4 ms·
I'm too sad today to engage with this, but you're simply wrong about Arecibo "having done all the useful things it could do ages ago, and not finding anything n
by RedOrGreen 6y ago
I'm too sad today to engage with this, but you're simply wrong about Arecibo "having done all the useful things it could do ages ago, and not finding anything new".
Here, for example, is Arecibo on the cover of Nature, in 2018: [1].
And you might want to look into NANOGrav [2]: you'll be hearing a lot more about it (I promise) in one or two years, depending on publication timelines.
[1] https://twitter.com/nature/status/951423495107481602 https://twitter.com/nature/status/951423495107481602
[2] http://nanograv.org/ http://nanograv.org/
- SiempreViernes 6y agoDespite its large instantaneous sensitivity, Arecibo is not really suited for transient work. In the FRB example Arecibo has a factor 22 advantage in collective area and yet trails Parkes by a factor of 14 in number of discovered FRBs: weak evidence of a unique capability. And it's too bad the NANOGrav risks getting its results delayed by the inability to extend observations on half its sources, but the loss of Arecibo will not doom the entire project: again not conclusive proof that Arecibo added a unique capability.
- galgalesh 6y agoThere is a sea of difference between your initial statement of "having done all the useful things it could do ages ago, and not finding anything new" and your new statement of wanting conclusive proof that Arecibo has "a unique capability". The "proof" shows Arecibo was still very useful and finding new things and this disaster will significantly delay research. (As a side note; delays in research can easily mean the death of that research as funding is often time-bound) Somewhere in this there is a larger story of useful projects not receiving enough funding because they aren't sexy enough.
- sleavey 6y agoWhat's your connection to NANOGrav?