it's crazy to thing in the near future there's going to be probably a few billion people living on moons and other bodies in our solar system, and even space stations
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
it's crazy to thing in the near future there's going to be probably a few billion people living on moons and other bodies in our solar system, and even space stations
There'll be a few hundred thousand and most of those are the lucky folks who won the lottery to become indentured servants to Amazoogle Corp, escaping the perpetual hellfire and war of Earth's last gasp.
it's crazy to thing in the near future there's going to be probably a few billion people living on moons and other bodies in our solar system, and even space stations
Damn but I wish I could be this optimistic.
Part of me liked how realistic the jovian chronicles rpg was in how and why humans went to space
Now I just find it sad that it's almost real in how it's going
Forgive me if I'm butchering the science here, but as I understand it: A single lens will always focus light imperfectly, leading to the edge of the image being dimmer than the centre. This can be corrected with a second lens, but determining the optimal dimensions of that second lens has always been an inexact science. This guy has discovered the formula that will calculate the ideal dimensions of the second lens perfectly when given the dimensions of the first lens as an input.
I don't know much about physics, but this is a huge deal, right? Like, he should go get fitted for a tux for when he collects his Nobel Prize?
+14
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
I saw the picture of the equation and my brain shut down for a solid minute, minute and a half.
+2
Options
JedocIn the scupperswith the staggers and jagsRegistered Userregular
Forgive me if I'm butchering the science here, but as I understand it: A single lens will always focus light imperfectly, leading to the edge of the image being dimmer than the centre. This can be corrected with a second lens, but determining the optimal dimensions of that second lens has always been an inexact science. This guy has discovered the formula that will calculate the ideal dimensions of the second lens perfectly when given the dimensions of the first lens as an input.
I don't know much about physics, but this is a huge deal, right? Like, he should go get fitted for a tux for when he collects his Nobel Prize?
Probably! After all, he's going to want to look sharp.
+30
Options
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
Forgive me if I'm butchering the science here, but as I understand it: A single lens will always focus light imperfectly, leading to the edge of the image being dimmer than the centre. This can be corrected with a second lens, but determining the optimal dimensions of that second lens has always been an inexact science. This guy has discovered the formula that will calculate the ideal dimensions of the second lens perfectly when given the dimensions of the first lens as an input.
I don't know much about physics, but this is a huge deal, right? Like, he should go get fitted for a tux for when he collects his Nobel Prize?
Probably! After all, he's going to want to look sharp.
DAD NO
+5
Options
Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
I dunno about Nobel prizes (is there one for optics? I guess physics would cover it) but a Fields Medal might be in the offing. This changes so many areas of study from astronomy (duh) to biology (we still use optical microscopes sometimes) to medicine (same) to integrated circuit design (photo-etching, natch) to just plain old glasses and contact lenses.
Hell, laser-confined fusion could benefit…
That came up a few months ago in the optics community, it is a Big Deal and is going to revolutionise micro-imaging.
I don't know if it's Nobel-level Big Deal but I dunno how they pick those anyway. (it's not really Field's medal work, too specific and applied)
Tynnanseldom correct, never unsureRegistered Userregular
Nobel work is funny. Sometimes, you can look at discoveries as they happen and be very, very sure that it's going to give those PIs a Nobel (because nobody ever recognizes the postdocs or grad students who actually did the grinding on it). Sometimes it takes a much longer time for something to be recognized as truly groundbreaking (one example there that comes to mind is John Gurdon's work from the 1950s to 1970s transplanting cell nuclei in frogs, which provided the foundational work for cellular reprogramming - he got the Lasker in 2009 and the Nobel in 2012, sharing the Nobel with Shinya Yamanaka).
+1
Options
Brovid Hasselsmof[Growling historic on the fury road]Registered Userregular
Can someone humour an idiot and explain why it's such a big deal?
I dunno about Nobel prizes (is there one for optics? I guess physics would cover it) but a Fields Medal might be in the offing. This changes so many areas of study from astronomy (duh) to biology (we still use optical microscopes sometimes) to medicine (same) to integrated circuit design (photo-etching, natch) to just plain old glasses and contact lenses.
Hell, laser-confined fusion could benefit…
I think the impact will depend on how much better this is than the existing calculations, which the article fails to mention. Having an exact formula will certainly reduce the calculation effort which should lead to cheaper, good lenses, an achievement in itself. But if you already had the time and money to make a really good lens with the existing math today, which you probably have for most of those examples, how much of an improvement in image quality will this represent? Even with the new calculation being very precise, manufacturing tolerances are still going to be a source of aberration, and how close are we to hitting those limits today? Without knowing more about the topic, it may be more evolutionary than revolutionary.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Nobel work is funny. Sometimes, you can look at discoveries as they happen and be very, very sure that it's going to give those PIs a Nobel (because nobody ever recognizes the postdocs or grad students who actually did the grinding on it). Sometimes it takes a much longer time for something to be recognized as truly groundbreaking (one example there that comes to mind is John Gurdon's work from the 1950s to 1970s transplanting cell nuclei in frogs, which provided the foundational work for cellular reprogramming - he got the Lasker in 2009 and the Nobel in 2012, sharing the Nobel with Shinya Yamanaka).
It has really opened my eyes now that I know one person who THINKS they should have been part of a nobel, and another person who a lot of people agree should have gotten one, but now never will based on how nobels have already been given for things built on what they did. Nobels are cool but a weird and capricious process that of course involves politicking.
One thing I didn't think of before is that besides making lenses, you might be able to use that equation in image post-processing to correct aberrations from lens manufacturing, making the output better than physically possible.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
One thing I didn't think of before is that besides making lenses, you might be able to use that equation in image post-processing to correct aberrations from lens manufacturing, making the output better than physically possible.
Doubt it.
The equation is, given the image distance and the shape of one lens find the aberration correcting second lens.
I don't really get how you would find the surface of the first lens to do what your suggesting, or in general really.
you could put lens data in the metadata of the photo files maybe, you probably couldn't infer the lens specifications just by looking at the image though without putting in metadata though.
So I stumbled across an astronomy and planetary science primer for elementary-aged kids this evening over on Google Books, starting by walking very methodically through proving the shape, size and movements of the Earth and then going on to the rest of known space.
Why's this interesting, would you ask?
Well, it was published in 1880.
It's downright charming how much the state of the art has shifted between then and now.
A few highlights:
The author hedges his bets on whether the moon's inhabited since we just don't have enough data yet.
He seems pretty sure that Mercury and Mars are inhabited, though.
Jupiter has four moons!
Saturn has eight! But they don't matter because Saturn's moons are all boring.
There could be as many as twenty million stars in the universe!
No mention of the aether, fortunately, but the last bit in particular was a heck of an "oh yeah, the Greate Debate happened forty years after this was published" moment.
When I was making science fair stuff back in elementary school I remember finding books like that books from the late 1800's some from the 1930's and the atomic age of the early 60's because I had to go forth and find current info about the planets or comets because the library was not helpful.
It was not fun because the side of Redding we lived on though built in the 30's did not have a library so you had to go to one side of town or the other and play the guess work game if they had up to date books
So I stumbled across an astronomy and planetary science primer for elementary-aged kids this evening over on Google Books, starting by walking very methodically through proving the shape, size and movements of the Earth and then going on to the rest of known space.
Why's this interesting, would you ask?
Well, it was published in 1880.
It's downright charming how much the state of the art has shifted between then and now.
A few highlights:
The author hedges his bets on whether the moon's inhabited since we just don't have enough data yet.
He seems pretty sure that Mercury and Mars are inhabited, though.
Jupiter has four moons!
Saturn has eight! But they don't matter because Saturn's moons are all boring.
There could be as many as twenty million stars in the universe!
No mention of the aether, fortunately, but the last bit in particular was a heck of an "oh yeah, the Greate Debate happened forty years after this was published" moment.
This led me to find out that Immanuel Kant of all people already got to the conclusion of the great debate in the 18th century, by guessing.
There'll be a few hundred thousand and most of those are the lucky folks who won the lottery to become indentured servants to Amazoogle Corp, escaping the perpetual hellfire and war of Earth's last gasp.
It is the the year 0079 of the Universal Century. A half-century has passed since Earth began moving its burgeoning population into gigantic orbiting space colonies. A new home for mankind, where people are born and raised... and die.
Can someone humour an idiot and explain why it's such a big deal?
Disclaimer: I am also an idiot.
So, the speed of light isn't quite constant; it depends on the medium it's moving through. The speed of light in a vacuum is the fastest thing we know of in the universe, but light moves slower when it's passing through air or water. That's why we have visual distortions when looking through a glass of water: the light passing through the bulk of the water moves at a different speed than the light passing through the edge of the water (or the surrounding air), producing an image that's "bent". Traditional lenses have the same problem. They almost, but not quite, manage to deliver all the light that strikes them to the same point as if they'd struck that point simultaneously. But because a sphere is a sphere, the light striking the edges simply has to travel farther to get to the lens, and then possibly travels through more or lens before starting off toward the target point. Therefore, the photons can never arrive genuinely simultaneously and what you see around the edges is "off". Very intelligent mathematicians have proven that a spherical lens will always suffer this problem. Rafael González-Acuña threw a computer at the problem, and it designed a janky-ass shape that nevertheless puts all the light at the target point at basically the same time. Therefore, the edges of the image are correct.
For one possible application I can think of, when you get into a galactic scale, even minuscule errors can destroy data, so this will allow us to cast a wider gaze toward the stars than ever before. And on the opposite side, the tighter we can focus a beam of any directed energy, the more precise we can be when, say, inscribing something on a very small piece of silicon, or when hurling exotic particles toward atoms to see what happens.
My favorite musical instrument is the air-raid siren.
Its probably better to think of the speed of light less as “the speed of light” and more “the speed of an object with no mass traveling through vacuum”
Could an object have negative mass? If so, what would it’s speed through vacuum be relative to an object with no mass?
Theoretically yes, I think that falls under exotic matter, which might be critical for wormhole creation in nature or the alcubierre drive (faster than light travel).
I don't think we've ever observed it in nature though.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Can someone humour an idiot and explain why it's such a big deal?
Disclaimer: I am also an idiot.
So, the speed of light isn't quite constant; it depends on the medium it's moving through. The speed of light in a vacuum is the fastest thing we know of in the universe, but light moves slower when it's passing through air or water. That's why we have visual distortions when looking through a glass of water: the light passing through the bulk of the water moves at a different speed than the light passing through the edge of the water (or the surrounding air), producing an image that's "bent". Traditional lenses have the same problem. They almost, but not quite, manage to deliver all the light that strikes them to the same point as if they'd struck that point simultaneously. But because a sphere is a sphere, the light striking the edges simply has to travel farther to get to the lens, and then possibly travels through more or lens before starting off toward the target point. Therefore, the photons can never arrive genuinely simultaneously and what you see around the edges is "off". Very intelligent mathematicians have proven that a spherical lens will always suffer this problem. Rafael González-Acuña threw a computer at the problem, and it designed a janky-ass shape that nevertheless puts all the light at the target point at basically the same time. Therefore, the edges of the image are correct.
For one possible application I can think of, when you get into a galactic scale, even minuscule errors can destroy data, so this will allow us to cast a wider gaze toward the stars than ever before. And on the opposite side, the tighter we can focus a beam of any directed energy, the more precise we can be when, say, inscribing something on a very small piece of silicon, or when hurling exotic particles toward atoms to see what happens.
I'm not sure that solving the math rather than empiracally throwing a computer at it does much to the lens itself.
It should make making different lenses for different applications faster though.
When I was making science fair stuff back in elementary school I remember finding books like that books from the late 1800's some from the 1930's and the atomic age of the early 60's because I had to go forth and find current info about the planets or comets because the library was not helpful.
It was not fun because the side of Redding we lived on though built in the 30's did not have a library so you had to go to one side of town or the other and play the guess work game if they had up to date books
The space/astronomy books in my high school library (late 90s) all predated the moon landing. Flipping through them was a bit of a ride at times..
both of those things would violate causality as we know it, so far they don't exist
Any method of FTL, including wormholes or other shortcuts or cheats, is a causality violation. Pretty sure the reason c is the variable is because it's the speed of causality.
both of those things would violate causality as we know it, so far they don't exist
Any method of FTL, including wormholes or other shortcuts or cheats, is a causality violation. Pretty sure the reason c is the variable is because it's the speed of causality.
causality might not even be a thing, we're not sure, just confident (like most science)
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Posts
it's crazy to thing in the near future there's going to be probably a few billion people living on moons and other bodies in our solar system, and even space stations
Damn but I wish I could be this optimistic.
I don't know. But I do know that the sticks and stones we fight World War IV with will come via free next-day shipping.
Part of me liked how realistic the jovian chronicles rpg was in how and why humans went to space
Now I just find it sad that it's almost real in how it's going
Forgive me if I'm butchering the science here, but as I understand it: A single lens will always focus light imperfectly, leading to the edge of the image being dimmer than the centre. This can be corrected with a second lens, but determining the optimal dimensions of that second lens has always been an inexact science. This guy has discovered the formula that will calculate the ideal dimensions of the second lens perfectly when given the dimensions of the first lens as an input.
I don't know much about physics, but this is a huge deal, right? Like, he should go get fitted for a tux for when he collects his Nobel Prize?
Probably! After all, he's going to want to look sharp.
DAD NO
Hell, laser-confined fusion could benefit…
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
I don't know if it's Nobel-level Big Deal but I dunno how they pick those anyway. (it's not really Field's medal work, too specific and applied)
I think the impact will depend on how much better this is than the existing calculations, which the article fails to mention. Having an exact formula will certainly reduce the calculation effort which should lead to cheaper, good lenses, an achievement in itself. But if you already had the time and money to make a really good lens with the existing math today, which you probably have for most of those examples, how much of an improvement in image quality will this represent? Even with the new calculation being very precise, manufacturing tolerances are still going to be a source of aberration, and how close are we to hitting those limits today? Without knowing more about the topic, it may be more evolutionary than revolutionary.
It has really opened my eyes now that I know one person who THINKS they should have been part of a nobel, and another person who a lot of people agree should have gotten one, but now never will based on how nobels have already been given for things built on what they did. Nobels are cool but a weird and capricious process that of course involves politicking.
Doubt it.
The equation is, given the image distance and the shape of one lens find the aberration correcting second lens.
I don't really get how you would find the surface of the first lens to do what your suggesting, or in general really.
Why's this interesting, would you ask?
Well, it was published in 1880.
It's downright charming how much the state of the art has shifted between then and now.
A few highlights:
No mention of the aether, fortunately, but the last bit in particular was a heck of an "oh yeah, the Greate Debate happened forty years after this was published" moment.
It was not fun because the side of Redding we lived on though built in the 30's did not have a library so you had to go to one side of town or the other and play the guess work game if they had up to date books
Main thing I remember learning from it is that at the time it was written, people thought asbestos was the bees' knees.
It listed out all known bodies of the solar system; every planet and moon, and I think maybe some of the larger named asteroids?
Anyway, Pluto was still a planet, Charon hadn't been found yet, Jupiter and Saturn had about 20-30 moons each, all of which were named.
There was also a list of 6 claimed close encounters with alien life that involved sex. It was basically every b-movie sci-fi plot ever.
I heard they had to release a retraction a few years later with the subtitle - "Asbestosis - Ain't nothing but a mistake"
This led me to find out that Immanuel Kant of all people already got to the conclusion of the great debate in the 18th century, by guessing.
It is the the year 0079 of the Universal Century. A half-century has passed since Earth began moving its burgeoning population into gigantic orbiting space colonies. A new home for mankind, where people are born and raised... and die.
Disclaimer: I am also an idiot.
So, the speed of light isn't quite constant; it depends on the medium it's moving through. The speed of light in a vacuum is the fastest thing we know of in the universe, but light moves slower when it's passing through air or water. That's why we have visual distortions when looking through a glass of water: the light passing through the bulk of the water moves at a different speed than the light passing through the edge of the water (or the surrounding air), producing an image that's "bent". Traditional lenses have the same problem. They almost, but not quite, manage to deliver all the light that strikes them to the same point as if they'd struck that point simultaneously. But because a sphere is a sphere, the light striking the edges simply has to travel farther to get to the lens, and then possibly travels through more or lens before starting off toward the target point. Therefore, the photons can never arrive genuinely simultaneously and what you see around the edges is "off". Very intelligent mathematicians have proven that a spherical lens will always suffer this problem. Rafael González-Acuña threw a computer at the problem, and it designed a janky-ass shape that nevertheless puts all the light at the target point at basically the same time. Therefore, the edges of the image are correct.
For one possible application I can think of, when you get into a galactic scale, even minuscule errors can destroy data, so this will allow us to cast a wider gaze toward the stars than ever before. And on the opposite side, the tighter we can focus a beam of any directed energy, the more precise we can be when, say, inscribing something on a very small piece of silicon, or when hurling exotic particles toward atoms to see what happens.
Could an object have negative mass? If so, what would it’s speed through vacuum be relative to an object with no mass?
Theoretically yes, I think that falls under exotic matter, which might be critical for wormhole creation in nature or the alcubierre drive (faster than light travel).
I don't think we've ever observed it in nature though.
I'm not sure that solving the math rather than empiracally throwing a computer at it does much to the lens itself.
It should make making different lenses for different applications faster though.
The space/astronomy books in my high school library (late 90s) all predated the moon landing. Flipping through them was a bit of a ride at times..
Any method of FTL, including wormholes or other shortcuts or cheats, is a causality violation. Pretty sure the reason c is the variable is because it's the speed of causality.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
causality might not even be a thing, we're not sure, just confident (like most science)