Astronomers Prove To Einstein That Stars Can Warp Light (theverge.com) 96
Astronomers have observed for the first time ever a distant star warp the light of another star, "making it seem as though the object changed its position in the sky," reports The Verge. The discovery is especially noteworthy as Albert Einstein didn't think such an observation would be possible. From the report: These events require stars that are very far apart to line up perfectly. That's why Einstein once wrote that "there is no hope of observing this phenomenon directly." Our telescope technology has become far more sophisticated than in Einstein's day -- which is what allowed us to observe something he thought we'd never see. In 2014, a group of astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope spotted a rare type of microlensing, when a dense white dwarf star passed in front of another star thousands of light-years away. The stars weren't exactly aligned, but they were close enough that the white dwarf made it seem like the background star performed a small loop in the sky. "It looks like the white dwarf pushed it out of the way," Terry Oswalt, an astronomer at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University who was not involved in this discovery but wrote a perspective piece in Science, tells The Verge. "That's not what happened, of course. It just looks like that." The astronomers also used the apparent movement of the background star to measure the mass of the passing white dwarf, a novel technique detailed in a paper published today in Science. And they say this isn't the last time they'll make measurements like this either. Now that they've figured out how to spot these kinds of lensing events, they're hoping to find even more with new ground- and space-based telescopes that are coming online soon.
Not (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not (Score:5, Insightful)
The headline is worse than that. It implies that Einstein didn't believe in the existence of the phenomenon in question, which is a pretty ridiculous implication. A much more accurate headline might have been something along the lines of "Astronomers Demonstrate Observability of Light Warping Via Previously Impractical Means." -PCP
Re: (Score:1)
BREAKING NEWS: Some things that weren't possible in 1919 are possible in 2017.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BREAKING NEWS: Some things that weren't possible in 1919 are possible in 2017.
... whereas other things were possible in 1919, but are no longer now. Such as reading comprehension.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You believe that's air you are breathing?
Most Ignorant Headline Ever! (Score:5, Informative)
The headline is worse than that. It implies that Einstein didn't believe in the existence of the phenomenon in question...
Oh it's even worse because the reason Einstein (and everyone else) believed his theory of general relativity was correct was due to the Arthur Eddington's expedition [wikipedia.org] to view the solar eclipse of 1919 where he observed that the sun bent the light of a distant star changing its apparent position!
What is even more insane is that both the articles linked in the summary start out mentioning this 1919 observation proving that the submitter either never read the articles he was submitting or did not understand what they were talking about. This article is clearly a contender for the most ignorant article on slashdot award.
Re: Most Ignorant Headline Ever! (Score:2)
I presume that award is a daily, or weekly, award? I'm not sure it stands, as a contender, In a longer time frame.
Re:Not (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that they still use Einstein's name in clickbait headlines is tribute to his genius.
When he said "there is no hope of observing this phenomenon directly" he probably meant "there is no hope of us observing this phenomenon directly", not "there is no hope of ever observing this phenomenon directly"
People observed the sun bending light in 1919 - well inside Einstein's lifetime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
He may well have meant there is no hope of ever observing the phenomenon directly. In 1920 there was considerable argument about whether certain "nebula" were independent galaxies or just parts of our own, and a comprehensive star survey was being prepared... containing a quarter of a million stars.
Without modern telescope technology, CCD cameras, computers, and a knowledge of just how many stars there are, it would be nearly impossible to detect that kind of effect in reasonable timeframes. Also, in 1920
Re: (Score:1)
The fact that they still use Einstein's name in clickbait headlines is tribute to his genius.
When he said "there is no hope of observing this phenomenon directly" he probably meant "there is no hope of us observing this phenomenon directly", not "there is no hope of ever observing this phenomenon directly"
People observed the sun bending light in 1919 - well inside Einstein's lifetime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And he certainly didn't think that the phenomenon was impossible, as seems to have been reported or implied by much of the media.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this just a novice mistake, English-as-not-mother-tongue or just general incompetence?
Or maybe it's an intentional error designed to solicit comments like this, as you speculate. Too many people shrieking for attention these days, so they gotta try new ways of scamming you into clicking. It's sad, really.
Re: (Score:2)
A gravitational lens is a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant light source and an observer, that is capable of bending the light from the source as the light travels towards the observer. This effect is known as gravitational lensing, and the amount of bending is one of the predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity. (Classical physics also predicts the bending of light, but only half that predicted by general relativity.) Although either Orest Khvolson (1924) or Frantisek Link (1936) is sometimes credited as being the first to discuss the effect in print, the effect is more commonly associated with Einstein, who published a more famous article on the subject in 1936.
Fritz Zwicky posited in 1937 that the effect could allow galaxy clusters to act as gravitational lenses. It was not until 1979 that this effect was confirmed by observation of the so-called "Twin QSO" SBS 0957+561.
I know that there's a tradition here of being late with the news, but THAT late?
Re: (Score:2)
Matter of fact, /. would have been much better off to copy the corresponding story in Soylent...
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, the headline makes it look like Einstein didn't believe stars could bend light of other stars, when what he doubted was our ability to observe it.
Re: (Score:1)
That's not fair. msmash is definitely a contender.
Re: (Score:1)
Wtf? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see.
Einstein isn't going to get anything proven to him. He is dead.
However, he showed that this should be true, why would it need to be proven to him?
Let alone the fact that gravitational lensing, which uses this exact effect, is a common technique these days.
What is the point?
Re:Wtf? (Score:5, Insightful)
All the stupidity in the text can be explained with two words - "The Verge"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Johnny Flynn as Young Albert Einstein
Pfft. As if anyone could replace Yahoo Serious in that role.
Re:Wtf? (Score:5, Informative)
Very good question, because of the quite bad headline.
At the time of writing his original paper [sciencemag.org] regarding light bending between two stars, Einstein was already sure that the light-bending effect occurs (it had been already observed during a solar eclipse in 1919 [wikipedia.org]). However, he assumed that it would never be observable with two stars, one in the background and other in the foreground (different to the sun) because the light of the two stars would merge and not be distinguishable. From his paper (full copy here [to.infn.it]): Of course, there is no hope of observing this phenomenon directly. First, we shall scarcely ever approach closely enough to such a central line. Second, the angle b will defy the resolving power of our instruments [...]".
The relevant contribution is that current science (Hubble resolution) and appropriate search has managed to observe this effect. In particular, the linked overview clarifies it: Because the foreground star observed by Sahu et al. was about 400 times brighter than the background star, the brightening of their combined light was far too small to be detectable even with Hubble. However, the apparent displacement in the background star’s position, so-called “astrometric lensing,” was measurable. The interesting part is that by measuring the displacement of light, they have been also able to measure the mass of the star, and determine that it is not an exotic "iron core" white dwarf.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? :)
How about time travel
Yes I know, just as stupid as the thing you pointed out.
Ironically today I got up the the bit in Greg Egan's SF novel "The Arrows of Time" where some characters take a twelve year side trip to try to observe gravitational lensing.
Are you serious? (Score:5, Interesting)
Dupe-wraping (Score:2)
That's because this dupe got time-warped by gravity time dilation.
(The distant star is massive, after all)
Re: (Score:1)
May 29 1919 is very, very old news.
well, this is Slashdot...
Re: (Score:2)
I've been faithfully watching the "Genius" TV series, and they made it very clear (last week I think) that a friend of Einstein definitively proved his Theory of Relativity was correct by photographing a solar eclipse down off Africa Madagascar or some such. Yeah, 1919 or so, just after the end of WW I.
Besides, I don't like that statement:
"It looks like the white dwarf pushed it out of the way," Terry Oswalt, an astronomer at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University who was not involved in this discove
Nothing to see, move along (Score:2)
Einstein said such thing (light warping) happens but there was no hope (no probability) to see that. And you know what? He was right, as far as his whole life. So, even dead, there's nothing to "prove" to him that he didn't prove already.
This case is the similar (but not the same) with Higgs' Bosom, Higgs tought he would be dead before proving the existence of his bosom. He was wrong.
Re:"Higgs' Bosom" (Score:5, Funny)
I tried to measure it, but ran into a Heisenberg problem. Every time I was about to measure a bosom, it moved away.
I also usually felt a strange stinging sensation in my cheek...
Re: (Score:3)
Like I said to Schroedinger, "What happens in the cat box, stays in the cat box"
Re: (Score:2)
That guy was recently arrested at the airport for terrorism, his luggage contained a dead cat and some strange apparatus housing some sort of nuclear device.
The nerve he had, he said something like that the TSA agent was responsible for the cat's demise, just 'cause he opened the box. Might have been some sort of trap. Investigations are still underway.
Re: (Score:2)
Then, a Bell rang and the evidence, the cat was eaten by Pavlovs dog.
Re: (Score:2)
You may recall the time Schrodinger was pulled over for speeding and the officer asked to search the vehicle. Having nothing to hide, Schrodinger consented. When the officer opened the trunk he found a dead cat and asked, "Did you know you have a dead cat in your trunk?" Schrodinger replied indignantly, "Well, I do now!"
Re: (Score:2)
Love it!
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said to Schroedinger, "What happens in the cat box, stays in the cat box"
That's the exact same thing my kids say when I tell them it's their turn to scoop the cat box. Wouldn't be surprised to find a dead cat in there from the smell.
Headline written by stupid shit (Score:4)
1) The term "prove to" implies that Einstein believed that such lensing doesn't happen.
2) Einstein is dead, so no scientists are proving anything to him.
Oh man... (Score:3)
Oh man, that Einstein, what a dummy.
No shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: No shit (Score:2)
I don't care if you had to kill time, there are no excuses. Heretic!
Observation != proof (Score:4, Insightful)
Einstein developed the Theory of Relativity, calculated what would be observed. The apparent angular displacement due to such micro lensing turned out to be so small, he said, "such a small displacement is unlikely to be observed". He is right, even after this observation, no terrestrial telescope can hope to observe this. You need to get a telescope the size of a school bus into orbit, install a contact lens to that telescope in orbit, and point it at the right spot to see it.
Re: (Score:3)
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven. [brainyquote.com]" - Jean Chretien
Re: (Score:2)
Proofs are possible only in mathematics.
But disproof by counterexample is always possible. Einstein said we wouldn't be able to observe this, and since we've observed it we've have disproven that claim. Not knocking on Einstein; obviously he had no basis for theorizing the sort of observational capabilities we have now -- and even then he threw in a weasel word, "unlikely", to qualify it.
The apparent angular displacement due to such micro lensing turned out to be so small, he said, "such a small displacement is unlikely to be observed". He is right, even after this observation, no terrestrial telescope can hope to observe this.
Well, he would be right if he'd said it can't be observed from a terrestrial telescope, but made no such restriction. I would also not be so ready to claim that
Re: (Score:2)
It is interesting you bring up adaptive optics and image post processing. How would I know the observed displacements are real observation, not some software glitch in adaptive optics or post processing?
400 years ago when Galileo was using astronomical telescopes (sorry I misused the term terrestrial telescope. Astronomical telescopes use two lenses or one lens
Re: (Score:2)
It is interesting you bring up adaptive optics and image post processing. How would I know the observed displacements are real observation, not some software glitch in adaptive optics or post processing?
The same way you know the image from the Hubble is accurate, after the processing applied to its imagery. Calibration and great care.
Re: (Score:2)
he said there was no hope of observing it directly.
But we just observed it directly. Depending, of course, on your definition of "directly". If you define it to mean "with the unaided human eye", then he was right. If you allow the eye to be augmented, then you have to specify what forms of augmentation are to be permitted, and where you draw the line is totally arbitrary.
Re: (Score:2)
And puddings!
Re: Observation != proof (Score:2)
And booze.
Re: (Score:2)
proofs are possible in liquor, the highest in the hard stuff. My one counter-example destroys your assertion.
Moronic Title (And Summary); Better Article (Score:2)
Here lies the importance of Sahu et al.’s project. Their astrometric lensing mea surements show convincingly that Stein 2051 B is not an exotic “iron core” white dwarf but a rather typical one, with a carbon-oxygen core and a normal mass and radius, thus resolving the long-standing debate over its nature.
(sic) So, they didn't prove that gravitational lensing exists (duh), but rather it was used to explain some weird anomaly. Cool, but definitely not as headline grabby as "Scientists Prove Einstein Wrong".
Re: (Score:2)
He was cremated, perhaps they rubbed his ashes into the telescope. Or perhaps they lacked the foresight and imagination required to conceive of such a stupid and ill informed headline to describe what they actually did.
Re: (Score:2)
Shut up, Naysayers! (Score:2)
Take that, Einstein, you bastard! Finally, you get what you deserve!
Your are all missing the real point of the story (Score:1)
einstein (Score:1)