twinkle-twinkle 1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th of a star
May 30, 2006 9:10 PM Subscribe
Mr. Raymo is flattering himself here ...
I especially like the literary slight of hand where he kind of puts himself on the same playing field as Darwin, Einstein, and Watson & Crick with this musing. Cute, that.
posted by moonbiter at 10:03 PM on May 30, 2006
The extreme distance of the star has to be counterbalanced with an appreciation for its extreme brightness.
I did some calculations. At its known luminosity, Arcturus is emitting 10^46 photons/sec in a sphere. So, as he says, if our eye is capturing 10^-41 of that, that means about 100,000 photons/sec from Arcturus. Its got photons to spare. (corrections to my numbers are welcome)
Our eye, which detects light logarithmically, can detect anywhere from 10 photons/sec to 10 billion photons/sec. So, Arcturus is no problem.
Had he thought a little deeper about it, he would have realized that even though those other stars are dim, they are still there covering their part of the radial sphere. With so many of them covering the sky, why isn't the night sky bright? This is Olber's paradox.
posted by vacapinta at 10:08 PM on May 30, 2006
I did some calculations. At its known luminosity, Arcturus is emitting 10^46 photons/sec in a sphere. So, as he says, if our eye is capturing 10^-41 of that, that means about 100,000 photons/sec from Arcturus. Its got photons to spare. (corrections to my numbers are welcome)
Our eye, which detects light logarithmically, can detect anywhere from 10 photons/sec to 10 billion photons/sec. So, Arcturus is no problem.
Had he thought a little deeper about it, he would have realized that even though those other stars are dim, they are still there covering their part of the radial sphere. With so many of them covering the sky, why isn't the night sky bright? This is Olber's paradox.
posted by vacapinta at 10:08 PM on May 30, 2006
I know I'm supposed to find this sort of whimsical musing beautiful, but until we find evidence of at least ONE complex biosphere outside of our solar system- and if we're lucky evidence of intelligence - these sorts of things just fill me with a sense of tragedy. We give meaning to it all by the act of perception and contemplation of course, but that meaning is sort of pathetic and barren - for the moment.
posted by slatternus at 10:43 PM on May 30, 2006
posted by slatternus at 10:43 PM on May 30, 2006
Stop! This has gone far enough. We're overdosing on numbers.
No such thing.
posted by quite unimportant at 11:11 PM on May 30, 2006
No such thing.
posted by quite unimportant at 11:11 PM on May 30, 2006
Next step in this meditation: muse on about how much of the light reflected by *you* reaches a distant (future) observer, as they gaze into the night sky...
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:00 AM on May 31, 2006
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:00 AM on May 31, 2006
Not only was the "nobody's ever thought about this before" thing stupid, the piece was terribly written.
All those expanding spheres of light from thousands of stars (the ones that are bright enough to see), mushing about through space...
Offhand, it's hard to think of a more inappropriate verb for expanding spheres of light than "mushing."
posted by languagehat at 5:14 AM on May 31, 2006
All those expanding spheres of light from thousands of stars (the ones that are bright enough to see), mushing about through space...
Offhand, it's hard to think of a more inappropriate verb for expanding spheres of light than "mushing."
posted by languagehat at 5:14 AM on May 31, 2006
Then blink, and imagine the photon that almost made it...except that your eyes were shut for an instant.
Except not. The original photon has been absorbed and reemitted, scattered and refracted by our atmosphere (and again by the lens of your eye), at least as far as I understand things. That's not quite as poetic, though.
posted by Eideteker at 5:38 AM on May 31, 2006
Except not. The original photon has been absorbed and reemitted, scattered and refracted by our atmosphere (and again by the lens of your eye), at least as far as I understand things. That's not quite as poetic, though.
posted by Eideteker at 5:38 AM on May 31, 2006
I don't think Darwin, Einstein or Watson & Crick mind it when
"ordinary people" do their best to think rationally. That's how they all got started, isn't it?
posted by Citizen Premier at 10:09 AM on May 31, 2006
"ordinary people" do their best to think rationally. That's how they all got started, isn't it?
posted by Citizen Premier at 10:09 AM on May 31, 2006
I don't think Darwin, Einstein or Watson & Crick mind it ...
You're right. All of them would encourage folks to do their best to think rationally. Whether the author is thinking rationally or not by believing this little observation of his is on the same level as what the above luminaries did is a different question.
posted by moonbiter at 11:53 PM on May 31, 2006
« Older Purty pictures | Sweetbread Jesus Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Then blink, and imagine the photon that almost made it...except that your eyes were shut for an instant.
posted by argybarg at 9:35 PM on May 30, 2006