Continuing with the reading of Nature's last week (September, 4th), in a letter about candidate of our galaxy center I'm thinking about how hard can be to deduce who is the center of the galaxy.
Looking on another galaxy, with a good perspective on it, can be possible to approach to know around which structure the galaxy turns around. But when we are looking from in side this can be not so easy. As an example, the center of a galaxy is so briliant, but in a clear night from the Earth the center of the Milky way is not visible. We need to study it in the infrared spectrum, for example, because of the objects that are in the middle who block the visible light.
When we look to the center of the galaxy we are looking to the past because it's far from here, and the light expends 24k8 light years, to travel the 7k6 parsecs. Looking Andromeda we have a prespective that shows us objects from a similar time, but from inside our galaxy the light of diferent objects arribes here from different historyc moments.
By the way, our candidate as a center is Sagittarius A*, a supermassive black hole that can have 4 million solar masses, with in an space that can be 45 AU. (realize that all the planets in our solar system are closer to the sun than this distance).
2008/09/12
2008/09/11
recicling photographed conference slides
I'm reading in the Nature of last week (September, 4th) about the nervousness of some scientist with the colleges that goes to a conference and takes photos with digital cameras and uses the data for their own publications.
I cannot definitely understand this position. The first ones, the lecturers are presenting some data in public and they can have the title of the first of publish it. At the same time this can be used as a base of the next publication upgrade, or to find any mistake that exists.
In this second possibility, imagine that in this PAMELA presentation they announce the dark matter detection (implies existence) with a mistaken proves that no one in the conference can study because of their obscurity. I'm not saying they should did mistakes, I'm saying not other scientist can check it. Yes, they like to review with some other colleges chosen by themselves, but this doesn't mean publish.
If they don't trust a 100% to their study why they publish it? Because no one else publish it before but saving the dress if they made a mistake? Oh, please! This have more sense in politics, or some where than the only important think is naming. There is no price for the second who discover dark matter, I understand it. But what happens if another scientist team is closer to the verified results and publish it; will this ones says 'they copy it from us' with an ultra-hidden camera in the conference?
Actualization: Reading more about this column in Nature, I understand the problem is more because the copyright of many publications than specifically because the scientist doesn't like it. Many times the slides are published after the conference, but the problem can come when the journals decides which data can be publish out them. How is the owner of the investigations?
I cannot definitely understand this position. The first ones, the lecturers are presenting some data in public and they can have the title of the first of publish it. At the same time this can be used as a base of the next publication upgrade, or to find any mistake that exists.
In this second possibility, imagine that in this PAMELA presentation they announce the dark matter detection (implies existence) with a mistaken proves that no one in the conference can study because of their obscurity. I'm not saying they should did mistakes, I'm saying not other scientist can check it. Yes, they like to review with some other colleges chosen by themselves, but this doesn't mean publish.
If they don't trust a 100% to their study why they publish it? Because no one else publish it before but saving the dress if they made a mistake? Oh, please! This have more sense in politics, or some where than the only important think is naming. There is no price for the second who discover dark matter, I understand it. But what happens if another scientist team is closer to the verified results and publish it; will this ones says 'they copy it from us' with an ultra-hidden camera in the conference?
Actualization: Reading more about this column in Nature, I understand the problem is more because the copyright of many publications than specifically because the scientist doesn't like it. Many times the slides are published after the conference, but the problem can come when the journals decides which data can be publish out them. How is the owner of the investigations?
2008/09/03
New expired patent
A few days before the ephemeris of the expiration of the RSA patent an obsolete new one arribes from Microsoft. Remember in September 20th 2000 expires a patent from the 1983 (about an algorithm invented in 1977) how license exclusivelly the rsa company to explode the use of:
How can be, now a day, patented the ``Page Up'' and ``Page Down''? Read in many places about this question (spanish, english). For how long this keys are in the keyboards doing the task recently patented?
c = m^e (mod n)
Patent it's suposed to mean a technological advance that the company developer needs to has an exclusive to explodes in term of refund the inversion. But if you (and me) think what can be a discover when the algorithm date from 6 years before, we will not understand about the new microsoft patent...How can be, now a day, patented the ``Page Up'' and ``Page Down''? Read in many places about this question (spanish, english). For how long this keys are in the keyboards doing the task recently patented?
2008/08/25
Back to linac's commissioning
After this month that doesn't exist from the working point of view (not purely my case) we are back to do the linac's commissioning. Some projects are working fine to be used in the real world: the 'Fluorescence Screen Gui' and the 'Energy & Emittance Measurement'. I like to show the last layer view of this work here.
First of all the fsotr:
This is an snapshot of a (non-electron) beam take during this August. This is a light reflection that seems like a beam and the ImgBeamAnalyzer doesn't know about differences.
The pneumatic valve position can be selected in the top right off the screen and the values of the camera exposition are next to this. And the image is show on the left with the profiles and, if its the case the fit of this profile. Then all the data from this picture processed.
An important change from the last version. This analyzer was working doing polling of the camera, and every fixed time it ask for a new one and process it. Now this device is subscribed to the camera, and is this camera (using Tango way) who advice the analyzer because a new image is able.
Next project is the E&E measurement:
With this what is want is to measure the beam energy and then the emittance of the beam. In fact this is an scan of a magnet. For example, to know the energy of a beam the bending magnet can be used to know how hard is the beam to be bended: more energetic means more current to the magnet to bend it.
This projects will be used tomorrow in the linac's commissioning restart. Almost all the requirement are done, only rest the last ones that was asked for. Final tuning.
First of all the fsotr:
This is an snapshot of a (non-electron) beam take during this August. This is a light reflection that seems like a beam and the ImgBeamAnalyzer doesn't know about differences.The pneumatic valve position can be selected in the top right off the screen and the values of the camera exposition are next to this. And the image is show on the left with the profiles and, if its the case the fit of this profile. Then all the data from this picture processed.
An important change from the last version. This analyzer was working doing polling of the camera, and every fixed time it ask for a new one and process it. Now this device is subscribed to the camera, and is this camera (using Tango way) who advice the analyzer because a new image is able.
Next project is the E&E measurement:
With this what is want is to measure the beam energy and then the emittance of the beam. In fact this is an scan of a magnet. For example, to know the energy of a beam the bending magnet can be used to know how hard is the beam to be bended: more energetic means more current to the magnet to bend it.This projects will be used tomorrow in the linac's commissioning restart. Almost all the requirement are done, only rest the last ones that was asked for. Final tuning.
Neutrinos, from to be detect to use to detect
The neutrino was theorized in 1930 by Wolfgang Pauli and detected form the first time in 1956. During this long time since now this particle have some veil of uncertainty because of its really small mass, it was not much affected by big masses. Also this particle doesn't interact much with the rest of the matter then is able to pass along out planet without contact. Also because of its small mass this particles travels at speeds close to the light.
Really big structures has need to detect this avoids particle. In order to find some of this not much interactions a huge detector is required Super-Kamiokande. A huge pool of water, in a dark place down to the Earth surface, with a large number of photo amplifiers who multiplies any small interaction.
This can change if a core planet study project go ahead. Right now we are using seismic waves to study the structure of this big mass where we live (relatively big, do not compare it with Jupiter, neither the sun, and in any case with Antares). The seismic waves interact with all the matter in the middle to the core (it means noise), but neutrinos has the other extreme characteristic they will interact a little with the core, but more that the rest of the panetary matter.
Do not forget that the elementary material of the ringworld absolves the 40% of the neutrinos...
Really big structures has need to detect this avoids particle. In order to find some of this not much interactions a huge detector is required Super-Kamiokande. A huge pool of water, in a dark place down to the Earth surface, with a large number of photo amplifiers who multiplies any small interaction.
This can change if a core planet study project go ahead. Right now we are using seismic waves to study the structure of this big mass where we live (relatively big, do not compare it with Jupiter, neither the sun, and in any case with Antares). The seismic waves interact with all the matter in the middle to the core (it means noise), but neutrinos has the other extreme characteristic they will interact a little with the core, but more that the rest of the panetary matter.
Do not forget that the elementary material of the ringworld absolves the 40% of the neutrinos...
2008/08/21
Interstellar trips only for science-fiction
A few days a go I was reading about warp speed and how travel fast than the light can be understand that it is under contradiction with relativity.
Science-fiction uses objects that the physics theories says as possible according with other theories that are also unverified. But is nice when you read scifi books or swatch tv shows how interstellar trips can be possible or also intergalactic. But my pleasure in a well when I read the humans, perhaps, never travel far from the solar system. The tech advances can be at a light years distance...
But also we can handle the hope that we are talking from an age like the Ancient Greek says there is no possible to jump higher to the sky...
Science-fiction uses objects that the physics theories says as possible according with other theories that are also unverified. But is nice when you read scifi books or swatch tv shows how interstellar trips can be possible or also intergalactic. But my pleasure in a well when I read the humans, perhaps, never travel far from the solar system. The tech advances can be at a light years distance...
But also we can handle the hope that we are talking from an age like the Ancient Greek says there is no possible to jump higher to the sky...
2008/08/18
Discerning the supersymmetric dark matter?
A few weeks a go, I was reading about a curious marker from the center of out galaxy. I couldn't find the link to an article explaining a peak of gamma photons in the 511 KeV. I read that this value have some relation with the annihilation of the antimatter, specifically when a positron finds and electron and both appears converted in pure energy.
We use this annihilation for image diagnostics in medicine. I remember a really good article (in Spanish) about the positronic techniques who detects the two gamma photons of this annihilation. But back to the origin of this post. The Pamela mission founds an explanation of this extrange peak of gamma rays.
There is a big probability that the origin of this positrons (that gives us this gamma rays) is the desintegration of a supersymmetric particle that also is a dark matter particle: the neutralino.
Maybe we are infront a prove of the existance of the dark matter, and also infront the prove that at least one of the supersymmetric particles exists. A Nobel prize is at stake...
We use this annihilation for image diagnostics in medicine. I remember a really good article (in Spanish) about the positronic techniques who detects the two gamma photons of this annihilation. But back to the origin of this post. The Pamela mission founds an explanation of this extrange peak of gamma rays.
There is a big probability that the origin of this positrons (that gives us this gamma rays) is the desintegration of a supersymmetric particle that also is a dark matter particle: the neutralino.
Maybe we are infront a prove of the existance of the dark matter, and also infront the prove that at least one of the supersymmetric particles exists. A Nobel prize is at stake...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
