| Author |
Message
|
| inite |
 Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:01 pm Post subject: Can we see our sun 4 billion years ago? |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 10 Dec 2009
Posts: 16
|
The birth of our star happened roughly 4 billion years ago, and so about 4 light years away, 23.6 trillion miles in the past.
Alpha Centuri is about the same age and we are able to observe it's light which is 2 million years old.
So, can we observe light from our own sun at it's birth? If not, why so? Hmm, strange loop. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| KALSTER |
| Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:13 pm Post subject: Re: Can we see our sun 4 billion years ago? |
|
|
Moderator
Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 4571
Location: South Africa
|
| inite wrote: |
The birth of our star happened roughly 4 billion years ago, and so about 4 light years away, 23.6 trillion miles in the past.
Alpha Centuri is about the same age and we are able to observe it's light which is 2 million years old.
So, can we observe light from our own sun at it's birth? If not, why so? Hmm, strange loop. |
Alpha Centauri is something like 4.4 light years away from us. I think the 2 million year figure you are talking about is the time it takes for individual photons to reach the photosphere of our star from the core. The only way we can "look" at our star close to its birth is to look at a similar star at the same stage.
_________________
Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.
"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
"All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work...
I want to achieve it through not dying."
- Woody Allen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| musicalaviator |
| Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Posts: 100
|
You could see the birth of our sun via very powerful telescope 4 billion+ lightyears away. This is of course very far away, outside our galaxy, and how one would get there is obviously a big issue - if not impossible  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Leszek Luchowski |
| Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 647
Location: Gliwice, Poland
|
And by the time you get there, the light you want to capture will be at least another 4bln light years away; you have no chance of catching up with it.
What you can do is spend the next couple gazillon years building a very, very powerful telescope, then catch the first beams of our Sun as they arrive after having circled the Universe.
If it does, of course - which I don't claim to know.
_________________
Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
History teaches us that we don't learn from history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 4180
|
Some light reflects back. Therefore assuming that millions of reflective bodies exist at the right time/distance we're currently receiving a very faint image of the sun's formation. Look at it this way: if you had a very clear picture of the new moon you could detect a power-out in San Diego.
_________________
A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| LeavingQuietly |
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Suspended
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 1048
|
| Pong wrote: |
| Some light reflects back. Therefore assuming that millions of reflective bodies exist at the right time/distance we're currently receiving a very faint image of the sun's formation. Look at it this way: if you had a very clear picture of the new moon you could detect a power-out in San Diego. |
I suppose if you had an intact rock from it, you could detect the lights frequency and quantity with quantumphysics, eheheh, EH? Perhaps?
_________________
Here I will explain the flaw in SR.
Einstein say x1 = +x, x2 = +y, x3 = +z, x4 = ict
I say 2 dimensions can't have the same sign.
And that time has one direction is positive
x,y & z has imaginary sign compared to eachother else they wouldn't been arbitrary +/- directional.
ctt + ivtx + √(-i)vty + √-(√(-i))vtz = distance |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
