What can one do with zero magnification?

[Jim78154]

This question goes back to the question that first got me interested in astronomy. That question was, "if the universe is infinite, why is it dark at night? At first glance it appears as a silly question until you consider the particulars of the universe. An infinite universe would be sending out an infinite amount of light from an infinite number of stars and it would never get dark. Without getting into particle physics, a subject that I am consummately ignorant of, when the energy level of a photon drops to some level the photon simply ceases to exist, and that's why it is dark at night in an infinite universe. At least that is the way that I understand it. On the other hand, if the universe is finite, that is why it is dark at night. There just isn't enough light to go around. Irrespective of why it is dark at night, it posed to me yet another question. Do you need a telescope or binoculars or some other viewing device to practice astronomy? I say no. Many ancient cultures studied the stars and made significant discoveries. Some incorrect, some absolutely brilliant. Here in the New World the Mayans and the Incas were master astronomers. In Europe the Greeks pioneered astronomy and they had no telescopes. My question here, today is what astronomy can we do today without a telescope? Give us your ideas about what we can do to advance astronomy today using only naked eye observation with  or without mechanical devices such as an astrolabe or inclinometer or such.

[Peter Drew]

I don't think you do much to advance astronomy today without instrumental aid but you can certainly advance your own level of knowledge of the subject. Learning the positions of the Constellations, meteor radiants, planetary motions, eclipses, comets, the list goes on.

[Ruud]

Hi there, Jim.

I believe that you have independently formulated Olbers' paradox. Wikipedia has an article on it.

An infinite universe seems more likely to me than a finite one, since the latter, at its beginning, might have been smaller than say an electron. Yet, since it has enough energy for it, one would expect the very young universe to contain huge quantities of electrons as well as just about every other particle.

I gather that If the universe is infinite now, and has been growing at a finite speed, it must also have been infinite at birth. That would give the singularity plenty of room to contain any particle.

Studying the universe with no extra magnification has my preference when my target is a meteor shower!

And frankly, a romantic night under the stars benefits more from a soft blanket than from a telescope, but that's not for studying the universe, of course.

[brantuk]

Anyone pre electricity/gas likely had little to no light pollution apart from fires and the moon. You'd see one heck of a lot more of the night sky in those circumstances. You can still find dark sites with similar zero light pollution - Scotland is nice for naked eye observing - that and South Africa - two of the best skies I've ever seen.

[Jim78154]

Hi there, Jim.

I believe that you have independently formulated Olbers' paradox. Wikipedia has an article on it.

An infinite universe seems more likely to me than a finite one, since the latter, at its beginning, might have been smaller than say an electron. Yet, since it has enough energy for it, one would expect the very young universe to contain huge quantities of electrons as well as just about every other particle.

I gather that If the universe is infinite now, and has been growing at a finite speed, it must also have been infinite at birth. That would give the singularity plenty of room to contain any particle.

Studying the universe with no extra magnification has my preference when my target is a meteor shower!

And frankly, a romantic night under the stars benefits more from a soft blanket than from a telescope, but that's not for studying the universe, of course.

Quantum physics has already resolved Olbers' paradox. The photon is the quantized particle of light. When the EMF that the photon is carrying falls below some level, it simply ceases to exist. Therefore the light from those infinitely far away stars would never reach our eyes. You might think of light as being digital below a certain level it is zero. Above that level it is a photon. The more photons, the brighter the light. When one looks at the sand dunes on a beach one sees dunes, but get close enough to them and they are now many,many grains of sand. Light is very much like that. But now back to my original question. What can we do that is constructive with just our eyes? There must me some ideas bouncing around out there.

[pete_l]

Quantum physics has already resolved Olbers' paradox. The photon is the quantized particle of light. When the EMF that the photon is carrying falls below some level, it simply ceases to exist.

Well, the reason the sky is dark at night is because the universe is NOT infinite - either in size or age. And it turns out that the energy of  a photon does not "wear out" or run down or leak away. But it can be red-shifted or absorbed by gas clouds between a source - and the further away the source is, the more likely - and us observing it. It also takes time for those photons to reach us, and a lot (most?) simply haven't been in existence long enough.

But onto the main question: what can we do that is constructive with just our eyes?

My answer would be to sit back, relax and be inspired. If you like counting meteors, there might be some projects that would welcome your data.

[Knight of Clear Skies]

This minute physics video should clear up any confusion about Olber's paradox:

[Stu]

This minute physics video should clear up any confusion about Olber's paradox:

Great video!

[ollypenrice]

Two naked eye activities for the amateur astronomer? 1) Look at the night sky and 2) Read books about astronomy, its history and its science.

Olly

[alan potts]

I enjoyed that thank you for posting it.

Alan

[saac]

Measure the distance of Moon to Earth using a floor brush (broomstick) and a penny.  All with the naked eye - first came across that one as an Open University task, quite cool.

Oh, astronomy by naked eye - you could of course measure the percentage of sky covered by grey claggy cloud - sorry must think more positively

Jim