Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Waspie_Dwarf

Possible Exomoon Found

42 posts in this topic

Faraway Moon or Faint Star? Possible Exomoon Found

Titan, Europa, Io and Phobos are just a few members of our solar system's pantheon of moons. Are there are other moons out there, orbiting planets beyond our sun?

NASA-funded researchers have spotted the first signs of an "exomoon," and though they say it's impossible to confirm its presence, the finding is a tantalizing first step toward locating others. The discovery was made by watching a chance encounter of objects in our galaxy, which can be witnessed only once.

arrow3.gifSource

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great, now they might finally find an Exo crater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great, now they might finally find an Exo crater.

It is difficult to know with you whether you are serious, attempting humour or deliberately being obtuse.

Just in case you are actually serious I have to ask, you do know that it is not currently possible to see surface details on even the closest, largest exoplanets don't you? In fact we can only see surface details on an extremely limited number of stars.

What does this tell you about the chances of seeing a crater on a tiny exomoon?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bats can see clearly in the dark. If we finetuned this technique our telescopes in theory could see distant details like craters. Generations would pass before we got a return signal thats the downside so the earlier we start on such a project the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bats can see clearly in the dark. If we finetuned this technique our telescopes in theory could see distant details like craters. Generations would pass before we got a return signal thats the downside so the earlier we start on such a project the better.

While bats can see in the dark with their eyes (blind as a bat is a myth), I do not know if bats see any better than any other nocturnal animal and likely not as well as some, like a cat. Bats use sound to visualize a "picture" of their world in a process called echolocation, they produce a high pitched sound wave, which bounces off objects and the resulting echo is picked up by their very sensitive specialized ears, and then probably converted into an image in their brains.

First, sound does not travel in a vacuum; even though space is not a perfect vacuum, it's close enough. Second sound travels considerably slower than light (767 miles per hour, is generally accepted for sound at sea level, in dry air vs 186,000 miles per second or about 669,600,000 miles per hour, give or take a mile, or about 873,012 x slower than the speed of light. So even if you could bounce sound waves off an exo-planet or exo-moon you might be waiting a very long time for that image.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't they use the Hubble to see if these guys are right.if it is a moon that would be awesome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While bats can see in the dark with their eyes (blind as a bat is a myth), I do not know if bats see any better than any other nocturnal animal and likely not as well as some, like a cat. Bats use sound to visualize a "picture" of their world in a process called echolocation, they produce a high pitched sound wave, which bounces off objects and the resulting echo is picked up by their very sensitive specialized ears, and then probably converted into an image in their brains.

First, sound does not travel in a vacuum; even though space is not a perfect vacuum, it's close enough. Second sound travels considerably slower than light (767 miles per hour, is generally accepted for sound at sea level, in dry air vs 186,000 miles per second or about 669,600,000 miles per hour, give or take a mile, or about 873,012 x slower than the speed of light. So even if you could bounce sound waves off an exo-planet or exo-moon you might be waiting a very long time for that image.

Yes of course any Batscope wouldnt use sound. It would use pulses of light. Have you ever heard of LIDAR? The technology will someday map planetary terrains and atmospheres and maybe in the future, even exo solar systems.

Technology that could someday MapQuest Mars and other bodies in the solar system is under development at Rochester Institute of Technologys Rochester Imaging Detector Laboratory (RIDL), in collaboration with Massachusetts Institute of Technologys Lincoln Laboratory.

Three-Dimensional super roadmaps of other planets and moons would provide robots, astronauts and engineers details about atmospheric composition, biohazards, wind speed and temperature. Information like this could help land future spacecraft and more effectively navigate roving cameras across a Martian or lunar terrain.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-05/riot-lid051508.php

Of course this tech is not new but it has so far not reached its potential. Could it map asteroids? Yes. Could it be used to precisely measure distances to the stars? Yes. Could we build a lidar Batscope, fly it toward an exo-system, in Alpha Centauri perhaps.

Yes I think we can.

Power input and output, and possibly finance could be an issue but challenge is part of the fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using a laser to map a far off solar system certainly is possible, but would require years of travel time, and incredible precision, and a receiver the size of a planet.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using a laser to map a far off solar system certainly is possible, but would require years of travel time, and incredible precision, and a receiver the size of a planet.

Excellent! :clap: I love it when a plan comes together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is difficult to know with you whether you are serious, attempting humour or deliberately being obtuse.

Just in case you are actually serious I have to ask, you do know that it is not currently possible to see surface details on even the closest, largest exoplanets don't you? In fact we can only see surface details on an extremely limited number of stars.

So, you agree they should name the planet "Parma," right?

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its amazing how mysterious space is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Its amazing how mysterious space is.

What is truly amazing is how much of what was once mysterious we can now comprehend. That we can detect moons orbiting planets around other stars is a mind blowing achievement.

The wonder is, not that the field of stars is so vast, but that man has measured it.

- Anatole France (1844 - 1924)

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
typo.
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bats can see clearly in the dark. If we finetuned this technique our telescopes in theory could see distant details like craters. Generations would pass before we got a return signal thats the downside so the earlier we start on such a project the better.

If I'm not mistaken, sound waves (like bats use) are a much larger wave than light waves... meaning that we'd see less if we squeaked at the moon. I believe that radio astronomy is using the highest radio frequencies available, giving much finer detail of the objects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If I'm not mistaken, sound waves (like bats use) are a much larger wave than light waves... meaning that we'd see less if we squeaked at the moon. I believe that radio astronomy is using the highest radio frequencies available, giving much finer detail of the objects.

The lack of a medium to carry sound signals between the earth and the moon is a much bigger obstacle to using echolocation to image the moon than the resolving power of sound waves. In fact, the idea of using bat-type echolocation for astronomy is utter lunacy to begin with.

Radio astronomy doesn't involve "using" radio frequencies like in sonar or radar. Radio astronomy doesn't involving beaming out radio signals to objects and waiting for a return signal to read. Radio telescopes observe EM radiation in the radio frequency portion of the EM spectrum that some astronomical objects emit.

The highest frequencies detected by any telescopes are in fact at the opposite end of the electromagnetic spectrum from radio waves (radio waves are at the low energy and low frequency end of the EM spectrum) - gamma rays and X-rays that the likes of the Chandra space telescope is designed to be sensitive to.

Edited by JesseCuster
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is truly amazing is how much we of what was once mysterious we can now comprehend. That we can detect moons orbiting planets around other stars is a mind blowing achievement.

- Anatole France (1844 - 1924)

I've got to agree with that. When I was young such a thing would have been considered science fiction if not outright lunacy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm not mistaken, sound waves (like bats use) are a much larger wave than light waves... meaning that we'd see less if we squeaked at the moon. I believe that radio astronomy is using the highest radio frequencies available, giving much finer detail of the objects.

Sure. Did you read post #7 and not understand it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Jesse points out, the "squeak" idea (which I was rejecting based on the frequencies) simply isn't that workable, even with lasers. And as he also pointed out, at the speed of light there's no way we could "squeak" at a point in the sky and expect an answer in our lifetime.

There's also the loss of data due to the signal spread and attenuation (which I ain't gettin' into because I ain't got that kinda math... but I know it's there.) In any case, our best bet for getting better data on exomoons is "build a better data collection device" (telescope) rather than "dynamic squeaking."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, even if you could solve the attenuation problem, you would still have to wait hundreds of years or more to get any data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yeah, even if you could solve the attenuation problem, you would still have to wait hundreds of years or more to get any data.

Im sure so, have you heard about sound pulses exceeding the speed of light. I know its almost a laughable theory...

A group of high school and college teachers and students has transmitted sound pulses faster than light travels—at least according to one understanding of the speed of light.

The results conform to Einstein's theory of relativity, so don't expect this research to lead to sound-propelled spaceships that fly faster than light. Still, the work could help spur research that boosts the speed of electrical and other signals higher than before.

I dont know any more about it than this link....

http://www.livescience.com/1212-sound-pulses-exceed-speed-light.html

Whats interesting is the thought behind the science, and where the technology might lead. We already have sasers, phasers and what of the unknown potentials of quantum photonics?

Researchers the world round are working to develop optical chips, where light can be controlled with nanostructures. These could be used for future circuits based on light "photons" instead of electron - that is photonics instead of electronics. But it has proved to be impossible to achieve perfect photonic nanostructures, they are inevitably a little bit imperfect.

You might find this an interesting read...

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Unavoidable_disorder_used_to_build_nanolaser_999.html

Another untapped possibility is the use of SOUND ENERGY for power generation...

The sounds of cars passing, people talking, even a heart beating can all be picked up by one of Dr Joe Briscoe and Dr Steve Dunn’s ‘nano-generators’, and in turn, generate an electrical charge. “In fact they love the sound of AC/DC”, says Steve.

The idea of harnessing sound is just one of a number of smart solutions to our increasing demand for renewable energy sources.

I have no idea how old this article is but it is also intrigueing and perhaps we have further advanced in this field.

http://www.qmul.ac.uk/research/ImpactQM/iqm_casestudies/78597.html

Anyway I suspect you may be right but perhaps a technology is prevalent where sound pulses be sent at light speeds using light itself as the medium for travel resulting in picture perfect 3d images. One thing we should never do is say never.

Either or, I dont expect any miracles to be performed in this field but do expect to see some very interesting breakthroughs.

Edited by taniwha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sure so, have you heard about sound pulses exceeding the speed of light. I know its almost a laughable theory...

I dont know any more about it than this link....

http://www.livescien...peed-light.html

Whats interesting is the thought behind the science, and where the technology might lead. We already have sasers, phasers and what of the unknown potentials of quantum photonics?

You might find this an interesting read...

http://www.spacedail...olaser_999.html

Another untapped possibility is the use of SOUND ENERGY for power generation...

I have no idea how old this article is but it is also intrigueing and perhaps we have further advanced in this field.

http://www.qmul.ac.u...dies/78597.html

Anyway I suspect you may be right but perhaps a technology is prevalent where sound pulses be sent at light speeds using light itself as the medium for travel resulting in picture perfect 3d images. One thing we should never do is say never.

Either or, I dont expect any miracles to be performed in this field but do expect to see some very interesting breakthroughs.

No I haven't heard of sound pulses exceeding the speed of light or even exceeding the speed of sound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I haven't heard of sound pulses exceeding the speed of light or even exceeding the speed of sound

Yeah sounds too good to be true, no updates anywhere. Nevertheless people have heard the future as well as seen it so this case remains unresolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yeah sounds too good to be true, no updates anywhere. Nevertheless people have heard the future as well as seen it so this case remains unresolved.

I think if it was possible to exceed the speed of light, light would already go faster than it does. Photons are massless and so require no energy to accelerate. And I think to say people have seen and heard the future assumes facts not in evidence Edited by spacecowboy342

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if it was possible to exceed the speed of light, light would already go faster than it does. Photons are massless and so require no energy to accelerate.

Whether photons really do accelerate is debatable.

And I think to say people have seen and heard the future assumes facts not in evidence

Unseen and unknown does not equate to untrue. Take dark energy for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah sounds too good to be true, no updates anywhere. Nevertheless people have heard the future as well as seen it so this case remains unresolved.

Actually, it's possible (I read the article) ... what's going on is that it's true only for fairly short distances and only in certain types of media under a specific set of conditions. It'd be useful in computer chips (as they said) though there are a lot of issues to work out there.

Have you seen the famous "leaping chain" videos? What's going on is something like that, only with sound (as I understand the article. Here's a video and news story on the "leaping chain", for folks who may not recognize the reference: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2540338/Scientists-reveal-REALLY-happening-hit-gravity-defying-chain-YouTube-video.html)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if it was possible to exceed the speed of light, light would already go faster than it does. Photons are massless and so require no energy to accelerate. And I think to say people have seen and heard the future assumes facts not in evidence

The speed of light is some kind of univeral hard limit, I think. If you add energy all you do is increase the frequency of the photon. Though I don't think you can add to a individual photon, but you can add energy to the photon source, and increase the frequency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.