The beginning of the XXI century: mankind is increasing the power of computing by leaps and bounds, squeezing more and more resources from transistor processors. On the horizon loomed the prospect of a transition to a new type of processors based on transistors operating at the molecular level. All thanks to the work of the German physicist Jan Hendrik Schön, who works for Bell Labs, the inventor of modern transistors.
In 2002, there was a real breakthrough in experimental physics and electronics, which, however, never happened.
At one time, Schön’s scientific works in the field of microelectronics made a splash, as they promised the appearance of cheap and extremely powerful computing technology. Probably even more powerful than the one we are using now (recall, we are talking about the early 2000s).
The results of Schön’s experiments were published by the most famous scientific journals — Nature and Science. They brought the scientist not only fame, but also numerous fees. Schön was involved in the development of a new generation of transistors, which were supposed to provide a quick breakthrough in the production of computing technology.
Unlike «classical» silicon transistors, molecular transistors had to become much smaller, therefore, they could be placed on much smaller areas of microcircuits.
It is very difficult to produce something so miniature, but Schön had a solution for this too: it was proposed to use organic components. It is also cheaper, since they are easier to synthesize in the laboratory, and easier to process.
Other scientists immediately tried to repeat Schön’s experiments. However, no one succeeded in repeating the results described by the German scientist. This has raised suspicion in the scientific community, as repeatability is the cornerstone of the scientific method. If one experimenter repeats the actions of another, then they should get the same results.
Soon, in Schoen’s work, one serious inconsistency was noticed in the reports on two different experiments — the noise level was the same everywhere, even without minimal changes, which is simply impossible. This turned out to be strong evidence of Schön’s fraud, which would subsequently lead to the removal of his articles from publication and the withdrawal of his degrees.
As you might guess, the scientist falsified the results of the experiments. He did it for fame, awards, unlimited funding from Bell Labs and personalized work conditions. After the scandal, the company’s management initiated an investigation, during which no one had any doubts about the falsification of the experiments. At least 18 of Schön’s 24 experiments were precisely rigged for selfish purposes.
This was the end of the career of the brilliant scientist and inventor Schön. He did not give a clear explanation of his actions and was unable to provide any evidence of innocence. Subsequently, he was deprived of all scientific awards and degrees, lost his job and reputation in scientific circles.
One of our readers sent us the following question:
The earth really does not have the shape of a perfect sphere and is slightly flattened at the poles. The equatorial radius of the Earth is 6378.1 km, and the polar radius is 6356.8 km, the difference is only 21 km, which is negligible compared to the size of the planet: about 0.32%.
This difference is caused by the rotation of the Earth around its axis: the centrifugal force slightly stretches the planet near the equator, and as it approaches the poles, it decreases and completely disappears at the poles themselves.
If an observer looks at the Earth, for example, from the Moon, then he will see it perfectly round, our eye is simply not able to catch such a small difference between the polar and equatorial radii. You can verify this by looking at any photo of the Earth from space.
For the Moon, exactly the same laws apply, but the radius of the Moon is 3.5 times less than that of the Earth, and the speed of its rotation around its axis is approximately 100 times less than that of the Earth, thus, the centrifugal force acting on the equator of the Moon will be much less than on the ground.
As a result, the equatorial radius of the Moon is 1738.1 km, and the polar radius is 1736 km, the difference is only 2 km, i.e. 0.11% of the radius, which is less significant for the Moon than 21 km for the Earth. Therefore, if you look at the Moon with the naked eye, then it seems to us perfectly round, although of course, just like the Earth is not perfectly round.
We received the following question from one of our readers:
As of May 2020, the existence of 4,264 exoplanets in 3,152 star systems has been reliably confirmed, with more than 3.5 thousand more reliable candidates for exoplanets currently awaiting re-confirmation for final recognition.
According to the same data, only 697 systems are known that include more than one planet, that is, on average, there are slightly more than one planet in planetary systems. However, this does not mean that in most star systems of the galaxy there is only one planet, it does not even mean that in the data, open systems, there is only one planet.
In fact, in systems where we have discovered only one planet, there may be many other, not yet discovered planets. Modern methods of searching for exoplanets make it possible to detect only sufficiently large and close to the star planets, it is quite possible that in known systems there are remote from the star or small exoplanets that we have not yet managed to fix, in some systems only one planet has been reliably confirmed at the moment, and a few more are awaiting confirmation.
Personally, I have come across in the literature with systems in which the number of exoplanets is estimated up to six, if there are systems with a higher estimate, then I have not come across data on them.
One of the readers sent in the following question:
We answer in order:
The dark stream is a coordinated movement of clusters of galaxies stretched over 3 billion light years, and it does not contradict the known physical laws, although it looks very unusual. However, its existence was determined by only one group of researchers. Independent studies of the same clusters by other researchers have shown that the coordinated motion of galaxies is not observed, which means that there is no so-called «dark stream» either.
Whose research is correct and who was wrong is not yet entirely clear. Therefore, the question of the existence of the Dark Stream remains open. Further research: observations and calculations carried out by independent research teams will establish clarity on this issue.
Dark energy is a special type of energy that causes the accelerated expansion of the universe. The very fact of the accelerated expansion of the universe does not raise any doubts and is confirmed by a huge array of observational data. As soon as the universe is expanding with acceleration, there must be something that is causing this acceleration. This «something» is called dark energy.
Thus, the very existence of dark energy is a scientific fact. At the same time, it is not known what it is, it can be either the theory of gravity with amendments, or some matter. Research shows that the best contender for dark energy is the cosmological constant introduced by Einstein. With it, Einstein’s equations completely describe the accelerated expansion of the Universe, but the physical meaning of this constant and what stands behind it is still unclear.
Dark matter is a special putative type of matter. Dark matter particles do not participate in electromagnetic interactions and cannot be observed. The reason for the hypothesis of dark matter was the problem of hidden mass: galaxies and galaxy clusters behave as if they have much more mass than we can see. This could mean that either our theory of gravity is wrong, or that there is actually more mass there than we see.
The chances of the existence of dark matter, in my opinion, are 90%. No matter how modified the theory of gravity, it does not give the effects that dark matter creates. At the same time, the introduction of dark matter immediately solves the problem of hidden mass and explains many other laws. At the same time, there is always a chance that the correct theory of gravity has not been built yet. In the next 20 years, several large experiments are planned to search for dark matter particles, we will wait for the results.
A remarkable fact — people know that our planet has been in the shape of a ball for more than two thousand years. Nevertheless, there are still people who seriously believe that the Earth is flat and are convinced that all the stories about its sphericity are simply a conspiracy of insidious scientists, all photographs from space are fakes, etc. In this article, we’ll look at five simple ways to make sure the Earth isn’t flat.
Simple life experience tells everyone that the higher you stand, the further you see. But the field of view is still limited. This fact is especially noticeable at sea or on plains where there are no obstructions to the eyes.
Being on the surface of the Earth, the horizon is limited to a few kilometers, while if you go higher it immediately expands at times. That is why observation posts on ships are located on high masts.
It is also noteworthy that objects beyond the horizon cannot be discerned with the help of even the most powerful binoculars or a telescope, while if the observer rises only a few meters above the surface, he will again be able to see objects hidden behind the horizon even with the naked eye.
This is easily explained by the fact that objects, as they move away from us, hide behind the roundness of the earth’s surface and disappear from our field of vision, since the light reflected from them simply cannot reach our eyes.
Particularly clear confirmation is two mountains in Hawaii: Mauna Kea — on the main island of the Hawaiian archipelago, the highest point of Hawaii and Kawaykini on the island of Kauai. Between the two peaks — 509 kilometers.
The height of Kavaikini is 1598 meters above sea level, Mauna Kea is 4207 meters above sea level. A straight line to them runs mainly along the sea, crossing only the islands of Oauhu and Kahoolave, while on this line there are no significant elevations that could block observation.
If the Earth were flat, then from the top of Mauna Kea one could see the top of Kavaikini, because there would be no obstacles between them. However, this is not the case. In cloudless weather, the gaze of the observer rests on the horizon and no binoculars, telescopes and telescopes will help.
At the same time, our eye is quite capable of distinguishing Mount Kavaikini at such a distance. The angular resolution of the human eye is 0.02 degrees. Knowing the geometry at the level of the 8th grade of secondary school, it is easy to calculate the size of the minimum object that the eye with an angular resolution of δ = 0.02 degrees is able to distinguish at a distance of D = 509 km.
Substituting the numbers into the formula, we see that at a distance of 509 kilometers, the human eye is able to distinguish objects with a size of 177 meters and more.
The second simple way to refute the assumption that the Earth is flat is to observe the pole star and determine its angular height, i.e. the angle between the straight line connecting the observer’s eye with the polar star and the Earth’s surface.
Mariners and geographers are well aware that the angular height of the pole star is always equal to the geographical latitude. So at the equator, the angular height of the polar star is 0 (i.e., it actually lies on the horizon), in Jerusalem — 31 °, in Moscow — 56 °, and at the north pole — 90 ° (i.e., it is located strictly at the top).
Knowing the distance from Moscow to the North Pole and assuming that the Earth is flat, it is easy to calculate at what height the polar star is.
The distance from Moscow to the North Pole is 3089 kilometers. The angular height is 56 degrees. It is easy to calculate that for a right-angled triangle with one leg length of 3089 kilometers and an adjacent angle of 56 degrees, the length of the second leg will be 2083 kilometers.
But the trouble is — if we carry out the same calculations for an observer located in Jerusalem, it turns out that the polar star is 3891.8 kilometers, and for each new observer at a new geographic latitude, we will get a different height of the polar star that does not coincide with all the others.
The lines connecting the observers and the polar star do not converge at one point, as if each observer had his own polar star, which, of course, is impossible and testifies to the erroneousness of the initial premise that the surface of the Earth is a plane.
While on a spherical Earth, no contradictions arise. The North Star is located at a huge distance of 447 light years, and all photons from it reaching the Earth are essentially moving along parallel trajectories. We get different angular heights corresponding to the geographic latitude precisely due to the sphericity of the Earth’s surface.
If the Earth’s surface were a plane, then the angular heights of the polar star would have to be the same at different latitudes, which is obviously not the case.
In fact, there are many other visual ways to make sure the Earth is not flat. These are different lengths of shadows at different latitudes at the same time, and observations of sunrise and sunset, different pictures of the starry sky depending on the position of the observer and the sinking of receding ships under water and much more, but we have already written about most of them in other articles.
Answering a question sent by one of our readers:
Recall from the plot of the film «The Martian» astronaut Mark Watney was left on Mars alone and to survive grew potatoes in a greenhouse, using Martian soil fertilized with excrement as soil.
Plant growth requires soil containing nutrients, water, an earth-like atmosphere, and sunlight. Since we are talking about conditions similar to those shown in the movie «The Martian», the main issue is the potential fertility of the Martian soil. The atmosphere inside the Martian greenhouse will obviously be suitable, as well as adequate lighting and water supply.
The Martian soil is significantly different from the terrestrial. First, the salt content in it is significantly higher than in the earth’s soil. Some of these salts can be toxic to terrestrial plants. Some, such as perchlorates, are toxic to plants, but they are even more toxic to humans, which can make the fruits of plants grown in perchlorate-rich soil inedible for humans. The concentration of perchlorates in the Martian soil reaches about 1% of its mass, which is actually a lot.
Fortunately, there are methods to remove perchlorates from the soil. Perchlorate molecules are quite heavy, for example, the molar mass of calcium perchlorate is 239 g / mol higher than that of uranium. This allows perchlorates to be separated quite easily, for example by reverse osmosis or even by simply flushing the soil with water.
While scrubbing is unlikely to completely remove harmful salts and perchlorates from the soil, it can reduce their concentration. In addition, a significant part of perchlorates from the soil will be found in the tubers of the first 2-3 potato crops. If you do not eat them, but wait 4-5 harvests, then the content of harmful salts in them will already be significantly less.
The earth’s soil contains a large number of microorganisms that capture atmospheric nitrogen and subsequently serve as an important source of nitrogen compounds for plants. The process of capture of atmospheric nitrogen by microorganisms is called nitrogen fixation. There will be no microorganisms in the Martian soil for obvious reasons.
To ensure the fertility of the soil, Mark Watney fertilized it using human excrement. This was supposed to enrich the soil with both organic compounds and various microorganisms, which, under proper conditions, should multiply quickly enough. However, even if this is not enough, future settlers on Mars will be in less extreme conditions than the character of the movie «The Martian», and will have either means for the cultivation of nitrogen-fixing microorganisms on Martian soil, or a sufficient amount of nitrogen-containing fertilizers. and / or means for the production of nitrogen-containing fertilizers on site.
Several attempts have been made to grow plants, including potatoes, in conditions similar to those of Mars. However, samples of Martian soil have not yet been delivered to Earth, therefore all experiments on plant cultivation in conditions close to Martian are approximations of one degree or another of accuracy.
As analogs of the Martian soil, the experiments use chemical compounds similar in composition, chemical and properties to the Martian soil. However, this is still not a real Martian soil, therefore, we will receive an exact answer to the question of the realistic growth of plants on such soil only after field experiments on Mars.
For our question, the experiment of the International Potato Center (Peru), carried out in collaboration with NASA in 2016, is of interest. They managed to grow potatoes in extremely salty soil from the Peruvian deserts, in a rarefied atmosphere with a high content of carbon dioxide. Potatoes themselves grow relatively well in saline soil, and in addition, a specially bred potato variety that is especially resistant to soil salinity was used for the experiment.
Another group of scientists from the Netherlands used for experiments artificially created analogs of the Martian soil and lunar regolith, mixed with organic fertilizers. The experiment showed that terrestrial plants grow well in such soil.
And although the Dutch scientists did not grow potatoes, in the course of experiments they grew watercress, radish, rye, quinoa, spinach, beans and several types of onions, as well as a close relative of potatoes, the tomato. There is no reason why potatoes could not be grown in the same way.
Thus, the results of the experiments allow us to look at the possibility of germinating plants on Mars with optimism. In general, what is shown in the movie «The Martian» looks realistic, with one caveat that Mark Watney would have to clear the soil of perchlorates and probably throw away the first 2-3 potato crops.
However, at the time of writing the book «The Martian», the high perchlorate content in the Martian soil had not yet been discovered, so the fact that Mark Watney did not bother cleaning the soil is not the author’s mistake.
Over the entire period of space exploration and exploration, hundreds of thousands of photographs were taken, and some of them raised doubts about their reality, mainly among people far from the space industry. In this article, we will provide several of these photos with their explanations.
In this image, people are confused by the relative sizes of the Moon and Earth. After all, the diameter of the Moon is about 27% of the diameter of the Earth, but here in the picture the Moon occupies almost 37% of the Earth’s diameter, so skeptics conclude that the photo is a fake.
In fact, knowing the distance from the apparatus from which the survey was carried out to the Earth and the Moon, it is easy to calculate how it should actually be. DSCOVR was 1.1 million kilometers from Earth at the time of the survey. From the Pythagorean theorem, it is easy to calculate that the angular size of the Earth from such a distance should be 0.00884 rad, and the Moon located between the Earth and the apparatus — 0.00329 rad, i.e. From this distance, the moon should cover approximately 37.2% of the Earth’s diameter, which is what we see in the picture.
In this photo we see the shuttle Endeavor docked to the ISS. Many skeptics, over time, immediately arose a question — here, the shuttle, here is the ISS, and who and where from then took this photo?
The casket opens simply. This photo was taken on May 24, 2011. On May 16, the shuttle Endeavor docked at the ISS and delivered some equipment to the station, as well as several astronauts. On May 24, the Soyuz TMA-20 spacecraft undocked from the station, which took part of the station’s crew back to Earth. This image was taken by Italian astronaut Paolo Nespoli from the Soyuz TMA-20 spacecraft moving away from the ISS.
With a bit of imagination, this photo of the Sun shows a smiling smiley, and the fiery color adds ominousness to it. Some see the similarity of this image to the Halloween pumpkin.
Many people are sure that this image is Photoshop, and although this is indeed an image not in real colors: with our eyes we will not see the surface of the Sun so dark, nevertheless the image is quite real. It was received by the Solar Dynamics Ovservatory (SDO) spacecraft and is nothing more than a lucky coincidence and angle, as well as the effect of a pareidolic illusion.
We received such a question, or rather a series of questions from one of our readers:
White dwarfs are formed during the death of stars, whose mass was not enough to form a neutron star. When a star burns up the reserves of hydrogen in its core, it contracts, increasing its temperature, until helium ignites in the core. When helium burns out, the process repeats and carbon begins to burn.
The cycle of contractions and expansions continues until the moment when the star cannot ignite the next chemical element, after which the star sheds the outer layers of matter and leaves in its place a bare core — a white dwarf.
The temperature of the dwarf at this moment can range from several tens to several hundred million degrees, and in a matter of seconds after the shell is dropped, it cools down to hundreds of thousands of degrees. The colder the dwarf gets, the slower it cools.
For several thousand years after its formation, the dwarf will cool down to only tens of thousands of degrees. The oldest white dwarfs, which have existed for about 13 billion years, have cooled to a temperature of just under 4,000 Kelvin. To cool down to 5 Kelvin, they will need about a quadrillion years more, that is, a hundred thousand times more time than has elapsed since the formation of the Universe.
The surface of a white dwarf is a smooth and almost perfect sphere that does not emit light in the visible range. Depending on the mass of the parent star, the white dwarf will consist of various chemical elements, but due to the enormous density, all of them will have to be in a metallized state. I find it difficult to describe the reflective properties of a black dwarf, it is a very specific topic and it is not easy to find data on it.
One of the most widespread and deeply rooted myths about American flights to the moon is the following:
Moreover, among those who do not believe or doubt about the flights of the Americans to the Moon, the loss of drawings is considered an indisputable fact and is not even discussed. I decided to check how much this information corresponds to reality.
First of all, I decided to check the truth of the statement that NASA themselves admitted to missing the devils. For a long time I tried to find at least some statement of at least some NASA employee, which could be interpreted as a «confession» of the missing drawings, but alas, I did not find anything like that.
The first mention of the missing drawings is found in the New York Times in 1987. The article is entitled «
Further in the text of the article, Gary Hudson, the head of the private company Pacific American Launch Systems and a Boeing employee who wished to remain anonymous, laments the lack of drawings of the F-1 engine. It would seem: here it is, the Americans themselves admitted!
Yes, just not quite. As it turned out (this is stated in an article in the NYT) after the Challenger shuttle disaster, many companies decided to play on this and quickly propose a replacement for shuttles based on Apollo technology. So the company Pacific American Launch Systems bought 7 unfinished F-1 engines in order to reverse-engineer them, i.e. Boeing tried to solve a similar problem for the finished product, but both had to refuse, as it turned out to be too difficult. These guys didn’t have any blueprints for the F-1 engine because they shouldn’t have!
The F-1 engine was developed by Rocketdyne and is the intellectual property of Rocketdyne. The same NYT article quotes Rocketdyne engineer Joseph Erbs, who took inventory of drawings for F-1 engines. He said:
Later I was able to find out that some of the documentation on the F-1 engines was indeed lost. True, it did not concern the engines themselves, but the organization of their production.
The article is followed by a quote from the press secretary of the Space Center. Marshall, the places where the development of the Saturn-V rockets was carried out:
At the very end of the article, a professor at the University of Arizona, planetary scientist John Lewis suggests that the documents were allegedly destroyed on purpose so that the shuttle program would not have competition.
Those. Summing up this article, we see that either people who have nothing to do with NASA at all (John Lewis) or those who should not have had access to the documents in question (Boeing, Pacific American Launch Systems). And the organizations in which, according to the meaning, the documents should be stored, just declare that everything is in place.
The second source of information about the loss is the book by John Lewis «Mining in the Sky: The Unknown Riches of Asteroids, Comets and Planets», which was published in 1997. Incidentally, this is the same John Lewis who was mentioned in the 1987 New York Times article.
In this book, Lewis writes that he tried to find the drawings of the Saturns, but failed and came to the conclusion that the drawings were lost. Actually, just after the book of Lewis in the theses of lunar skeptics appears the thesis about «the recognition of NASA in the loss of drawings.»
Is it strange that Lewis couldn’t find the blueprints? Probably not. If these drawings were kept in public archives, then yes, it would be strange. But the documentation in NASA is usually stored either in the special storage of the space center. Johnson in Texas or in the special storage of the space center. Marshall in Alabama.
Access to these repositories is limited and open only to NASA employees. Lewis, on the other hand, at the time of writing, was just a professor at the University of Arizona. Therefore, Lewis’s conclusion that since he did not find the drawings, it means that they are lost looks a little doubtful. Try someone at their leisure to get access to the drawings of, say, the Energia launch vehicle without being an employee of Roskosmos, NPO Energia, etc. I think it’s unlikely that you will succeed. But this is not at all a reason to assert that the blueprints for Energia have been lost.
It turns out NASA has made a lot of official statements in this regard. Whenever a hype begins to rise around the «lost» drawings, one of the NASA press secretaries comes out with a duty refutation.
For example, NASA spokesman Paul Shawcross, in an interview with Space.com, said that all Apollo drawings are stored on microfilms at the Space Center. Marshall, and in addition, many paper versions of the drawings are kept in various archives, for example, the federal archives in East Point, Georgia contain about 2,900 cubic feet of drawings of the Saturn V rocket.
As Shawcross emphasized:
As we can see, there is no reason to talk about the loss of the Saturn-V rocket blueprints. At least no more than claiming that the blueprints for Energia or any of the decommissioned Soviet missiles were lost.
The question made. In the title of the article in different formulations, we are asked very often. Sometimes instead of photons in the question, the starships appear, which has a little less sense. Still, to fly at the speed of light to the massive object will not work.
It may seem that to obtain the relative speed of two photons of their speed, you just need to fold. But it is not. The theory of relativity states that for observers located in different systems of reference time flows in different ways. At first glance, this may seem strange, illogical and contradictory to our daily experience. But the only reason for which this seems to us is illogical is that in ordinary life we never move with near-light speeds and therefore faced with relativistic effects.
The slowdown in time caused by the movement with the trumpet speeds is quite simply calculated using the Lorentz transformations. So for example, Lorentz factor, i.e. The proportionality coefficient to which the time is multiplied by the following formula:
The deceleration effect starts becoming noticeable with an increase in the speed of the object: in its reference system, the time starts to flow slower. And this is not just an assumption, but the fact verified experimentally. So, for example, synchronized pairs of atomic watches are always suspended when one watches are sent to orbit, where they move with relatively high speed. At the same time, they are dispersed precisely as much as they should and due to the effect of slowing the time of the predictive relativity theory. So, for example, the watches on the ISS are lagging behind the Earth for 0.01 seconds per year.
Some unable to have this effect, it can first be reliably measured by high-precision devices, and secondly, this effect is always taken into account when designing space technology.
What is the speed of two photons moving towards each other? From the point of view of a third-party observer, the distance between two photons will vary with the double speed of light. It may impress that this is something violates in the theory of relativity, but no.
The double speed of light in this case is not the speed of the movement of a physical object in the observer reference system. This is the rate of change of distance between two photons. But the change in distance is not a physical object, the speed of each photon in the observer reference system will still be equal to the speed of light.
And what will happen if you associate an inertial reference system with one of the photons? Alas, it will not work. There can be no reference system in which the photon rests. For example, if we try to substitute the speed of light instead of V in the formula of the Lorenz factor, we will receive division on zero, which means that such an expression does not make sense.
But nothing bothers to consider us instead of photons electrons or space ships moving with 0.9 speed of light. Here with an electron or cosmic ship moving with a handful speed we can easily associate the reference system.
In the reference system of one of the ships, the clock does not go out as in the reference system of another ship and the usual formula for the addition of speeds, in which the speed of moving objects simply add up not applicable. Instead, relativistic formulas are easily derived from Lorentz transformations for speeds:
Substituting 0.9 light speed instead of V1 and V2, we can easily calculate the relative speed of two ships. It will be equal to 0.9945 light speed, i.e. Pretty close to the speed of light, but still less.
On June 17, 1908, a powerful explosion thundered in the sky over a sparsely populated area of the taiga near the Podkamennaya Tunguska River. The blast wave was so powerful that it was recorded even on the opposite side of the globe. For hundreds of kilometers from the epicenter of the explosion, trees were tumbled down, glass in the windows was smashed, people were knocked down.
According to modern estimates, the explosion power could reach 50 megatons — only slightly less than that of the «Tsar Bomba», the explosion power of which was 58.6 megatons.
At the moment, the main hypotheses are cometary and meteorite. Unfortunately, the first research expeditions set off to the place of the supposed fall of the meteorite only 19 years after the events. The first expeditions were headed by the scientist-mineralogist L.A. Kulik. In total, he organized four expeditions to the area of the meteorite impact site from 1927 to 1938.
During the expeditions, it was possible to establish that indeed in 1908 a meteorite entered the Earth’s atmosphere, which eventually exploded at an altitude of about 5-10 kilometers above the basin of the Podkamennaya Tunguska River.
The location of the epicenter of the explosion has been established quite reliably, and various methods for determining the location of the explosion give almost identical results.
In this case, the crater from the fall of the meteorite was not found. This is generally not unusual. Meteorites falling in the atmosphere leave craters only if they reach the surface safe and sound, without having time to slow down.In the case when the meteorite collapses when falling, the fragments usually slow down rather quickly in the atmosphere and fall to the Earth at speeds up to 200 m / c, or even slower. Of course, fragments falling at such speeds do not leave any craters.
Therefore, if after the destruction of what happened at an altitude of several kilometers, the Tunguska meteorite disintegrated into small fragments, then there should not be any crater. Some time ago, foreign scientists suggested that the nearby Lake Cheko could be a crater from a meteorite fall. This is supported by the conical bottom shape, which is completely uncharacteristic of natural lakes, and characteristic of crater lakes. However, the studies of Russian scientists helped to unequivocally establish that the age of the lake is at least 8 thousand years.
Unfortunately, despite the huge amount of work done during the expeditions, meteorite matter was not found during the search. Kulik’s expeditions in the area of the fall of the Tunguska meteorite discovered magnetite and silicate balls, which, judging by the results of the analysis and the high content of nickel, may well have an unearthly origin, but their connection with the Tunguska meteorite is doubtful: such balls are from time to time found in rocks of other regions of the Earth …
Is it strange that the fragments were not found? Not good. Firstly, from the fall to the first expedition, a gigantic time elapsed — 19 years. The meteorite could be composed of a loose material with a low density. Examples of such asteroids are well known, for example the object (29075) 1950 DA, which is a flying pile of rubble. Fragments of such an object could well have collapsed over time from erosion and weathering. Academician Vernadsky generally hypothesized that the Tunguska meteorite was a lump of stuck together cosmic dust.
Secondly, the main efforts of the Kulik expedition focused on the search for the crater, since one of the first messages contained information about a hot meteorite sticking out of the ground. It was later established that the message was false, but it sent Kulik on the wrong track. The search for fragments of the meteorite should have been in the area of the epicenter of the explosion, since when the meteorite collapses, its fragments very quickly lose speed and should fall nearby.
Thirdly, the terrain in the epicenter area is swampy, which made the search very difficult. A significant part of the fragments could well have plunged into the soft swampy soil, and 19 years of erosion and precipitation have reliably walled them up under the surface. And besides, in those years, such a science as meteorics was in fact just emerging, and Kulik had neither the equipment available now, nor modern methods of searching for meteorites at his disposal.
It is noteworthy that immediately after the fall of the meteorite, some Evenks living in those parts reported the finds of ferrous debris in the area of the meteorite fall, but Kulik’s expedition could not confirm or refute these reports.
Unfortunately, the war interrupted L.A. Kulik, who died in 1942 after being captured by the Germans. In the postwar years, research was resumed only in the late 50s — early 60s, i.e. half a century after the fall of the bolide, however, they also did not bring results in the form of the found meteorite matter. Analysis of the substance from peat bogs in the vicinity of the fall of the Tunguska bolide showed the presence of substances characteristic of some types of meteorites, however, the dating of the layers of peat in which these substances were found are currently disputed and probably belong to an earlier period.
At the moment, there are more than 100 hypotheses about what actually exploded in the sky over Tunguska, from completely fantastic, somehow a wrecked alien ship or Nikola Tesla’s experiments on transferring energy at a distance, to more or less adequate and entitled for existence. At the moment, as a rule, two hypotheses are considered: cometary and meteorite, with most scientists leaning towards the cometary hypothesis. All the stories and descriptions of eyewitnesses fit very well into both of these versions: the described behavior of the fireball corresponds very closely to how a falling large meteorite or comet should behave.
Comets are made up mostly of ice, which perfectly explains why fragments of meteorite matter have not been found. The weakness of the cometary hypothesis is the complete absence of any messages from astronomers about an approaching comet. It is quite possible that new expeditions to the site of the explosion will finally make it possible to discover the remnants of meteorite matter and shed light on what the Tunguska meteorite really was.
Today we are responsible for the question from our subscriber:
Questions about how to transfer the signal faster speed of light comes to us regularly. In mass culture, plausible hypotheses are constantly arising about how it can be done, but how realistic are they realistic?
The theory of relativity fundamentally prohibits the transfer of interaction — information faster than the speed of light, but scientists constantly create new hypotheses about how this restriction could be circumvented. Now the most popular potential method of super-layer data transmission is a quantum telegraph, which should transmit information using a pair of tangled particles.
The essence of his work is similar to the usual telegraph and pretty simple. Each particle has such a characteristic as the spin — the moment of the particle pulse, which has a direction. Under certain conditions, the particle is in the superposition: the spin has all possible directions at the same time and if we try to determine where it is directed, we will only get one of these directions, while two tangled particles always have opposite spins.
If one of the tangled particles leave on Earth, and the second send to Alpha Centaurus, then as soon as we define the direction of the first particle on the ground, its partner on the Alfer Centaurus at the same time will take a position with the opposite back. It would seem that everything is just cool the particle on Earth as you want, and its energizer will turn out somewhere in the opposite direction, it remains only to encode information into these movements, for example, the alphabet of Morse, as in the usual telegraph, but not there was . We can’t give a particle certain, the spin we need, until we begin to carry out manipulations over it, and as soon as we start them, immediately the spin of the particle will take some random direction and it will take it to the «transmission» to the other end of the telegraph, and the particle confusion will occur It will be destroyed, the second time the replacement of the direction is no longer transmitted. Therefore, it is impossible to transmit information through quantum confusion.
Scientists also consider the option of transmitting information and travel through wormworms, while transmitting information almost instantly to huge distances will become possible, but according to the theory of relativity, it will be transmitted not only in space, but also in time. Suppose you decide to send so a signal to the same alpha centaur, located in 4.3 sv. years from us, the signal will be transmitted there through the wormwort of instantly, but at that end of the wormwort will be Alpha Centaur, which is 4.3 years older than that existed at the time of sending a message on Earth, respectively will be the transmission of a signal from the past to the future technically with the same speed of light. From the point of view of the observer, following the Alfoy Centaur and Earth simultaneously, the signal will appear on the Alfer Centauro 4.3 years after it is sent from the Earth. If, at the same time, we wanted to warn Alfu-Centaurus about the danger threatening, what to send a signal directly, that through the wormwort, it would have achieved a goal at the same time by the hour of Alpha Centaur.