Kepler Watches White Dwarf Warp Spacetime 58
astroengine writes "The Kepler space telescope's prime objective is to hunt for small worlds orbiting distant stars, but that doesn't mean it's not going to detect some extreme relativistic phenomena along the way. While monitoring a red dwarf star — designated KOI-256 — astronomers detected a dip in starlight in the Kepler data. But it wasn't caused by an exoplanet. After some careful detective work, the researchers found that the red dwarf was actually in orbit around a binary partner — a white dwarf. As the white dwarf passed in front of the red dwarf, the starlight was enhanced by microlensing — a phenomenon caused by an intense gravitational field focusing light from behind. This had the counter-intuitive result of causing the starlight to dim when the white dwarf passed behind the red dwarf and then brighten as the white dwarf passed in front. This is one of the first discoveries of a binary partner through microlensing. 'Only Kepler could detect this tiny, tiny effect,' said Doug Hudgins, Kepler program scientist at NASA Headquarters, Washington. 'But with this detection, we are witnessing Einstein's theory of general relativity at play in a far-flung star system.'"
Laws of Physics (Score:1)
Can this be used to make inferences about the laws of physics, constants, etc. as they are at that distance/time ago?
Yes (Score:5, Funny)
Ye cannae change the laws o' physics
Re:Laws of Physics (Score:5, Informative)
I think that Kepler is looking only at stars in our galaxy, a few hundred or thousand light years away/ago, so the time ago is not that great - within prehistory if not history, We can be pretty confident that laws of physics have not changed much since mammals evolved. This star is apparently 1,828 light years away,
Re:Laws of Physics (Score:4, Interesting)
The micro lens effect is interesting because observing it proves Einstien's theory that mass and gravity "warp" space and time. My kid was watching history channel about this just last week... It was incredibly hard to find an event that could prove the theory true, AND take measurements with 1910-era equipment.... This was THE meal or break observation for Einstien's theory of General Relativity.
And now we have telescopes that find these events "just lying around" the galaxy.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but that's not quite right. Time has a negative sign in the calculation of distance. There's also a factor of c in there, but you could say that's just for unit conversion. However, because of that negative sign on a squared term, moving backwards in time is fundamentally different from moving forwards in time.
That said, different frames of reference *do* convert one into the other (which is Special Relativity) and accelerated frames of reference (General Relativity) act even stranger. Special Re
Re: Laws of Physics (Score:1)
Source for distance, with position http://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Photometry-Kepler-KOI-0256-20110828.htm [perseus.gr]
Third hit on Google.
Yes they can. (Score:1)
It is mostly the fine structure constant that is used to check if the laws of physics are the same at huge distances. Any change in this would change the relative positions of the absorption spectra of hydrogen, et al, and this fine structure constant contains planck's constant, electric charge and emissivity of free space (IIRC) that have no reason to change in such a way as to keep this fine structure constant the same if any or all of these values change.
And absorption spectra, even redshifted, keep the
Anticipation (Score:5, Interesting)
Since the current Kepler has produced stunning science, I sure hope they put another one up when this one conks out thanks to losing the last of its gyroscopes. It's a shame that Kepler is facing a crash just as it is hitting stride.
Re: (Score:2)
What we really need to do is put up TWO such telescopes at opposite poles of Neptunes orbit. That would give us a significant parallax for things that are sufficiently close. (What sufficiently would mean would depend on how carefully direction could be determined.) They'd probably need to synchronize their clocks based on some pulsar...one that has an occasional glitch. If it could be done right, this would give us the resolving power (though not the light collection capability) of a telescope the size
Re:FTL travel = impossible (Score:5, Informative)
It's entirely true that faster than light travel is forbidden by general relativity. However, geometries with closed timelike curves, which can behave very much like time-machines, are not forbidden. It remains to be seen if such curves can be created and controlled. If they can, then a more complete model would be needed to include the effects of such phenomenon. As it stands, such curves could behave in several ways. In one formulation, self consistency would always be required. In another, such curves could be through another dimension, leading to self-inconsistent histories.
Most importantly, closed timelike curves are sufficiently rare that we have not observed natural occurrences. So, although such possibilites are interesting to consider, they are, ultimately, far beyond our current technologies.
Re: (Score:2)
hey violate the Weak Energy Condition, which means that they are indeed forbidden.
By the weak energy condition, but not necessarily by the laws of physics. Wormholes wouldn't be "normal conditions". Given that the weak energy condition is violated on quantum scales, as you already noted, that's one avenue by which you might be able to exploit the math.
Re: (Score:2)
But, for example, the Alcubierre drive would allow us to travel to the stars in reasonable subjective time without FTL travel. If it could be built (manipulating multiple Jupiter-sized masses is currently a bit of a problem).
Re: (Score:2)
The Alcubierre drive is a hypothetical faster than light drive based on general relativity.
If you want to go pretty much anywhere you want in a reasonable subjective time all you have to do is figure out how to accelerate at 1 g or so for a couple of decades. There are proposals for how to do that without needing Jupiter sized masses or negative energy. A ramjet comes to mind.
Re: (Score:1)
thought it was a tv show revue (Score:4, Funny)
till i realized it was white dwarf, not Red Dwarf...
That's the problem in today's society... (Score:2)
Kepler should have stepped in and told the dwarf to stop.
OTOH "White Dwarf Warp Spacetime" sounds like something the Hulk would say, so perhaps a wise move to stand back and watch.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like a typical creationist. Stop commenting, you're worse than Hitler.
Re: (Score:2)
Where is Intrepid Imaginaut? (Score:2, Funny)
A question for the Astronomers (Score:3)
Not related to TFA per se, but from what I am understanding of exoplanet spotting is that it is predicated on a star and planet pair being observed being on an orbital plane of which Kepler can observe the edge. As otherwise how would the star light be seen to dim/brighten. Is this a fair statement? And if so does that mean that we are only capable (at the moment - I'm sure the future Lunar observatories will change things) of discovering exoplanets that lie on a plane whose edge points to Earth? And are the orbital planes of exoplanets parallel to our own solar system, or are they distributed all over the place?
I want to know for both the science, plus pretty well every science fiction book I have read has the protagonists entering planetary systems along the orbital plane (except for the sneaky bad guys who attack from above or below).
Re:A question for the Astronomers (Score:4, Informative)
So does the doppler method, but I believe there can be a little more difference in the angle, as a doppler shift is slightly easier to measure than a bightness shift, but I am not an expert, I just think I read that somewhere.
Also, IIRC, the astrometry method, which is not very useful requires the solar system to be at about a 90 degree angle in relation to ours.
Re: (Score:2)
Short answer:
1.yes, pretty much
2. most systems lay on a plane shared with ours (view images of our galaxy from the 'top' and compare with a 'side view'...it is a rotating disc, AKA Spiral Galaxy)
BTW, #2 is why this is so hard, looking out at our galaxy, it's crowded out there!
For an 'On Earth Analogy', it would be like trying to spot a specific, individual tree in the most densely populated forest on earth, from Mars(or thereabouts).
Re:A question for the Astronomers (Score:4, Interesting)
BTW, #2 is why this is so hard, looking out at our galaxy, it's crowded out there!
For an 'On Earth Analogy', it would be like trying to spot a specific, individual tree in the most densely populated forest on earth, from Mars(or thereabouts).
IIRC, there's not particularly good evidence that the plane upon which planets form have anything other than a loose association to the plane of the galaxy. (And, they wouldn't need to be much off from it for a planet to almost never pass in front of the star. If you were looking at our sun along the plane of Pluto's orbit, the odds are almost zero that you're at the exact position in which the other planets are going to transit the star -- in almost any direction, the point the two planes cross will be to one side or the other of the star.
But IANAA.
Re: (Score:3)
Sci-Fact (Score:2)
I can't help but notice that as our technology becomes more and more advanced, the narrative gets closer to and more interchangeable with sci-fi..
The starships prime objective is to hunt for small worlds orbiting distant stars, but that doesn't mean it's not going to detect some extreme relativistic phenomena along the way. While monitoring a red dwarf star — designated KOI-256 — the crew detected a dip in starlight in the Kepler data. But it wasn't caused by an exoplanet. After some careful det
Counter-Intuitive ? (Score:2)
Not sure why this is counter-intuitive. The light would only appear brighter if you were observing from the focus of the microlens, or near it; elswhere it would dim, even on the same axis if you were far enough beyond it.
Re: (Score:1)
Look at a light bulb. Now move a small object (say your hand) between yourself and the light-bulb. Notice ho the light bulb appears darker when the object is between you and it, and lighter otherwise. This is what most people's intuition would assume happens when a dark object moves in front of a bright one. Instead due to a phenomenon that people can't observe in daily life the opposite happened here. Thus the observation is "counter intuitive".
Re: (Score:2)
It's counter-intuitive if you're unaware of the theory of reealitivity.
not so new: 3rd most common planet finder (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Ahm - that's just plain wrong and not funny or anything.. or am I just not getting it? o.O
In case, you're serious: for this effect to be noticeable, the object has to be
a liiiittle bit more massive, then a planet could ever be.
reference here (Score:2)
Must be a very old white dwarf (Score:2)
And, therefore, substantially cooled. I am surprised that it wasn't detected directly like all the other white dwarfs we know about. (Like Sirus B [wikipedia.org])