXTReMe Tracker
 

Copyright 2011 Grumbine Science is proudly powered by blogger.com