Einstein was able to predict how light was bent around the Sun and Eddington confirmed it right away, it was like Babe Ruth pointing to the stands and hitting a home run.
The lag between a phenomenon being predicted or model sped by theoreticians and actually observed is getting longer and longer in fundamental physics, I mean neutrino oscillations were hypothesized in 1957. The fact that you can’t get a Nobel prize posthumously means a theoretician might never get a Nobel in fundamental physics ever again. So they’ve got to do something speculative like this to have a possibility of a legacy unless you are Ed Witten and can convince people you are a genius without any appeal to experiment whatsoever.
It does point to a programme of observations to try to catch P9 in a gravitational snare and look really hard in that area with all kinds of telescopes and has the double prize of possibly finding non gravitational evidence for DM.
Personally I think interstellar travelers would use FFPs as a resource but the question of how a civilization that lives on an FFP (imagine something like Pluto cut up into small (5000km) ringworlds) finds the next one seems pretty tough to me.
The state of fundamental physics. There's still plenty of new and exciting stuff at all the scales from molecules to continents.
For example, there's still lots of exciting work happening in trying to predict the angle of repose that a heap of sand forms.
You can think of him maybe like the Velvet Underground of physicists. They never achieved much popularity themselves, but virtually every rock band of the past 40 years that has gotten popular cites them as an influence, and many artists would rather have that as a legacy than popularity. Similarity, I think a lot of physicists would rather be well known and influential to other physicists rather than becoming the next Michio Kaku or someone else who shows up on television a lot.
As it so happens, he's also the guy behind this paper: "Searching for a Black Hole in the Outer Solar System", https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.14192
:-)
A lot of other questions might not really be "real" in various senses like: it's interesting to speculate that the interior of a quantum black hole is entirely unlike a classical black hole but you're not going to have anyone take a look and come back and tell us and we can just speculate if something kills you at the apparent horizon or not (so many bad ideas including the idea there is an "information paradox" come out believing the classical picture of the black hole interior which is probably just wrong), the "hierarchy problem" and various allergies to fine tuning are really human preferences or things like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_magnetic_dipole_mome...
where between the experimental errors and the possibility that theorists aren't quite doing the math right and that the answers to 1-4 might account for any difference (I wouldn't be surprised it is if 1-4 have the same answer)
The experiments for (1) and (2) are devilishly hard, there are accelerator observations of CP violations that are a line on (3), but the cosmic scale of (3) and (4) imposes its own difficulties.
Really there are a lot of grad students chasing a moderate number of postdocs who hope to get one of very few permanent positions and out of it all there is a tiny amount of glory to be had.
Condensed matter physics lacks the cosmic difficulties but it isn't dramatically better. How superconductivity works in cuprates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconducti...
is still quite mysterious after 35 years. I would name check Mark Newman as a standout in the "complex systems" area but the real accomplishment he made in my mind wasn't finding an explanation for "universal" power laws in complex systems but instead proving we didn't know what we were doing when we plotted our statistics on log-log paper and drew a line... And he published about that in a statistics journal not a physics journal but it's OK because the paper is in arXiv anyway.
The hierarchy problem is a real problem. The bare Higgs mass, for instance, might be a brute fact (but then again, it might not be), but the effective Higgs mass is some (likely very complicated) consequence of more fundamental physics at energy scales beyond the standard model. We just don't know what it is. But even if those more fundamental constants aren't explicable, they're definitely an explanation.
The vast majority of what theoretical physicists do is "just math" except that unlike math, it's aimed at a problem posed by nature rather than a problem imagined up on the basis of what seems most interesting.
Not really. The distinction, to the extent that there even is one, is mostly a matter of motivation and methodology. Broadly generalizing: mathematical physicists (i.e. mathematicians) are interested in physical theories that seem like they might need interesting new mathematical tools to understand, while theoretical physicists are interested in theories that seem like they might have something to tell us about the true structure of whatever the object of interest is. There are other differences downstream of this, of course:
- mathematical physicists are rigorous while theoretical physicists will let it lapse if that gets them physically correct answers
- physicists care less about inconsistencies in theories they know are wrong anyway
- mathematicians stay long after all the physical content has been mined out (a significant fraction of just-plain-mathematics is the end result of this process)
and so on. But you can find people anywhere between these poles.
Witten can (and sometimes does) produce world-class mathematics when he wants to, but most of his work is on the physics side of the spectrum.
Such as Hawkings, Dawkins, Tyson, Cox.. but probably little is known about their actual work. (Exception being Hawkings in that list although he did pass away some years ago so would not count)
Things in virtual freefall that can flex (and everything can) do so in response to forces (e.g. thrusting, but also heat stresses, say), and will continue to do so if they start unless you take care to damp them and dump them into heat. There's nowhere for the vibration to "go" unless you design one in. Sometimes the structure of the craft itself has enough damping for practical purposes, especially when you take care to isolate large vibration sources (the ISS has a Sorbothane damper for the treadmill, for example), but when your big floppy (i.e. light) mirror surface has to stay put on a nanometre scale, it's not so simple.
It's a bit like the difference between a tuning fork glued down flat to a table and one hanging from a string.
In the sense of building things that last in space.
Fundamentally they're all somewhat similar in that there's a flexible and/or sloshing thing that doesn't have a huge mass that it's rigidly connected to. Spacecraft deployed in space usually have smaller forces on them (no air or water and the hard acceleration is done) but are also much flimsier due to being ultra-light. Telescopes are even worse as even a tiny vibration can ruin the usefulness of the optical paths.
Vibration of telescopes is an issue on Earth as well, e.g.: https://opg.optica.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-53-21-4651
In particular, consider how you would damp an undesired movement by a satellite. A naive approach would be to apply thrust in the opposite direction. However, the control can't be exact, leading to thrust -> thrust <- over and over, eventually to the measurement limit of the thruster's control.
With a large mass, it's replaced with a spring, and converted to heat.
Thanks!
In space, there is nothing to damp the oscillations. They will just continue without active features of the craft to damp them. If they continue unabated a section may reach a resonant frequency, which can quickly cause failure. Even if it doesn't, those vibrations can cause cyclic loading failures, or just affect the stationkeeping of the craft or it's usefulness in gathering scientific data.
To make a spacecraft resistant to oscillations requires devices like gyroscopes or friction dampers, or long weighted booms which decrease the magnitude of oscillations. Making the craft rigid helps, but the larger it is, the less rigid it will be. And to make it more rigid, or to include more anti-oscillation devices, means more weight. That's an important limiting factor when you need to get the object up into orbit.
One misunderstanding some people have is to think that there are no external forces on free-floating structures. This is untrue. Most importantly, they are all affected by the solar wind, which is a generally constant pressure pushing the object away from the sun. Of course they will also be affected by gravity, and if close enough to the earth they will interact with the atmosphere. (There's not really a clean cutoff to where our atmosphere ends and space begins.) As a result, spacecraft have to perform some amount of stationkeeping maneuvers, which involves applying a force on one section of the craft. That itself will cause further oscillations, because the force can never be transferred perfectly to the entire body. (Imagine pushing a piece of paper in the air with a single finger. Yes, you can get the paper to move in a direction, but you cannot get all segments of the paper to move in exactly the same manner when exerting force at only one point.)
So forces on spacecraft are inherently unavoidable, and oscillations happen any time a force is applied. Oscillations are challenging to control in a free-floating vacuum environment, and become more problematic the larger a craft is. This results in fundamental issues with operating very large spacecraft. That's not to say it is impossible. But in space it's not a simple solution to say "just build it bigger."
So many things to learn about... thanks!
Also, your description of using the ground to dampen oscillations has very similar implications to electricity and ground... not a coincidence?
It's also the reason why any Moon base would be buried under layers of regolith to protect it. Glass domes on the moon are sci-fi fantasy.
A 2mm hole in a Soyuz docked to the station was fixed with a bit of Kapton tape and some epoxy, and was detected by a very small pressure drop in the crew spaces.
Larger rocks are more of a problem, but quite rare. Your dome is much more likely to get smashed by someone mixing up the pedals in a rover.
https://www.livescience.com/how-many-moon-meteorites
> "if you pick a square kilometer patch of ground, it will be hit by one of those pingpong-sized meteoroids once every thousand years or so"
We've landed in visibly quite smooth areas; for example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2explore/48299974871
Hence my question.