6 ms·

NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space

135 points by jedp 12y ago

jedp 12y ago
The title is a bit hyperbolic. The article shows how the Van Allen belts constitute a "nearly impenetrable" barrier preventing "ultra-fast electrons" from approaching the earth.
- dreamweapon 12y ago
  Yeah -- from the sound of the title, you'd think they'd discovered this thing: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Galactic_barrier http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Galactic_barrier
- tjradcliffe 12y ago
  In fairness, the article is almost as bad as the title. It isn't even clear at first that they are taking about belt electrons rather than cosmic-ray electrons, which have many orders of magnitude higher energy. The gist of the article seems to be, "The sharpness of the outer edge of the inner Van Allen belt is due to scattering of high-energy belt electrons off cold plasma surrounding the Earth" but it's really difficult to tell.
pjungwir 12y ago
It's amazing how much they look like electron orbitals. . . . Sometimes its seems like the reason we see nature reuse the same patterns is not from any physical mechanism but simply because math only has so many "shapes." I am perpetually in awe at this mysterious order to our universe. Also: if these belts block high-energy electrons, can they teach us to build a force field that does the same? And can that solve the problem of fast-moving spacecraft being destroyed by the first spec of dust they encounter? Or of radiation killing the crew? What if the only way to protect life against cosmic radiation is to build a planet-sized spacecraft? Another question due to my weak grasp of modern physics: to a fast-moving spacecraft, are all electrons "high energy"?
- blueprint 12y ago
  I wonder if I'll be attacked for saying this. Here goes. We always find these kinds of shapes because they are the shapes that appear through fluid mechanics. Space is a fluid, too. In a fluid, we have vortices (in the form of whirlpools, tornados, etc) because they allow material and energy to be moved much more efficiently than any of the other structures we don't tend to see in stable systems.
  - NeverEnough 12y ago
    would you disagree with the idea that there are a lot of good ways of describing something, that are true for many cases but very wrong for others?
    - blueprint 12y ago
      I don't know what you have in mind. In order for me, or anyone else who bases his/her judgement on fact, to give you an answer which you'll be able to recognize as right, you'll need to point out a concrete problem or question that contains facts that can be independently verified, rather than something abstract and hypothetical.
  - chriswarbo 12y ago
    > In a fluid, we have vortices... because they allow material and energy to be moved much more efficiently than any of the other structures we don't tend to see in stable systems. As a Physicist, I am wary of making such statements since they put the cart before the horse ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology ). I'd be more comfortable saying "In a fluid, we have vortices... as a consequence of the movement of material and energy." In your case I'm assuming it's just a turn of phrase, but there are some hypotheses which actually attribute abstract "goals" to nature, without providing any explanation in terms of mechanical processes; for example http://www.lawofmaximumentropyproduction.com http://www.lawofmaximumentropyproduction.com In constrast, Darwin explained the theory of evolution using the mechanical process of natural selection. The principle of least action can be explained either physically, using quantum interference (eg. in optics), or mathematically, due to the mixture of inductive steps with deductive ones. In constrast, the existence of vortices in fluids because of their efficiency would be like claiming crater lakes can't exist because water flows downhill.
lifeisstillgood 12y ago
I find that the more we know about this planet that keeps us safe, a large moon to keep asteroids away and tectonics hot, a mass just enough to keep an atmosphere around us and a spinning iron core to provide "impenetrable barriers", the more I learn of this the less I think Fermi found a paradox and just that it's hard for life to stay alive in this universe.
- JetSpiegel 12y ago
  Life finds a way.
  - Balgair 12y ago
    It's the day before turkey day, you don't deserve the negative links, even if it was a cheap comment, as you made me think of that ma's laugh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS9D6w1GzGY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS9D6w1GzGY Also, is laughter a conserved 'shape' in nature, and what is the shape space of nature anyways, is it restricted to the 4 dimensions we inhabit in a way?
- hereonbusiness 12y ago
  Well there's Venus and Mars, both planets could have been much like Earth except both somehow ended up without that impenetrable barrier they probably had billions of years ago. Three possibly habitable planets in one solar system, 1 out of 3 still habitable even after 4+ billion years, that's not bad.
drew-r 12y ago
Space ship passes through it = not impenetrable
- ZenoArrow 12y ago
  Clearly it's possible to escape Earth orbit, but would point out that the Van Allen belts have been used by conspiracy theorists to 'prove' that the moon landings were faked.
kilroy123 12y ago
This certainly seems like something we need to duplicate for spaceships, to more safely travel to mars and beyond. I don't know much about the dangers of these particles on the human body. I'm going to assume any environment different to the one on earth poses great risk.
graycat 12y ago
> Impenetrable Barrier in Spac Gee, then, how'd various spacecraft get through it? Ah, now that I read the details, it's a "nearly impenetrable barrier" to electrons. Okay, now not so amazing! No need to call Captain Kirk! Such titles are called "click bait" or some such, right?
atorralb 12y ago
glass sky theory anyone?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
tomelders 12y ago
Moron here. So what are the ramifications of this? Does it inhibit our ability to observe the universe? Dare I ask, does this offer any protection from anything nasty the universe might send our way?
krmtl 12y ago
Here is a related article that discusses removing the Van Allen belts: http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/astrophysics/hacking-the-van-allen-belts http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/astrophysics/hacking-the-...
carapace 12y ago
Electromagnetic aspects of the "Gaia" hypothesis?

135 points by jedp 12y ago

jedp 12y ago

The title is a bit hyperbolic. The article shows how the Van Allen belts constitute a "nearly impenetrable" barrier preventing "ultra-fast electrons" from approaching the earth.

dreamweapon 12y ago
Yeah -- from the sound of the title, you'd think they'd discovered this thing: http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Galactic_barrier http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Galactic_barrier
tjradcliffe 12y ago
In fairness, the article is almost as bad as the title. It isn't even clear at first that they are taking about belt electrons rather than cosmic-ray electrons, which have many orders of magnitude higher energy. The gist of the article seems to be, "The sharpness of the outer edge of the inner Van Allen belt is due to scattering of high-energy belt electrons off cold plasma surrounding the Earth" but it's really difficult to tell.

pjungwir 12y ago

It's amazing how much they look like electron orbitals. . . . Sometimes its seems like the reason we see nature reuse the same patterns is not from any physical mechanism but simply because math only has so many "shapes." I am perpetually in awe at this mysterious order to our universe. Also: if these belts block high-energy electrons, can they teach us to build a force field that does the same? And can that solve the problem of fast-moving spacecraft being destroyed by the first spec of dust they encounter? Or of radiation killing the crew? What if the only way to protect life against cosmic radiation is to build a planet-sized spacecraft? Another question due to my weak grasp of modern physics: to a fast-moving spacecraft, are all electrons "high energy"?

blueprint 12y ago
I wonder if I'll be attacked for saying this. Here goes. We always find these kinds of shapes because they are the shapes that appear through fluid mechanics. Space is a fluid, too. In a fluid, we have vortices (in the form of whirlpools, tornados, etc) because they allow material and energy to be moved much more efficiently than any of the other structures we don't tend to see in stable systems.
- NeverEnough 12y ago
  would you disagree with the idea that there are a lot of good ways of describing something, that are true for many cases but very wrong for others?
  - blueprint 12y ago
    I don't know what you have in mind. In order for me, or anyone else who bases his/her judgement on fact, to give you an answer which you'll be able to recognize as right, you'll need to point out a concrete problem or question that contains facts that can be independently verified, rather than something abstract and hypothetical.
- chriswarbo 12y ago
  > In a fluid, we have vortices... because they allow material and energy to be moved much more efficiently than any of the other structures we don't tend to see in stable systems. As a Physicist, I am wary of making such statements since they put the cart before the horse ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology ). I'd be more comfortable saying "In a fluid, we have vortices... as a consequence of the movement of material and energy." In your case I'm assuming it's just a turn of phrase, but there are some hypotheses which actually attribute abstract "goals" to nature, without providing any explanation in terms of mechanical processes; for example http://www.lawofmaximumentropyproduction.com http://www.lawofmaximumentropyproduction.com In constrast, Darwin explained the theory of evolution using the mechanical process of natural selection. The principle of least action can be explained either physically, using quantum interference (eg. in optics), or mathematically, due to the mixture of inductive steps with deductive ones. In constrast, the existence of vortices in fluids because of their efficiency would be like claiming crater lakes can't exist because water flows downhill.

lifeisstillgood 12y ago

I find that the more we know about this planet that keeps us safe, a large moon to keep asteroids away and tectonics hot, a mass just enough to keep an atmosphere around us and a spinning iron core to provide "impenetrable barriers", the more I learn of this the less I think Fermi found a paradox and just that it's hard for life to stay alive in this universe.

JetSpiegel 12y ago
Life finds a way.
- Balgair 12y ago
  It's the day before turkey day, you don't deserve the negative links, even if it was a cheap comment, as you made me think of that ma's laugh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS9D6w1GzGY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS9D6w1GzGY Also, is laughter a conserved 'shape' in nature, and what is the shape space of nature anyways, is it restricted to the 4 dimensions we inhabit in a way?
hereonbusiness 12y ago
Well there's Venus and Mars, both planets could have been much like Earth except both somehow ended up without that impenetrable barrier they probably had billions of years ago. Three possibly habitable planets in one solar system, 1 out of 3 still habitable even after 4+ billion years, that's not bad.

drew-r 12y ago

Space ship passes through it = not impenetrable

ZenoArrow 12y ago
Clearly it's possible to escape Earth orbit, but would point out that the Van Allen belts have been used by conspiracy theorists to 'prove' that the moon landings were faked.

kilroy123 12y ago

This certainly seems like something we need to duplicate for spaceships, to more safely travel to mars and beyond. I don't know much about the dangers of these particles on the human body. I'm going to assume any environment different to the one on earth poses great risk.

graycat 12y ago

> Impenetrable Barrier in Spac Gee, then, how'd various spacecraft get through it? Ah, now that I read the details, it's a "nearly impenetrable barrier" to electrons. Okay, now not so amazing! No need to call Captain Kirk! Such titles are called "click bait" or some such, right?

atorralb 12y ago

glass sky theory anyone?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

tomelders 12y ago

Moron here. So what are the ramifications of this? Does it inhibit our ability to observe the universe? Dare I ask, does this offer any protection from anything nasty the universe might send our way?

krmtl 12y ago

Here is a related article that discusses removing the Van Allen belts: http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/astrophysics/hacking-the-van-allen-belts http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/astrophysics/hacking-the-...

carapace 12y ago

Electromagnetic aspects of the "Gaia" hypothesis?