How did you get into Astronomy/Astrophysics?

[CrossFit415]

It's equally mind-blowing if astronomers figure out that there is *NO* intelligent life outside of the Earth in the vastness of space and we are it.



No particular reason to believe that. It's quite possible that there is some sort of bottleneck that makes life outside of Earth unlikely/impossible. One thing that has surprised people about exoplanets is that it appears that solar systems with nice circular orbits are the exception rather than the norm.



Or not finding them. We are going to be in a lot better position to figure out the probability of life in the next ten years as we get more data on exoplanets. It's not out of the question that a decade from now, it will be established that planets similar to Earth are extremely, extremely rare. Conversely, if we find undisputed examples of microfossils on Mars that's going to change the probabilities of life. On the other hand, if we establish that Mars had at one point earth-like conditions (liquid water, thick atmosphere), and life *didn't* develop, that's also going to change things.

But you also have to consider that there are a billion stars in our galaxy, the Milky Way alone. And there are also many other galaxies that are 200 billion light years apart from each other which also contain many many stars. As we observe our own solar system, our nine planets completely vary from one another. Apply this to other stars, and stars may completely have different planets and orbits from ours. Therefore it would be ignorant of us to say there are no harboring planets that contain life in them.
Considering that, astronomers have already found an earth-like planet which is 600 light years away. This ups our chance of discovering life.
And our bottleneck is in the technologies. We can't travel at the speed of light.. yet. (Critics said we couldn't fly, the world was flat, we couldn't go more than 60 MPH without melting). Well, we'll be able to travel at those speeds ..at least.. equivlant to light but not today, not tomorrow but soon. It's just going to take time.
And yes, Mars is our foundation and our stepping stone.

 

[twofish-quant]

But you also have to consider that there are a billion stars in our galaxy, the Milky Way alone.

It's in fact 100 billion.

Therefore it would be ignorant of us to say there are no harboring planets that contain life in them.

There could be a massive bottle neck that could prevent life or intelligent life. One thing about astrophysics is that you stop being impressed by large numbers. It's possible that the development of life requires some freak event that can occur in one in ten trillion planets. Or not. We'll have a better idea in a few years.

And our bottleneck is in the technologies. We can't travel at the speed of light.. yet. (Critics said we couldn't fly, the world was flat, we couldn't go more than 60 MPH without melting).

So what?

Critics also say that you can't trisect an angle with a ruler and a compass, and you can't.

The fact that people were wrong about X and Y doesn't tell you anything about Z.

 

[twofish-quant]

That can't possibly be proven. The best we can say is "not yet". Science doesn't work by trying to prove negatives.

Prove is maybe an overstatement.

You can establish probabilistic limits. I can't absolutely prove that there isn't the ghost of a dinosaur outside my office door ready to eat me, but I can give you good reasons why it's unlikely. We can already set some limits as to how likely intelligent life that actively send radio waves receivable from Earth is.

Also, it's important to realize that "when you don't know, then you don't know."

 

[CrossFit415]

It's in fact 100 billion.



There could be a massive bottle neck that could prevent life or intelligent life. One thing about astrophysics is that you stop being impressed by large numbers. It's possible that the development of life requires some freak event that can occur in one in ten trillion planets. Or not. We'll have a better idea in a few years.



So what?

Critics also say that you can't trisect an angle with a ruler and a compass, and you can't.

The fact that people were wrong about X and Y doesn't tell you anything about Z.

So what? So we can use that technology to our advantage. And that discovery might lead to unforeseen discoveries and then lead to even more discoveries.
Im giving examples of the past, of how our very own minds can inhibit ourselves, inhibit us from moving foward due to ignorance and fear, and preventing us from capturing that knowledge.
Fine examples are "you would fall off the Earth if you traveled too far." Point is, we can learn from the past. 50 years from now we'll go back to this thread and start laughing when we see vehicles traveling at the speed of light or least near it.
We can't conclude that we're special and we're a freak of nature. Remember about that analogy I said earlier about the lobster? Just because that lobster's not going to walk up to your plate for you to eat from that beach, doesn't mean that lobsters seize to exist

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

So what? So we can use that technology to our advantage. And that discovery might lead to unforeseen discoveries and then lead to even more discoveries.
Im giving examples of the past, of how our very own minds can inhibit ourselves, inhibit us from moving foward due to ignorance and fear, and preventing us from capturing that knowledge.
Fine examples are "you would fall off the Earth if you traveled too far." Point is, we can learn from the past. 50 years from now we'll go back to this thread and start laughing when we see vehicles traveling at the speed of light or least near it.
We can't conclude that we're special and we're a freak of nature. Remember about that analogy I said earlier about the lobster? Just because that lobster's not going to walk up to your plate for you to eat from that beach, doesn't mean that lobsters seize to exist

We can't say it, but we can't say otherwise either.
I really don't like the idea that "there are too many stars, so there must be life out there", it's a nice argument to give to your friends in a casual talk, but it's logically flawed.
Yes, maybe the universe is swarming with life, but we have no reason to conclude that, yet.

 

[twofish-quant]

We can't conclude that we're special and we're a freak of nature.

Correct. We can't conclude we're special. We can't also conclude we aren't. When you don't know, then you don't know. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but absence of evidence is also not evidence of non-absence.

When you don't know, then you don't know.

Now the cool thing is that we'll know a lot more about the situation shortly (i.e. next ten years). If we find large numbers of Earth like planets, and evidence of previous life on Mars, that makes life much more likely. Within my lifetime, we will likely be able to detect atmospheric signs of life around exoplanets at that point we can do statistics for the likelihood of life. It's possible that we find that the universe is teeming with life.

It's also possible that we find that life requires close to impossible things to happen. We find the earth-like planets are rare, and that the atmospheric spectra are consistent with no-life.

I'm not concluding that the we are a freak of nature, I'm just pointing out that as of 2012, this is a possibility.

 

[DarkPhysics]

There's certainly no need for a creator in all this. But just remember for those who believe in one -- he/she/it would probably be classed as a scientist or engineer, and he/she/it would therefore probably frown upon any individual that didn't critically question he/she/it's existence. Belief and faith are just other words for ignorance and servitude. Question everything.

As for how many of us got to become astronomers and astrophysicists...
- Realise, as a child, that there is wonder in everything around you.
- Learn to separate fact from myth and wishful thinking.
- Then, of course, there is Star Trek and Dr Who :-) !
- And, not to forget the programs of the late and great Carl Sagan.
- It does help to live away from the big city. Those of us in the Southern Hemisphere see a much more dazzling array of stars, nebulae, dust clouds, etc, as we can see the main disk of the Galaxy, through to the Galactic Centre.
- Learn (teach yourself) some basic science, electronics and computing (as well as cooking, car mechanics, etc :-), then specialise in a bit more physics at high school and university.
- Get to look through a few major OPTICAL telescopes for a bit of fun.
- Study astronomy (or specialise in it) at uni -- that's still fun :-).
- Later go across to astrophysics when you want to really work out what we think is going on. This is where it all 'comes together'!
- Plus run a few major RADIO telescopes and analyse data to visualise the universe in other wavelengths (the stars are really quite boring -- it's the stuff you don't see that is doing extraordinary things, and that is way more dangerous and exciting).
- PS: Learn to use computers for what they were meant for (not videos, Facebook, games, chat rooms and other frivolous pursuits). We have more computing power at our fingertips than any other humans in the history of the planet -- and it's fun to make the 'beasts' crawl by programming them to solve huge (humungus! :-) problems. When you do astrophysics you will find yourself often pushing our technology to the limits. How better to disprove :-) the myths and self-interested prophecies of the last few thousand years! Then again you could just eat a Snickers, sit in front of your games machine, get fat, have a coronary, and die as ignorant a death as most of our ancestors. What a waste! :-)

Live, learn and make the World (nay, the Universe) a better and less ignorant place!

That's my 2 cents worth anyway LOL!

Live long and Prosper! :-)

 

[facetten]

- PS: Learn to use computers for what they were meant for (not videos, Facebook, games, chat rooms and other frivolous pursuits). We have more computing power at our fingertips than any other humans in the history of the planet -- and it's fun to make the 'beasts' crawl by programming them to solve huge (humungus! :-) problems. When you do astrophysics you will find yourself often pushing our technology to the limits. How better to disprove :-) the myths and self-interested prophecies of the last few thousand years! Then again you could just eat a Snickers, sit in front of your games machine, get fat, have a coronary, and die as ignorant a death as most of our ancestors. What a waste! :-)

Live, learn and make the World (nay, the Universe) a better and less ignorant place!

That's my 2 cents worth anyway LOL!

Live long and Prosper! :-)

how do astrophysics contribute to today technology? i know it does, but wouldn't applied science and engineering push the advancement of new technology much more so than physics (or astrophysics). i also think studying biology is probably more useful than 99% of the problems in theoretical physics.

 

[kr75]

i had an inherent love towards physics. i started reading books, articles, etc on astronomy and astrophysics and after that when i looked at the stars, what struck me was that we are always looking back into time. we can never know what is happening presently with an interstellar body which is any distance beyond the solar system.

 

[Dembadon]

Hi, Mépris. Although I'm not "into" astronomy/astrophysics in the sense that I'm currently studying them, received my degree and am working in the field, or plan on studying either in the future. However, I do find their concepts and points of interest intriguing on a more casual level, if that makes sense. So, in that sense, I'm "into" them.

I am fascinated by the sheer scale of things in our universe. I love watching NOVA specials on black holes, gamma ray bursts, etc. When I think about our (Earth's) position in all of this, I get a strong feeling of helplessness. But even that isn't completely accurate in describing what I feel. It just feels, sorta, scary/intimidating. I now risk babbling incoherently, so I'll stop.

 

[DarkPhysics]

how do astrophysics contribute to today technology? i know it does, but wouldn't applied science and engineering push the advancement of new technology much more so than physics (or astrophysics). i also think studying biology is probably more useful than 99% of the problems in theoretical physics.

It's a question we always get from the general public. Here's just a couple of ways in which astronomy and astrophysics have impacted (and are still having an impact) on our world at present:

- Astrophysics spawned the filed of High-Energy Physics when a physicist (Victor Hess), some 100 years ago, discovered that the Earth is being bombarded by ultra-high energy particles from space. In order to work out how these particles are created and interact, and the make-up of matter in the Universe several generations of particle accelerators had to be developed (from linear accelerators, now used in many hospitals, to the new Large Hadron Collider). The masses of information from these experiments had to be moved around the globe quickly, and also required mass storage systems; hence, the scientists had to develop high-speed Internet and cheap mass storage devices. These things weren't developed to help people play games or movies on their computers. When I first started there were no pictures or movies on the Internet; it was a network where scientists and the like communicated with each other around the Globe. The general public were not online.

- Recently, some colleagues of mine at Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) developed and patented the IEEE 802.11a and 802.11g Wi-Fi technology that is now in use all over the World. Your own computer would use that technology right now.

- Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner were developed from the equipment and imaging techniques developed for radio astronomy by astronomers and astrophysicists.

- High speed supercomputers were needed to simulate the birth and development of stars. They also happen to be good for CGI movies (like Avatar, or even more complex titles), and to model airplane/spaceship development, financial systems, or the environment (Global Warming calculations, etc)...

As I am also an engineer I can tell you that applied scientists and engineers develop the technology further -- but without the basic science they would just be reinventing or re-jigging different versions of the same old technology. Yet (often) without these guys, those in research would suffer. eg. Scientist discovered the properties of semiconductors and studied thin-film magnetism and magnetic domains, all well and good; but then someone with foresight and imagination (plus some financial backing) used this knowledge to develop integrated circuit chips and floppy/hard disks -- these then used by the scientists to 'push the envelope' out further, while the engineers and applied 'boys' optimise and build on the technology. It's, in a way, a symbiotic relationship. Some of us do both, basic research and development, but we are often limited by a limited lifespan, the need for sleep, and an economic system that tries to slot us into little compartmentalised boxes, and fund us thus - 'You're a scientist... while she/he is an engineer... while those people are artists..., etc', and each of you will be treated differently. Hundreds of years ago (da Vinci's time, say), they would call themselves artists, but they had the skills of art, science, engineering, etc. Oh, for the good old days! :-) A friend of mine called it Rampant Credentialism; where you need a piece of paper from a university before you will be allowed to work on a specific project. In days gone by you would be assessed on your potential, not just your academic achievements. Anyway, the limited lifespan argument leads me to conclude that I have said to much already and should be getting back to my own work. Cheers all! (I will include another little note to help out those about to enter in the field, below.)

 

[DarkPhysics]

Just a quick (hopefully) note for those studying astronomy/astrophysics. The following 2 books should probably be recommended resources for all students:

Astronomy Methods
Astrophysics Concepts

They are absolutely easy to read and elegantly written. Both written by Hale Bradt in the last few years, they are the closest thing to having a (patient! :-) astronomer or astrophysicist supervisor sitting next to you to explain how the equipment, techniques and science really works. Superb books! I have found them absolutely invaluable. And 'no' I don't have any vested interests other than ensuring that we get well informed 'new blood' into the field. Longair is another author of choice for higher level research, but don't go past Bradt for undergraduate studies. Cheers!

 

[kr75]

I don't know. Maybe the Creator was just there in the beginning and before the beginning..
Somethings that we can't measure but our intuition knows that it's there.
Such as seeing black holes (is due after a collapse of a fallen star) through the use of technology, but what are the substance that make up a black hole? We don't know because we can't go near one. What goes inside one? a singularity? incalculable information due to an infinity? I believe the same concept applies to the Creator.

That is a good point but unlike that in black holes, believing in a Creator would transcend our knowledge of all known levels of existence. I mean, though the black holes are still a mystery, we do have visual proof that they exist. Also, the big problem would be figuring out how the Creator created matter and energy and what happened thereafter