93 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2024
    1. Light bulbs are designed with color temperature in mind. This is likely a familiar concept to photographers when selecting back lighting for a shoot. For a “candlelight” type background, a bulb of around 2000 K will be best, while a “natural daylight” background is best achieved with a bulb at 4500 K. Most fluorescent light bulbs in classrooms are around 5000 K while those in a library will be closer to 3000 K.

      We could include this in the lightbulb aside suggested above. Color temperature is now more meaningful a measure than wattage!

    2. C0lor Temperature

      Move this up to the red and blue stars discussion?

    3. Putting this value into the flux equation, we find that we receive 1360 W/m2 of sunlight on the Earth.

      Shall we mention that this is the Solar Constant? Maybe an aside about solar energy as a clean source of energy?

    4. 25

      24

    5. You observe two stars, named Sol-2 and Sol-3, that have the exact same spectral type and luminosity class, G2V, as the Sun (this means they have the same temperature, radius, and luminosity as the Sun). You measure the brightness of both stars with the same instrument and find that the light from Sol-2 is twenty-five times brighter than the light from Sol-3. Which star is closer to the Earth and by how much? Explain your reasoning.

      Should we use real stars?

    6. This idea—that the apparent brightness of a source (how bright it looks to us) gets weaker with distance in the way we have described—is shown in Figure 10 below. At point 1, the light is concentrated into one box. By the time the light reaches point 2, which is twice as far as point 1, it is now spread out into four squares.

      Might be worth emphasizing here how counterintuitive this is. It wasn't really described until Kepler.

    7. flux

      Can we call this brightness?

    8. In the same way that a 100 W bulb will always put out 100 Watts

      An aside would be good to describe why incandescent light bulbs are closer to blackbodies than fluorescent or LED bulbs thus confusing everyone!

    9. Pure purple stars are also never seen for similar reasons — the blue and violet mix into a more deep blue color.

      Maybe it would be good to include the classic color temperature map here? That explains this much better than words, I think.

    10. This makes sense when you consider that the Sun is also emitting red light and blue light; these all mix together as a nearly white color.

      It might be worth emphasizing that the blackbody curve is not sharply peaked? Although Figure 9 is somewhat misleaing in that regard.

    11. Note that the temperatures we associate with different colors in science are not the same as the ones artists use. In art, red is often called a “hot” color and blue a “cool” color.

      But there is arguably good reason for that. Since high temperatures are usually not approaching more than a few thousand K, red is hot. Blue is cool because that's the complimentary cone activation. This is made all the more evident because the red and blue colors of stars do not match the vivid reds and blues of our eye sensitivities.

    12. a rough

      an

    13. a rough sort

      I think it is actually better than a "rough sort".

    14. d is:

      Let's put the units in this equation.mK on the top?

    15. , it turns out,

      omit

    16. since humans act like blackbodies, does that mean that our bodies emit dangerous X rays and gamma rays?

      Arguably, they do... it's just so low in intensity the practical upshot is that other productions of x-rays far outshine that (like cosmic ray collisions).

    17. solid objects

      Do we need solid or object here? E.g. the CMB and stars are not solid. Arguably the CMB isn't even caused by an "object". Should we maybe say "opaque" objects instead?

    18. Earth is not a perfect blackbody, since clouds do reflect some sunlight.

      Not just clouds, though clouds are perhaps the biggest contributor to albedo.

    19. Note that any objects that reflect light, such as a book with a red cover, are not blackbodies.

      To the extent that objects reflect light, they are not behaving as blackbodies?

    20. are believed to

      I think we can omit this.

    21. This is probably most apparent when you are outside on a sunny day and forgot to bring some sunblock — your skin will absorb some of the UV (specifically, UVA) light.

      Maybe we can reword this: "This is why doctors recommend the application of sunblock if you are exposed to the Sun. Your skin can absorb UVA and UVB rays? Epidermis does absorb UVB.

    22. extraterrestrial life

      intelligent extraterrestrial life?

    23. visible

      optical?

    24. dust

      dust that is opaque to visible light? Don't need to get into the details of Rayleigh scattering here, necessarily, but it can be confusing given the fact that IR light doesn't penetrate the atmosphere.

    25. IR telescopes are primarily in space.

      hmm... arguable. Can we say something like, many are in space?

    26. heat

      infrared intensity

    27. night

      night vision

    28. white light was sent through a prism and he found that the invisible region beyond the red edge of the rainbow was hotter than the temperature of the rainbow!

      A good aside is to be had here about how this was the result of infrared light being absorbed by the material while visible light passes through! Otherwise the confusion is that visible light has a higher color temperature.

    29. heat

      prefer "given off by anything with a temperature"? It's not, in point of fact, heat.

    30. Microwaves are also low energy radiation and have sizes that range from about 1 mm up to 300 mm.

      Might be good to mention that microwaves are often considered radio waves. Really the only reason they are distinguished is because we are biased towards degrees Kelvin so they act a bit like the low end of the infrared blackbodies.

    31. The most abundant element in the cosmos — hydrogen — also naturally emits radio waves at a very specific wavelength of 21 cm (which corresponds to a frequency of 1420 MHz).

      Here might be a good place to have an aside about 5G paranoia.

    32. 461,538,461,538,461

      Sig figs?

    33. These properties of light are summarized by the beautifully simple equation that relates the energy of a photon to its frequency (or wavelength), where h is Planck’s constant: This relationship shows the wave-particle duality of light, as the energy of photon (a particle of light) is directly related to its frequency (a wave property). Since h has a constant value, you can immediately get the energy of a particular color of light simply by knowing its frequency (or wavelength, which can be expressed as ).

      Move up?

    34. Test

      Should we include E = hf here? I think so. Also maybe introduce other forms of energy measurement. Joules, eV, etc.

    35. Among the colors of visible light, violet-light photons have the highest energy and red-light photons have the lowest.

      Add "Because of the photon-energy frequency relationship"

    36. as a wave

      omit

    37. when you think about it as a wave.

      omit? Really it's a waveparticle, so we can just let the weirdness be?

    38. The frequency of a wave is a measure of how many waves pass by in one second. Let’s imagine that the amount of time that elapsed for each of the waves in Figure 3 is 1 second. Looking at red light, two full waves can pass by in this 1 second period, so we say the frequency is 2 cycles per second, or 2 Hz. (Actually, a bit more than two red light wave cycles can pass by, about 2.5, but we will say 2 full waves to keep this example simple.)

      Could we maybe use the actual values here in THz or something? Otherwise this seems misleading.

    39. Today, we know that there is no aether and that EM waves have no trouble at all moving through empty space (as all the starlight visible on a clear night must surely be doing).

      Oh, let's just mention Michelson and Morley here... maybe as an aside?

    40. one for which there was not a single shred of evidence

      spicy! I guess this is true, but on the other hand this is the only wave at that time that was known which did not require a medium, so maybe we shouldn't be so harsh?

    41. Albert Einstein proposed in 1905 that light can indeed behave both ways, thus solidifying the concept of wave-particle duality, one of the tenets of quantum mechanics

      Hmm... I think I'd rather attribute this insight to Planck. Einstein didn't really seem to appreciate the particle implications, if I'm not mistaken. He just piggybacked on the E = hf formalism as a "threshhold" and showed that it could explain the weird results of the photoelectric effect

    42. radiation

      A definition of radiation and discussion of it as a neutral (not necessarily dangerous) term might be good as an aside?

    43. In general, the amount of the energy in the universe is always the same and it is continuously being changed from one form into another. This is the essence of the law of conservation of energy. Other quantities in nature, such as mass and momentum, are also conserved.

      I would like an accounting of energy as follows: mechanical forms (kinetic and potential), wave forms, and mass-energy.

    44. Energy

      Shall we include a definition of energy? Ability to do work and work is a force that happens over a distance. Force is a nice conceptual point "push or pull" so students can get a sense for what energy is without appealing to vague understanding? Also removes the misconception about "subtle energies".

    1. As a final note, the idea of parallel universes or the multiple universes (multiverses) turned from science fiction to a possible scientific reality via the “many worlds interpretation” to emerge from quantum mechanics. The physicist Hugh Everett III showed mathematically in 1957 that multiverses could exist. Such ideas, although inherently unprovable, perhaps seemed more feasible in light of the observation made by Edwin Hubble in the 1920s that the universe contains other galaxies and that the fabric of the universe itself is expanding with time, and that there is a limit to the “observable” universe.

      I'm not sure this is a great fit here. Many Worlds does not really address the question of life in the Universe inasmuch as the interpretation relies on these branching probabilities being essentially independent paths on the landscape.

    2. colonized

      better word? "harboring intelligent life" or something like that?

    3. turned out to be

      were

    4. rightful

      omit

    5. Copernican

      Keplerian, really?

    6. Bruno was tried and accused of heresy and accordingly burned at the stake in the year 1600, a decade before the telescope would show that the cosmos was unimaginably vast.

      Might be worth mentioning that many of Bruno's ideas were wacky too?

    7. thus

      further?

    8. The observation of Venus’ phases was actually direct proof that the geocentric model of the world was wrong.

      Technically, it was direct proof that Venus went around the Sun. There is a little-appreciated "Tychonic" model that Galileo's interlocutors promoted :)

    9. He had improved the optics of his telescope and the magnification was now 20×.

      I like the story of getting better and better telescopes, but maybe we should avoid the spiciness of magnification being the thing that matters?

    10. The British physicist Robert Hooke coined the term “cells” after observing chambers inside of a piece of cork (cork is made of dead plant tissue) in 1665. By the late seventeenth century, the Dutch biologist Antonie van Leeuwenhoek had made pioneering strides in microbiology, particularly in the magnification of lenses, and discovered single-celled organisms (“animalcules”).

      All this for another chapter?

    11. The exact origin of the microscope is unknown but it likely emerged from the same setting in Denmark that saw the telescope emerge.

      Not sure this is necessary here. Maybe we can wait for chapters which discuss microscopy?

    12. nearer

      I'm not sure I like this. Maybe this is a good chance to bring up inverse square law as they are really 9 times brighter?

    13. does not actually turn backwards

      Perfer: "the apparent motion backwards in the path Mars takes across the sky can be explained entirely due to our perspective on the Earth"

    14. In reality, though, the slower car is not moving backwards.

      Arguable. According to relativity, it is moving backwards.

    15. like a faster race car on the inside track. From the perspective of the driver of the faster car, a slower car on the outside track will appear to move backwards when it is passed.

      Let's get an image for this.

    16. The fact that closer planets orbit faster is a consequence of Kepler’s Third Law of Motion.

      Omit or just state as plain fact to be discussed later in the text: "Planets farther away from the Sun more more slowly than planets closer to the Sun". This fact is basically empirical anyway and we don't need Kepler's Laws to describe that.

    17. of Mars on the sky

      Really -- ALL planets that undergo retrograde as well as why the Sun and the Moon do not. Mars may be the most dramatic example and the timing is such that epicycles can be falsified using Mars most easily, but I think we should be clearer that it's all planetary motion.

    18. Kepler’s Three Laws of Planetary Motion are discussed in detail in the Laws of Motion and Gravity chapter.)

      Need link

    19. contemporary of Galileo

      Galileo not yet introduced?

    20. is a

      "could be included with the rest of the planets"??? I don't know that Copernicus actually concluded it was a planet.

    21. One of the most important events of the Renaissance was the displacement of Earth from the center of the universe, an intellectual revolution initiated by

      I think we should say something slightly different. This was the first book in Europe that challenged the groupthink acceptance of Ptolemy and set the stage for Kepler and Galileo. It was a realization that maybe the ancients got things wrong.

    22. The Middle Ages

      I think we should include ideas that were cross-cultural about the emergence of life, the plurality of worlds, the stars being like the Sun, and deep time that are present in other cultures (Islamic, Indian, Chinese, Mesoamerican, Polynesian, etc.). Many of the ideas that ended up as scientific were built upon the colonial enterprise of collecting ideas like this and distilling them into the Enlightenment project.

    23. Ancient Greek Cosmologies

      It might be a good idea to start with indigenous cosmologies and their connections to the night sky.

    1. ()

      should we use p instead?

    2. So

      delete

    3. contains

      prefer "can contain"

    4. ,

      delete

    5. light

      Technically gravity too. And other massless particles (though none have yet been discovered).

    6. In general,

      See above. This isn't "in general". This is definitional.

    7. To explore the chemistry and possible biology of other worlds, ideally we would send humans there to run experiments. Humans have been to the Moon to collect rocks, and there are currently several rovers that are controlled from Earth analyzing rocks and soil on the surface of Mars. There are plans to send humans to Mars in the next decade or two. Why not send humans sooner? There turn out to be many challenges to physically traveling beyond the Earth, but the distances involved are foremost.

      A nice preamble, but somewhat beside the point. Should this be elsewhere, perhaps? Maybe when we discuss distances?

    8. In general,

      Omit. Or say, "By definition" This is beyond generality -- it's definitional.

    9. A tennis ball and a billiard ball have roughly the same volume, but the tennis ball is filled with air and is much less dense than a billiard ball of the same size.

      Let's give the actual measurements, perhaps?

    10. For example, two planets could have the exact same volume and have the same size and shape in a picture, but their densities depend on what kind of matter is inside.

      This isn't technically an example. Can we give one? Neptune and Uranus come immediately to mind. White Dwarf and the Earth?

    11. hus, we might say that the order of magnitude scale of a grapefruit is about 101 inches or 10-4 miles.

      We've lost the connection to the grapefruit above. Should we maybe pick the galaxy instead?

    12. gassy surface

      "entirely gassy composition"

    13. Regarding distances, the question of how long it takes to get someplace is a critical measure in our ability to explore other worlds in the cosmos.

      This should be in a section on speed?

    14. Lengths of objects and distances to them are important measures in astrobiology.

      omit?

    15. There is also a prefix for 1021, called zetta and abbreviated by a Z. The Milky Way’s size can be expressed as 1021 m, 1 Zm or 1 sextillion m. This link to the National Institute of Standards and Technology lists the common prefixes that we use. In this table, we see that a yoctosecond is a very small measure of time – it is a mere septillionth of a second or 10-24 s. We will make regular use of powers of ten notation in this course, as we will be dealing with immensely large and small numbers.

      I generally think it is better to not wax eloquent about obscure metric prefixes. Focusing on the ones more often used (micro, nano, pico -- Mega, Giga, Tera) seem like a better learning point to me.

    16. M and G are sometimes used, where M stands for a million and G for a billion

      can we mention the prefix names Mega and Giga for completeness?

    17. The number is more manageable when expressed as one billion trillion

      I'm not sure this is true. I think such mix-matching of numbers like this is sometimes confusing and less manageable.

    18. Clearly, the grapefruit is larger than the bacterium

      Would a discussion of using division here be appropriate? I think so.

    19. All that matters

      "When directly comparing two measurements, all that matters..."

    20. one-dimensional

      glossary?

    21. One more very important point to note before comparing the sizes of any objects are units.

      Wordy. "Units of length are important consideraitons."

    22. Of course not all objects are symmetric so you may need to be more specific about how you are defining length, depending on what is being compared. For example, bacteria come in different shapes, such as rods, spheres, and spirals. In specifying a bacterium’s size, you would need to be clear about the start and end points of the measurement. In astronomy, galaxies also come in different shapes – ellipsoids, spirals, and irregular shapes – so it is important to know which dimension (say left to right or top to bottom) the length is referring to.

      Seems a bit overwrought. Since we're just estimating anyway, it seems not relevant to talk about different shapes and forms as though they are going to give us wildly different answers. Unless we have dramatic aspect ratios (which, for the most part, we don't have), we don't really need to focus on this.

    23. was also create

      "also emerged"

    24. as well

      remove

    25. just

      "the real-time equivalent of"

    26. !

      Maybe period instead?