Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

World's Most Powerful Telescope Begins Search For Origin of the Universe

samzenpus posted about 3 years ago | from the where-the-sidewalk-ends dept.

Space 82

MrSeb writes "The largest astronomical installation in the world is now operational. ALMA, or the Atacama Large Millimeter Array, is a vast radio telescope made out of 66 12- and 7-meter dish antennae situated 5,000m above sea level, in Chile. Its purpose is to seek out new life and new civilizations and to boldly go where no telescope has gone before. But no, seriously: its job is to peer into the past and investigate ancient stars and nebulae, peer at exoplanets that might support human (or alien) life, and hopefully learn more about interstellar creation and destruction. For now only 20 out of 66 antennae are in place, but when it is complete — late next year — it will have a resolving power far greater than Hubble, according to the European Space Observatory (ESO) that operates ALMA."

cancel ×

82 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

People are starving! (-1, Offtopic)

said213 (72685) | about 3 years ago | (#37589750)

"So this one Nurse at work, asks me every time I see her now how much I have lost. Then precedes to tell me my body is in starvation mode and will hold onto all the fat it can. So I asked her, how long would the body stay in starvation mode and not release the fat. She says 6 months no matter what I do!!!"

Totally random, specifically to enrage astronophiles!

Re:People are starving! (1, Funny)

snowraver1 (1052510) | about 3 years ago | (#37589908)

You have a nurse at work? Do you work in the healthcare industry? Are you Dr. Bob? Maybe you just need to have your subluxations released.

Re:People are starving! (0, Offtopic)

CelticWhisper (601755) | about 3 years ago | (#37590100)

Interesting that you should mention that. Did you know that there is a prevailing theory among Chiropractors that black holes are actually galactic subluxations of the endo-universal spinal cord? Probably not, seeing as how Big Pharma has fought hard to keep any such inconvenient views thoroughly suppressed. Hopefully this telescope will be the first of many enlightening steps toward correcting the health of the universe's nervous system. It is believed that if these subluxated singularities can be set right, we may finally correct the dangerous accumulation of waste heat that threatens to destroy us all in the future. I've even written to the careless, callous people at CERN to chide them for using their Large Hadron Subluxator to further damage the galaxy's spine (have you noticed the shape of the accelerator? A DISC!) but they haven't written back to me. Maybe Dr. Bob will have better luck.

Make sure, though, when looking through a telescope, to use proper posture to protect your own spinal health. If you think you've been bending over and craning your neck too much, make an appointment to see a Chiropractor to keep your nervous system in working condition.

Re:People are starving! (1)

CelticWhisper (601755) | about 3 years ago | (#37592814)

Apparently I fail at parody.

Re:People are starving! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37595018)

no, you win.

Re:People are starving! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37594984)

I'll take off-topic, but the whole trolling thing... do you understand what trolling even is? Are you somehow bizarrely angry or incensed as a result of this nonsensical post? I do troll, but this was merely a "wtf" for my research friends... who will pick on me for having "terrible" Karma now... fuck you, all. =)

Undersells ALMAs capabilities (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37589792)

As an astrophysicist who's highly interested in using ALMA, I can say that this short description undersells the capabilities of ALMA. While the image resolution is going to be greater than that of Hubble, ALMA will also be observing wavelength ranges previously unobserved from the ground. While space based instruments such as Herschel have observed some of these ranges in the past, these observations don't even come close to the spatial resolution of ALMA.

Re:Undersells ALMAs capabilities (0)

said213 (72685) | about 3 years ago | (#37589840)

It's going to last for at least 6 months... no matter what you do!!!

Re:Undersells ALMAs capabilities (3, Funny)

durrr (1316311) | about 3 years ago | (#37590580)

So approximately how many megapixels?

Re:Undersells ALMAs capabilities (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37591368)

It's actually 1.21 Gigapixels (at a mere 1W/pixel)

Bandwidth and GPU needed? (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | about 3 years ago | (#37591794)

Seriously, that is highend.

Re:Bandwidth and GPU needed? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37593646)

That undersells it. It can form a 1.21 gigapixel image of the sky at each frequency channel: and if it's like other radio telescopes, it will have thousands of channels. The raw data coming in the front end, before it's reduced down to an image, is even heftier.

Re:Undersells ALMAs capabilities (1)

Mikachu (972457) | about 3 years ago | (#37595386)

1.21 Gigapixels

Wow, at that resolution, you can practically see back in time...

Re:Undersells ALMAs capabilities (1)

laejoh (648921) | about 3 years ago | (#37596804)

42?

Re:Undersells ALMAs capabilities (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | about 3 years ago | (#37597544)

Why are you asking us if it is 42?

UFO (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37589826)

I dont understand why they spend money for that, if they have a contact with UFO

Re:UFO (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37589866)

Duh, they have a contact with UFO, so now they need Death ray kill a UFO homeland.

Units (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37589828)

How large is a "large millimeter"?

Re:Units (5, Funny)

snowraver1 (1052510) | about 3 years ago | (#37589892)

It's actually exactly an inch. The Americans were tired of being hassled for not using SI units, so they just renamed them.

Re:Units (0)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about 3 years ago | (#37590340)

Ummm. you underestimate out arrogance and lack of perception of the outside world's opinion.

We are sick of everyone else not using the imperial system (who's creators even dropped it!)
Not of people complaining we use a non-SI system. We could care less about what everyone else thinks. That's why we have n

Re:Units (1)

sznupi (719324) | about 3 years ago | (#37590582)

You're still on a website which uses... the more international format of date :p (for example [slashdot.org] , that "11/10/03" in the URL means third day of tenth month)

Re:Units (1)

balbord (447248) | about 3 years ago | (#37590584)

If you could care less why don't you? Budget restrictions?

just sayin'

Re:Units (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37593504)

Federal regulations specify a minimum standard for care.

Re:Units (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37591774)

*the *whose *Lots *couldn't

oh boy.

Re:Units (-1, Troll)

said213 (72685) | about 3 years ago | (#37589898)

It really depends on whether or not that millimeter is in starvation mode. From what I'm reading, it could be as large as six months... no matter what you do!!!

Re:Units (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 3 years ago | (#37589920)

About the same as a wee smoot.

Re:Units (4, Insightful)

ZankerH (1401751) | about 3 years ago | (#37590338)

It's (Atacama (large (millimetre array))), not (Atacama (large (millimetre)) array).

S-expressions: They're superior to natural grammar.

Re:Units (2)

St.Creed (853824) | about 3 years ago | (#37590852)

You (are (totally correct))

Re:Units (2)

arth1 (260657) | about 3 years ago | (#37591336)

That's the emacs lisp explanation.
The vi explanation is :s/e/e -/

Re:Units (1)

frisket (149522) | about 3 years ago | (#37593748)

It's like the difference between standard printers' points (72.27 to the inch) and Adobe's "large points" (72 to the inch).

It lets us see the little green men even when they're not there.

--
The best cure for seasickness is to go sit under a tree (Spike Milligan)

Millimeter? Isn't that the communist way measuring (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37589976)

God save Foot and Fahrenheit, Mile and Gallon!

Re:Millimeter? Isn't that the communist way measur (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | about 3 years ago | (#37590648)

God is French- why would he save the imperial measurement system?

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37590012)

It's like that one episode of Futurama?

Re:So... (0)

kimvette (919543) | about 3 years ago | (#37590628)

Just don't go pointing it near Uranus.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37592128)

Urectum...

humph.. telescope... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37590040)

ya'll don't need no fancy-schmancy teley-scope to see the church on the corner

Re:humph.. telescope... (0)

Dunega (901960) | about 3 years ago | (#37590186)

What's most amusing about this comment is that the poster is just as close minded as the people he's trying to make fun of.

Re:humph.. telescope... (0)

martinux (1742570) | about 3 years ago | (#37590306)

Ah, but if you open your mind too much, your brain may fall out.

Re:humph.. telescope... (0)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 3 years ago | (#37590364)

It goes so much deeper than that! If you leave your mind open, all kinds of filth gets in!

Nobody likes to be around people with dirty minds! That's why most tried and true religious organizations routinely institute brain washing, to keep things nice and clean in there!

Re:humph.. telescope... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37590654)

I can assure you, he's very, very, depressingly, terrifyingly, soul-searingly accurate in who he's making fun of. Horribly, fearfully accurate.

Re:humph.. telescope... (3, Funny)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 3 years ago | (#37590212)

I think one of the problems with modern aastronomy is that they often cannot help BUT see that church down the street.

I think it might have something to do with the las-vegas style neon lights, dancing searchlight beams, the well illuminated "second coming landing pad" which tries earnestly to coax jesus to put his foot down there, or the fact that it is owned and operated by Landover Ministries.

But then again, I am one of those heathen "unsaved" that only makes 30k/year, and am excluded from even bronze level membership, so maybe I hold a little bit of jealous bias when I say that it would be a good thing to regulalrly cut power to that light pollution retching eyesore so that astronomers might get some REAL insight into the nature of the heavens, but I don't think it would be a whole lot of it.

Re:humph.. telescope... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37591306)

I think one of the problems with modern aastronomy is that they often cannot help BUT see that church down the street.

I think it might have something to do with the las-vegas style neon lights, dancing searchlight beams, the well illuminated "second coming landing pad" which tries earnestly to coax jesus to put his foot down there, or the fact that it is owned and operated by Landover Ministries.

But then again, I am one of those heathen "unsaved" that only makes 30k/year, and am excluded from even bronze level membership, so maybe I hold a little bit of jealous bias when I say that it would be a good thing to regulalrly cut power to that light pollution retching eyesore so that astronomers might get some REAL insight into the nature of the heavens, but I don't think it would be a whole lot of it.

You're always welcome at my Church.

Re:humph.. telescope... (1)

wwphx (225607) | about 3 years ago | (#37595626)

My wife operates a 3.5 meter telescope, fortunately a ridge blocks most of the town below, but not the air force base next door, for some reason they like to keep the lights on for their runways. She has some strong opinions about city light and Las Vegas. The funny thing is: she was invited as a guest to a convention in Vegas and we went! It was kind of amusing watching her cringe and bitch.

If my interpretation of the bible is correct, Jesus may well appear at Landover Ministries, and utterly lay waste to it with a sword when he returns. At least that's my fervent desire. Speaking as a fellow heathen.

Re:humph.. telescope... (1)

quenda (644621) | about 3 years ago | (#37590386)

ya'll don't need no fancy-schmancy teley-scope to see the church on the corner

Actually, that is true. Given that all the observable universe is receding from us, HERE is where the universe originated.
Take that, Copernicus!

Re:humph.. telescope... (1)

Genda (560240) | about 3 years ago | (#37593088)

You do if you want to find more than 3 grams of collective brain tissue... Its a church of

Irrelevant comparison (2)

vlm (69642) | about 3 years ago | (#37590098)

it will have a resolving power far greater than Hubble,

Didn't know they operate in the same frequency band.

Re:Irrelevant comparison (1)

nashv (1479253) | about 3 years ago | (#37595538)

They don't have to. The article is obviously talking about spatial resolution.

Re:Irrelevant comparison (1)

vlm (69642) | about 3 years ago | (#37597498)

They don't have to. The article is obviously talking about spatial resolution.

Which is EXACTLY why its a perfectly irrelevant, meaningless comparison.

My orange is 5 inches in diameter as compared to my watermelon at 8 inches, therefore that is a tiny apple.

Re:Irrelevant comparison (1)

nashv (1479253) | about 3 years ago | (#37598386)

Lateral resolution is about 0.61*wavelength / NumericalAperture. The smaller this number , the smaller the distance at which two distinct points of light can be resolved.

It is entirely meaningful to compare the spatial resolution of two devices observing in different wavelengths. Shorter wavelengths have a lower theoretical limit , sure. But even if Hubble observes at shorter wavelengths, the ALMA has a big fucking numerical aperture. Which makes its resolution better.

What looks like one galaxy to the Hubble in the visible spectrum, may now be seen by ALMA to be two galaxies in its mm-wavelength , because it has better resolution. This is not apples and oranges if you're looking at the same galaxies in different frequency bands.

This is impossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37590128)

The Space Nutters, who say this planet is just a mud ball, have told me that progress can only happen in space. How is this possible??

Re:This is impossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37591396)

Assuming there is not a rash of the term "space nutter" among other anonymous cowards, you seem to post about this a lot in many space related stories. Not only do you just bring up the issue where potentially relevant, but often using the most tenuous of connections and non sequiturs at times. If you have to create delusional straw-men like this idea that no progress on unrelated fronts can happen without space, this suggests you have an unhealthy obsession. Now only if there were a concise, convenient term for people disconnected from reality with unhealthy obsessions related to space topics, then it would be easier to label your issue.

Re:This is impossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37592586)

"If you have to create delusional straw-men like this idea that no progress on unrelated fronts can happen without space,"

No, that's the Space Nutter's mantra. Typically, they believe such things that progress only happens because of space. Some people think Velcro was invented by NASA, for example. That's a Space Nutter. Someone who really, earnestly believes that all kinds of miracles and progress came from packing a lot of kerosene into a metal tube. That doesn't make any sense, and a simple Google search will reveal the truth. Space Nutters also have this delusion that somehow the entire human race must leave "this rock", as if we had the technology to do so, and as if all the other planets aren't just rocks too.

My "straw men" are just that, I poke fun at these people by showing them that progress happens for other reasons than trying to put men on the Moon. Computers existed before Apollo because of mathematicians and war (think artillery tables, bomb sights, flight control, etc). The space age is over. It didn't pan out. There are no Moon colonies, no Mars bungalows, no one's commuting every day to the magical orbital ball bearing factory.

Because it makes no sense whatsoever. It never did. The powerful and comically naive imagery from the 1960s is as obsolete as a beehive hairdo but some people cling desperately to that vision. I get it; it's grandiose, romantic, beyond your everyday scale. Like a religion.

"convenient term for people disconnected from reality"

That's not me because I know the history of technology and what came when, and why and how it was invented. I also know about physics, chemistry and materials science. There won't be space-based solar power. There won't be Moon colonies (beyond what some crackpot millionaires may toss up there, but it won't amount to much. We have lots of sand on the Earth too, you know.), no one will retire on Mars, there won't be Space Elevators or people mining asteroids like it's the Yukon in 1849.

Reality? Are we even talking about the same people here? There are people who honestly believe Star Trek is just around the corner, and that physics is really just about faith, and if you keep looking hard enough you'll find the warp drives and transporters.

That's reality to you??

Re:This is impossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37593414)

The reply wasn't really about how right or wrong such people are, just your obsession and attempts to shoehorn it anywhere you can. Sure, you can find someone saying something stupid in the name of just about any cause, but they don't define the cause or its validity or its worth. In the end, either you are rather disconnected from the reality of pro-human space exploration advocacy or are concentrating on such an inconsequential subset of them. In either case it looks like some irrational obsession. It is just fuel for your equivalent on the other side of the fence, for an equally superficial pro-space exploration person to point out how idiotic their opposition is, and we wouldn't want to help them with that.

Not comparable (4, Insightful)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 3 years ago | (#37590138)

Why is this being compared to hubble? Hubble records information in 390 to 750 nm while alma records 0.3 to 9.6 mm. I'm not saying it's not valuable, just that the comparison was a poor choice.

Re:Not comparable (4, Informative)

Teun (17872) | about 3 years ago | (#37590182)

The comparison was not about the colours (wavelength or frequency) but about the observable resolution.

In other words, this radio telescope will be able to discern details the Hubble cannot see.

Re:Not comparable (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 3 years ago | (#37595378)

meaningless. "My sonar can discern details my eye's can't. My eyes can discern details my sonar can't." it's rubbish. The Hubble can discern details in the visible spectrum that the microwave array cannot see.

Re:Not comparable (1)

nashv (1479253) | about 3 years ago | (#37595526)

I am sure you optics whizzes understand that basic lateral resolution is about 0.61*wavelength / NumericalAperture. The smaller this number , the smaller the distance at which two distinct points of light can be resolved.

It is entirely meaningful to compare the spatial resolution of two devices observing in different wavelengths. Shorter wavelengths have a lower theoretical limit , sure. But even if Hubble observes at shorter wavelengths, the ALMA has a big fucking numerical aperture. Which makes its resolution better.

What looks like one galaxy to the Hubble in the visible spectrum, may now be seen by ALMA to be two galaxies in its mm-wavelength , becauseit has better resolution.

You can stop harping about the summary now

.

Re:Not comparable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37591842)

Hubble is probably the most well know telescope for the general population. While I can appreciate that the two may be vastly different, Most people (including myself) have little to no idea what the specs mean. They do know Hubble was "big" and apparently this will be bigger.

ESO (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37590316)

ESO means European Southern Observatory not European Space Observatory!

Mini Novas (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37590534)

Now, the government that can re-create a mini nova will really be able to destroy something.. I give you mini nova in your FACE, shields sold seperately!

Not just ESO (3, Informative)

dvase (1134189) | about 3 years ago | (#37590616)

Small correction to the summary, ESO is not the only organization operating ALMA. It is an international partnership of Europe, North America and East Asia in cooperation with the Republic of Chile.

Re:Not just ESO (1)

Bloody Peasant (12708) | about 3 years ago | (#37590914)

Correct. The original two partner institutions were

Later, the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan [nao.ac.jp] joined the consortium, to provide the ALMA Compact Array and a second correlator, among other things.

It's sometimes a bit bewildering working in this multi-site environment, but it's mostly just amazing :)

What about the VLBA? (1)

Daetrin (576516) | about 3 years ago | (#37590846)

What definitions are being used to declare this the "largest astronomical installation in the world" as opposed to the VLBA [wikipedia.org] ? The VLBA claims to be the "world's largest, full-time astronomical instrument." [nrao.edu] I can't seem to find exact info on ALMA's baseline, but i doubt it exceeds 8611 km.

Re:What about the VLBA? (1)

Pausanias (681077) | about 3 years ago | (#37591152)

They mean biggest in terms of light collecting power, not baseline.

Re:What about the VLBA? (1)

RogerWilco (99615) | about 3 years ago | (#37597154)

While I think ALMA is a really cool project, but I don't think it's got the largest collecting area either. I'm assuming that's what you mean, otherwise I'm not sure what you mean.

ALMA has a collecting area of about 7,000 m2. LOFAR has a collecting area of up to to 300,000 m2, depending on the frequency and antenna configuration used.
http://www.astron.nl/radio-observatory/astronomers/technical-information/lofar-technical-information [astron.nl]

But yeah, there are multiple ways to claim the title "Largest Telescope". Things get really funny with VLBI and space based VLBI.

Fry: Did you build the Smellescope? (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | about 3 years ago | (#37591050)

Farnsworth: No, I remembered that I'd built one last year.

Alma (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37591452)

Backronym? I don't know if this qualifies as a potential backronym, since the acronym is of english words, but alma is "soul" in spanish (and it's in chile).

Re:Alma (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | about 3 years ago | (#37597596)

"Backronym?" doesn't ask anything.

It looks like a clever acronym of English words that makes a Spanish word, giving it a pleasant double meaning. A backronym is when you name something, and come up with something for it to stand for later. AMBER Alert contains a backronym. The original name was after Amber Hagerman, so it was Amber Alert. They made a backronym to make it extra kewl.

Insert Gustave Courbet joke here (1)

russotto (537200) | about 3 years ago | (#37591494)

Except it's probably goatse for the universe.

Center of the universe = beginning? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37592376)

Yes, yes, I'm sure people will say 'there is no center' but, really, if the universe is expanding then there should be some kind of 'relative' center.

Has anyone tried to computer the red shifting and blue shifting of all the galaxies out there to see if there is some 'common' center they are shifting away from?

Re:Center of the universe = beginning? (2)

expatriot (903070) | about 3 years ago | (#37592808)

From here. If you went somewhere far away and checked, it would be from there. That's because space is expanding between objects, not objects moving farther apart.

Re:Center of the universe = beginning? (1)

Relic of the Future (118669) | about 3 years ago | (#37595166)

Yup. Think of it like you're an ant on the surface of an expanding balloon. There is no "center" to the _surface_ of the balloon. Every point on the balloon is moving away from every other point on the balloon, and the further apart two points are, the faster they are moving apart. The "surface" of the universe is 3D though. (Read Flatland [gutenberg.org] , then Sphereland [amazon.com] .)

Re:Center of the universe = beginning? (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | about 3 years ago | (#37597706)

This is something i don't quite get. i'll give Flatland a read later.

Even if everything is moving away from everything else, there should be some line you could draw that says everything on this side of the line is moving away from everything on that side. Do that for all three dimensions and the lines intersect at the center. Dump a bucket of marbles on the floor in a 2D Big Bang. They would be ALL moving away from SOME single thing. Even if we glue the marbles to a rubber sheet and pull it in all directions the marble at the center would still be in the center. Seems that either the singularity was infinitely large or there would be some epicenter for the explosion.

When the balloon surface is flat you can mark the center, looking from the top down, as it inflates all the other points would be moving away from that even as the outer points move away from each other.

Re:Center of the universe = beginning? (1)

Relic of the Future (118669) | about 3 years ago | (#37607024)

Nope. There is no center, or rather, every point appears to be equivalently central. You can't mark the "center" of the surface of a sphere; that's meaningless. Sure, you can mark the center of the sphere, but the center of the sphere is not a part of the surface of the sphere. If the universe is the surface, then the center is not a part of the universe. From within the universe, the center does not exist. And sure, you could mark any point on the sphere and call it "the center", and every other point on the sphere would move away as the sphere expanded... but the point of view from every other point on the sphere is exactly the same as for the point you picked; none of them are central. You have to read Flatland (it's free; that was a project Gutenberg link!) so you can start to break out of your exclusively-3D thinking.

Re:Center of the universe = beginning? (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | about 3 years ago | (#37607168)

i'll read it. i saved the link. Thanks.

So that should mean there would be an equal amount of mass on any side of us (unless the Big Bang was asymmetric). And that there is no edge to the universe (for things to be going into).

i can get that from any star that all the others are moving away, but it seems like if we look at *many* stars there should be stars that are moving more away than others.

Blerg. Head hurty.

i'll read the thing.

Searching For The Beginning? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37594238)

It is good tto see there is something else for the ALMA Committee-array telescope to do than look for the beginning of the universe. Since we are only at a fringe, not at the cutting edge, the light of the beginning has already passed us by.

For depending on the late arrival of light beamed long ago for our "time travel" we cannot ever see the beginning, which our system began with, itself. Unless, of course, we are able to mathematically generate mathematically circumstantial proofs for a unified curvature of the universe theory, wherein all curvature unite uniquely in a single direction, so that all light must curve back around to its own starting point and then beyond to retrace its own original route, or a spiral that crosses our trajectory.

In this lovely science-fiction construction we need only wait to see our own system history replay in the ALMA array display.

Alma (1)

jonathancarter (745316) | about 3 years ago | (#37594632)

My friend's mother's name is Alma. I feel some good "yo mamma" jokes brewing here :)

easy prediction: "universe older than we thought" (1)

sittingQuietly (935534) | about 3 years ago | (#37595060)

I predict it will be the same old, same old. .. they peer deeper into the past, discover the past receding! the origin STILL not visible. ASFAIK this has happened each time they have built a more powerful telescope.

Bigger than yours (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37596484)

So Europe has got ALMA, the Large Hadron Collider, the ITER power plan, the Arianne rockets and probably a few more.

How's liberalism and the race to making money working out for you, America? Can you please take that back now so we can go back 100 year to a more normal way of making money? You can plainly see you're not going anywhere, and you tempted the rest of the planet with your bullshit edge funds and whatnot. Some of us have money left for nice science projects that will actually make humanity move forward, but your banks are getting in the way. Thanks.

Re:Bigger than yours (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37597978)

That would be economic neoliberalism, a completely different beast than the political perspective.
The USA as a whole took a nasty, sharp political turn towards the right since Reagan, which has only gotten much worse. It's been said that Clinton and Obama are the best republican presidents since Eisenhower.

Take Nixon as an example, a pragmatist in both domestic and foreign policy, in his stance towards taxes and funding for entitlement programs, he was to the left of Clinton and Obama. Nowadays, your run-of-the-mill tea partier would tar and feather Nixon as a pinko terrorist lover. In fact, there's many statements Reagan made that you could quote back to your run-of-the-mill tea partier, and his/her head would enter the blue screen of death.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?