RE: Chemistry of the cosmos (Part-1)

avatar

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

Thanks a lot for this nice blog, that inspired me for a few comments and a question (if I may).

[…] an extreme vacuum on one hand and unimaginable pressures on the other, temperatures close to absolute zero and temperatures reaching tens of millions of degrees, powerful corpuscular flows, and electric and magnetic fields of tremendous intensity.

As a side note, there are colder and hotter places on Earth itself. Humans are very good to reach extremes! This is something always good to mention ;)

The first terrestrial science to find extraterrestrial applications was mechanics, which provided astronomy with well-known services and served as its foundation.

Can you comment on this. What do you have exactly in mind? Personally, I would think about optics (cf. telescopes and lenses), which is different from mechanics.

[…] whereas the vacuum achieved by our devices corresponds to the presence of approximately 500,000 atoms or molecules per cubic centimeter.

CERN has done better than this in the LHC: 1000 atomes per cubic centimetre. More information can be found also here.

Cheers, and thanks again for this nice blog.



0
0
0.000
3 comments
avatar

Thank you for these valuable notes, sir. Of course, you may :) , because your comment is as valuable as your articles, which I always benefit from.

(The first terrestrial science to find extraterrestrial applications was mechanics, which provided astronomy with well-known services and served as its foundation.) I mean, that to explain some cosmic phenomena, scientists had to use the principles of classical physics.

  • (CERN has done better than this in the LHC: 1000 atomes per cubic centimetre) Thanks for this note, next time I will be careful to choose the sources of information carefully

My sincere greetings to you

0
0
0.000
avatar

(The first terrestrial science to find extraterrestrial applications was mechanics, which provided astronomy with well-known services and served as its foundation.) I mean, that to explain some cosmic phenomena, scientists had to use the principles of classical physics.

I agree, but didn't we need optics to observe them first, before even trying to describe them?

0
0
0.000
avatar

Ah I understand now.
I believe that both optics and the laws of mechanics played a major role in understanding cosmic phenomena. In 1609, data on celestial bodies began to be recorded with the telescope invented by Galileo Galileo. Isaac Newton also wrote a book in 1687 that described and explained his gravitational laws, which were intended to explain cosmic phenomena.
So I agree with you Sir: we need optics to observe them first.
Thank you Sir, my best regards to you.

0
0
0.000