A&C Reference Library - Astronomy & Cosmology Resources

[marcus]

Correction to previous post (too late to edit)
where one of the links was wrong

Ned Wright's balloon animation
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/balloon0.html
Cartoon strip about the particle horizon being 3X what you naively expect
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/photons_outrun.html
Microlensing by a star
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/microlensing.html
Cluster of galaxies lensing animation
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cluster-lensing.html
Inflation animation
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-MN-03/inflating_bubble.html
Animation of what "Equal Power on All Scales" means---part of
understanding the fluctuations shown by the Microwave Background
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CMB-MN-03/epas.html

 

[turbo]

Here's a nice non-technical overview of the state of quantum gravity research, including some basic information about how studying cosmic rays and gamma ray bursts might help probe the structure of spacetime.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0311037

 

[marcus]

Here is an introductions to cosmology, in about 60 pages:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426

An overview of Cosmology
Authors: Julien Lesgourgues
Lecture notes for the Summer Students Programme of CERN (2002-2004). 62 pages, 30 figures.

Very basic conceptual introduction to Cosmology, aimed at undergraduate students with no previous knowledge of General Relativity

---abstract---
While purely philosophical in the early times, and still very speculative at the beginning of the twentieth century, Cosmology has gradually entered into the realm of experimental science over the past eighty years. It has raised some fascinating questions like: is the Universe static or expanding ? How old is it and what will be its future evolution ? Is it flat, open or closed ? Of what type of matter is it composed ? How did structures like galaxies form ? In this course, we will try to give an overview of these questions, and of the partial answers that can be given today. In the first chapter, we will introduce some fundamental concepts, in particular from General Relativity. In the second chapter, we will apply these concepts to the real Universe and deal with concrete results, observations, and testable predictions.
---end quote---

 

[meteor]

Helioseismology: the study of the interior of the sun by observing the oscillations on its surface. This is a 60 pages paper that offers an introduction to the subject, also includes an historical review. All that you want to know about f-modes, g-modes, ring-diagram analysis, helioseismic holography,...can be found here. Title of the paper: "Helioseismology"
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0207403

 

[marcus]

Sean Carroll online Cosmology Primer

good FAQ
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/cfcp/primer/faq.html

rest of Primer is probably very good also, but haven't reviewed it yet.
see what you think

 

[meyer_lev3]

New member, first post

Streaming video of lectures/talks on current topics by Hawking, Weinberg, others.

Especially good is "Brane New World" (2003) By Steven Hawking.

http://www.phys.cwru.edu/events/cerca_video_archive.php

Enjoy .

 

[marcus]

New member, first post

Streaming video of lectures/talks on current topics by Hawking, Weinberg, others.

Especially good is "Brane New World" (2003) By Steven Hawking.

http://www.phys.cwru.edu/events/cerca_video_archive.php

Enjoy .

thanks for the link, meyer_lev, and welcome.
Personally, I wasn't aware of this Case Western Reserve archive of public lectures on cosmology topics. Impressive list of speakers and panelists.

 

[turbo]

Physical Review

My apologies if this has been posted previously. It is a fascinating overview of Physics papers from the last 110 years or so. You can browse by field, author, decade, etc.

http://fangio.magnet.fsu.edu/~vlad/pr100/

 

[turbo]

Nice website on atmospheric halos and related...

http://www.sundog.clara.co.uk/halo/halosim.htm

The graphics are not hot-linked, but they are well-labeled, and the menus at the left will link you to further information.

 

[marcus]

Peter Dunsby's online course. special and general relativity
very basic for the most part
http://vishnu.mth.uct.ac.za/omei/gr/index.html

 

[marcus]

Titan data

Here is a link with some physical data about Titan
http://library.thinkquest.org/18188/english/planets/saturn/moons/titan.htm
I will try to get some other links, just to confirm the numbers.
they say

mass 1.35E23 kilogram (2.259 percent of earth)
radius 2575 km
density 1.88
distance from Saturn 1,221,850 km
orbital period 15.945 days
surface temperature -178 celsius
surface pressure 1.6 bar (60 percent more pressure than earth)
escape velocity 2.65 km/second

this data is before Huygens and some of it might have already been improved on.
If anybody knows some better please post it. TIA.

Possibly the most reliable source is a JPL site I just found:
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sat_props.html
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sat_elem.html

Here is a sample---BTW they don't show mass in kilograms, they show GM (which is what astronomers measure, and then infer mass from it)

Titan
GM (km3/sec2) 8978.0 ± 0.8
Radius (km) 2575.5 ± 2.
Density (g/cm3) 1.880 ± 0.004

this site was updated as recently as November 2004
just for comparison here's what JPL NASA has for 4 jovians

Io
5959.916 ± 0.012
1821.6 ± 0.5
3.528 ± 0.006


Europa
3202.739 ± 0.009
1560.8 ± 0.5
3.013 ± 0.005


Ganymede
9887.834 ± 0.017
2631.2 ± 1.7
1.942 ± 0.005


Callisto
7179.289 ± 0.013
2410.3 ± 1.5
1.834 ± 0.004

Here's the main address
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/

 

[marcus]

intriguing new technique for measuring the mass of a star
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0501548

European Space Agency page of facts about Titan
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Cassini-Huygens/SEMMF2HHZTD_0.html

 

[wolram]

http://xyz.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/0501041
The basics of gravitational wave theory
47 pages jan 2005
Please discard this if it is of no use.

 

[Physik]

Orbital Mechanics Basics

This is a very cool site that explains Orbital Mechanics from the beginning, and explains all the math steps of the equations. (Unlike some other sites I've been to.)

http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm

 

[turbo]

On-demand streaming video lectures...

I have been plowing through the Vega lectures (including the wonderful Feynman series) and linked resources, and found that this man has linked streaming videos from academic programs all over the world. If you enjoy science, I know what you'll be doing for the next few months.

http://web.mit.edu/people/cabi/Links/physics_seminar_videos.htm

 

[marcus]

Lineweaver and Davis in March SciAm

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147

Popular written feature article "Misconceptions about BigBang"
Here are some sample "sidebars" of the article. Each has one or more visual diagrams with a wrong answer discussed and a right answer explained.


http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147_p39.gif
What kind of explosion was the big bang?

http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147_p40.gif
Can galaxies recede faster than light?

http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147_p42.gif
Can we see galaxies receding faster than light?

http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147_p43.gif
Why is there a cosmic redshift?

http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147_p44.gif
How large is the observable universe?

http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147_p45.gif
Do objects inside the universe expand, too?

 

[marcus]

a NASA resource for teachers called "ask a high energy astronomer"
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/ask_an_astronomer.html

when I sampled it I found a lot dated in the late 1990s, which can be fine.
lot of it was good information. some things I came across seemed questionable or outdated. worth keeping tabs on though

like this NASA page has a link to a list of "known black holes"
which gives some details about each of the one listed
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/011120a.html

http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/faculty/orosz/web/

 

[marcus]

survey of cosmology by Padmanabhan

I like Thanu Padmanabhan, he is a worldclass relativist and cosmologist and he uses references to lewis carroll hunting of the snark
and generally manages to be deep and witty some of the time
and he also pulled the rug out from under string theory recently with his paper that says it is not enough for a theory to produce gravitons, that does not make it a quantum gravity theory
he had this paper From Gravitons to Gravity: Myths versus Reality

Well padmanabhhan has come out with one of these surveys of cosmology for general audience, that a senior cosmologist may do every now and then.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0503107
Understanding Our Universe: Current Status and Open Issues
T. Padmanabhan
To appear in "100 Years of Relativity - Space-time Structure: Einstein and Beyond", A.Ashtekar (Editor), World Scientific (Singapore, 2005); 30 pages; 4 figures

"Last couple of decades have been the golden age for cosmology. High quality data confirmed the broad paradigm of standard cosmology but have thrusted upon us a preposterous composition for the universe which defies any simple explanation, thereby posing probably the greatest challenge theoretical physics has ever faced. Several aspects of these developments are critically reviewed, concentrating on conceptual issues and open questions. [Topics discussed include: Cosmological Paradigm, Growth of structures in the universe, Inflation and generation of initial perturbations, Temperature anisotropies of the CMBR, Dark energy, Cosmological Constant, Deeper issues in cosmology.]"

 

[turbo]

WGBH forum with streaming video lectures on LOTS of subjects, including astronomy (under the science subject heading).

http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/

 

[marcus]

basic reference on neutron stars

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0503245
Neutron Stars
Gordon Baym, Frederick K. Lamb
Comments: Encyclopedia of Physics 3rd ed., R.G. Lerner and G.L. Trigg, eds., Wiley-VCH, Berlin

Abstract: "This short encyclopedia article, reviewing current information on neutron stars, is intended for a broad scientific audience."

Only 3 pages, but has a lot of interesting facts about the topic


Also turbo supplied a link to a Feynman lecture audio on conservation of energy

http://home.hockaday.org/HockadayNet/academic/physics/SciTeach/FeynEng.html

 

[cosmoboy]

hi,
I woould like to suggest the following:

Review articles
1. Large scale structure of the universe and cosmological
perturbation theory (Bernardeau et al)
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0112551
2. Cosmological Constant - the Weight of the Vacuum
( T. Padmanabhan)
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0212290
3. Lagrangian Perturbation and Other Approximations to Nolinear Gravitational Evolution
http://www.columbia.edu/~fms5/w161.html


Books
1.Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology
(Andrei Linde)
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503203

 

[marcus]

this paper describes a possible test of GR using LISA
Clifford Will is a co-author
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504017

 

[marcus]

A FAQ is what does it mean that the old classical model of BH fails to compute at a certain point (has a "singularity") and gives non-physical answers or no answers at all.

What it means is a fault or limitation of the old classical Gen Rel theory. So now people are studying improved models of BH which don't have that failing. here are some people:

Abhay Ashtekar, Viqar Husain, Oliver Winkler, Leonardo Modesto, Martin Bojowald, Roy Maartens, Rituparno Goswami, Parampreet Singh.

Here are some recent research papers that they have written:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504029
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0503041
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504043
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411032
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0407097
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0412039
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0410125

 

[wolram]

http://www.psychcentral.com/psypsych/Milky_Way

The Milky-way lots of links and info on our backyard.

 

[cosmo_boy]

Use this topic to post links to helpful/informative websites about astronomy & cosmology.

Here you can find many interesting recent papers in
physics & astrophysics.

http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/welcome.html

 

[marcus]

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/0192/BH_merge_sm.mov

This an animation of the collision and merger of two galaxies followed by the merger of their central supermassive black holes. the black holes spiral in towards each other ever faster as they loose energy by radiating away gravity waves.

Here is an update of something posted a few times back: a FAQ is what does it mean that the old classical model of BH fails to compute at a certain point (has a "singularity") and gives non-physical answers or no answers at all.

What it means is a fault or limitation of the old classical Gen Rel theory. So now people are studying improved models of BH which don't have that failing. here are some people:

Abhay Ashtekar, Viqar Husain, Oliver Winkler, Leonardo Modesto, Martin Bojowald, Roy Maartens, Rituparno Goswami, Parampreet Singh.

Here are some recent research papers that they have written:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0509075 (Ashtekar and Bojowald latest)
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0509078 (Modesto latests)
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504029
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0503041
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504043
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411032
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0407097
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0412039
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0410125

 

[marcus]

H. Rosewater has pointed out that this reference thread has no discussion of what it means to assume the universe is spatially homogeneous and isotropic.
Hellfire gave a pointer to this PF thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=730619#post730619
where hellfire and SpaceTiger supply definitions and some examples are discussed.

I think these are symmetry assumptions-----one knows that the universe is spatially NOT symmetric but is instead fascinatingly different everywhere one looks, but that averaged out at large scale it has approximate symmetry. So for simplicity and convenience one decides to assume perfect translational and rotational symmetry.

That being decided, thereafter whatever functions one uses to describe the universe at some moment in time must have translational symmetry (be unchanged by shifting the origin) and rotational symmetry (be unchanged by rotating the coordinates)

Feel free to expand or clarify. If anyone comes up with a link to some particularly good definition please post it. otherwise, for more discussion see what hellfire and SpaceTiger had to say

 

[marcus]

this might turn out to be a handy reference, it reviews why one usually accepts that things that look like black holes really are that---even though one wants to keep on testing and checking

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0511217
Trust but verify: The case for astrophysical black holes
Scott A. Hughes
Based on invited lectures at the 2005 SLAC Summer Institute (SSI05-L006). 22 pages, 5 eps figures
"This article is based on a pair of lectures given at the 2005 SLAC Summer Institute. Our goal is to motivate why most physicists and astrophysicists accept the hypothesis that the most massive, compact objects seen in many astrophysical systems are described by the black hole solutions of general relativity. We describe the nature of the most important black hole solutions, the Schwarzschild and the Kerr solutions. We discuss gravitational collapse and stability in order to motivate why such objects are the most likely outcome of realistic astrophysical collapse processes. Finally, we discuss some of the observations which -- so far at least -- are totally consistent with this viewpoint, and describe planned tests and observations which have the potential to falsify the black hole hypothesis, or sharpen still further the consistency of data with theory."

 

[marcus]

Cosmic neutrino background, why the temperature is less by a factor of 1.401

this is from the Georgia State University knowledge base called "hyperphysics" run by their physics and astronomy department
http://www.phy-astr.gsu.edu/new_web/newmain.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/astro/neutemp.html

 

[marcus]

Some ideas for future tests of General Relativity.
I was intrigued and wanted to keep tabs on this short (4 page) paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0610047
Testing General Relativity with Atom Interferometry
Authors: Savas Dimopoulos, Peter W. Graham, Jason M. Hogan, Mark A. Kasevich
4 pages, 1 figure

"The unprecedented precision of atom interferometry will soon lead to laboratory tests of general relativity to levels that will rival or exceed those reached by astrophysical observations. We propose such an experiment that will initially test the equivalence principle to 1 part in 10^15 (300 times better than the current limit), and 1 part in 10^17 in the future. It will also probe general relativistic effects--such as the non-linear three-graviton coupling, the gravity of an atom's kinetic energy, and the falling of light--to several decimals. Further, in contrast to astrophysical observations, laboratory tests can isolate these effects via their different functional dependence on experimental variables."

the authors are all at the Stanford physics department