Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Top 10 Unsolved Space Mysteries 321

Posted by CowboyNeal from the robert-stack-voiceovers dept.
Joe Jordan writes "Space.com is advertising the Top 10 Space Mysteries for 2003, and perhaps for all time, given the current rate of discovery." Some of them are obvious, like the origin of life, and the possibility of alien life forms, but the list is still a good compilation of space's greatest questions.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Top 10 Unsolved Space Mysteries More

Top 10 Unsolved Space Mysteries

Comments Filter:

  • I like the last one (Score:3, Funny)

    by lingqi ( 577227 ) on Friday December 27, 2002 @05:49AM (#4965364) Journal
    "Can we survive 2003?"

    I wonder how long it will take to find that one out? I bet a dollar to a donut that we know how that works out before we find out what's going on in the middle of the galaxy, though. any takers?
    • I can solve them all.

      1. Dark Energy. It's the stuff that makes all the recent World Heavyweight champions as powerful as they are.

      2. Water on Mars. Yes, it's there but the stuff in France tastes better.

      3. The Murky, Mediocre Middle of the Milky Way. Come on. We have second grade everything. Why not the same for Black hole?

      4. The Origin of Life. One word. Creation.

      5. Lunar Secrets. If we bring down earth rocks from the moon they might have dormant bacteria to which we no longer have a defense. Bad idea.

      6. Are we alone? No. I'm an optimist and having failed to find intelligent life on Earth I am positive SETI will be successful eventually.

      7. The Sun. It's bright, it's big, it's hot. What's to understand?

      8. Age of the Universe. Anybody want to take this bet? When the best Telescope available is significantly (2x to 10x) better than the best currently available objects will be found so far a away that they set the minimum age of the universe at 30 billion years or more.

      9. Missing planets. They drifted by and got caught in the gravity well.

      10. Can we Survive 2003. Of course. Michael Clark Douglas and Bruce Willis can rescue us from anything.

    • From the article:

      > For now, there are no space rocks known to be on
      > a collision course with Earth. At the same time,
      > there are tons of them out there that have not
      > been found.

      I think a little math is in order here. Assume that an Extinction-Level-Event asteroid is 8 tons, which is by all means a conservative estimate when you think about it: a full truckload of ceramic iron magnetic cores easily weighs as much, and wouldn't come anywhere near levelling the Eastern Seaboard if dropped from space.

      Exactly what is "tons of" these space rocks? Maybe three. Our chances of getting killed in 2003 just tripled to 6 in 150,000,000,000. Better get back to work, digging out those underground shelters, people.

      Solomon
  • the answer to all of it is 42
  • Why are explosions in space circular and not spherical?

    and just for fun why do space captains always take off their shirts?
    • Not all space captains take off their shirts. Two examples come to mind.


      1. Captain Dylan Hunt of the starship Andromeda. Always fights in full body armor.


      2. Janeway, unfortunately. >:-(


      Oh, and mystery number 13: Why do ship computers add sound effects to explosions?

    • Why are explosions in space circular and not spherical?

      The circular shape you've seen is the hot gas emitted after a massive explosion. Normally the explosion of a star was spherically symmetric. Within the explosion core, higher density part will force the lower density part(gases) escape in a planar direction, provided that the force is uniform in all direction, which is commonly seen in massive explosion like supernova.

      • Re:11th unanswered Question (Score:5, Informative)

        by Yokaze ( 70883 ) on Friday December 27, 2002 @08:12AM (#4965595)
        Let's ignore that the parent was surely refering to the absurdity of SciFi in space in general.

        Assuming that the force is uniform in all directions, there is no reason that the lower density material escapes in planar direction (what tells the material in which plane it has to escape, so to speak).

        My totally uneducated guess is the following:
        Stars rotate around one axis. This angular momentum has to be preserved. If memory serves right a supernova occurs, when the equlibrium of gravitational contraction force and the thermonuclar repulsion force collapses, until a certain pressure is reached which leads to a final explosive fusion process. Now think of figure skating, rotating and a contracting diameter.
        The outmost material will be hurled back into space, the rest contributes to a white dwarf, neutron star, black hole, or whatever.
        But the critical part (for our question at hand) is that the star in it latest moments is not spherical, but eliptical. The material in the rotational plane has a higher momentum, so it will be more likely hurled back into space.

        As I said, this is a fairly uneducated guess. The question is, does the centrifugal force matter anything, considering strength the gravitational force and the thermonuclear explosion?
        • As I said, this is a fairly uneducated guess. The question is, does the centrifugal force matter anything, considering strength the gravitational force and the thermonuclear explosion?

          Trick question... the answer is false, because centrifugal force doesn't exist. (talk to my High School physics teacher about that one...) Maybe the centripetal force might affect things...
          • > High School physics teacher

            Centrifugal force does "exist". It is a byproduct of being situated in an accelerating system, where Newtons phyics doesn't apply. Prime requisit of Newtons law. You have to be in a inertial reference frame. Well, the laws of physics still apply, you just have to observe it from a stationary system and then transpose it into the accelerated system.

            Calculating in an accelerated system gives you all the non-existant forces or pseudo-forces like centrifugal-force and Coriolis-force.

            OTOH, those forces do not exists as they are only a byproduct of calculating in a rotating frame and not a real force which are the result of exchanging particles like photons, gravitons and the like.

            Speaking of centrifugal force is inaccurate at worst. So, for educational reasons, one should speak of centrifual effect, or Coriolis effect.

  • top ten space mysteries (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 27, 2002 @05:56AM (#4965381)
    10. Why is it so expensive?
    9. What was SciFi channel thinking when they cancelled it?
    8. What's the easiest way to rationalize putting weapons up there?
    7. When will people stop trying to take each others'?
    6. Why do I take up so much of it?
    5. Why are *you* taking up so much of it?
    4. Will adding a loft give me more?
    3. Is an illegal apartment a good way to make money off the excess?
    2. Is there a downside to replacing all of it with asphalt?

    and the #1 mystery about space:

    1. Where the hell do I put all this porn??

  • More like top 10 things to sell space magazines (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rufusdufus ( 450462 ) on Friday December 27, 2002 @05:57AM (#4965385)
    This list reads more like pop-movie script devices than astronomy.
    Number 10 is "will be survive 2003" or will we be destroyed by an asteroid?
    Also mentioned is SETI which is interesting to laymen, but not really at the forefront of most astronomers minds.
    The whole of the list is just fuzzy headed gobbledygook a high school student turned in for a book report. "The Enigmatic Sun" indeed.

  • Answers: (Score:5, Funny)

    by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Friday December 27, 2002 @06:06AM (#4965405) Journal
    1. Dark Energy It's energy. And its dark. Think Star Trek glowy thing but looking at negatives.
    2. Water on Mars. Nope. Only chocolate, toffee, and some sort fo nougatish stuff.
    3. The Murky, Mediocre Middle of the Milky Way - A more important question - What is it with chocolate and space?
    4. The Origin of Life - Well, when a man and a woman love each other very much....
    5. Lunar Secrets - As any fan of classic Trolls knows, the moon is a ridiculous liberal myth. It doesn't exist. That's the secret.
    6. Are We Alone? - I was talking about this to Glarg - my venusian friend. He said that he felt that life on other planets was impossible. I'm not so sure
    7. The Enigmatic Sun - Enigmatic? the things a bloomin exhibitionist!
    8. Age of the Universe - I have the universes Birth Certificate right here. I think its rude to ask a univeses age though.
    9. Missing planet - Obviously, the planets are wrong, not the theory. Planets are stupid after all. They just go round and round in circles. Whatr do they know? Anyway, to solve this problem, we plan to destroy Uranus and Neptune.
    10. Can We Survive 2003? - I have a theory on this. The ramifications will take a while to work out. Can I tell you in 369 days time?

  • Survive 2003 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mansoft ( 371174 ) <[ten.acinofelet] [ta] [evauoz]> on Friday December 27, 2002 @06:22AM (#4965435) Homepage
    Be sure that, everything remaining the same, it is more likely that we will kill ourselves making war, rather than being smashed by an asteroid.

  • The origins of life indeed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kiwi ( 5214 ) on Friday December 27, 2002 @06:26AM (#4965443) Homepage Journal
    It looks like the creationists (or, at least, trolls pretending to be creationists) haven't come out of the woodwork yet. That in mind, some thoughts of my own on the "origin of life" bit of bait which this article has.

    I do not think a scientist is rejecting God when they try to look at something like the origin of life. I think a scientist is not asking who did it as much as they are asking how it was done. The agent is not relevent to the scientist; only the method matters.

    I think, personally, that God is plain simply too elegant to make the creation of life something which would require the temporary changing of the laws of physics to accomplish. God created the laws of nature also; why not make them ones which make life possible (the gravitation constant, for example, has to be very finely tuned to make life possible).

    My God is a God of surprises which does not put answers to all of life's problems in simple, small packages. To me creationism is a form of denial; no worse than the denial of a chronic alcholic who says they don't really have a drinking problem.

    Thinking about the immensity of the universe gives me a profound sense of wonder; I really enjoyed reading this list.

    - Sam

    • I think, personally, that God is plain simply too elegant to make the creation of life something which would require the temporary changing of the laws of physics to accomplish. God created the laws of nature also; why not make them ones which make life possible (the gravitation constant, for example, has to be very finely tuned to make life possible).
      My God is a God of surprises which does not put answers to all of life's problems in simple, small packages. To me creationism is a form of denial; no worse than the denial of a chronic alcholic who says they don't really have a drinking problem.
      So you're saying that you believe God didn't create the universe, and instead created a set of rules that caused it to be created? Isn't that the same as creating it, albeit indirectly? You're not making any sense, sir.

      Personally I'm a staunch believer in God creating the universe - how is not an issue I claim to have resolved, and I'm just as interested as you are to hear about new theories, if not more interested. But I'm sure as hell not going to listen to someone claim that a theory is the only plausible explanation, simply because they refuse to accept the possibility of there being a God. It's just as hard to prove that the universe came into existence by some random explosion as it is to prove that God exists... because both crowds can come up with lots of evidence but crowd A never believes crowd B. What good is proof if nobody thinks it's real?
      • I'll believe in the "God" thing you're talking about on one condition: the only attribute that "God" has is that it is the thing that's responsible for the creation of the universe.

        I see no proof for any of the other things that are commonly attributed to "him".

        • I don't get even that need for god.

          Where did the universe come from? God.
          Where did God come from? er, he just always existed.
          So why couldn't the universe have just always existed? er..
      • It's just as hard to prove that the universe came into existence by some random explosion as it is to prove that God exists... because both crowds can come up with lots of evidence but crowd A never believes crowd B.

        Except that crowd A (the Big Bang people) have scientific, objective evidence, and crowd B (the God exists people) only have subjective, untestable evidence.

        But why do you think they are mutually exclusive? There's no reason you can't accept the Big Bang *and* believe God exists at the same time. Many scientists do.

      • You missed the point. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by aussersterne ( 212916 ) on Friday December 27, 2002 @12:26PM (#4967017) Homepage
        So you're saying that you believe God didn't create the universe, and instead created a set of rules that caused it to be created? Isn't that the same as creating it, albeit indirectly? You're not making any sense, sir.

        You've missed the point entirely.

        The poster is not saying that God did not create the universe. He is saying that "Perhaps God did create the universe, and Physics is how he chose to do it!"

        There remain a large number of rabid creationists who say "The Physicists are all blasphemous buffoons! GOD created the universe, not some pile of gravity and chemicals and suns!"

        The poster is trying to say that given the complexity of a universe that many people assert that God has created, it would not be uncharacteristic of such a God if he were to create the universe not by waving a magic God-Wand, but rather by creating a set of simple, elegant physical laws (i.e. Physics) by which his universe, the planets, and life could arise. This would not, as the rabid creationists seem to think, defile God in any way; rather, it supposes that God is of such awesome intelligence that he foresaw a way to create laws of the universe which would not only lead to the creation of life, but whose selfsame boundaries would also govern such life through the end of time.

        It is not an argument against God; it is an argument that God has better taste than to do showy wave-of-the-hand parlor tricks when creating life, the universe, and everything.

        If there is a view of "scientific creationism" that I can accept, this is it.

    • My take on it... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Friday December 27, 2002 @07:31AM (#4965532) Homepage
      I think the people who take Creation literally is failing to see that God (if we assume there is one) was explaining this to people 2000 years ago. They didn't have any chance to understand the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The one-page intro is the abrigded and simplified version that men 2000 years ago could in some way phantom.

      It's like trying to explain about having a baby to a kid. You don't start off with the ribonucleic acid (RNA) in a sperm cell and an egg cell joining together and forming deoxynucleic acid (DNA), and how cell division works, and how hormones activate processes and whatever else small details are involved. You keep to the "important" parts and results (like that it takes 9 months and mom will have a big belly).

      In the same way, if you are to believe Genisis, God created the earth, the stars and all life on it. Now if he did that by Big Bang, or by snapping his fingers in 4004 BC, is that really "important" in that sense? I don't think so. Guess someone does, though...

      Kjella

      • Re:My take on it... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Friday December 27, 2002 @10:56AM (#4966398)
        > I think the people who take Creation literally is failing to see that God (if we assume there is one) was explaining this to people 2000 years ago.

        That's why creationists believe what they do, because some ancient culture came up with a creation myth and it remains in modern culture today. The problems you mention regarding the "how's and why's" probably has a lot more to do with the cognitive dissonance of being aware of scientific cosmology and holding religious beliefs at the same time. The two rarely agree and its easy to mix them up in some ridiculous and impossible to falsify "God did it all" theory/philosophy.
    • How, in the begining there was the word.

      There is one thing that is cirtain, we will never know how the universe was created (ie. the events that lead upto the creation of the universe).

      To many that is GOD.
      If you a Numeroligist, Jew, Christian &co then the act of creation was a word, GOD uttered the word to create the universe. (I don't know about other religions sory!)

      Me, I think of GOD as nothing more than the act of creation, GOD is not a someone, or a something, GOD doesn't influence me, send me to heven or hell, GOD is not an entity. To me GOD is eveything and nothing, I am just made of stardust.

    • >My God is a God of surprises which does not put answers to all of life's problems in simple, small packages.

      Why are the believers always publicly rationalizing their religious beliefs? "My god is this" or "my god is that" doesn't build credibility, it just shows a someone unwilling to let go of a parasitic belief.
      • "My car is a car of good mileage, satisfying agility, and convenient compactness."

        What am I doing? Rationalizing a parasitic belief, or simply expressing things I believe to be true? It seems clear to me that statements of this form are not automatically self-invalidating.

        Also, it seems petty to whine about public expressions of personal belief in a thread about that very topic. Might as well ask why the pro-carrot people insist on pointing out the advantages of carrots every time a discussion of vegetables comes up. Why? Because it's topical.

  • Computer simulations (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fruey ( 563914 ) on Friday December 27, 2002 @06:27AM (#4965445) Homepage Journal

    A lot of the things are based on theories which are tested on computer models. What I'd really like to know, is how these are programmed, that's the great mystery. Because they are all working on past events, and seem to only desire to do so. The quantum leap will happen when enough detailed data is gathered about actual events as they happen, which can then be extrapolated to the past. Now, maybe some of this happens already, but the issue I have with these sites is that they do not cross-link often enough to research papers that explain things to that %age of people who, like me, are thoroughly unsatisfied by the superficiality of such content.

    Most of the models (follow the links in some sections) seem to have given incorrect output - so the real question is what they do then... it's a bit easy, really, to take your model and add a couple of new variables in there until they get it right. This doesn't really prove anything though, does it? e.g. There are a couple of planets missing but they are there, so let's bung in a bit of extra icy matter and UV radiation that will cause it to collapse into Uranus.

    The moon creation simulation is the one that gets me. They seem still to be assuming that it's ONE impact that created the moon, and even give the analogy of a small car crashing into an SUV (follow links from moon story). I think it's much more chaotic than that, and is really a big highway pile-up, but where some cars could still run, and were driven away billions of years ago, some have degraded into other rocks and asteroids, and the big bit in the middle coalesced into the moon. But astronomers always simplify for a better comprehension. This is all very well, but then they go on to insist their model is somehow close to reality. I think it's way too complex for a computer to simulate; every atom has a /dev/random (OK it's more like a predictable Windows TCP/IP stack, but there's some entropy in there), and that's the real problem. How do you simulate all of those?

    The real excitement comes when currently forming galaxies can be studied over a long enough period - perhaps by simultaneously studying several galaxies in enough detail to come up with decent fluid/gas dynamics in space.

    • Re:Computer simulations (Score:4, Insightful)

      by beta21 ( 88000 ) on Friday December 27, 2002 @06:56AM (#4965489)
      These models are constructed with a lot of blood sweat and tears.
      Because they are all working on past events, and seem to only desire to do so.
      How do you verify a model? How do you know the laws of motion really work? Usually you carry out an experiemtn then compare it to your model, in this case the experiemtn just so happens to be our backyard (universe etc.).

      Most of the models (follow the links in some sections) seem to have given incorrect output - so the real question is what they do then... it's a bit easy, really, to take your model and add a couple of new variables in there until they get it right.
      It is not so easy to just add more variables, if you do that than it just becomes an excercise in curve fitting. You have to justify your model within a Physical framework. And just as any program you write you test your model to the limits....this is where it gets interesting and adds to the predictive nature of the model you are building.

      This is all very well, but then they go on to insist their model is somehow close to reality. I think it's way too complex for a computer to simulate; every atom has a /dev/random
      NO you don;t have to model every atom, or every quark and lepton interaction. We manage to descripte planetry motion (Kepler's laws) quite easily without going into the Quantum nature of atomic and sub atomic particles, though the boundry of when quantum starts to act as a macroscopic system is a very active research front presently.
      The time periods discussed in forming galaxies very long, we have a very limited dataset and we make the best guesses we can.
      I can't remeber who said the quote, I think it was Dirac, but it goes somethin like, "We came along in the middle of a chess game without knowing the rules, we've only seen a handful of moves and we are still trying to figure it out!"

  • Dark Matter/Dark Energy (Score:5, Funny)

    by JanusFury ( 452699 ) <kevin DOT gadd AT gmail DOT com> on Friday December 27, 2002 @06:53AM (#4965487) Homepage Journal
    What is dark matter, you ask? God needs to defrag the universe. It's little bits of discarded matter from ages past... just think, random garbled bits of your grandfather could be floating somewhere!
  • I've recently activated the space.com slashbox and I recommend you do too [slashdot.org]. I like the stories there (tho' i refused to go there back in my pre-phoenix days due to there liberal use of pop-ups), but they don't post news very frequently. I was wondering if some slashdotter knew of a better site that offered a more comprehensive look at all news related to astronomy/spaceflight/etc.?

  • Anomalous Acceleration (Score:3, Informative)

    by titaniam ( 635291 ) <slashdot@drpa.us> on Friday December 27, 2002 @08:05AM (#4965584) Homepage Journal
    Here's a real mystery which we still can't figure out: Anomalous Acceleration of Pioneer space probes [aip.org]. This one, like the dark energy problem, hints at fundamental problems with our view of the universe.

  • Limits of our intelligence? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dolphinuser ( 211295 ) on Friday December 27, 2002 @08:53AM (#4965699)
    I recently read in Discover magazine, that some astrophysicists are openly questioning whether we have the mental prowess to actually understand many of the mysteries in the universe.

    For analogy, they talked about Apes. While it is clear that an Ape has intelligence, we do not expect them to start solving differential calculus any time soon. Their intelligence can't even conceive that such a thing exists.

    Could it be, they asked, that perhaps some "secrets" of the universe are simply beyond our ability to even know what we don't know; and like the Apes, we are unable to even conceive their solutions?

    Food for thought,

    John

    • Re:Limits of our intelligence? (Score:4, Funny)

      by fatboyslack ( 634391 ) on Friday December 27, 2002 @09:04AM (#4965740) Journal
      That is intriguing, and a little disturbing, but an analogy (say that quickly five times) that I like to use is me compared to my other co-workers when I was at McDonalds to put myself through Uni. And managers. For instance, we had someone come up to one of the front counter ladies and get change of two tens for a five. Twice.
    • Although we may not be much better than apes, there is one significant difference. We can communicate, more importantly write. Without methods of recording our thoughts for future generations, we would be stuck in the dark ages.

      The printing press triggered a revolution. Benjamin Franklin was around about that time, in fact much of his success was due to writing his own newspaper. Instead of quoting the bible all the time (the only book around before then) people had ideas and could share them.

      In much the same way the Internet has caused information (and misinformation) to be even more readily accessible. If there is any limitation to the intelligence of humanity it is how well an individual can specialize in one practice in a lifetime. Doctors, Scientists, Engineers, Lawyers etc already spend a significant chunk of their lives learning enough to be productive.
    • A human from 5000 years ago probably couldn't grasp the concept of differential calculus, either. "Intelligence" in this context is as much about learning as capacity.
      • A human from 5000 years ago probably couldn't grasp the concept of differential calculus, either. "Intelligence" in this context is as much about learning as capacity.

        It took me sixteen years to go from newborn to differential calculus. Given a competent mathematics teacher, so could a human from 5000 years ago; indeed, they could almost certainly do it in far less time than that.

      • I believe it is also nurtured by environment. If we put the average American into an environment that was more educational and engaging, they would become more intelligent than they were because of the stimulation. Right now our goal has been to dumb down our technology and make it easy to use. I don't know what effect this will have on society.

        I agree that it is extremely important that all humans are taught the concepts of rates of change. If we apply differential calculus and computer networks to business we get efficiency and virtual automation (1 human does the work of 100..)

        But can the average person understand or remember differential calculus? Probably not the way we teach things today. Our educational system leaves much to be desired. This stuff has to be fun to learn instead of a chore and everyone should be encouraged to attend/participate.

        I guess all I'm saying is education is not encouraged. Just the basic skills required for labor. This is so 20th century. Hope it doesn't take us another 5000 years to finally grow a brain.
    • I came to the same idea about a month ago when I was trying to understand why is it that I cannot simply use my mind to transfer myself in real world. If I close my eyes and imagine that I am somewhere else why doesn't it happen? If I imagine that my cellphone is lifting itself and flying through the air why doesn't it happen? If I not simply imagine the flying itself, but I imagine that I see the entire Universe and it is split into a large multidimensional matrix and everything that happens in the Universe is caused by changes through the matrix due to some simple laws of life (like physics and chemistry for example) why can't I affect what happens in this matrix by going around the laws with the power of my imagination. I think I am trying to be the Neo but I cannot.

      At that time I realized that with my limited brain power I cannot explain everything I just do not have enough brain power. And the math seems to grow ever so complicated, pretty soon it will take a life time to understand what we already know in math. Soon enough one person will not be able to understand it anymore.

      I think this has to do with how much information you need to process in order to come to a conclusion. This is why Asimov's robots make so much sence - their life span is so much greater, they have time to learn, to analyze and apply their knowledge in order to come to conclusions. Our brains are not big enough to grasp the Universe and beyond the Universe, but we will build robots that will build robots that will build robots that will eventually be able to explain things better. We are just an evolutionary step that to the next level of intelligence and data storage and analysis skills.
      I am sorry for us, we are not powerfull enough to do this by ourselves. We NEED computers and storage systems and analysis software and fast CPUs to do things for us we cannot do on our own. We are outdated. Bring in the next generation.
    • Could it be, they asked, that perhaps some "secrets" of the universe are simply beyond our ability to even know what we don't know; and like the Apes, we are unable to even conceive their solutions?

      Maybe. Not necessarily a problem; research in biotechnology and cybernetics ought to help there. Hopefully the people of five centuries hence will view us as we view chimpanzees.

      Also, a chimp couldn't even frame the question 'what is the gradient of the curve f(x) at the point x?' If we can ask the question, that's a good sign, and chances are we'll get some way towards an answer. If we can't even frame the question, then we never even know there's something we've missed, and so we won't mind.

  • Karma Time (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mraymer ( 516227 )
    I think I'm already at the cap, but every time slashdot posts and astronomy article I get modded up... Here we go!

    1) Dark Energy: Does anyone else believe that perhaps dark energy simply does not exist, and our laws of physics and what-not are just totally untrue anywhere except on Earth?

    2)Water on Mars: My vote is yes. There is ice on Mars. Some parts of Mars can get up to 80F. If there was ice in such a place, it would be in liquid form. AKA water. :)

    3)The Murky, Mediocre Middle of the Milky Way: Yeah, well, the center of the galaxy is a wee bit far away. Perhaps it would be easier to figure out if we went there. Problem is, even if we could travel as fast or faster than light, BILLIONS of years would pass on Earth in less than a year's time on the starship.

    4)The Origin of Life: Oh, so this is up to astronomers to solve now? Like they don't have enough to do... ;)

    5)Lunar Secrets: The moon is great. We can learn things from it that we probably don't even know we can learn from it. Yet we haven't been back since the 70s... Isn't that depressing?

    6)Are We Alone: No. I would tell you more, but I'd have to kill you. But no. We are not alone.

    7)The Enigmatic Sun: Let's build a Dyson's sphere around the sun. Not like the one in TNG, a solid one is not really possible to make. It's more like a lot of somewhat connected space stations orbiting a star.

    8)Age of the Universe: Age of the universe would imply that time exists. There are some that believe space-time is really just space, and that time is only something humans perceive.

    9)Missing Planets: Well the, the "standard model" is not exactly the most accurate one, now is it? ;)

    10)Can We Survive 2003: If you think that the risk of being hit is low, glace at the moon sometime. The Earth wouldn't look much different without any forms of erosion to cover up the scars.

    • 1) Dark Energy: Does anyone else believe that perhaps dark energy simply does not exist, and our laws of physics and what-not are just totally untrue anywhere except on Earth?

      Sorta. It's definitely a thought experiment I've considered, if not a first order belief. Part of the problem of being localized in spacetime is that you have to extrapolate based on what you know, what radiation you receive, etc... it's a simple filtration process (or heuristic) that humans use every day in dealing with the world -- i.e., that you extrapolate universals from less than universal data.

      For example, I often think to myself "Why doesn't the universe just poof out of existence? If not now, why couldn't it happen in the future? After all, past performance is no guaranty of future success." The conclusion, borrowing a useful heuristic of the philosophy of science, seems to be that "lacking evidence to the contrary, go with what you do know." Thus, we extrapolate from our local data. When new data arrives, you revise.

      For me, a more pressing issue is quantum-mathematical reductionism and its influence on artificial intelligence research. How the hell do you define "red" in a purely logical/mathematical system? It's a meatspace interpretation of wavelength... I just don't see how an AI could ever understand red qua red. Oh sure, sensors can detect the wavelength of red, but could an AI actually see red as I see it? That's the crux of the issue and I'm concerned that mathematical/logical systems will not be able to model such things.

      /dev/random
      -l

      • Machine experience of color (Score:5, Informative)

        by SpinyNorman ( 33776 ) on Friday December 27, 2002 @02:19PM (#4967963)
        Actually color perception is only loosely related to wavelength. What you were taught in highschool was an oversimplification that borders on a lie (as is much of high school science!). Color is really a spatial attribute, not a point one (Google for Edward Land's "Retinex" theory of color preception), and perception of color is not absolute - it depends on the spatially adjacent colors; this isn't an optical illusion - it's the nature of color perception. It doesn't even stop there because color is a compatative attribute - things look "leaf green" because they stimulate your visual cortex in the same say as a leaf, but that is still true if you wear red goggles, and experiments have shown that normal color vision returns after a couple of weeks of wearing colored goggles!

        You should also note that humans can only see a fraction of the possible colors (combinations of wavelengths of light) even in the visual part of the spectrum), and there is therefore nothing absolute about what we perceive - it's just what we can differentiate. If instead of having 3 differently tuned color cones in our eye (the cones have bell-curve-like light wavelength response that peak around R/G/B) we had more, then we would be able to differentiate more wavelength combinations. With our eyes the way they are you can differentially stimulate our color cones with only three wavelengths of light, but if we had 4 (peak tuned to R/G/B/Yellow say, or ANY different wavelengths) then you would need 4. Some people in fact do have 4 types of color cones and can therefore differentiate colors that you cannot. Your "red" surface is someone else's patterned one!

        That absolute "red" that you are worrying about therefore isn't an irreducible gestalt experience/quale - it's a differential surface attribute detection that a machine will be able to duplicate just fine.

        Incidently note also that what you see a color as isn't going to be precisely what I see it as - we may agree on things like "green's a bit like blue and a bit like yellow" that are based on the underlying transducers and brain architecture, but what the color actually looks/feels like is going to be as personal as any other experiental phenomena.
        • Incidently note also that what you see a color as isn't going to be precisely what I see it as - we may agree on things like "green's a bit like blue and a bit like yellow" that are based on the underlying transducers and brain architecture, but what the color actually looks/feels like is going to be as personal as any other experiental phenomena.

          Which is exactly the part I care about in my argument. :) I'm not claiming you can't mimic the behavioral response to color spaces, I'm claiming that the phenomenalogical experience may not be able to be duplicated in a given model.

          I recognize that what you call "green" I might call "orange" but since we're always consistent about it, we never knew we saw them differently... Now extend that problem from the human to the other (cat, computer, etc.). You are likely to have a much greater difference in interpretation. You may think duplicating the response to stimulus is sufficient, but I say "dammit, I paid for a box of chocolates, not a box of sand. I demand chocolate!" After all, what good is a model if it doesn't accurately model?

          Cheers,
          -l

    • Re:Karma Time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zathrus ( 232140 ) on Friday December 27, 2002 @02:15PM (#4967929) Homepage
      Dark Energy: Does anyone else believe that perhaps dark energy simply does not exist, and our laws of physics and what-not are just totally untrue anywhere except on Earth?

      Uh... right. Which is why stellar processes conform to known laws of physics. Copernicus, Gallileo, Newton, et. al. didn't invent basic orbital mechanics from watching things on Earth.

      The inaccuracies we're finding are largely in the tiny percentages, although apparantly just large enough to not be thrown away as statistical error. The universe accelerating bit is, to my knowledge, still controversial.

      Water on Mars: My vote is yes. There is ice on Mars. Some parts of Mars can get up to 80F. If there was ice in such a place, it would be in liquid form. AKA water

      As has been pointed out repeatedly, you fail to take vapor pressure into account. If there is liquid water on Mars, it's certainly nowhere near the surface and hasn't been for eons.

      even if we could travel as fast or faster than light, BILLIONS of years would pass on Earth in less than a year's time on the starship

      No it wouldn't. If you manage to go at nearly light speed then yes, longer periods of time pass outside than inside, but it still won't be more than ~30,000 years (as one poster pointed out). If you go FTL then your logic is completely incorrect -- current tachyon theory (last I heard) was that you'd actually move backwards in time relative to an outside observer. You'd literally get there before you left. Of course, to the observer you'd appear at some point after you left, because the light is still moving at, yup, light speed.

      Of course, other theoretical space-time constructs like wormholes would allow instantaneous travel.

      Let's build a Dyson's sphere around the sun

      Before you know exactly how a stellar system works? That's a bad idea. Tremendously bad. Oh, and there's no theoretical reason that a solid Dyson sphere wouldn't be possible, but then again we don't know enough theory to actually do it.

      Age of the universe would imply that time exists. There are some that believe space-time is really just space, and that time is only something humans perceive

      Yes, and there are some that believe that mankind is descended from aliens who visited in 1973 on the top of a volcano in France.

      Regardless of whether space-time exists as a cohesive whole or if time and space are independant dimensions, we are inherently limited by how we view them. And we have loads of actual data to back up our theories.

      Well the, the "standard model" is not exactly the most accurate one, now is it?

      Actually, yes it is. That doesn't mean it's the final model or entirely correct. Which is why there are always theories about how to further refine it.

      If you think that the risk of being hit is low, glace at the moon sometime

      And when was the last significant lunar impact? Heck, the last significant impact in our solar system was Shoemaker-Levy, and that was a one-in-a-million occurrence. The odds of something hitting Earth is even lower, since we have gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn sweeping the outer solar system of most large asteroids. Even the space.com article admits it's mostly media hype.

      Oh, and as for everyone slamming on you - it's because a post full of factual errors got modded up. Welcome to slashdot. The only reason you found entrager's post "tactful" was because it was largely a "me too" post that was equally full of errors.
      • Oh, and as for everyone slamming on you - it's because a post full of factual errors got modded up. Welcome to slashdot. The only reason you found entrager's post "tactful" was because it was largely a "me too" post that was equally full of errors.

        This isn't true at all... I found your post to be very polite as well, and in fact added you to my friends list. I mean, at least you didn't call me a "goddamn shitass" or the like.

        Back on topic... I did mean underground about the Mars water thing. But I'm more upset about my Earth's atmosphere mistake. It's just one of those things I don't really notice unless it's gone. ;)

  • No Kidding (Score:3, Funny)

    by sharkey ( 16670 ) on Friday December 27, 2002 @08:55AM (#4965707)
    Dark Energy - Nobody knows what the heck it is, but it is officially repulsive.

    Well, it IS three-eyed alien poop. Of course it's repulsive.
  • The list definitely included some good topics, but the mystery that I found most interesting in 2002 is the 'mystery force' that caused course deflections in the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft. Here there is hard evidence that something is acting differently or in addition to what we expect (i.e. gravity, additional planet, etc.), but NASA is unable to explain it.
    See this [slashdot.org] story from last May.

  • If we really wanted to, we could *know* easily. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by io333 ( 574963 ) on Friday December 27, 2002 @09:23AM (#4965856)
    The greatest question of all time is: "Are we alone?"

    That's really the other ultimate goal of space exploration, isn't it? (The first goal is to find us a new place to live after the earth is used up).

    But there is such a simple way to answer the question: Take all the cash we are using on rediculous stuff like the ISS and:

    BUILD A GIANT TELESCOPE IN SPACE OR ON THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON.

    And I mean BIG.

    One so Hugeomegagigantic that it can actually SEE the surface of extra solar earth sized planets in detail to pick out cities, roads, and lights.

    And then, if we saw with our own eyes that there was another civilization -- imagine the space program we'd start to have then. ...and yes I know the dark side of the moon isn't always dark, but we'd want to cut down on earthshine too probably.
    • ...and now that I think about it:

      Any folks within a hundred light years that have the wherewithall to make their own bit telescope -- they already know about us.

      Maybe we need to get on this pretty quick!
    • Space-based interferometers... Take a few smaller telescopes, separate them and fly them in formation, then combine the images while playing with phase to remove the light from the target star, thus exposing the planets around it.

      Here [nasa.gov] is the details on the first one... The eventual plan, as far as I've heard, is to put a pair (or more) out at the orbit of Jupiter, on opposite sides (maybe near the Jovian L4 and L5 points... though watch out for the Trojans!) of the solar system.

      -T http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/future/sim.html

  • Origin of life answered (Score:4, Informative)

    by 3ryon ( 415000 ) on Friday December 27, 2002 @10:02AM (#4966100)
    I also thought this question was unanswerable, but the book I'm reading at the moment goes a long way to explaining how you can get life from non-life (and you have to understand that I am a skeptical thinker). There is no book I would more highly recommend to everyone in the audience: The Selfish Gene [amazon.com] by Richard Dawkins.

    If I had the ability to mod my own comments I would burn all 50 points in the hope that just one more person would read this book.

  • "The age of the universe has been put at 12 billion to 15 billion years for some time now, but every few months a revision or refinement is announced. Hubble Telescope observations yielded in April an estimate of 13-14 billion years."

    So.. what was there before? just black? , nothing? Think about it.

  • Astronomer's list (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TMB ( 70166 ) on Friday December 27, 2002 @02:00PM (#4967814)
    As a professional astronomer, that list is quite different from what I'd give... here's my go:

    1. Dark matter - what the hell is it?
    2. Dark energy - what is it and why is it the strength it is? (#1 in the article)
    3. Short period gamma ray bursts - what the hell are they?
    4. Long period gamma ray bursts - what the hell are they?
    5. How prevalent is life and intelligent life in the universe? (#6 in the article)
    6. Star formation - what determines where and when it happens?
    7. Gravitational waves - can we detect them? what will they tell us?
    8. Was the universe reionized by stars or quasars, and when?
    9. How does solar activity couple to the Earth's climate?
    10. How does the feedback from stellar winds and supernovae into the interstellar medium affect it?

    [TMB]
  • Of course there's water on Mars! There are already cats [catsonmars.com] and mice [mouseonmars.com] chasing each other up there!
  • Well, I don't know if this makes any sence, but after I read the questions, I noticed that two of them kind of explain each other.

    1. What is dark energy and why is our universe expanding faster than anticipated.

    2. Are there other universes out there.

    Sorry for my simplistic view of things, I only took 4 astronomy courses but could it be that existence of other universes explains the dark energy problem? Could it be that in some weird way masses of other universes attract masses of ours?

    On the other hand if that is not true, then imagine the following: a bubble bath. You know, where bubbles squeeze each other, they can grow due to air diffusing into them but they can squeeze each other. Is it possible that other universes are squeezing our universe and that the rate of growth is not equal to all sides of the universe but is proportional to the forces and vectors pushing our universe through such a bath full of bubbles?

    Screw this, I want to go get myself a bubble bath!

Slashdot Top Deals

The clash of ideas is the sound of freedom.

Close