Why is it a parabola that you want and not a spherical dome? Wouldn't a spherical dome have a focal point?
@stoatystoat1742 сағат бұрын
Could you make it from Galinstan? (Extra melty Gallium alloy) [Not a moon telescope 🔭 🌝, im thinking one for the garden 🏡]
@lucidmoses2 сағат бұрын
Could you pick a different angle if the secondary mirror was distorted in the opposite way that the mercury would cause?
@NomadUniverse4 сағат бұрын
I imagine the mercury on that telescope would be vulnerable to dust. Would any floaties be pushed to the edge? Does it oxidise? Does it corrode? Do they need to do anything to maintain the reflective properties?
@schmetterling44775 сағат бұрын
I totally agree with the criticism. We are still teaching physics as if this was the 19th century. The focus on classical mechanics and electrostatics/magnetostatics gives students a completely false picture of the world.
@schmetterling44775 сағат бұрын
That is a horrible hack of physics. There is zero understanding here, whatsoever. Why did you guys do this episode????
@MrPoornakumar5 сағат бұрын
This (Mercury mirror) is fantastic. A new generation of Telescopes is about to begin. A further improvement could be, to place the Mercury at about -40ºC and keep it that way (possible in snow at Himalayan heights of about 7000m) with some freezer around the Mercury and then withdrawing/decoupling/de-clutching the turning mechanism. Mercury freezes at −38.829°C.
@gmtom195 сағат бұрын
For the who "you can only point straight up" part, this might be a lite bit crazy but could it be possible to put the the entire spinning plate on the edge of a second, larger plate and thus use the centrifugal forces generated to angle the mirror?
@TAP7a7 сағат бұрын
Ah, vector calculus and vector fields. Honestly, learning these maths tools was one of my favourite parts of my undergrad, alongside numerical methods for differential equation solutions. Really fun stuff until it gets quantised
@pembrokeshiredan8 сағат бұрын
Is there any detectable spherical aberration due to the curvature of the Earth?
@nodakamakadon10 сағат бұрын
That was a comprehensive spiel.
@jmalmsten11 сағат бұрын
The idea of using highly toxic liquid metal for a large mirror seems almost like an intrusive thought an engineer just couldn't resist. Also. In ancient asia, there were talks about palaces having mercury pools and rivers. Probably just to show off wealth. But. An entrepreneurial mind might make the mental leap to a sci fi scenario that they were in fact giant ancient telescopes.
@Merto611 сағат бұрын
That moon telescope must have really long exposures. 1 month for a full circle.
@rianfelis315611 сағат бұрын
One thing is that you can get a certain distance off of zenith by moving your detector. This is how they aimed Arecibo and similar very large radio telescopes. Range is definitely limited, but it's not zero.
@jasonharrison2511 сағат бұрын
How do you prevent the mercury from oxidizing?
@ChandrasegaranNarasimhan12 сағат бұрын
There can be two definitions of contact 1 physical contact distance 2 equilibrium contact distance. Earth and sun are in equilibrium distance. It is dynamic equilibrium distance. Bond length is dynamic equilibrium distance. Does the professor agree?
@kiatsommart12 сағат бұрын
If we build enough of this around the surface of the moon, then we'll have a giant 360 camera that provide constant feed of the universe 😁
@Skeke12 сағат бұрын
Lets do a liquid version of JWST
@davidgenie-ci5zl13 сағат бұрын
Glass is transparent because it is clear. Duh
@sylviahalpert456913 сағат бұрын
If Foucault was right, there should not exist any stationary pendulums anywhere on earth.
@vernacularbarnarchitecture13 сағат бұрын
❤
@YawnGod14 сағат бұрын
Something that will cost the Netherlands and Germany money?! SHUT IT DOWN!
@wandamaddox782415 сағат бұрын
It's a better demonstration of Mach's principle than it is a telescope.
@adfaklsdjf15 сағат бұрын
Moon Telescope!
@scowell17 сағат бұрын
On the Moon the transit is a lot slower... 30x or so... amazing to think of what might be found with a 90m transit telescope on the Moon.
@FelipeZucchetti17 сағат бұрын
Cool, now try and do that using a huge bronze bowl, a lot of water, at night and place it at the bottom of a roofless "tower" and boom...you have a huge telescope...
@skycakecrunch17 сағат бұрын
Has our understanding of this topic advanced in the past 10 years since this video?
@christophermclaughlin889918 сағат бұрын
Great video but just imagine how little science would have advanced if the Health and Safety overlords had their way. We wouldn’t even have stone tools.
@ShawnPitman18 сағат бұрын
Why they didnt call it "HgTV" is beyond me.
@adayinthelife549620 сағат бұрын
NASA doesn't do anything that won't vanish at least 100billion now.
@TheRealInscrutable20 сағат бұрын
If mercury is solid at lunar temperatures could you not take advantage of that and have a heated platform and once the desired shape has been achieved then switch off the heat and let it freeze in the correct shape? Once frozen you could even stop spinning it!
@TheRealInscrutable20 сағат бұрын
Mercury is not dangerous. Just don't drink it and you're fine - of and don't boil it to make hats shape more easily.
@NuisanceMan21 сағат бұрын
If they put it on the moon, I guess when a micrometeorite hits the mercury, they'll have to wait for the ripples to go away, then hope it doesn't leak through a hole.
@ThunderBassistJay21 сағат бұрын
Vocal fry all over. What a pity, we aren't born this way. It's learned behaviour. It makes me stop listening after just a few minutes.
@petercollin567021 сағат бұрын
I think of how the Indian Himalayas are seismically active. Would a tremor make you have to throw out an entire night's data? Or can you delete the observations made when the mirror got distorted?
@kuronosan21 сағат бұрын
13:23 Or you could.. heat the dish holding the Mercury.
@jorgenskyt22 сағат бұрын
Instead of using liquid Mercury the same effect can be uptained using a low melting alloy like Galinstan (Gallium-Indium-Tin). This alloy is more expensive than Mercury, but is non-toxic compared to Mercury. It won't expell toxic fumes and any spillage will not harm the environment or the humans working with it. It's easy to make yourself. There are though two challenges: 1) Galinstan must be kept away from some metals, like Aluminum, as both the Gallium and the Indium content will alloy with metal and introduce fatal brittlenes, and 2) Galinstan will "wet" any surface it encounters, even glass. This is very anoying, but in the case of glass this can be accounted for by covering the glass with Indium Tin Oxide (the conductive coating used on the inside of LCD-screens and on airplane windows).
@JavierSalcedoC22 сағат бұрын
another way to make a parabolic surface is by making a vacuum with a flexible surface attached to a cylinder
@jorgenskyt22 сағат бұрын
One of the challenges with liquid spinning telescopes is the gyroscopic effect on the spinning mass. As the planet rotates it also rotates the spinning liquid which will try to correct for the rotation of the planet, trying to keep its rotational axes static. This will result in a slight "wave" effect - or a deviation from the perfect parabula. This means there are limits to the image quality you can uptain with this method.
@Kwauhn.5 сағат бұрын
Couldn't you correct for this type of thing? Or does the waving effect translate to a loss of information?
@vberz477843 минут бұрын
If it's not chaotic motion, then it can be fixed with digital data post-processing.
@bryonpike236122 сағат бұрын
Could you gain some ability to "aim" the telescope by making a large mercury mirror and suspending the detector on a movable structure that could point at different parts of the mirror? I'm thinking of an optical telescope akin to how radio astronomers "aimed" the Arecibo Telescope
@michaelogden595823 сағат бұрын
I wonder what the frequency/wavelength constraints are for a mercury reflector. Any wider or more narrow than 'glass'?
@edsmith256223 сағат бұрын
Thanks for the UT shout out. "Hook'em Horns"
@dcorgard23 сағат бұрын
I'd solidly bet that there's more to redshift than the Doppler effect. An "intrinsic" redshift.
@dcorgard23 сағат бұрын
What we need is a liquid metal that solidifies when exposed to a magnetic field...
@dcorgard23 сағат бұрын
Doesn't NASA use one of these to track Space Garbage?
@1224chrisng23 сағат бұрын
It's hilarious they first built the telescope in Vancouver
@jamesstevens236223 сағат бұрын
You just know there’ll be an “Ultimately Large Telescope II”.
@stevenmellemans721523 сағат бұрын
Yes, the idea is physics, but implementation is engineering😊
@fonkbadonk5370Күн бұрын
Naming a telescope "ultimate" is a bad idea. We couldn't ever make a larger one after that!
@dan1100247 сағат бұрын
Nah we still have the pro and max keywords to combine. Plenty of iterations.
@joehopfieldКүн бұрын
Elegant here in our life giving gravity well, but the Moon's brutal atmosphere of highly charged dust and gas is actually more challenging than orbit or Lagrange points.
Пікірлер
Why is it a parabola that you want and not a spherical dome? Wouldn't a spherical dome have a focal point?
Could you make it from Galinstan? (Extra melty Gallium alloy) [Not a moon telescope 🔭 🌝, im thinking one for the garden 🏡]
Could you pick a different angle if the secondary mirror was distorted in the opposite way that the mercury would cause?
I imagine the mercury on that telescope would be vulnerable to dust. Would any floaties be pushed to the edge? Does it oxidise? Does it corrode? Do they need to do anything to maintain the reflective properties?
I totally agree with the criticism. We are still teaching physics as if this was the 19th century. The focus on classical mechanics and electrostatics/magnetostatics gives students a completely false picture of the world.
That is a horrible hack of physics. There is zero understanding here, whatsoever. Why did you guys do this episode????
This (Mercury mirror) is fantastic. A new generation of Telescopes is about to begin. A further improvement could be, to place the Mercury at about -40ºC and keep it that way (possible in snow at Himalayan heights of about 7000m) with some freezer around the Mercury and then withdrawing/decoupling/de-clutching the turning mechanism. Mercury freezes at −38.829°C.
For the who "you can only point straight up" part, this might be a lite bit crazy but could it be possible to put the the entire spinning plate on the edge of a second, larger plate and thus use the centrifugal forces generated to angle the mirror?
Ah, vector calculus and vector fields. Honestly, learning these maths tools was one of my favourite parts of my undergrad, alongside numerical methods for differential equation solutions. Really fun stuff until it gets quantised
Is there any detectable spherical aberration due to the curvature of the Earth?
That was a comprehensive spiel.
The idea of using highly toxic liquid metal for a large mirror seems almost like an intrusive thought an engineer just couldn't resist. Also. In ancient asia, there were talks about palaces having mercury pools and rivers. Probably just to show off wealth. But. An entrepreneurial mind might make the mental leap to a sci fi scenario that they were in fact giant ancient telescopes.
That moon telescope must have really long exposures. 1 month for a full circle.
One thing is that you can get a certain distance off of zenith by moving your detector. This is how they aimed Arecibo and similar very large radio telescopes. Range is definitely limited, but it's not zero.
How do you prevent the mercury from oxidizing?
There can be two definitions of contact 1 physical contact distance 2 equilibrium contact distance. Earth and sun are in equilibrium distance. It is dynamic equilibrium distance. Bond length is dynamic equilibrium distance. Does the professor agree?
If we build enough of this around the surface of the moon, then we'll have a giant 360 camera that provide constant feed of the universe 😁
Lets do a liquid version of JWST
Glass is transparent because it is clear. Duh
If Foucault was right, there should not exist any stationary pendulums anywhere on earth.
❤
Something that will cost the Netherlands and Germany money?! SHUT IT DOWN!
It's a better demonstration of Mach's principle than it is a telescope.
Moon Telescope!
On the Moon the transit is a lot slower... 30x or so... amazing to think of what might be found with a 90m transit telescope on the Moon.
Cool, now try and do that using a huge bronze bowl, a lot of water, at night and place it at the bottom of a roofless "tower" and boom...you have a huge telescope...
Has our understanding of this topic advanced in the past 10 years since this video?
Great video but just imagine how little science would have advanced if the Health and Safety overlords had their way. We wouldn’t even have stone tools.
Why they didnt call it "HgTV" is beyond me.
NASA doesn't do anything that won't vanish at least 100billion now.
If mercury is solid at lunar temperatures could you not take advantage of that and have a heated platform and once the desired shape has been achieved then switch off the heat and let it freeze in the correct shape? Once frozen you could even stop spinning it!
Mercury is not dangerous. Just don't drink it and you're fine - of and don't boil it to make hats shape more easily.
If they put it on the moon, I guess when a micrometeorite hits the mercury, they'll have to wait for the ripples to go away, then hope it doesn't leak through a hole.
Vocal fry all over. What a pity, we aren't born this way. It's learned behaviour. It makes me stop listening after just a few minutes.
I think of how the Indian Himalayas are seismically active. Would a tremor make you have to throw out an entire night's data? Or can you delete the observations made when the mirror got distorted?
13:23 Or you could.. heat the dish holding the Mercury.
Instead of using liquid Mercury the same effect can be uptained using a low melting alloy like Galinstan (Gallium-Indium-Tin). This alloy is more expensive than Mercury, but is non-toxic compared to Mercury. It won't expell toxic fumes and any spillage will not harm the environment or the humans working with it. It's easy to make yourself. There are though two challenges: 1) Galinstan must be kept away from some metals, like Aluminum, as both the Gallium and the Indium content will alloy with metal and introduce fatal brittlenes, and 2) Galinstan will "wet" any surface it encounters, even glass. This is very anoying, but in the case of glass this can be accounted for by covering the glass with Indium Tin Oxide (the conductive coating used on the inside of LCD-screens and on airplane windows).
another way to make a parabolic surface is by making a vacuum with a flexible surface attached to a cylinder
One of the challenges with liquid spinning telescopes is the gyroscopic effect on the spinning mass. As the planet rotates it also rotates the spinning liquid which will try to correct for the rotation of the planet, trying to keep its rotational axes static. This will result in a slight "wave" effect - or a deviation from the perfect parabula. This means there are limits to the image quality you can uptain with this method.
Couldn't you correct for this type of thing? Or does the waving effect translate to a loss of information?
If it's not chaotic motion, then it can be fixed with digital data post-processing.
Could you gain some ability to "aim" the telescope by making a large mercury mirror and suspending the detector on a movable structure that could point at different parts of the mirror? I'm thinking of an optical telescope akin to how radio astronomers "aimed" the Arecibo Telescope
I wonder what the frequency/wavelength constraints are for a mercury reflector. Any wider or more narrow than 'glass'?
Thanks for the UT shout out. "Hook'em Horns"
I'd solidly bet that there's more to redshift than the Doppler effect. An "intrinsic" redshift.
What we need is a liquid metal that solidifies when exposed to a magnetic field...
Doesn't NASA use one of these to track Space Garbage?
It's hilarious they first built the telescope in Vancouver
You just know there’ll be an “Ultimately Large Telescope II”.
Yes, the idea is physics, but implementation is engineering😊
Naming a telescope "ultimate" is a bad idea. We couldn't ever make a larger one after that!
Nah we still have the pro and max keywords to combine. Plenty of iterations.
Elegant here in our life giving gravity well, but the Moon's brutal atmosphere of highly charged dust and gas is actually more challenging than orbit or Lagrange points.