f this can work with the sun, couldn't we use also smaller but still massive objects like Jupiter and Saturn for a lesser but still considerable effect? Being 1000x smaller than the sun, Jupiter might be less effective than the sun (1000x less? or the relationship between mass and magnification not linear?) but its focal point should also be an awful lot closer to us, wouldn't it? Or am I missing something major?
@@bradfordhatch5085 in principle yes we certainly could, but they distort space time far less than the Sun due to their tiny mass. So Jupiter’s gravitational focus starts at something like 6400 AU.
Bloomberg Quicktake has been making some strangely spectacular content recently. Whoever is taking charge of this direction and the team involved deserves a pat on the back. Fast becoming one of my most favorite channel on RUclips.
This is absolutely bonkers. I love it. For like minded people, you might want to check out Breakthrough Starshot as well, which wants to send actual probes to Alpha Centauri.
@@NAGIUXS Figured you were really wanting to know how long it would take using current technology available to get there. Based on the New Horizons speed of 3 au per year that they mention and 4.2 light years being roughly 265600 au, it would take about 88533 years for it to reach Proxima Centauri. Space is big unfortunately.
@@Shante-330 The break through star shot plan is to use light weight probe with basically solar sails that would be pushed by extremely powerful lasers I believe, although it's been a while since I've checked the details, but it would be significantly faster than the 3 au per year of the New Horizon probe, but still be decades at best. While we may not live to see the rewards, those that follow us are likely to appreciate the rewards. Think of it not for yourself but for humanity as a whole
When I was in high school I thought everything that needs to be invented has already been invented. But scientists keep pushing forward nonetheless. Who would have thought of the Sun as a lense of a 100B km long telescope!!
@@nic.h really? Nasa is funded by our Goverment and we do see all they work they have been doing so its not a scam its real you just have to be patient
@@starboysuniverse9956 sorry my comment probably came across more harsh than I intended. Just I've been watching and waiting for the JWST for quite a while now, along with the rest of us, and while I'm know the delays are needed to be sure everything goes smoothly, they sure can get a bit frustrating and was just venting my frustration really. I know they get there eventually
@@nic.h uhmm i got to break it to you that even if it lunches it gona take about 5years to get is working as intended because Nasa will add a few stuff while its up in space so again it gona take a very very long time infact it will start working around 6 to 7 years time
Think there is lots of things we have used our star for really. It's our primary source of energy for example, basically most of our energy comes from some process which is driven by the sun originally, solar/wind/hydro
@@nic.h I understand and accept what you are saying... Because if we stop burning away the planet to make fossil fuel ... Then I think we will both begin to concume more energy as a planet and also we will be saving the ecosystem as a planet.... However I was talking about more along the lines of the Dyson sphere kind of Interacting with the sun on a star size level.... Like we are literally going to harness the whole physical mass of the sun to serve a higher much greater purpose.... And to think of it the sun is out star after all... Using it to scry deeper into the cosmos is really a genius idea......
@@jerwynjames8312 I think we will eventually move to harnessing the power of the sun either via space based generation which will naturally lead to something dyson sphere like or by figuring out fusion. My bet would be on fusion, as both are technically ridiculously challenging, but expect fusion would provide a more convenient solution for use. Admittedly it wouldn't really be using our sun, but making our own mini versions I guess
@@jerwynjames8312 there are lots of fusion projects around the world, unfortunately none of them have been able to sustain a net positive reaction for any length of time yet. It's going to be massive news when someone does. Like really really big news, world changing
many events been shifting... like laser fusion reactors using deuterium & tritium.... The first D-T plasma is not expected until 2026. ..or quasi crystals... those are build by AIs.... (where AI stay for artificial intelligence.. and i don't mean the humans versions..i mean the MATRIX as man use not as man creating.... and not the movie.... but they mention there also the one hidden in temple of osiris ..or the one encoding in to abracadabra.... or in the famous story of adam & eve.. or in many others stories on this planet... or the one from crop circles... )... b̶͍̆̔̐̾u̷̧̗̫̹͚̳̩͚̥̍͠ ţ̶̳͙̳͔̻̩͕͈̻͇͂̂͆̋̕͝ ...ÿ̵͍̗̖͖̙͚̖͔͔̦̣́̐̿̄͛̐͝ͅaa̸̧̿. ...knowing & believing are also different things.... atiki taki tiki tu 🌏 📡🌏 👣🕖 💎👽☠☼☾☄ゞど・ㇺㇾㇽ₪𝖎𝖙𝖎𝖇𝖎𝖗𝖆₪なめㇺㇾㇽ✶☥✨🌛🌄⊀✶⋊🐺🐾♓️☆🐜🐜🐫▲▴◭
The meaning of humans beings would radically shift if we could ever discover Intelligent life or being discovered by one . I can’t fathom the crisis we would experience
Those solar sails look beautiful.. How to get to other countries in the old days? We sailed! How to get to other planets in the (now living in the old days..) We sailed!
How about using earth atmosphere as gravitational lense? not that high magnification, but it wouldn't be necessary to reach that high distances... the effect should be the same?
Question, could the lensing technique use a planet rather than a star? The magnification will obviously be less but maybe still very useful and the convergence point positioning would be much more achievable than 650 AU from the star?
Was curious about this myself. Turns out the sun’s focal point is the closest. The needed distance to leverage the planets go from 6100 AU to 17,000 AU. Another potential could be leveraging other neighboring stars?
The lens focal line has a minimum focus that is inversely proportional to the mass of the object producing it. The Suns minimum starts around 550 AU, Juptiers 5800 AU, Saturns 13000 AU. (R^2*c^2)/(4*G*M) = Minimum Focus. It might be possible to use a planets atmosphere to achieve some sort of magnification albeit at a much lower amount using a detector orbiting that body; however, clouds might make this difficult to pull off.
Neat idea, but it will almost certainly be obsolete in 20 years (when the mission would start sendingdata). For example, a phased array cloud of several hundred thousand telescopes deployed in solar orbits on the order of 1AU should do the trick. Getting the cost down to the order of $10k per satellite shouldn't be a problem in well under 20 years based on Wright's law. Such a constellation could be aimed in any direction.
@@sideeggunnecessary well, they did address this in the video, hence the 20 year time frame. I'm generally skeptical about the practicality of such long duration hands-off missions during a time of extreme technological change. Pretty much anything that takes 20 years will be obsolete. On the other hand, this reasoning doesn't apply to long term hands-on projects like colonizing Mars, because new technologies are applied as they are developing.
Message to the Bloomberg QuickTake ; Fascinating 🧐 on how you explain everything to in basic English details of how we can explore the universe through a telescope such as the Hubble Telescope & others. Looking 👀 forward to the James Webb Telescope. Plus thank you for making this video in English caption. Please continue making your future videos set in English caption. Why am I saying this? Cuz I’m deaf & is greatly fascinated with how the universe looks 👀 .
Building a shell of observatories around the focal lengths will allow you to image any point in the sky with this method. Also, the transport times discussed here can be reduced sizably through nuclear propulsion with current on-paper designs, not to mention more exotic methods.
Not practical unfortunately. This method will be focusing on a very small arc, so to do what you are suggesting would require basically creating the equivalent of a dyson sphere at 650 au radius around the sun, it would be an engineering project that is simply beyond our means. There is probably not enough raw material available in the solar system to do it either even if we destroy everything apart from the earth and sun.
@@giordanobruno9106 Yes currently. Although I would probably argue that making the equivalent of a dyson sphere at 650 au radius even if it was sparse so we only had enough sites to cover the full arc of the sky will require more raw materials than what is currently available to us within the solar system, and I couldn't see that changing. Sure we could get smaller telescopes, but at some point they would be to small to allow enough light to be collected, so there is a limit on how small they can practically be. It's just the sheer scale of the area that this would need to cover is so large as to be infeasible given the available resources in my opinion. Maybe in the future we could develop some technology that would allow it to be practical, but I have no idea what that could be currently.
If ambient radiation creates white static, then the solar system is an envelope bubble that has a lensing window itself, as it traverses through the galaxy.
Can you explain the white static comment? I'm unsure what you are meaning in regards to the bubble comment. The solar system as a whole will have a gravitational lensing effect, however the mass of the solar system is just over 1 solar mass and very spread out which would likely add distortions that would need to be taken into account, and I'm guessing that the required focal point would be further out, so overall might not be beneficial.
@@nic.h imagine your inside a soap bubble, looking out, the universe would be a reverse spherical imprint, if you look at photo's taken at nuclear test sites, they have static from residual radiation, if two radioactive templates superimpose onto one another, it stands to reason, that the white static, would require some kind of filtering program, obviously we can see through it, however, is this not a form of lensing itself, and if so, to what interaction implies cause and effect. Hence if we are looking out from one soap bubble at another soap bubble, would static lensing implies depths of filters.
15:48 "we'll be able to find out once and for all, whether we're alone" -- Seriously? Or are you kidding?? We've sent lots of missions to both Venus and Mars, we have tons of extremely high-resolution images and movies from there, we've even sent landers to both planets, and rovers have been rolling over Mars for many years, taking probes and analyzing them, but we still have no clue whether there is or has been life on these planets. With the proposed mission on the other hand, we _might_ get a very few distorted low resolution images that have been back-calculated from a gravitational lens image, with all the inherent flaws and problems involved in this method (so far it hasn't even been established yet because it's so enormously complicated to do). Also, there is absolutely *no* way to communicate with the space probe once it has reached a place where it can take images, so the process must be completely automatized. Anybody who thinks it's possible to decide from such images whether there's life out there, should take a look at the currently best images of Pluto and try to spot "the aliens". No matter what these new missions will come up with, the Pluto images will always be better by orders of magnitude.
I also seen a video saying a telescope at earths Lagrange point would make the same effect using the earth as a lens. Instead of putting your telescope at 600AU.
Any mass causes gravitational lensing, however the Earth is tiny compared to the Sun which would reduce the optical resolution. Also positioning at one of the Lagrange points (there are several) will seriously limit what it could focus on.
@@nic.h Yes it would be a smaller telescope. Being millions of times magnification instead of billions. But the solar 1 is the 1 that is focused in 1 strait line for a limited amount of time. It's so far out there we do not have the tech yet to put it out there in less then 100s of years. The lunar 1 would be much more likely to be built. Also I think it would be adjustable as it orbits the earth. there was 2 morons sitting on a fence. The giant orange haired moron fell off. The little white haired moron did not fall........cause he was a little more on.
@@imnogrejones765 I believe the focal point gets further away as the mass drops as well, so for a moon sized lense the focal length would be a lot further than 650 au
I’d love a follow up on this discussing the Deep Space communications factors relevant to such a project. 650 au may only be 90 light hours away, but the signal to noise ratio alone over such a distance would be substantial.
@@gagarinone Yes, but I wouldn't expect the planetary geometry required to accomplish one task to coincide with another. Regardless it's still a video I’d like to see.
I wonder if solar sail craft could get a boost by traveling along the gravitational focal lines where the light of distant stars would be concentrated by gravitational lensing.
A interesting way to see planets many light years away in detail and a worthwhile technology I think. But maybe life is also close by in other dimensions influencing matters on Earth, like designing DNA and giving humans and animals an intelligence beyond the intelligence of the current type of IA, which can fail if all the rules for its task are not encoded in its material structure?
@@nic.h Thanks for you reply. If the design of DNA and the signals in our brains can be guided from other realms or dimensions, then maybe it is possible to detect advanced information in quantum event noise? Such noise may influence what happens in and around small regions, with a large field gradient, like the electric field gradient over the cell membranes and synapses in the brain. Maybe we can use neural networks to search for information in quantum event noise? That could be what the brain is doing?
@@jensklausen2449 so something like the teleportation of quantum states controlled over vaste distances. Seems unlikely to me, but the quantum world is wierd and we are still just in the early stages of learning what is a possible. So nothing wrong with dreaming about what could be possible
Did you seriously just write those words? sounds like absolute technobabble , it's such theoretical babble like many worlds, gravitational lensing is the only way (as far as we know) to capture distant exoplanets that might support life.
How about an Optical Interferometer using multiple Optical telescopes around the solar system to view ultra high resolution images ? - From Wikipedia > "An astronomical interferometer is an array of separate telescopes, mirror segments, or radio telescope antennas that work together as a single telescope to provide higher resolution images of astronomical objects"
Silly question, couldn't we start by using the Earth as a gravitational lens? Of course it would be less powerful a lens, but still bigger than any telescope in existence and with a focal point much closer and easier to reach and potentially useful to get better pictures of the closest of exoplanets.
We could in principle, but remember Earth's gravitational field is one-millionth the mass of the Sun. That makes its gravitational field far weaker so light doesn't come to a focus for at least a few light-years. At 650 AU, the Sun's gravitational focus is far easier :)
@@LaunchPadAstronomy Thanks for the very interesting video you did on this topic a few months ago. Similarly to the above question, would it be possible to use other (perhaps far more massive) astronomical objects outside our system to image exoplanets, if focal lines extend indefinitely from the initial focal point? We've already used gravitational lensing caused by foreground galaxies to image more distant galaxies; could we therefore also use other 'nearby' stars or even black holes to image a particular exoplanet right here on (or very near) Earth, if the relevant focal line did indeed extend all the way to Earth? I suppose what I'm fundamentally asking is this: how far does the *useful* focal line extend past the initial focal point for an object like the Sun? After the initial 550 AU focal point for the Sun, how far down the focal line could a spacecraft continue to produce a sufficiently detailed image of an exoplanet? Could a moving spacecraft continue imaging the exoplanet indefinitely, or is there a specific point down this focal line where a sufficiently detailed image is no longer possible (perhaps due to limitations with the spacecraft's instruments)? Sorry if I haven't been very concise in wording my question. Thanks again for the brilliant videos!
I wonder if there could be another sweet spot available that also uses the gravitational effects of our largest planets. Maybe even a combination of the sun's lensing effects and power local planets. Would be much closer than the 650 AU for the sun.
It would be a major reduction in optical resolution, while Jupiter is big it's significantly smaller than the sun at about 1/10 the diameter and 1/1000 the mass
@@nic.h right I get that. What I was trying to say was a combination of the Sun's gravitational lensing and Jupiter's. Like when you have two lenses of different focal points.
@@chaffejcarraway I think the issue with that is it would be extremely limited it what it could look at. Basically it could only focus on what the Sun and Jupiter we aligned at during the time the telescope pass the focal points, and as the plan is for the craft to basically travel in a straight line the time frame for any alignment would be short that all of the parts would have sufficient alignment. I also think Jupiter would be to close an object for the solar telescope to focus on. I had a similar idea of using a solar telescope focused on parts of an event horizon of a black hole as a means to steer it to different areas to look at without requiring massive movements of the telescope itself, but expect that wouldn't be practical, just not enough resolution and to much stuff in the way of the nearest black hole we know of
I've looked into this idea before and I think the issue is that the focal line of a gravitational lens is inversely proportional to the bodies mass that is producing it. That is to say the focal line of the Sun's gravitational lens is by far much much closer than the next most massive objects in the Solar System. The Suns starts around 550 AU, Jupiter's 5,800 AU, Saturn's 13,000 AU. And as already mentioned the optical resolution would be much smaller using anything other than the Sun. I'm not sure how much you would gain if you could combine them. (R^2*c^2) / (4*G*M) = Minimum Focus. (Is how I determined those numbers)
@@nic.h photons do not have gravity, they are influenced by gravity, the sun is spherical, so influence is a bell curve, (I presume for some particles, only known), if the moon has a mirror, that measures distance, then it stands to reason, star light and planet rotation (Mars, etc) is well within 4 or so light years....
Someone 50-500 years from now will look back on this man's passion and benefit from it. Right now it's just I think way over his head cause it's so buggy.
What if we are looking at the focal point of Promixa centari? Not the real distance ? Imagine that. But 4 light years away is farther than its foci point.
An awesome and inspiring idea, can only hope that between now and feasible launch time that a faster method of propulsion is discovered. 2- to 25 years to reach the required 650 AU is an awfully long time to wait. Also, at the 16:53 mark, there is a video of the number of exoplanets discovered by year. Anyone know what video that is? I would love to show it to my young daughter who loves space and is very interested in exoplanets but is not yet at the age of watching astronomers talk for any length of time. :)
You want to go out to 650 AUs. OK. I'm thinking as we're already 268,770 AU from proxima centauri - maybe a ring of several telescopes using PC as the gravitational lens would be just as useful? (a ring is required because the rays from the focal point do not all pass through one aperture -- see the light rays at 9:16 to understand why).
Focal length required for Jupiter would be significantly further away, making it very impractical, additionally I believe it would provide less optical resolution and light collection. So has serious downsides unfortunately
well ...it only work on atmosphere planets ...it give off a hue gas ion charge ..just like pluto and titan..they are small..but its signature are their, with earth like planets be easier since its bigger rocky planets than titan...while gas giants also discoverable easier as well due to size can determine its gas planet
Isn't there are more practical and useful way to do this using our own planet or ones more local to us, that was proposed by David and the Cool World's Lab last year?
if Aliens do exist they would be up there in the sky in their machines, laughing and chuckling to themselves saying man those people down there sure know how to make a mess.
Xenobiologists have been searching for Exoplanets that are capable of sustaining human life. They have comprehended the possibility of sentient life that are based on periodic elements other than hydrogen carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen, as we humans are.
No, that's a fundamentally different concept (which I'd like to see develop as well). Terrascope relies on Earth's atmosphere to bend light, while this concept relies on the Sun's gravitational lens. The advantage of Terrascope is that the focal distance is much closer. The advantage of the solar gravitational lens is that the light amplification would be much higher - enough to image the surface of exoplanets.
I Want All Music Names... And Is The Music At 1:56... Its So Beautiful Music... I Am Crying For Such Music... They Touch My Heart... And You Have Used Many Space Scene... With Music... No Words To Describe It Properly... But Fully Awesome 👌😎😇😃😇😎
The lens focal line has a minimum focus that is inversely proportional to the mass of the object producing it. The Suns minimum starts around 550 AU, Juptiers 5800 AU, Saturns 13000 AU. (R^2*c^2)/(4*G*M) = Minimum Focus
@@HegemoniaLegions I see so the smaller the object the flatter the angle so the focal point is further away. Which is not very convenient! Would be nice to just need to orbit another planet and ride it to be on the opposite side of the sun to get the distance to the lensing target. None of this seems practical until some kind of fusion powered ion drive is invented... sigh... It's like we're in the 1800s thinking about reaching the Moon
Use the Earth's atmosphere instead - it's called the terrascope. While the resolution will be lower compared to the solar gravitational lens, it will still be thousands of times better than anything we have and we can build it today! As a bonus, unlike SGL, the terrascope stays on lunar orbit, so you can actually image the observable entire universe with it.
Agreed on all points, but only the solar gravitational amplifies light enough to directly image the surface of exoplanets. Different telescopes for different purposes.
This is a nice technique, but it would take a long time to build this infrastructure, better bet now to find smaller planets like earth is James Webb telescope at least for our generation.
what movie was that ?? the retro one with the line : So, this is what earth poeple call cities eh? pfff.. how primitive! look at all those buildings above ground
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
🔴 Thank you so much for having me on the show! Here's my original video about the Solar Gravitational Lens: ruclips.net/video/NQFqDKRAROI/видео.html
Terrascope
Seeing the planet/s around Proxima would be cool but I raise my glass for the Trappist system ;-)
@@zapfanzapfan Same here. During the interview I said Proxima and TRAPPIST-1 but they went with Proxima :)
f this can work with the sun, couldn't we use also smaller but still massive objects like Jupiter and Saturn for a lesser but still considerable effect? Being 1000x smaller than the sun, Jupiter might be less effective than the sun (1000x less? or the relationship between mass and magnification not linear?) but its focal point should also be an awful lot closer to us, wouldn't it? Or am I missing something major?
@@bradfordhatch5085 in principle yes we certainly could, but they distort space time far less than the Sun due to their tiny mass. So Jupiter’s gravitational focus starts at something like 6400 AU.
Bloomberg Quicktake has been making some strangely spectacular content recently. Whoever is taking charge of this direction and the team involved deserves a pat on the back. Fast becoming one of my most favorite channel on RUclips.
The CIA
Glad to hear it. Lots more to come.
@@K-Effect lol
Bloomberg doing lots of nice mini documentaries
Keep up the good work!
This is absolutely bonkers. I love it. For like minded people, you might want to check out Breakthrough Starshot as well, which wants to send actual probes to Alpha Centauri.
BUILD BOTH!
@@NAGIUXS 15:20 Proxima Centauri is around 4.2 light years away. How long depends on how fast whatever we send there is traveling
@@NAGIUXS Figured you were really wanting to know how long it would take using current technology available to get there. Based on the New Horizons speed of 3 au per year that they mention and 4.2 light years being roughly 265600 au, it would take about 88533 years for it to reach Proxima Centauri. Space is big unfortunately.
Wouldn’t that take 80,000 years though? They should just save their money because nobody alive today will ever know the outcome.
@@Shante-330 The break through star shot plan is to use light weight probe with basically solar sails that would be pushed by extremely powerful lasers I believe, although it's been a while since I've checked the details, but it would be significantly faster than the 3 au per year of the New Horizon probe, but still be decades at best. While we may not live to see the rewards, those that follow us are likely to appreciate the rewards. Think of it not for yourself but for humanity as a whole
When I was in high school I thought everything that needs to be invented has already been invented. But scientists keep pushing forward nonetheless. Who would have thought of the Sun as a lense of a 100B km long telescope!!
That intro video deserves an academy award
Best of luck to the Entire team
Im convinced humanity is playing Stellaris vs something yet to be discovered
Are there any exploits though?
@@malharapte5989 AI
The JPL powerpoint that is shown towards the end of the video, is it public? I would like to read it more thoroughly.
This video deserves more views.
October 31st is the launch date for the james Webb telescope and I feel like we are going to find out so much more
ive been waiting for it, so excited 😁
@@lustxglory I'll be excited when I believe it's actually going to happen, been waiting on that one for years
@@nic.h really? Nasa is funded by our Goverment and we do see all they work they have been doing so its not a scam its real you just have to be patient
@@starboysuniverse9956 sorry my comment probably came across more harsh than I intended. Just I've been watching and waiting for the JWST for quite a while now, along with the rest of us, and while I'm know the delays are needed to be sure everything goes smoothly, they sure can get a bit frustrating and was just venting my frustration really. I know they get there eventually
@@nic.h uhmm i got to break it to you that even if it lunches it gona take about 5years to get is working as intended because Nasa will add a few stuff while its up in space so again it gona take a very very long time infact it will start working around 6 to 7 years time
if we all come together as one we'll make it. thats where the challenge really is.
This is a genius idea ... This is the first things mankind have found to use the star for.... Really genius idea ...
Think there is lots of things we have used our star for really. It's our primary source of energy for example, basically most of our energy comes from some process which is driven by the sun originally, solar/wind/hydro
@@nic.h I understand and accept what you are saying... Because if we stop burning away the planet to make fossil fuel ... Then I think we will both begin to concume more energy as a planet and also we will be saving the ecosystem as a planet.... However I was talking about more along the lines of the Dyson sphere kind of Interacting with the sun on a star size level.... Like we are literally going to harness the whole physical mass of the sun to serve a higher much greater purpose.... And to think of it the sun is out star after all... Using it to scry deeper into the cosmos is really a genius idea......
@@jerwynjames8312 I think we will eventually move to harnessing the power of the sun either via space based generation which will naturally lead to something dyson sphere like or by figuring out fusion. My bet would be on fusion, as both are technically ridiculously challenging, but expect fusion would provide a more convenient solution for use. Admittedly it wouldn't really be using our sun, but making our own mini versions I guess
@@nic.h I think china already made a mini sun, if I am not mistaken.....
@@jerwynjames8312 there are lots of fusion projects around the world, unfortunately none of them have been able to sustain a net positive reaction for any length of time yet. It's going to be massive news when someone does. Like really really big news, world changing
Aliens will land in Wisconsin before the James Webb telescope is launched!
but...the Monolith sent me!
many events been shifting... like laser fusion reactors using deuterium & tritium.... The first D-T plasma is not expected until 2026. ..or quasi crystals... those are build by AIs.... (where AI stay for artificial intelligence.. and i don't mean the humans versions..i mean the MATRIX as man use not as man creating.... and not the movie.... but they mention there also the one hidden in temple of osiris ..or the one encoding in to abracadabra.... or in the famous story of adam & eve.. or in many others stories on this planet... or the one from crop circles... )... b̶͍̆̔̐̾u̷̧̗̫̹͚̳̩͚̥̍͠ ţ̶̳͙̳͔̻̩͕͈̻͇͂̂͆̋̕͝ ...ÿ̵͍̗̖͖̙͚̖͔͔̦̣́̐̿̄͛̐͝ͅaa̸̧̿. ...knowing & believing are also different things....
atiki taki tiki tu
🌏 📡🌏 👣🕖 💎👽☠☼☾☄ゞど・ㇺㇾㇽ₪𝖎𝖙𝖎𝖇𝖎𝖗𝖆₪なめㇺㇾㇽ✶☥✨🌛🌄⊀✶⋊🐺🐾♓️☆🐜🐜🐫▲▴◭
@@TibiSitibira You're welcome for all the amazing things us trans folks have given you :)
The meaning of humans beings would radically shift if we could ever discover Intelligent life or being discovered by one . I can’t fathom the crisis we would experience
Still. This is some of the best images I've ever seen! Wow!
Those solar sails look beautiful..
How to get to other countries in the old days? We sailed!
How to get to other planets in the (now living in the old days..) We sailed!
How about using earth atmosphere as gravitational lense? not that high magnification, but it wouldn't be necessary to reach that high distances... the effect should be the same?
Question, could the lensing technique use a planet rather than a star? The magnification will obviously be less but maybe still very useful and the convergence point positioning would be much more achievable than 650 AU from the star?
Was curious about this myself. Turns out the sun’s focal point is the closest. The needed distance to leverage the planets go from 6100 AU to 17,000 AU.
Another potential could be leveraging other neighboring stars?
The lens focal line has a minimum focus that is inversely proportional to the mass of the object producing it. The Suns minimum starts around 550 AU, Juptiers 5800 AU, Saturns 13000 AU. (R^2*c^2)/(4*G*M) = Minimum Focus. It might be possible to use a planets atmosphere to achieve some sort of magnification albeit at a much lower amount using a detector orbiting that body; however, clouds might make this difficult to pull off.
Space is our next Frontier👏👏
Neat idea, but it will almost certainly be obsolete in 20 years (when the mission would start sendingdata). For example, a phased array cloud of several hundred thousand telescopes deployed in solar orbits on the order of 1AU should do the trick. Getting the cost down to the order of $10k per satellite shouldn't be a problem in well under 20 years based on Wright's law.
Such a constellation could be aimed in any direction.
Yeah I really dont know how we're supposed to get a telescope 550au away from the sun for this to work
@@sideeggunnecessary well, they did address this in the video, hence the 20 year time frame. I'm generally skeptical about the practicality of such long duration hands-off missions during a time of extreme technological change. Pretty much anything that takes 20 years will be obsolete.
On the other hand, this reasoning doesn't apply to long term hands-on projects like colonizing Mars, because new technologies are applied as they are developing.
We should name the satellite array Sauron. Or Ra.
nice vision.... but i can't decode
ッヺ ̴̧͎̘̬̟͙̻̩̠̹̦̮̀̀̈͐̎̆͌̆̉͋͜͝ シッ... 'we'.... 🌏 📡🌏 👣🕖 💎👽☠☼☾☄ゞど・ㇺㇾㇽ₪𝖎𝖙𝖎𝖇𝖎𝖗𝖆₪なめㇺㇾㇽ✶☥✨🌛🌄⊀✶⋊🐺🐾♓️☆🐜🐜🐫▲▴◭
This is incredible science. Thank you!
Message to the Bloomberg QuickTake ;
Fascinating 🧐 on how you explain everything to in basic English details of how we can explore the universe through a telescope such as the Hubble Telescope & others. Looking 👀 forward to the James Webb Telescope. Plus thank you for making this video in English caption. Please continue making your future videos set in English caption. Why am I saying this? Cuz I’m deaf & is greatly fascinated with how the universe looks 👀 .
Building a shell of observatories around the focal lengths will allow you to image any point in the sky with this method. Also, the transport times discussed here can be reduced sizably through nuclear propulsion with current on-paper designs, not to mention more exotic methods.
Not practical unfortunately. This method will be focusing on a very small arc, so to do what you are suggesting would require basically creating the equivalent of a dyson sphere at 650 au radius around the sun, it would be an engineering project that is simply beyond our means. There is probably not enough raw material available in the solar system to do it either even if we destroy everything apart from the earth and sun.
@@nic.h Currently.
@@giordanobruno9106 Yes currently. Although I would probably argue that making the equivalent of a dyson sphere at 650 au radius even if it was sparse so we only had enough sites to cover the full arc of the sky will require more raw materials than what is currently available to us within the solar system, and I couldn't see that changing. Sure we could get smaller telescopes, but at some point they would be to small to allow enough light to be collected, so there is a limit on how small they can practically be. It's just the sheer scale of the area that this would need to cover is so large as to be infeasible given the available resources in my opinion. Maybe in the future we could develop some technology that would allow it to be practical, but I have no idea what that could be currently.
love the music in the video , and of course the video
99.99999 % of Human population -> Watching Cat videos and cat meme
Rest are busy photo-shooting exoplanets.
" the rest " = 800 people in the world ...
Do you even math ?
Actually this was a waste of time even on 2x. It's meant to make you cheer for something that might happen in 40 years and promote the climate hoax.
I've known about solar lensing for a while and I've always thought was a very interesting topic.
I’m very excited
music in this gave me mass effect feelings, keep it up.
This is so exciting. I wish it was already in place to image proxima a/b.
If ambient radiation creates white static, then the solar system is an envelope bubble that has a lensing window itself, as it traverses through the galaxy.
Can you explain the white static comment? I'm unsure what you are meaning in regards to the bubble comment. The solar system as a whole will have a gravitational lensing effect, however the mass of the solar system is just over 1 solar mass and very spread out which would likely add distortions that would need to be taken into account, and I'm guessing that the required focal point would be further out, so overall might not be beneficial.
@@nic.h imagine your inside a soap bubble, looking out, the universe would be a reverse spherical imprint, if you look at photo's taken at nuclear test sites, they have static from residual radiation, if two radioactive templates superimpose onto one another, it stands to reason, that the white static, would require some kind of filtering program, obviously we can see through it, however, is this not a form of lensing itself, and if so, to what interaction implies cause and effect. Hence if we are looking out from one soap bubble at another soap bubble, would static lensing implies depths of filters.
This project is magnificent.
This is very fascinating stuff. Keep em coming
Long way to go in this expanding universe
Aliens in Jupiter looking at Earth via telescope: no way that planet support life.
Fascinating stuff
15:48 "we'll be able to find out once and for all, whether we're alone" -- Seriously? Or are you kidding?? We've sent lots of missions to both Venus and Mars, we have tons of extremely high-resolution images and movies from there, we've even sent landers to both planets, and rovers have been rolling over Mars for many years, taking probes and analyzing them, but we still have no clue whether there is or has been life on these planets.
With the proposed mission on the other hand, we _might_ get a very few distorted low resolution images that have been back-calculated from a gravitational lens image, with all the inherent flaws and problems involved in this method (so far it hasn't even been established yet because it's so enormously complicated to do). Also, there is absolutely *no* way to communicate with the space probe once it has reached a place where it can take images, so the process must be completely automatized.
Anybody who thinks it's possible to decide from such images whether there's life out there, should take a look at the currently best images of Pluto and try to spot "the aliens". No matter what these new missions will come up with, the Pluto images will always be better by orders of magnitude.
Pessimistic much?
I take it this is easier than syncing telescopes parked at for instance the trojan points?
Would've been cool if Voyager could have made it to that 650 AU point and could snap a picture
I also seen a video saying a telescope at earths Lagrange point would make the same effect using the earth as a lens. Instead of putting your telescope at 600AU.
Any mass causes gravitational lensing, however the Earth is tiny compared to the Sun which would reduce the optical resolution. Also positioning at one of the Lagrange points (there are several) will seriously limit what it could focus on.
@@nic.h Yes it would be a smaller telescope. Being millions of times magnification instead of billions. But the solar 1 is the 1 that is focused in 1 strait line for a limited amount of time. It's so far out there we do not have the tech yet to put it out there in less then 100s of years. The lunar 1 would be much more likely to be built. Also I think it would be adjustable as it orbits the earth.
there was 2 morons sitting on a fence. The giant orange haired moron fell off. The little white haired moron did not fall........cause he was a little more on.
@@imnogrejones765 I believe the focal point gets further away as the mass drops as well, so for a moon sized lense the focal length would be a lot further than 650 au
Great stuff
I’d love a follow up on this discussing the Deep Space communications factors relevant to such a project. 650 au may only be 90 light hours away, but the signal to noise ratio alone over such a distance would be substantial.
The same can be done with radio frequencies signals.
@@gagarinone Yes, but I wouldn't expect the planetary geometry required to accomplish one task to coincide with another. Regardless it's still a video I’d like to see.
How will you stop when you get there?
They won't. As the they said in the video they don't need to, they can continue on that plane of motion and continue to image.
5:11 wow that looks like the disintegrating eye of Sauron
What about TR-3B Astra, can't we use that for space exploration?
I wonder if solar sail craft could get a boost by traveling along the gravitational focal lines where the light of distant stars would be concentrated by gravitational lensing.
Fascinating!
Inspiring technology
We will all be dead by the time we get the first snap
A interesting way to see planets many light years away in detail and a worthwhile technology I think. But maybe life is also close by in other dimensions influencing matters on Earth, like designing DNA and giving humans and animals an intelligence beyond the intelligence of the current type of IA, which can fail if all the rules for its task are not encoded in its material structure?
Other dimensions? Theoritical ones at this point which we have no means to interact with.
@@nic.h Thanks for you reply.
If the design of DNA and the signals in our brains can be guided from other realms or dimensions, then maybe it is possible to detect advanced information in quantum event noise? Such noise may influence what happens in and around small regions, with a large field gradient, like the electric field gradient over the cell membranes and synapses in the brain. Maybe we can use neural networks to search for information in quantum event noise? That could be what the brain is doing?
@@jensklausen2449 so something like the teleportation of quantum states controlled over vaste distances. Seems unlikely to me, but the quantum world is wierd and we are still just in the early stages of learning what is a possible. So nothing wrong with dreaming about what could be possible
Did you seriously just write those words?
sounds like absolute technobabble , it's such theoretical babble like many worlds, gravitational lensing is the only way (as far as we know) to capture distant exoplanets that might support life.
How about an Optical Interferometer using multiple Optical telescopes around the solar system to view ultra high resolution images ?
- From Wikipedia > "An astronomical interferometer is an array of separate telescopes, mirror segments, or radio telescope antennas that work together as a single telescope to provide higher resolution images of astronomical objects"
I have heard theories of gravity bending the path of light associated with time travel. Is that possible?
Thank goodness none of the scientists overhyped this by saying things like "we will look at what aliens are doing"......
Silly question, couldn't we start by using the Earth as a gravitational lens? Of course it would be less powerful a lens, but still bigger than any telescope in existence and with a focal point much closer and easier to reach and potentially useful to get better pictures of the closest of exoplanets.
We could in principle, but remember Earth's gravitational field is one-millionth the mass of the Sun. That makes its gravitational field far weaker so light doesn't come to a focus for at least a few light-years. At 650 AU, the Sun's gravitational focus is far easier :)
@@LaunchPadAstronomy Thanks for the very interesting video you did on this topic a few months ago. Similarly to the above question, would it be possible to use other (perhaps far more massive) astronomical objects outside our system to image exoplanets, if focal lines extend indefinitely from the initial focal point? We've already used gravitational lensing caused by foreground galaxies to image more distant galaxies; could we therefore also use other 'nearby' stars or even black holes to image a particular exoplanet right here on (or very near) Earth, if the relevant focal line did indeed extend all the way to Earth?
I suppose what I'm fundamentally asking is this: how far does the *useful* focal line extend past the initial focal point for an object like the Sun? After the initial 550 AU focal point for the Sun, how far down the focal line could a spacecraft continue to produce a sufficiently detailed image of an exoplanet? Could a moving spacecraft continue imaging the exoplanet indefinitely, or is there a specific point down this focal line where a sufficiently detailed image is no longer possible (perhaps due to limitations with the spacecraft's instruments)?
Sorry if I haven't been very concise in wording my question. Thanks again for the brilliant videos!
The fact that Comets have ice around them is proof enough for other forms of life beyond earth.
.... what
@@beachchaos1863 what...
@@beachchaos1863 nothing official..chill dude ,
Just my theory 🤣
I wonder if there could be another sweet spot available that also uses the gravitational effects of our largest planets. Maybe even a combination of the sun's lensing effects and power local planets. Would be much closer than the 650 AU for the sun.
It would be a major reduction in optical resolution, while Jupiter is big it's significantly smaller than the sun at about 1/10 the diameter and 1/1000 the mass
@@nic.h right I get that. What I was trying to say was a combination of the Sun's gravitational lensing and Jupiter's. Like when you have two lenses of different focal points.
@@chaffejcarraway I think the issue with that is it would be extremely limited it what it could look at. Basically it could only focus on what the Sun and Jupiter we aligned at during the time the telescope pass the focal points, and as the plan is for the craft to basically travel in a straight line the time frame for any alignment would be short that all of the parts would have sufficient alignment. I also think Jupiter would be to close an object for the solar telescope to focus on. I had a similar idea of using a solar telescope focused on parts of an event horizon of a black hole as a means to steer it to different areas to look at without requiring massive movements of the telescope itself, but expect that wouldn't be practical, just not enough resolution and to much stuff in the way of the nearest black hole we know of
Ah, that makes total sense to me. Thanks for clearing that up. Fun thought experiment though!
I've looked into this idea before and I think the issue is that the focal line of a gravitational lens is inversely proportional to the bodies mass that is producing it. That is to say the focal line of the Sun's gravitational lens is by far much much closer than the next most massive objects in the Solar System. The Suns starts around 550 AU, Jupiter's 5,800 AU, Saturn's 13,000 AU. And as already mentioned the optical resolution would be much smaller using anything other than the Sun. I'm not sure how much you would gain if you could combine them. (R^2*c^2) / (4*G*M) = Minimum Focus. (Is how I determined those numbers)
What will happen if there is no aliens in this universe ?
So scary nah!!
Humans alone
Universe is a big place, it may be full of life but it's so far away we never cross paths.
Most geniune martian i ve ever seen...0:06-0:10
hello
if you put a telescope on the deskside of the moon, and aim it at Alpha Centauri gravitational lensing, at what point would Jupiter converge a split.
Using Proxima Centauri as a gravitational lense from the moon wouldn't be practical as it would be well outside the focal point
@@nic.h photons do not have gravity, they are influenced by gravity, the sun is spherical, so influence is a bell curve, (I presume for some particles, only known), if the moon has a mirror, that measures distance, then it stands to reason, star light and planet rotation (Mars, etc) is well within 4 or so light years....
@@nic.h hence previous question on white static
@@nic.h great inquiry little dude, follow your dreams
Someone 50-500 years from now will look back on this man's passion and benefit from it. Right now it's just I think way over his head cause it's so buggy.
Been talking bout this for the past few weeks.
What if we are looking at the focal point of Promixa centari? Not the real distance ? Imagine that. But 4 light years away is farther than its foci point.
An awesome and inspiring idea, can only hope that between now and feasible launch time that a faster method of propulsion is discovered. 2- to 25 years to reach the required 650 AU is an awfully long time to wait.
Also, at the 16:53 mark, there is a video of the number of exoplanets discovered by year. Anyone know what video that is? I would love to show it to my young daughter who loves space and is very interested in exoplanets but is not yet at the age of watching astronomers talk for any length of time. :)
I THOUGHT THIS DOCUMENTARY WAS ABOUT LAUNCHING DOGE COIN TO THE MOON.
You want to go out to 650 AUs. OK. I'm thinking as we're already 268,770 AU from proxima centauri - maybe a ring of several telescopes using PC as the gravitational lens would be just as useful? (a ring is required because the rays from the focal point do not all pass through one aperture -- see the light rays at 9:16 to understand why).
Can someone please help me find this ambiental sound from this video? it's so relaxing !
Why not use Jupiter for a giant telescope? It's much darker and that might compensate for the size differences. Jupiter's atmosphere can focus light.
Focal length required for Jupiter would be significantly further away, making it very impractical, additionally I believe it would provide less optical resolution and light collection. So has serious downsides unfortunately
What about a Jovian Gravitational Lense?
Major reduction in optical resolution 1/10 diameter and 1/1000 mass of the sun
Is there no way to maintain the telescope in orbit at 650AU instead of slowing it down?
8:00 So, HAL is out there :-)
well ...it only work on atmosphere planets ...it give off a hue gas ion charge ..just like pluto and titan..they are small..but its signature are their, with earth like planets be easier since its bigger rocky planets than titan...while gas giants also discoverable easier as well due to size can determine its gas planet
Isn't there are more practical and useful way to do this using our own planet or ones more local to us, that was proposed by David and the Cool World's Lab last year?
What percentage of stars in our galaxy have planetary orbits that transit their sun on the same plane as our solar system?
1. Lensing + A.I. computer = aliens found
2. If human will only stop put himself on pedestal, he would understand universe is full of life
point to point references
make a Lasor telescope.
if Aliens do exist they would be up there in the sky in their machines, laughing and chuckling to themselves saying man those people down there sure know how to make a mess.
Why would these "Aliens" care about us? We do not care about any ants.
Xenobiologists have been searching for Exoplanets that are capable of sustaining human life. They have comprehended the possibility of sentient life that are based on periodic elements other than hydrogen carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen, as we humans are.
Smort!
So....could you apply the same principle and collect electromagnetic transmissions emminating from a planet?
Photons are photons.
Breakthrough starshot enters the chat
Very interesting
Obviously, how do you power radiation into a visual template, in the contrast.....of multiples
a solar navigation system has to travel at the speed of light to create a reference point (GPS)
Isn't this the concept from the Cool Worlds Lab?
No, that's a fundamentally different concept (which I'd like to see develop as well). Terrascope relies on Earth's atmosphere to bend light, while this concept relies on the Sun's gravitational lens. The advantage of Terrascope is that the focal distance is much closer. The advantage of the solar gravitational lens is that the light amplification would be much higher - enough to image the surface of exoplanets.
I Want All Music Names...
And Is The Music At 1:56...
Its So Beautiful Music...
I Am Crying For Such Music...
They Touch My Heart...
And You Have Used Many Space Scene... With Music...
No Words To Describe It Properly...
But Fully Awesome 👌😎😇😃😇😎
6:35 discovered?
(maybe i wouldn't call it that)
Why not try with Jupiter first? How far off is it's lens point?
See answer above.
The lens focal line has a minimum focus that is inversely proportional to the mass of the object producing it. The Suns minimum starts around 550 AU, Juptiers 5800 AU, Saturns 13000 AU. (R^2*c^2)/(4*G*M) = Minimum Focus
@@HegemoniaLegions I see so the smaller the object the flatter the angle so the focal point is further away. Which is not very convenient! Would be nice to just need to orbit another planet and ride it to be on the opposite side of the sun to get the distance to the lensing target. None of this seems practical until some kind of fusion powered ion drive is invented... sigh... It's like we're in the 1800s thinking about reaching the Moon
More videos keep it up
You need to put a telescope on the moon. Moon base 🌌
Use the Earth's atmosphere instead - it's called the terrascope. While the resolution will be lower compared to the solar gravitational lens, it will still be thousands of times better than anything we have and we can build it today! As a bonus, unlike SGL, the terrascope stays on lunar orbit, so you can actually image the observable entire universe with it.
Agreed on all points, but only the solar gravitational amplifies light enough to directly image the surface of exoplanets. Different telescopes for different purposes.
This is a nice technique, but it would take a long time to build this infrastructure, better bet now to find smaller planets like earth is James Webb telescope at least for our generation.
He pointed a gun at the kid and said don’t be afraid?
Maybe it was the Martian version of a smartphone?
Yes , nno problemo
That missing black part of the sky 1:16 is kicking off my OCD.
what movie was that ?? the retro one with the line : So, this is what earth poeple call cities eh?
pfff.. how primitive!
look at all those buildings above ground
It's called "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians". Seriously.
Searching another life......
It means life beyond earth exist
Could advanced civilisations place lots of telescopes a round black holes to view further in all directions
What movie is that? They make buildings on the ground, primitive! 😂
"Santa Claus Conquers the Martians" Seriously :)
@@LaunchPadAstronomy Not 'Bostonians from Space'? 'We're from Mahhhrz. Take us to da chowdahhhr!'
🤣 right!
y not use another star which is 650 au from earth and keep the telescope near earth ?
no star is that close to Earth... 650 au is pretty far out there for our modern technology but closest star is 268,770 au from us