Since black holes are the most powerful gravitational spots in the entire Universe, can they distort light so much that it actually goes into orbit? And what would it look like if you could survive and follow light in this trip around a black hole?
I had this great question in from a viewer. Is it possible for light to orbit a black hole?
Consider this thought experiment, first explained by Newton. Imagine you had cannon that could shoot a cannonball far away. The ball would fly downrange and then crash into the dirt. If you shot the cannonball harder it would fly further before slamming into the ground. And if you could shoot the cannonball hard enough and ignore air resistance – it would travel all the way around the Earth. The cannonball would be in orbit. It’s falling towards the Earth, but the curvature of the Earth means that it’s constantly falling just over the horizon.
This works not only with cannonballs, astronauts and satellites, but with light too. This was one of the big discoveries that Einstein made about the nature of gravity. Gravity isn’t an attractive force between masses, it’s actually a distortion of spacetime. When light falls into the gravity well of a massive object, it bends to follow the curvature of spacetime.
Distant galaxies, the Sun, and even our own Earth will cause light to be deflected from its path by their distortion of spacetime. But it’s the incredible gravity of a black hole that can tie spacetime in knots. And yes, there is a region around a black hole where even photons are forced to travel in an orbit. In fact, this region is known as the “photon sphere”.
From far enough away, black holes act like any massive object. If you replaced the Sun with a black hole of the same mass, our Earth would continue to orbit in exactly the same way. But as you get closer and closer to the black hole, the orbiting object needs to go faster and faster as it whips around the massive object. The photon sphere is the final stable orbit you can have around a black hole. And only light, moving at, well, light speed, can actually exist at this altitude.
Artist impression of a black hole. Credit: ESO/L. Calçada
Imagine you could exist right at the photon sphere of a black hole. Which you can’t, so don’t try. You could point your flashlight in one direction, and see the light behind you, after it had fully orbited the black hole. You would also be bathed in the radiation of all the photons captured in this region. The visible light might be pretty, but the x-ray and gamma radiation would cook you like an oven.
Below the photon sphere you would see only darkness. Down there is the event horizon, light’s point of no return. And up above you’d see the Universe distorted by the massive gravity of the black hole. You’d see the entire sky in your view, even stars that would be normally obscured by the black hole, as they wrap around its gravity. It would be an awesome and deadly place to be, but it’d sure beat falling down below the event horizon.
If you could get down into the photon sphere, what kind of experiments would you want to do? Tell us in the comments below.
The movie ‘Gravity’ ended up being a force to reckon with at the 86th Academy Awards on Sunday, with the space thriller pulling in seven Oscars — including Best Director.
Starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, the movie followed the aftermath of an orbital disaster. Despite criticism from some about the movie’s accuracy, the film picked up 10 nominations and numerous good vibes from critics. (The movie has a 97% “Fresh” rating on Rotten Tomatoes). You can see congratulations from NASA astronauts Mike Massimino and Cady Coleman below the jump.
“Like any other human endeavor, a film is a transformative experience, and I want to thank Gravity because for many of us involved in this film, it was definitely a transformative experience,” said director Alfonso Cuarón in his acceptance speech last night (March 2).
“And it’s good because it took so long, if not, it would be a waste of time. It really sucks,” he joked, “because for a lot of people, the transformative experience was wisdom. For me, it was just the colour of my hair.”
Among the people Cuarón paid tribute to was Sandra Bullock, who was nominated for ‘Best Lead Actress’ but lost out to Cate Blanchett, who won for her performance in Blue Jasmine.
Sandra Bullock in a still from the movie ‘Gravity.’ Credit: Regency Enterprises/Warner Bros. Entertainment
“You’re Gravity,’ Cuarón said to Bullock from the stage. “You’re the soul, heart of the film. You’re a most amazing collaborator and one of the best people I’ve ever met.”
The movie attracted 7 wins of its 10 Oscar nominations, failing to earn ‘Best Picture’ (which went to 12 Years A Slave), ‘Achievement in Production Design’ (given to American Hustle). and ‘Best Lead Actress’ Its wins were:
Best director (Alfonso Cuarón);
Achievement in cinematography (Emmanuel Lubezki);
Achievement in film editing (Alfonso Cuarón and Mark Sanger);
Achievement in music written for motion pictures (Original score) (Steven Price);
Achievement in sound editing (Glenn Freemantle);
Achievement in sound mixing (Skip Lievsay, Niv Adiri, Christopher Benstead and Chris Munro);
Achivement in visual effects (Tim Webber, Chris Lawrence, Dave Shirk and Neil Corbould).
Shepherd moon Prometheus hovers just inside the reflective F ring
Lit by eerie, reflected light from Saturn’s F ring (and a casting a faint shadow through a haze of icy “mist”) Saturn’s moon Prometheus can be seen in the raw image above, captured by Cassini’s narrow-angle camera on Feb. 5 from a distance of 667,596 miles (1,074,392 km). It’s also receiving some light reflected off Saturn, which is off frame at the top (where the outermost edge of the A ring and the Keeler gap can be seen.)
As the potato-shaped Prometheus approaches the ring it yanks fine, icy material in towards itself, temporarily stretching the bright particles into long streamers and gaps and even kicking up bright clumps in the ring. It’s a visual demonstration of gravity at work! Watch an animation of this below, made from images acquired just before and after the one above:
Streamers and clumps created by the passing Prometheus on Feb. 5, 2014. (NASA/JPL/SSI. Animation by Jason Major.)
At its longest Prometheus is about 92 miles (148 km) across, but only 42 miles (68 km) in width. It circles Saturn in a wave-shaped, scalloping orbit once every 14.7 hours.
This artist’s impression shows the exotic double object that consists of a tiny, but very heavy neutron star that spins 25 times each second, orbited every two and a half hours by a white dwarf star. The neutron star is a pulsar named PSR J0348+0432 that is giving off radio waves that can be picked up on Earth by radio telescopes. Although this unusual pair is very interesting in its own right it is also a unique laboratory for testing the limits of physical theories. This system is radiating gravitational radiation, ripples in spacetime. Although these waves cannot be yet detected directly by astronomers on Earth they can be detected indirectly by measuring the change in the orbit of the system as it loses energy. As the pulsar is so small the relative sizes of the two objects are not drawn to scale.
When we think of gravity, we typically think of it as a force between masses. When you step on a scale, for example, the number on the scale represents the pull of the Earth’s gravity on your mass, giving you weight. It is easy to imagine the gravitational force of the Sun holding the planets in their orbits, or the gravitational pull of a black hole. Forces are easy to understand as pushes and pulls.
But we now understand that gravity as a force is only part of a more complex phenomenon described the theory of general relativity. While general relativity is an elegant theory, it’s a radical departure from the idea of gravity as a force. As Carl Sagan once said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” and Einstein’s theory is a very extraordinary claim. But it turns out there are several extraordinary experiments that confirm the curvature of space and time.
The key to general relativity lies in the fact that everything in a gravitational field falls at the same rate. Stand on the Moon and drop a hammer and a feather, and they will hit the surface at the same time. The same is true for any object regardless of its mass or physical makeup, and this is known as the equivalence principle.
Since everything falls in the same way regardless of its mass, it means that without some external point of reference, a free-floating observer far from gravitational sources and a free-falling observer in the gravitational field of a massive body each have the same experience. For example, astronauts in the space station look as if they are floating without gravity. Actually, the gravitational pull of the Earth on the space station is nearly as strong as it is at the surface. The difference is that the space station (and everything in it) is falling. The space station is in orbit, which means it is literally falling around the Earth.
The International Space Station orbiting Earth. Credit: NASA
This equivalence between floating and falling is what Einstein used to develop his theory. In general relativity, gravity is not a force between masses. Instead gravity is an effect of the warping of space and time in the presence of mass. Without a force acting upon it, an object will move in a straight line. If you draw a line on a sheet of paper, and then twist or bend the paper, the line will no longer appear straight. In the same way, the straight path of an object is bent when space and time is bent. This explains why all objects fall at the same rate. The gravity warps spacetime in a particular way, so the straight paths of all objects are bent in the same way near the Earth.
So what kind of experiment could possibly prove that gravity is warped spacetime? One stems from the fact that light can be deflected by a nearby mass. It is often argued that since light has no mass, it shouldn’t be deflected by the gravitational force of a body. This isn’t quite correct. Since light has energy, and by special relativity mass and energy are equivalent, Newton’s gravitational theory predicts that light would be deflected slightly by a nearby mass. The difference is that general relativity predicts it will be deflected twice as much.
Description of Eddington’s experiment from the Illustrated London News (1919).
The effect was first observed by Arthur Eddington in 1919. Eddington traveled to the island of Principe off the coast of West Africa to photograph a total eclipse. He had taken photos of the same region of the sky sometime earlier. By comparing the eclipse photos and the earlier photos of the same sky, Eddington was able to show the apparent position of stars shifted when the Sun was near. The amount of deflection agreed with Einstein, and not Newton. Since then we’ve seen a similar effect where the light of distant quasars and galaxies are deflected by closer masses. It is often referred to as gravitational lensing, and it has been used to measure the masses of galaxies, and even see the effects of dark matter.
Another piece of evidence is known as the time-delay experiment. The mass of the Sun warps space near it, therefore light passing near the Sun is doesn’t travel in a perfectly straight line. Instead it travels along a slightly curved path that is a bit longer. This means light from a planet on the other side of the solar system from Earth reaches us a tiny bit later than we would otherwise expect. The first measurement of this time delay was in the late 1960s by Irwin Shapiro. Radio signals were bounced off Venus from Earth when the two planets were almost on opposite sides of the sun. The measured delay of the signals’ round trip was about 200 microseconds, just as predicted by general relativity. This effect is now known as the Shapiro time delay, and it means the average speed of light (as determined by the travel time) is slightly slower than the (always constant) instantaneous speed of light.
A third effect is gravitational waves. If stars warp space around them, then the motion of stars in a binary system should create ripples in spacetime, similar to the way swirling your finger in water can create ripples on the water’s surface. As the gravity waves radiate away from the stars, they take away some of the energy from the binary system. This means that the two stars gradually move closer together, an effect known as inspiralling. As the two stars inspiral, their orbital period gets shorter because their orbits are getting smaller.
Decay of pulsar period compared to prediction (dashed curve). Data from Hulse and Taylor, Plotted by the author.
For regular binary stars this effect is so small that we can’t observe it. However in 1974 two astronomers (Hulse and Taylor) discovered an interesting pulsar. Pulsars are rapidly rotating neutron stars that happen to radiate radio pulses in our direction. The pulse rate of pulsars are typically very, very regular. Hulse and Taylor noticed that this particular pulsar’s rate would speed up slightly then slow down slightly at a regular rate. They showed that this variation was due to the motion of the pulsar as it orbited a star. They were able to determine the orbital motion of the pulsar very precisely, calculating its orbital period to within a fraction of a second. As they observed their pulsar over the years, they noticed its orbital period was gradually getting shorter. The pulsar is inspiralling due to the radiation of gravity waves, just as predicted.
Illustration of Gravity Probe B. Credit: Gravity Probe B Team, Stanford, NASA
Finally there is an effect known as frame dragging. We have seen this effect near Earth itself. Because the Earth is rotating, it not only curves spacetime by its mass, it twists spacetime around it due to its rotation. This twisting of spacetime is known as frame dragging. The effect is not very big near the Earth, but it can be measured through the Lense-Thirring effect. Basically you put a spherical gyroscope in orbit, and see if its axis of rotation changes. If there is no frame dragging, then the orientation of the gyroscope shouldn’t change. If there is frame dragging, then the spiral twist of space and time will cause the gyroscope to precess, and its orientation will slowly change over time.
Gravity Probe B results. Credit: Gravity Probe B team, NASA.
We’ve actually done this experiment with a satellite known as Gravity Probe B, and you can see the results in the figure here. As you can see, they agree very well.
Each of these experiments show that gravity is not simply a force between masses. Gravity is instead an effect of space and time. Gravity is built into the very shape of the universe.
Think on that the next time you step onto a scale.
The Universe is always surprising us with how little we know about… the Universe. It’s continuously presenting us with stuff we never imagined, or even thought possible. The search for extrasolar planets is a great example.
Since we started, astronomers have turned up over a thousand of them. These planets can be gigantic worlds with many times the mass of Jupiter, all the way down to little tiny planets smaller than Mercury. Astronomers are also finding one type of world that feels both familiar and yet totally alien… the super earth.
In the strictest sense, a super earth is just a planet with more mass than Earth, but less than a larger planet like Uranus or Neptune. So, you could have super earths made of rock and metal, or even ice and gas. These planets could have oceans and atmospheres, or made of nothing but hydrogen and helium. The goal, of course, is to find a rocky super earth located in the habitable zone. This is the region where the planets are the right distance from the star for liquid water to be present.
The first discovery of a potentially habitable super earth was in the star system Gliese 581.
Here, astronomers found 2 planets orbiting within the habitable zone. Gliese 581 c has a mass of 5 times the Earth, and orbits on the overly warm side of the habitable zone and, Gliese 581 d is 7.7 times the mass of the Earth, and is on the cold side of the zone.
We’ve now found dozens of super earths. One recent discovery, Kepler 11-b, has only 4 times the mass of the our planet and just 1.5 times its size.
You’re probably wondering about the gravity. The exact gravity depends on the ratio of the planet’s size to its mass. If you could stand on the surface of a super earth, you’d probably feel a higher gravity. Considering these planets can have 5 or more times the mass of Earth. But less gravity than you’d expect.
An increase in size makes a big difference. For example, if you could stand on the surface of Kepler 11-b, which is about 1.5 times bigger but a whopping 4 times more massive, you’d feel only 1.4 times the pull of Earth’s gravity.
Artist’s impression of the trio of super earths. Image credit: ESO
Here’s the big question. Could a super earth support life?
Aquatic life would be no problem. Once you’re in the ocean, the effects of gravity are balanced out by the buoyancy of water. How well life could survive on land and in the air depends on the gravity of the world. With higher gravity, plants and animals wouldn’t be able to grow as tall. Animals would need thicker legs to support their weight. If the atmosphere was denser, likely because of the higher gravity, flying creatures could move more slowly with larger wingspans.
If intelligent life does develop on a heavy gravity world, it will have a much harder time getting into space. Reaching orbital velocity is already tremendously difficult from Earth. Just imagine how much more difficult it would be to launch rockets if everything was twice as heavy.
So, a big thank you to the astronomers showing us that there are all kinds of crazy worlds out there.
Albert Einstein during a lecture in Vienna in 1921.
Credit: National Library of Austria/F Schmutzer/Public Domain
One of the benefits of being an astrophysicist is your weekly email from someone who claims to have “proven Einstein wrong”. These either contain no mathematical equations and use phrases such as “it is obvious that..”, or they are page after page of complex equations with dozens of scientific terms used in non-traditional ways. They all get deleted pretty quickly, not because astrophysicists are too indoctrinated in established theories, but because none of them acknowledge how theories get replaced.
For example, in the late 1700s there was a theory of heat known as caloric. The basic idea of caloric was that it was a fluid that existed within materials. This fluid was self-repellant, meaning it would try to spread out as evenly as possible. We couldn’t observe this fluid directly, but the more caloric a material has the greater its temperature.
Ice-calorimeter from Antoine Lavoisier’s 1789 Elements of Chemistry. (Public Domain)
From this theory you get several predictions that actually work. Since you can’t create or destroy caloric, heat (energy) is conserved. If you put a cold object next to a hot object, the caloric in the hot object will spread out to the cold object until they reach the same temperature. When air expands, the caloric is spread out more thinly, thus the temperature drops. When air is compressed there is more caloric per volume, and the temperature rises.
We now know there is no “heat fluid” known as caloric. Heat is a property of the motion (kinetic energy) of atoms or molecules in a material. So in physics we’ve dropped the caloric model in terms of kinetic theory. You could say we now know that the caloric model is completely wrong.
Except it isn’t. At least no more wrong than it ever was.
The basic assumption of a “heat fluid” doesn’t match reality, but the model makes predictions that are correct. In fact the caloric model works as well today as it did in the late 1700s. We don’t use it anymore because we have newer models that work better. Kinetic theory makes all the predictions caloric does and more. Kinetic theory even explains how the thermal energy of a material can be approximated as a fluid.
This is a key aspect of scientific theories. If you want to replace a robust scientific theory with a new one, the new theory must be able to do more than the old one. When you replace the old theory you now understand the limits of that theory and how to move beyond it.
In some cases even when an old theory is supplanted we continue to use it. Such an example can be seen in Newton’s law of gravity. When Newton proposed his theory of universal gravity in the 1600s, he described gravity as a force of attraction between all masses. This allowed for the correct prediction of the motion of the planets, the discovery of Neptune, the basic relation between a star’s mass and its temperature, and on and on. Newtonian gravity was and is a robust scientific theory.
Then in the early 1900s Einstein proposed a different model known as general relativity. The basic premise of this theory is that gravity is due to the curvature of space and time by masses. Even though Einstein’s gravity model is radically different from Newton’s, the mathematics of the theory shows that Newton’s equations are approximate solutions to Einstein’s equations. Everything Newton’s gravity predicts, Einstein’s does as well. But Einstein also allows us to correctly model black holes, the big bang, the precession of Mercury’s orbit, time dilation, and more, all of which have been experimentally validated.
So Einstein trumps Newton. But Einstein’s theory is much more difficult to work with than Newton’s, so often we just use Newton’s equations to calculate things. For example, the motion of satellites, or exoplanets. If we don’t need the precision of Einstein’s theory, we simply use Newton to get an answer that is “good enough.” We may have proven Newton’s theory “wrong”, but the theory is still as useful and accurate as it ever was.
Unfortunately, many budding Einsteins don’t understand this.
Binary waves from black holes. Image Credit: K. Thorne (Caltech) , T. Carnahan (NASA GSFC)
To begin with, Einstein’s gravity will never be proven wrong by a theory. It will be proven wrong by experimental evidence showing that the predictions of general relativity don’t work. Einstein’s theory didn’t supplant Newton’s until we had experimental evidence that agreed with Einstein and didn’t agree with Newton. So unless you have experimental evidence that clearly contradicts general relativity, claims of “disproving Einstein” will fall on deaf ears.
The other way to trump Einstein would be to develop a theory that clearly shows how Einstein’s theory is an approximation of your new theory, or how the experimental tests general relativity has passed are also passed by your theory. Ideally, your new theory will also make new predictions that can be tested in a reasonable way. If you can do that, and can present your ideas clearly, you will be listened to. String theory and entropic gravity are examples of models that try to do just that.
But even if someone succeeds in creating a theory better than Einstein’s (and someone almost certainly will), Einstein’s theory will still be as valid as it ever was. Einstein won’t have been proven wrong, we’ll simply understand the limits of his theory.
Dr. Thad Szabo is a professor of physics and astronomy at Cerritos College. He’s also a regular contributor to many of our projects, like the Virtual Star Party and the Weekly Space Hangout. Thad has an encyclopedic knowledge of all things space, so we got him to explain a few fascinating concepts.
In this video, Thad explains the strange mystery of dark energy, and the even stranger idea of the Big Rip.
What is the ‘Big Rip?’
If we look at the expansion of the universe, at first it was thought that, as things are expanding while objects have mass, the mass is going to be attracted to other mass, and that should slow the expansion. Then, in the late 1990’s, you have the supernova surveys that are looking deeper into space than we’ve ever looked before, and measuring distances accurately to greater distances than we’ve ever seen before. Something really surprising came out, and that was what we’ll now use “dark energy” now to explain, and that is that the acceleration is not actually slowing down – it’s not even stopped. It’s actually getting faster, and if you look at the most distant objects, they’re actually moving away from us and the acceleration is increasing the acceleration of expansion. This is actually a huge result.
One of the ideas of trying to explain it is to use the “cosmological constant,” which is something that Einstein actually introduced to his field equations to try to keep the universe the same size. He didn’t like the idea of a universe changing, so he just kind of cooked up this term and threw it into the equations to say, alright, well if it isn’t supposed to expand or contract, if I make this little mathematical adjustment, it stays the same size.
Hubble comes along about ten years later, and is observing galaxies and measuring their red shifts and their distances, and says wait a minute – no the universe is expanding. And actually we should really credit that to Georges Lemaître, who was able to interpret Hubble’s data to come up with the idea of what we now call the Big Bang.
So, the expansion’s happening – wait, it’s getting faster. And now the attempt is to try to understand how dark energy works. Right now, most of the evidence points to this idea that the expansion will continue in the space between galaxies. That the forces of gravity, and especially magnetism and the strong nuclear force that holds protons and neutrons together in the center of an atom, would be strong enough that dark energy is never going to be able to pull those objects apart.
However, there’s a possibility that it doesn’t work like that. There’s actually a little bit of experimental evidence right now that, although it’s not well-established, that there’s a little bit of a bias with certain experiments that dark energy may get stronger over time. And, if it does so, the distances won’t matter – that any object will be pulled apart. So first, you will see all galaxies recede from each other, as space starts to grow bigger and bigger, faster and faster. Then the galaxies will start to be pulled apart. Then star systems, then planets from their stars, then stars themselves, and then other objects that would typically be held together by the much stronger forces, the electromagnetic force objects held by that will be pulled apart, and then eventually, nuclei in atoms.
So if dark energy behaves so that it gets stronger and stronger over time, it will eventually overcome everything, and you’ll have a universe with nothing left. That’s the ‘Big Rip’ – if dark energy gets stronger and stronger over time, it will eventually overcome any forces of attraction, and then everything is torn apart.
You can find more information from Dr. Thad Szabo at his YouTube channel.
Professor Stephen Hawking during a zero-gravity flight. Image credit: Zero G.
Gravity. The average person probably doesn’t think about it on a daily basis, but yet gravity affects our every move. Because of gravity, we fall down (not up), objects crash to the floor, and we don’t go flying off into space when we jump in the air. The old adage, “everything that goes up must come down” makes perfect sense to everyone because from the day we are born, we are seemingly bound to Earth’s surface due to this all-pervasive invisible force.
But physicists think about gravity all the time. To them, gravity is one of the mysteries to be solved in order to get a complete understanding of how the Universe works.
So, what is gravity and where does it come from?
To be honest, we’re not entirely sure.
Graphic courtesy University of Tennessee Knoxville.
We know from Isaac Newton and his law of gravitation that any two objects in the Universe exert a force of attraction on each other. This relationship is based on the mass of the two objects and the distance between them. The greater the mass of the two objects and the shorter the distance between them, the stronger the pull of the gravitational forces they exert on each other.
We also know that gravity can work in a complex system with several objects. For example, in our own Solar System, not only does the Sun exert gravity on all the planets, keeping them in their orbits, but each planet exerts a force of gravity on the Sun, as well as all the other planets, too, all to varying degrees based on the mass and distance between the bodies. And it goes beyond just our Solar System, as actually, every object that has mass in the Universe attracts every other object that has mass — again, all to varying degrees based on mass and distance.
A demonstration of gravity with balls on a rubber sheet. Credit: Stanford University.
With his theory of relativity, Albert Einstein explained how gravity is more than just a force: it is a curvature in the space-time continuum. That sounds like something straight out of science fiction, but simply put, the mass of an object causes the space around it to essentially bend and curve. This is often portrayed as a heavy ball sitting on a rubber sheet, and other smaller balls fall in towards the heavier object because the rubber sheet is warped from the heavy ball’s weight.
In reality, we can’t see curvature of space directly, but we can detect it in the motions of objects. Any object ‘caught’ in another celestial body’s gravity is affected because the space it is moving through is curved toward that object. It is similar to the way a coin would spiral down one of those penny slot cyclone machines you see at tourist shops, or the way bicycles spiral around a velodrome.
A 2-dimensional animation of how gravity works. Via NASA’s Space Place..
We can also see the effects of gravity on light in a phenomenon called gravitational lensing. If an object in space is massive enough – such as a large galaxy or cluster of galaxies — it can cause an otherwise straight beam of light to curve around it, creating a lensing effect.
Images from the Hubble Space Telescope showing a gravitational lensing effect. Credit: NASA/ESA.
But these effects – where there are basically curves, hills and valleys in space — occur for reasons we can’t fully really explain. Besides being a characteristic of space, gravity is also a force (but it is the weakest of the four forces), and it might be a particle, too. Some scientists have proposed particles called gravitons cause objects to be attracted to one another. But gravitons have never actually been observed. Another idea is that gravitational waves are generated when an object is accelerated by an external force, but these waves have never been directly detected, either.
Our understanding of gravity breaks down at both the very small and the very big: at the level of atoms and molecules, gravity just stops working. And we can’t describe the insides of black holes and the moment of the Big Bang without the math completely falling apart.
The problem is that our understanding of both particle physics and the geometry of gravity is incomplete.
“Having gone from basically philosophical understandings of why things fall to mathematical descriptions of how things accelerate down inclines from Galileo, to Kepler’s equations describing planetary motion to Newton’s formulation of the Laws of Physics, to Einstein’s formulations of relativity, we’ve been building and building a more comprehensive view of gravity. But we’re still not complete,” said Dr. Pamela Gay. “We know that there still needs to be some way to unite quantum mechanics and gravity and actually be able to write down equations that describe the centers of black holes and the earliest moments of the Universe. But we’re not there yet.”
And so, the mystery remains … for now.
This “Minute Physics” video helps explain what we know about gravity:
So much space news, so little time. We had a great Weekly Space Hangout with several of our familiar space journalist friends. No huge stories, but lots of interesting tidbits, about asteroid protection, balloon trips to the edge of space, and the discovery of the furthest galaxy.
Host: Fraser Cain
Panel: Alan Boyle, Amy Shira Teitel, David Dickinson, Nancy Atkinson, Elizabeth Howell
We record the Weekly Space Hangout every Friday at 12:00 pm Pacific / 3:00 pm Eastern. You can watch us live on Google+, Universe Today, or the Universe Today YouTube page.
Sandra Bullock as Ryan Stone in Warner Bros. Pictures' dramatic thriller "Gravity," a Warner Bros. Pictures release.
Image Credit: Courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures
Actors for a new movie coming out in October 2013 received tips about life in space from NASA astronaut Cady Coleman. “Gravity” is the story of two astronauts (played by George Clooney and Sandra Bullock) whose shuttle is destroyed by a run-in with space junk during an EVA, stranding them both in orbit and struggling for survival.
While developing her role, Bullock gave Coleman a call while she was aboard the space station. At the time, the actress asked Coleman to elaborate on what it’s like living and moving about in microgravity. “I told her that I had long hair, and if you pulled a hair out and pushed it against something, you could move yourself across the space station,” said Coleman. “That’s how little force it takes.”
You can see more of their discussion below, as well as the heart-pounding trailer for the movie:
NASA says that although this dire scenario makes for gripping Hollywood entertainment, NASA actively works to protect its astronauts and vehicles from the dangers portrayed in the movie. From protective shielding and meticulous and methodical training on the ground and in space covering everything from spacewalking to fires or decompression inside the space station, NASA’s ground crews and astronauts are as prepared as they can be for potential anomaly, no matter how remote they may be.
