# data[].attributes.headline
BRAINSTORM ON CERTAIN ASPECTS: DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.subject
BRAINSTORM ON CERTAIN ASPECTS: DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.body
Speaking in real sense, we have not been able to understand our universe completely,even with the availability of such sophisticated and advanced devices. The power of the our machinery and devices still remains puny as compared to the power of the universe.

Taking in consideration the present scenario, it is practically not possible to get answers to questions like "is inter-universe travel possible?" "is time travel possible?" "is our universe inhabited by some other beings too?".The technology that we have developed is not sufficient to suffice the above questions, and those we are left with nothing but theories and paradoxes.

The area where the research in astrophysics be applied presently is "Mars Colonization".Advanced methodologies can be used to increase the oxygen level on Mars.

According to our Hindu mythology,the changes taking place in the universe have direct effect on human beings. It is believed that the motion of the planets in our solar system have direct effect on us.Thus with the help of our vedic science and modern astrotechnology it might be possible to understand the universe in a better way.

....

Moreover let us expect that in future more sophisticated and advanced technology would be invented which would help our future generation to get the answers to the the questions which we could not get.

# data[].attributes.body
IN my view astro physics is a vast subject in it's arena and only limited applications, just to say it is totally relted and completely basen on creative and theoritical physics so i can't find an application in the field of chemistry related fields and also economics hha!.So in a broader view we can definitely have applicationi the field of cmmunication and many criticl situations.This is a different type of applications which is some what difficult to percept .IT can definitely be applied in the field of transport ( teleportation) lets discuss briefly.

Acually the further discoveries or the evolution of the perfect view over the space -time relationshiop lead to teleportaion which definitely disturbs the whole man kind and everything would be in a chaos and according to my perceptive power there would be no life on earth because to teleport or to time travel we have to attain the speed equal or above to light which would not allow us to be right here on earth and also to say it's easy to make technically impossible we can transport many machineries to any space - time coordinate in a flash.For such a thing our scientists are really sacrificing their lives to just add something to the research or that field of exploration.

# data[].attributes.body
All of the above mentioned applications are at present used by many scientists and researchers for the advancement of public's knowledge.

In my opinion, our team has the quality of relaying each and every data about ASTROPHYSICS in the most simplest form and making it readable from a layman view-point.

We achieved this by providing various articles, books, images, and videos depicting the History, Development, and Applications of our respective topics.

We hope you find this report very informative and useful.

# data[].attributes.headline
APPLICATIONS OF STUDYING ASTROPHYSICS: DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.subject
APPLICATIONS OF STUDYING ASTROPHYSICS: DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.body
The study of our universe will continue as long as the universe exists.Thus,'astrophysics'-the study of the universe is everlasting.

It is a common notion that the study of astronomy does not have a direct influence in our daily lives, as it is not a quicker source of obtaining money.

Space study is a slow growing subject,but the research work done in this subject has many applications in different fields.The study of astronomy pushes the limits of our current technology thereby contributing to the development of new and innovative methods in terms of instruments, processes and software to get things done.The fruits of the research in astronomy can be seen in fields like optics, electronics, advanced computing, communication satellites, solar panels and MRI Scanners etc.

MEDICINE

The study of astronomy and medicine can be combined to develop advanced method of diagnosis.The most notable among the applications is the method of aperture synthesis.This technology is now used in Computerized Tomography which is commonly called CT scan.

PLANETARY SYSTEMS

Our planet is under the direct influence of the Sun which directly affects the climate on Earth.Thus astronomy helps us to understand the dynamics of the Sun and other stars,climate changes on earth,to study different solar systems etc.

COMMUNICATION

Astronomy has many applications in the communication sector.Radio astronomy has given birth to excellent communication tools, devices and data processing methods.

AEROSPACE AND DEFENCE

Astronomy and the aerospace industry share many technologies that include telescope instrumentation, imaging and processing techniques for images. A defense satellite is basically a telescope that is pointed towards earth and thus use very identical technology and hardware to that of astronomy. The methods used to differentiate between rocket plumes and cosmic objects in stellar atmosphere models are similar as well. They are studied for use in early warning systems.

.....

The above mentioned areas are those in which the study of astrophysics has been applied.But many more secrets of the universe like white holes, worm holes,life on other planets etc. are still hidden from us.Thus, it can be expected that the study of astronomy will open the gates of the universe in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
There are many applications of the Big Bang Theory , like :

1.) High performance computing (HPC) :

The use of HPC , for image processing , 3D visualization , power and security systems.

2.) Space weather modelling :

Weather modelling and climate change.

3.) In optics :

Airborne or space-based remote sensing and adaptive optics.

4.) High performance statistical analysis and simulation techniques :

Large scale numerical simulation for image analysis and data handling techniques, financial and healthcare sectors.

5.) It is possible to calculate the concentration of all isotopes of Helium (He), Deuterium, and an isotope of Lithium in the universe in terms of ratios to the amount of ordinary Hydrogen(H2) . The relative abundances depend on a single parameter, the ratio of Photons to Baryons. This value can be calculated independently from the detailed structure of Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) fluctuations.

# data[].attributes.body
DOPPLER SHIFT : Change in frequency due to the Doppler effect.

ASTROPHYSICS : Combined study of Astronomy and Physics.

SINGULARITY : Something which exits at the very core of a Black Hole. Black Holes are ares of very high and intense pressure. This pressure is thought to be so intense that any matter literally gets squished inside it. These zones of infinite pressure are known as "SINGULARITIES".

COSMIC : Extraterrestrial

PEJORATIVE : Expressing contempt or disapproval.

NUCLEO-SYNTHESIS : Cosmic formation of atoms more complex than the hydrogen atom.

SPIRAL NEBULAE : Spiral Galaxies

STELLAR NUCLEO-SYNTHESIS : The process by which elements are created within stars by combining Protons and Neutrons together from the nuclei of lighter elements. This is not the only form of Nucleo-Synthesis , however, but usually when scientists talk about Nucleo-Synthesis, it's shorthand for Stellar Nucleo-Synthesis.

# data[].attributes.body
1. General relativity: General relativity, also known as the general theory of relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation in modern physics.

2. Interstellar matter: Interstellar matter is the matter that exists in space between the star systems.The matter includes gas in ionic state.dust particles etc.

3. Accretion: The growth or increase by gradual accumulation of additional layers of matter.

4. Supernova explosion: The phase of a star in which it explodes in a catastrophic explosion in which most of its mass gets ejected.

5. Stellar collision: Stellar collision occurs when two stars combine,due to their gravitational forces to form a single star.

6. 'Stellar mass' black hole: It is a black hole formed due to the gravitational collapse of a very massive star.

7. Paradox: An absurd or contradictory statement, which when investigated, be founded true.

# data[].attributes.headline
SURVEY QUESTIONS : BY AMEY ATHALE, DARSHAN PRABHUNE,A.VENKAT

# data[].attributes.subject
SURVEY QUESTIONS : BY AMEY ATHALE, DARSHAN PRABHUNE,A.VENKAT

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Create a new document and edit with others at the same time -- from your computer, phone or tablet. Get stuff done with or without an internet connection. Use Docs to edit Word files. Free from Google.

# data[].attributes.headline
Godel and the End of the Universe : AMEY ATHALE

# data[].attributes.subject
Godel and the End of the Universe : AMEY ATHALE

# data[].attributes.body
-->PUBLICATIONS OF STEPHEN HAWKING

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In this talk, I want to ask how far can we go in our search for understanding and knowledge. Will we ever find a complete form of the laws of nature? By a complete form, I mean a set of rules that in principle at least enable us to predict the future to an arbitrary accuracy, knowing the state of the universe at one time. A qualitative understanding of the laws has been the aim of philosophers and scientists, from Aristotle onwards. But it was Newton's Principia Mathematica in 1687, containing his theory of universal gravitation that made the laws quantitative and precise. This led to the idea of scientific determinism, which seems first to have been expressed by Laplace. If at one time, one knew the positions and velocities of all the particles in the universe, the laws of science should enable us to calculate their positions and velocities at any other time, past or future. The laws may or may not have been ordained by God, but scientific determinism asserts that he does not intervene to break them.

At first, it seemed that these hopes for a complete determinism would be dashed by the discovery early in the 20th century; that events like the decay of radio active atoms seemed to take place at random. It was as if God was playing dice, in Einstein's phrase. But science snatched victory from the jaws of defeat by moving the goal posts and redefining what is meant by a complete knowledge of the universe. It was a stroke of brilliance whose philosophical implications have still not been fully appreciated. Much of the credit belongs to Paul Dirac, my predecessor but one in the Lucasian chair, though it wasn't motorized in his time. Dirac showed how the work of Erwin Schrodinger and Werner Heisenberg could be combined in new picture of reality, called quantum theory. In quantum theory, a particle is not characterized by two quantities, its position and its velocity, as in classical Newtonian theory. Instead it is described by a single quantity, the wave function. The size of the wave function at a point, gives the probability that the particle will be found at that point, and the rate at which the wave function changes from point to point, gives the probability of different velocities. One can have a wave function that is sharply peaked at a point. This corresponds to a state in which there is little uncertainty in the position of the particle. However, the wave function varies rapidly, so there is a lot of uncertainty in the velocity. Similarly, a long chain of waves has a large uncertainty in position, but a small uncertainty in velocity. One can have a well defined position, or a well defined velocity, but not both.

This would seem to make complete determinism impossible. If one can't accurately define both the positions and the velocities of particles at one time, how can one predict what they will be in the future? It is like weather forecasting. The forecasters don't have an accurate knowledge of the atmosphere at one time. Just a few measurements at ground level and what can be learnt from satellite photographs. That's why weather forecasts are so unreliable. However, in quantum theory, it turns out one doesn't need to know both the positions and the velocities. If one knew the laws of physics and the wave function at one time, then something called the Schrodinger equation would tell one how fast the wave function was changing with time. This would allow one to calculate the wave function at any other time. One can therefore claim that there is still determinism but it is determinism on a reduced level. Instead of being able accurately to predict two quantities, position and velocity, one can predict only a single quantity, the wave function. We have re-defined determinism to be just half of what Laplace thought it was. Some people have tried to connect the unpredictability of the other half with consciousness, or the intervention of supernatural beings. But it is difficult to make either case for something that is completely random.

In order to calculate how the wave function develops in time, one needs the quantum laws that govern the universe. So how well do we know these laws? As Dirac remarked, Maxwell's equations of light and the relativistic wave equation, which he was too modest to call the Dirac equation, govern most of physics and all of chemistry and biology. So in principle, we ought to be able to predict human behavior, though I can't say I have had much success myself. The trouble is that the human brain contains far too many particles for us to be able to solve the equations. But it is comforting to think we might be able to predict the nematode worm, even if we can't quite figure out humans. Quantum theory and the Maxwell and Dirac equations indeed govern much of our life, but there are two important areas beyond their scope. One is the nuclear forces. The other is gravity. The nuclear forces are responsible for the Sun shining and the formation of the elements including the carbon and oxygen of which we are made. And gravity caused the formation of stars and planets, and indeed, of the universe itself. So it is important to bring them into the scheme.

The so called weak nuclear forces have been unified with the Maxwell equations by Abdus Salam and Stephen Weinberg, in what is known as the Electro weak theory. The predictions of this theory have been confirmed by experiment and the authors rewarded with Nobel Prizes. The remaining nuclear forces, the so called strong forces, have not yet been successfully unified with the electro weak forces in an observationally tested scheme. Instead, they seem to be described by a similar but separate theory called QCD. It is not clear who, if anyone, should get a Nobel Prize for QCD, but David Gross and Gerard 't Hooft share credit for showing the theory gets simpler at high energies. I had quite a job to get my speech synthesizer to pronounce Gerard's surname. It wasn't familiar with apostrophe t. The electro weak theory and QCD together constitute the so called Standard Model of particle physics, which aims to describe everything except gravity.

The standard model seems to be adequate for all practical purposes, at least for the next hundred years. But practical or economic reasons have never been the driving force in our search for a complete theory of the universe. No one working on the basic theory, from Galileo onward, has carried out their research to make money, though Dirac would have made a fortune if he had patented the Dirac equation. He would have had a royalty on every television, walkman, video game and computer.

The real reason we are seeking a complete theory, is that we want to understand the universe and feel we are not just the victims of dark and mysterious forces. If we understand the universe, then we control it, in a sense. The standard model is clearly unsatisfactory in this respect. First of all, it is ugly and ad hoc. The particles are grouped in an apparently arbitrary way, and the standard model depends on 24 numbers whose values can not be deduced from first principles, but which have to be chosen to fit the observations. What understanding is there in that? Can it be Nature's last word? The second failing of the standard model is that it does not include gravity. Instead, gravity has to be described by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. General relativity is not a quantum theory unlike the laws that govern everything else in the universe. Although it is not consistent to use the non quantum general relativity with the quantum standard model, this has no practical significance at the present stage of the universe because gravitational fields are so weak. However, in the very early universe, gravitational fields would have been much stronger and quantum gravity would have been significant. Indeed, we have evidence that quantum uncertainty in the early universe made some regions slightly more or less dense than the otherwise uniform background. We can see this in small differences in the background of microwave radiation from different directions. The hotter, denser regions will condense out of the expansion as galaxies, stars and planets. All the structures in the universe, including ourselves, can be traced back to quantum effects in the very early stages. It is therefore essential to have a fully consistent quantum theory of gravity, if we are to understand the universe.

Constructing a quantum theory of gravity has been the outstanding problem in theoretical physics for the last 30 years. It is much, much more difficult than the quantum theories of the strong and electro weak forces. These propagate in a fixed background of space and time. One can define the wave function and use the Schrodinger equation to evolve it in time. But according to general relativity, gravity is space and time. So how can the wave function for gravity evolve in time? And anyway, what does one mean by the wave function for gravity? It turns out that, in a formal sense, one can define a wave function and a Schrodinger like equation for gravity, but that they are of little use in actual calculations.

Instead, the usual approach is to regard the quantum spacetime as a small perturbation of some background spacetime; generally flat space. The perturbations can then be treated as quantum fields, like the electro weak and QCD fields, propagating through the background spacetime. In calculations of perturbations, there is generally some quantity called the effective coupling which measures how much of an extra perturbation a given perturbation generates. If the coupling is small, a small perturbation creates a smaller correction which gives an even smaller second correction, and so on. Perturbation theory works and can be used to calculate to any degree of accuracy. An example is your bank account. The interest on the account is a small perturbation. A very small perturbation if you are with one of the big banks. The interest is compound. That is, there is interest on the interest, and interest on the interest on the interest. However, the amounts are tiny. To a good approximation, the money in your account is what you put there. On the other hand, if the coupling is high, a perturbation generates a larger perturbation which then generates an even larger perturbation. An example would be borrowing money from loan sharks. The interest can be more than you borrowed, and then you pay interest on that. It is disastrous.

With gravity, the effective coupling is the energy or mass of the perturbation because this determines how much it warps spacetime, and so creates a further perturbation. However, in quantum theory, quantities like the electric field or the geometry of spacetime don't have definite values, but have what are called quantum fluctuations. These fluctuations have energy. In fact, they have an infinite amount of energy because there are fluctuations on all length scales, no matter how small. Thus treating quantum gravity as a perturbation of flat space doesn't work well because the perturbations are strongly coupled.

Supergravity was invented in 1976 to solve, or at least improve, the energy problem. It is a combination of general relativity with other fields, such that each species of particle has a super partner species. The energy of the quantum fluctuations of one partner is positive, and the other negative, so they tend to cancel. It was hoped the infinite positive and negative energies would cancel completely, leaving only a finite remainder. In this case, a perturbation treatment would work because the effective coupling would be weak. However, in 1985, people suddenly lost confidence that the infinities would cancel. This was not because anyone had shown that they definitely didn't cancel. It was reckoned it would take a good graduate student 300 years to do the calculation, and how would one know they hadn't made a mistake on page two? Rather it was because Ed Witten declared that string theory was the true quantum theory of gravity, and supergravity was just an approximation, valid when particle energies are low, which in practice, they always are. In string theory, gravity is not thought of as the warping of spacetime. Instead, it is given by string diagrams; networks of pipes that represent little loops of string, propagating through flat spacetime. The effective coupling that gives the strength of the junctions where three pipes meet is not the energy, as it is in supergravity. Instead it is given by what is called the dilaton; a field that has not been observed. If the dilaton had a low value, the effective coupling would be weak, and string theory would be a good quantum theory. But it is no earthly use for practical purposes.

In the years since 1985, we have realized that both supergravity and string theory belong to a larger structure, known as M theory. Why it should be called M Theory is completely obscure. M theory is not a theory in the usual sense. Rather it is a collection of theories that look very different but which describe the same physical situation. These theories are related by mappings or correspondences called dualities, which imply that they are all reflections of the same underlying theory. Each theory in the collection works well in the limit, like low energy, or low dilaton, in which its effective coupling is small, but breaks down when the coupling is large. This means that none of the theories can predict the future of the universe to arbitrary accuracy. For that, one would need a single formulation of M-theory that would work in all situations.

Up to now, most people have implicitly assumed that there is an ultimate theory that we will eventually discover. Indeed, I myself have suggested we might find it quite soon. However, M-theory has made me wonder if this is true. Maybe it is not possible to formulate the theory of the universe in a finite number of statements. This is very reminiscent of Godel's theorem. This says that any finite system of axioms is not sufficient to prove every result in mathematics.

Godel's theorem is proved using statements that refer to themselves. Such statements can lead to paradoxes. An example is, this statement is false. If the statement is true, it is false. And if the statement is false, it is true. Another example is, the barber of Corfu shaves every man who does not shave himself. Who shaves the barber? If he shaves himself, then he doesn't, and if he doesn't, then he does. Godel went to great lengths to avoid such paradoxes by carefully distinguishing between mathematics, like 2+2 =4, and meta mathematics, or statements about mathematics, such as mathematics is cool, or mathematics is consistent. That is why his paper is so difficult to read. But the idea is quite simple. First Godel showed that each mathematical formula, like 2+2=4, can be given a unique number, the Godel number. The Godel number of 2+2=4, is *. Second, the meta mathematical statement, the sequence of formulas A, is a proof of the formula B, can be expressed as an arithmetical relation between the Godel numbers for A- and B. Thus meta mathematics can be mapped into arithmetic, though I'm not sure how you translate the meta mathematical statement, 'mathematics is cool'. Third and last, consider the self referring Godel statement, G. This is, the statement G can not be demonstrated from the axioms of mathematics. Suppose that G could be demonstrated. Then the axioms must be inconsistent because one could both demonstrate G and show that it can not be demonstrated. On the other hand, if G can't be demonstrated, then G is true. By the mapping into numbers, it corresponds to a true relation between numbers, but one which can not be deduced from the axioms. Thus mathematics is either inconsistent or incomplete. The smart money is on incomplete.

What is the relation between Godel's theorem and whether we can formulate the theory of the universe in terms of a finite number of principles? One connection is obvious. According to the positivist philosophy of science, a physical theory is a mathematical model. So if there are mathematical results that can not be proved, there are physical problems that can not be predicted. One example might be the Goldbach conjecture. Given an even number of wood blocks, can you always divide them into two piles, each of which can not be arranged in a rectangle? That is, it contains a prime number of blocks.

Although this is incompleteness of sort, it is not the kind of unpredictability I mean. Given a specific number of blocks, one can determine with a finite number of trials whether they can be divided into two primes. But I think that quantum theory and gravity together, introduces a new element into the discussion that wasn't present with classical Newtonian theory. In the standard positivist approach to the philosophy of science, physical theories live rent free in a Platonic heaven of ideal mathematical models. That is, a model can be arbitrarily detailed and can contain an arbitrary amount of information without affecting the universes they describe. But we are not angels, who view the universe from the outside. Instead, we and our models are both part of the universe we are describing. Thus a physical theory is self referencing, like in Godel's theorem. One might therefore expect it to be either inconsistent or incomplete. The theories we have so far are both inconsistent and incomplete.

Quantum gravity is essential to the argument. The information in the model can be represented by an arrangement of particles. According to quantum theory, a particle in a region of a given size has a certain minimum amount of energy. Thus, as I said earlier, models don't live rent free. They cost energy. By Einstein's famous equation, E = mc squared, energy is equivalent to mass. And mass causes systems to collapse under gravity. It is like getting too many books together in a library. The floor would give way and create a black hole that would swallow the information. Remarkably enough, Jacob Bekenstein and I found that the amount of information in a black hole is proportional to the area of the boundary of the hole, rather than the volume of the hole, as one might have expected. The black hole limit on the concentration of information is fundamental, but it has not been properly incorporated into any of the formulations of M theory that we have so far. They all assume that one can define the wave function at each point of space. But that would be an infinite density of information which is not allowed. On the other hand, if one can't define the wave function point wise, one can't predict the future to arbitrary accuracy, even in the reduced determinism of quantum theory. What we need is a formulation of M theory that takes account of the black hole information limit. But then our experience with supergravity and string theory, and the analogy of Godel's theorem, suggest that even this formulation will be incomplete.

Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end, and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery. Without it, we would stagnate. Godel's theorem ensured there would always be a job for mathematicians. I think M theory will do the same for physicists. I'm sure Dirac would have approved.

Thank you for listening.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this talk, I want to ask how far can we go in our search for understanding and knowledge. Will we ever find a complete form of the laws of nature? By a complete form, I mean a set of rules that in principle at least enable us to predict the future to an arbitrary accuracy, knowing the state of the universe at one time.

# data[].attributes.body
-->BY STEPHEN HAWKING

# data[].attributes.headline
INSIGHT OF A BLACK HOLE: DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.subject
INSIGHT OF A BLACK HOLE: DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Travel INSIDE a Black Hole - Short Documentary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Also check these INTERESTING Mind Blow Documentary TOP Secret Weapons That Only AMERICA HAS (MOST FEARED WEAPONS) # MIND BLOW https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdFpTg5BDd4 Worlds MOST FEARED DARPA Technology for US Military (Message to world) 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmuWGeos2dw America Future Military Secrets Weapons #Mind Blow Full Documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uacbyK2Wptw

# data[].attributes.headline
A MONSTER BLACK HOLE, CAPABLE OF SWALLOWING EARTH: DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.subject
A MONSTER BLACK HOLE, CAPABLE OF SWALLOWING EARTH: DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.headline
INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT BLACK HOLES: DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.subject
INTERESTING FACTS ABOUT BLACK HOLES: DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Imagine matter packed so densely that nothing can escape. Not a moon, not a planet and not even light. That's what black holes are - a spot where gravity's pull is huge, ending up being dangerous for anything that accidentally strays by. But how did black holes come to be, and why are they important? Below we have 10 facts about black holes - just a few tidbits about these fascinating objects.
Fact 1: You can't directly see a black hole.
Because a black hole is indeed "black" - no light can escape from it - it's impossible for us to sense the hole directly through our instruments, no matter what kind of electromagnetic radiation you use (light, X-rays, whatever.) The key is to look at the hole's effects on the nearby environment, points out NASA. Say a star happens to get too close to the black hole, for example. The black hole naturally pulls on the star and rips it to shreds. When the matter from the star begins to bleed toward the black hole, it gets faster, gets hotter and glows brightly in X-rays.
Fact 2: Look out! Our Milky Way likely has a black hole.
A natural next question is given how dangerous a black hole is, is Earth in any imminent danger of getting swallowed? The answer is no, astronomers say, although there is probably a huge supermassive black hole lurking in the middle of our galaxy. Luckily, we're nowhere near this monster - we are about two-thirds of the way out from the center, relative to the rest of our galaxy - but we can certainly observe its effects from afar. For example: the European Space Agency says it's four million times more massive than our Sun, and that it's surrounded by surprisingly hot gas.
Fact 3: Dying stars create stellar black holes.
Say you have a star that's about 20 times more massive than the Sun. Our Sun is going to end its life quietly; when its nuclear fuel burns out, it'll slowly fade into a white dwarf. That's not the case for far more massive stars. When those monsters run out of fuel, gravity will overwhelm the natural pressure the star maintains to keep its shape stable. When the pressure from nuclear reactions collapses, according to the Space Telescope Science Institute, gravity violently overwhelms and collapses the core and other layers are flung into space. This is called a supernova. The remaining core collapses into a singularity - a spot of infinite density and almost no volume. That's another name for a black hole.
Fact 4: Black holes come in a range of sizes.
There are at least three types of black holes, NASA says, ranging from relative squeakers to those that dominate a galaxy's center. Primordial black holes are the smallest kinds, and range in size from one atom's size to a mountain's mass. Stellar black holes, the most common type, are up to 20 times more massive than our own Sun and are likely sprinkled in the dozens within the Milky Way. And then there are the gargantuan ones in the centers of galaxies, called "supermassive black holes." They're each more than one million times more massive than the Sun. How these beasts formed is still being examined.
Fact 5: Weird time stuff happens around black holes.
This is best illustrated by one person (call them Unlucky) falling into a black hole while another person (call them Lucky) watches. From Lucky's perspective, Unlucky's time clock appears to be ticking slower and slower. This is in accordance with Einstein's theory of general relativity, which (simply put) says that time is affected by how fast you go, when you're at extreme speeds close to light. The black hole warps time and space so much that Unlucky's time appears to be running slower. From Unlucky's perspective, however, their clock is running normally and Lucky's is running fast.
Fact 6: The first black hole wasn't discovered until X-ray astronomy was used.
Cygnus X-1 was first found during balloon flights in the 1960s, but wasn't identified as a black hole for about another decade. According to NASA, the black hole is 10 times more massive to the Sun. Nearby is a blue supergiant star that is about 20 times more massive than the Sun, which is bleeding due to the black hole and creating X-ray emissions.
Fact 7: The nearest black hole is likely not 1,600 light-years away.

An erroneous measurement of V4641 Sagitarii led to a slew of news reports a few years back saying that the nearest black hole to Earth is astoundingly close, just 1,600 light-years away. Not close enough to be considered dangerous, but way closer than thought. Further research, however, shows that the black hole is likely further away than that. Looking at the rotation of its companion star, among other factors, yielded a 2014 result of more than 20,000 light years.
Fact 8: We aren't sure if wormholes exist.
A popular science-fiction topic concerns what happens if somebody falls into a black hole. Some people believe these objects are a sort of wormhole to other parts of the Universe, making faster-than-light travel possible. But as this Smithsonian Magazine article points out, anything is possible since we still have a lot to figure out about physics. "Since we do not yet have a theory that reliably unifies general relativity with quantum mechanics, we do not know of the entire zoo of possible spacetime structures that could accommodate wormholes," said Abi Loeb, who is with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Fact 9: Black holes are only dangerous if you get too close.
Like creatures behind a cage, it's okay to observe a black hole if you stay away from its event horizon - think of it like the gravitational field of a planet. This zone is the point of no return, when you're too close for any hope of rescue. But you can safely observe the black hole from outside of this arena. By extension, this means it's likely impossible for a black hole to swallow up everything in the Universe (barring some sort of major revision to physics or understanding of our Cosmos, of course.)
Fact 10: Black holes are used all the time in science fiction.
There are so many films and movies using black holes, for example, that it's impossible to list them all. Interstellar's journeys through the universe includes a close-up look at a black hole. Event Horizon explores the phenomenon of artificial black holes - something that is also discussed in the Star Trek universe. Black holes are also talked about in Battlestar: Galactica, Stargate: SG1 and many, many other space shows.

Here on Universe Today we have a great article about a practical use for black holes: as spacecraft engines. No one can get to a black hole without space travel. Astronomy Cast offers a good episode about interstellar travel.

black hole, black hole facts, Black Holes, supermassive black holes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
10 Amazing Facts About Black Holes - Universe Today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Imagine matter packed so densely that nothing can escape. Not a moon, not a planet and not even light. That's what black holes are - a spot where gravity's pull is huge, ending up being dangerous for anything that accidentally strays by. But how did black holes come to be, and why are they important?

# data[].attributes.headline
BLACK HOLE INFORMATION PARADOX: DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.subject
BLACK HOLE INFORMATION PARADOX: DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.body
-STEPHEN HAWKING

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article represents a lightning introduction to the black hole information paradox. Many details are omitted for brevity; longer articles will (eventually) explain them. Also, caution! the current understanding of the problem is so confused that the very last portion of this article should not be considered reliable or stable - it is likely to change in future.
[I thank Professor Joe Polchinski for consultations on the physics and for checking my illustrations for errors.] The Two Conflicting Theories:
Quantum Theory (sometimes called "Quantum Mechanics") is the mathematics that is currently believed to underlie all physical processes in nature. It can't be used to predict precisely what will happen, but only the probability for any particular thing to happen. But probabilities only make sense if, when you add up all the probabilities for of the different things that can possibly happen, you find the sum is equal to one. A quantum theory where this isn't true makes no sense. One consequence of this is that in a quantum theory, information is never truly lost, nor is it truly copied; at least in principle, you can always determine how a system started (its "initial state") from complete information about how it ends (its "final state"). See Figure 1, which shows two particles colliding, and several particles exiting from the collision, carrying off, in scrambled form, the information about the nature and properties of the two initial particles.

General Relativity is the name for Einstein's theory of gravity, in which gravity can be thought of as an effect of the warping of space and time. General relativity is not a quantum theory; it predicts exactly what happens, not probabilities for various things to happen.

It was gradually understood, over the years from 1915 to 1958, that extremely compact and massive objects form black holes. Gravity becomes immensely strong in their vicinity... strong enough to warp space-time dramatically, with the effect that any object that gets too close, and crosses the black hole's horizon - a surface of no-return - can never escape. See Figure 2, which shows a black hole horizon forming when two shells of matter become sufficiently compact. The information about these two shells goes inside the horizon and never can come out... in general relativity.
Caution! It is impossible to draw black holes, and the information inside them, without being misleading. My illustrations can't illustrate how space and time are warped; for instance, to understand the whole story, you have to account for the fact that clocks inside the black hole run very differently from clocks just outside, which in turn run very differently from clocks far away. So don't take my illustrations, which illustrate conceptual but not technical points, too seriously!
A horizon is not an object, but a place beyond which escape is impossible. A famous analogy is to a boat approaching a waterfall, in an increasingly fast current. Once the boat passes a curve of no-return (see Figure 3), its engine will be unable to fight the current, and it will inevitably go over the waterfall. But the captain of the boat will not notice anything when crossing this curve; it is just an ordinary part of the river, whose importance will only become clear when the captain seeks to escape disaster. Similarly, in general relativity you will notice nothing when crossing the horizon; it's only when you try to escape the black hole that you will discover that - oops! - you went too close.
The "Black Hole Information Paradox"
The paradox arose after Hawking showed, in 1974-1975, that black holes surrounded by quantum fields actually will radiate particles ("Hawking radiation") and shrink in size (Figure 4), eventually evaporating completely. Compare with Figure 2, where the information about the two shells gets stuck inside the black hole. In Figure 4, the black hole is gone. Where did the information go? If it disappeared along with the black hole, that violates quantum theory.

Maybe the information came back out with the Hawking radiation? The problem is that the information in the black hole can't get out. So the only way it can be in the Hawking radiation (naively) is if what is inside is copied. Having two copies of the information, one inside, one outside, also violates quantum theory.

Of course, it may simply be that quantum theory is incomplete, and that the physics of black holes forces us to extend that theory, much as Einstein extended Newton's laws of motion in his theory of relativity. And this is what Hawking believed for three decades.
Complementarity: Saving Quantum Theory
However, others felt that it was general relativity, not quantum theory, that would need to be changed. And a proposal was made in 1992, called "complementarity", that suggested that the information was, in a sense, both inside and outside but without violating quantum theory. (This proposal was developed by Susskind and his younger co-workers.) Specifically, observers who remain outside the black hole see the information accumulate at the horizon, and then come flying outward in the Hawking radiation. Observers who fall into the black hole see the information located inside. (See Figure 6.) Since the two classes of observers cannot communicate, there is no paradox.

Still, this suggestion is potentially self-contradictory, and requires a number of strange things be true. Among them is something called "holography", an idea developed by 't Hooft and further by Susskind. The idea is that the physics of the three-dimensional interior of the black hole, where gravity obviously plays a role, can instead be viewed, via a rather mysterious transformation, as physics just above the two-dimensional horizon, where it is described by two-dimensional equations that do not include gravity at all! See Figure 7.

Crazy at it sounds, considerable evidence arose in the late 1990s that it is true, at least in some situations! In 1997, Maldacena conjectured (and hundreds of people checked, in various ways) that under the right circumstances, string theory (a theory that is a quantum generalization of general relativity, and is a candidate for a theory of the laws of nature in our universe) is actually equivalent to a quantum theory (specifically, a " quantum field theory") without gravity and with fewer dimensions. This relationship, known variously as "AdS/CFT" or the "field/string" correspondence, deserves an article all its own (stay tuned for that.)

The success of holography gave additional credence to the complementarity idea. Furthermore, the field/string correspondence allowed for a very strong argument (perhaps a proof?) that small black holes can form and evaporate in the string theory via a process that can be described by the corresponding quantum field theory (though not explicitly) - and which therefore, as in all processes in any quantum theory, does preserve information! By 2005, even Hawking had come around to this point of view - that in fact, as the complementarity proposal had suggested, black holes do not cause information to be lost, and that general relativity, but not quantum theory, must be modified.
The Firewall and the Current Turmoil
Still, there were loose ends in the complementarity proposal. Black hole evaporation is so subtle that there were still no quantum theory equations for complementarity that could describe the evaporation process. While trying to find such equations, Almheiri, Marolf, Polchinksi and Sully discovered that in fact (at least under reasonable assumptions) complementarity contains a self-contradiction, which shows up when a black hole has evaporated about halfway. The argument is extremely subtle, involving the kind of "quantum entanglement" that Einstein called "spooky" and that gets used in quantum computers. But crudely speaking, by the halfway point, so much information has departed the black hole in the Hawking radiation that there's not enough left at the horizon for holography to represent the black hole's interior. Consequently, instead of an in-falling observer smoothly entering the black hole through the harmless horizon, as in Figure 6, the observer finds there's no interior at all, and does so the hard way, by being fried to a crisp by a so-called "firewall" that hovers just outside the horizon (Figure 8).

The possibility of a firewall would involve a very drastic modification of general relativity. It it were right, it would say that the picture provided of black holes by general relativity, that a black hole has a substantial interior, and that a horizon is nothing but a point of no-return (as in Figure 3) and not a place where special things happen as you pass it, is 100% wrong, once a black hole has done some significant amount of evaporating.

So now the paradox is baaaaack! And worse than ever. It seems that if quantum theory and complementarity are right, general relativity isn't just requiring some small modification - it requires major surgery! And there's no sign of such surgery in string theory, which provided the example of holography. But the field/string correspondence suggests quantum theory can describe black hole formation and evaporation, so information isn't lost. So can complementarity be replaced with something else? Or is one of the arguments that creates this paradox actually wrong?

Everyone's confused. There are lots and lots of proposals as to how to get out of this conundrum. You're not hearing about most of them. The media told you about Hawking's because he's famous, but he's really just one of many, many voices tossing ideas around. All of these ideas suffer from the same thing: not enough equations to provide evidence and details of how they're supposed to work. And since not having enough equations is what led to the firewall paradox, we can hardly try to get out of this situation by relying on yet another argument that lacks equations for its details!

But even though Hawking is just one person making a proposal, and even though his proposal lacks equations and is likely to be, at best (in my view), incomplete, and more likely just wrong, you probably want to know what he suggested. It's hard to figure that out without equations, but here's my best effort (see Figure 9). Hawking points out that although exteriors of black holes quickly become simple, the interiors can become very complex. Complex systems, like weather, can exhibit chaos, which can make them unpredictable even before you think about quantum theory. He seems to suggest that the complexity itself destabilizes the horizon and allows the information, having been scrambled inside the black hole, to leak back out. Since this would violate Hawking's own theorems about general relativity, I assume this means that general relativity must be modified. And since his argument rests on AdS/CFT (i.e. field/string correspondence), I assume he believes that this must occur in string theory. Since what went into a black hole does eventually come out, these holes are not really black after all - so call them "grey holes" or "metastable gravitational bound states" or "apparently-black holes", but "black" is perhaps not really the right term.

But there are many obvious problems with this proposal - not the least of which is that the firewall puzzle shows up already after the halfway point of black hole evaporation, not just at the end of the evaporation. And thus the black hole is still very large when the information has to be leaking out - which would seem very difficult to reconcile with a proposal like Hawking's. So don't expect a consensus to grow around Hawking's suggestion, especially not without some concrete equations to evaluate.

In any case, everything you learned about black holes is still basically true. Astrophysicists need not be concerned that there will be changes to what they think they know about stellar or galactic "black" holes. At least for a large and not-too-old "black" hole, Hawking's proposal wouldn't actually lead to any changes that you could measure. And if you fell in, you still couldn't get out, nor could you realistically send a message to anyone outside. So even if it turns out that "there are no black holes" in the legalistic sense, there is still a spectacularly-dark hole to be found at the center of nearly every galaxy in the universe.

Don't expect this 40-year-old puzzle to be resolved soon. And the resolution will probably come from a young physicist you've never heard of, or from a person not yet born.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Black Hole Information Paradox: An Introduction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article represents a lightning introduction to the black hole information paradox. Many details are omitted for brevity; longer articles will (eventually) explain them. Also, caution! the current understanding of the problem is so confused that the very last portion of this article should not be considered reliable or stable --- it is likely to change...

# data[].attributes.headline
NEW THEORY ON BLACK HOLE: DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.subject
NEW THEORY ON BLACK HOLE: DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.body
- STEPHEN HAWKING

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stephen Hawking Offers New Theory on How Information Might Escape Black Holes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Physicist Stephen Hawking offered up a new theory about how information might escape the powerful clutches of a black hole, an idea he hopes will help resolve one of the most vexing enigmas of physics.

# data[].attributes.body
I started from searching "Journals on The Big Bang Theory" in google.

There I found out Stephen Hawking's official website which contained his lectures on the same. I also got some data from NASA's official website.

# data[].attributes.body
- BY NATIONAL GEOGRAPHY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Black holes are the cold remnants of former stars, so dense that no matter-not even light-is able to escape their powerful gravitational pull.

While most stars end up as white dwarfs or neutron stars, black holes are the last evolutionary stage in the lifetimes of enormous stars that had been at least 10 or 15 times as massive as our own sun.

How Black Holes Are Formed

When giant stars reach the final stages of their lives, they often detonate in cataclysms known as supernovae. Such an explosion scatters most of a star into the void of space but leaves behind a large "cold" remnant on which fusion no longer takes place.

In younger stars, nuclear fusion creates energy and a constant outward pressure that exists in balance with the inward pull of gravity caused by the star's own mass. But in the dead remnants of a massive supernova, no force opposes gravity-so the star begins to collapse in upon itself.

With no force to check gravity, a budding black hole shrinks to zero volume-at which point it is infinitely dense. Even the light from such a star is unable to escape its immense gravitational pull. The star's own light becomes trapped in orbit, and the dark star becomes known as a black hole.

Black holes pull matter and even energy into themselves-but no more so than other stars or cosmic objects of similar mass. That means that a black hole with the mass of our own sun would not "suck" objects into it any more than our own sun does with its own gravitational pull.

Planets, light, and other matter must pass close to a black hole in order to be pulled into its grasp. When they reach a point of no return they are said to have entered the event horizon-the point from which any escape is impossible because it requires moving faster than the speed of light.

Black holes are small in size. A million-solar-mass hole, like that believed to be at the center of some galaxies, would have a radius of just about two million miles (three million kilometers)-only about four times the size of the sun. A black hole with a mass equal to that of the sun would have a two-mile (three-kilometer) radius.

Because they are so small, distant, and dark, black holes cannot be directly observed. Yet scientists have confirmed their long-held suspicions that they exist. This is typically done by measuring mass in a region of the sky and looking for areas of large, dark mass.

Many black holes exist in binary star systems. These holes may continually pull mass from their neighboring star, growing the black hole and shrinking the other star, until the black hole is large and the companion star has completely vanished.

Extremely large black holes may exist at the center of some galaxies-including our own Milky Way. These massive features may have the mass of 10 to 100 billion suns. They are similar to smaller black holes but grow to enormous size because there is so much matter in the center of the galaxy for them to add. Black holes can accrue limitless amounts of matter; they simply become even denser as their mass increases.

Black holes capture the public's imagination and feature prominently in extremely theoretical concepts like wormholes. These "tunnels" could allow rapid travel through space and time-but there is no evidence that they exist.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Black Hole Images, Facts, and Information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Black holes are the cold remnants of former stars, so dense that no matter-not even light-is able to escape their powerful gravitational pull. While most stars end up as white dwarfs or neutron stars, black holes are the last evolutionary stage in the lifetimes of enormous stars that had been at least 10 or 15 times as massive as our own sun.

# data[].attributes.body
-->BOOK BY STEPHEN HAWKING

# data[].attributes.headline
ASE JOURNAL 39-BLACK HOLE: DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.subject
ASE JOURNAL 39-BLACK HOLE: DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.body
- ALAN ELLIS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ASE Journal 38 - Black Holes - Part 1 - History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article on Black Holes is a condensed version of the talk I gave to the Society earlier this year. Most people are familiar with the term 'Black Hole' and have at least a vague idea of what they are. The very term conjures up the notion of a bottomless pit or abyss.

# data[].attributes.body
My source is an excerpt from the famous astronomical best seller "A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME' by the legend stephen hawking published in the year 1998 in the capital city of the great britain , london. Actually it was the tenth edition of the series and it came into light just because of hawking's explanation or view

It was published by (Bantam Dell Publishing Group) in the year 1988, it was the first edition and my extract was from the 10th edition published in the year 1998

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The origin, evolution, and nature of the universe have fascinated and confounded humankind for centuries. New ideas and major discoveries made during the 20th century transformed cosmology - the term for the way we conceptualize and study the universe - although much remains unknown.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Overview The origin, evolution, and nature of the universe have fascinated and confounded humankind for centuries. New ideas and major discoveries made during the 20th century transformed cosmology - the term for the way we conceptualize and study the universe - although much remains unknown.

# data[].attributes.body
The above information has been referred from the official sit of NASA and a site named universetoday.com

Some of the articles have also been taken from ASE journals from the website astronomydinburgh.org.

The theory of black hole information paradox has been studied from the lecturers given by Stephen hawking.

# data[].attributes.headline
BIRTH OF A BLACK HOLE- BY DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.subject
BIRTH OF A BLACK HOLE- BY DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Birth of a Black Hole (Hypernovas, Gamma-Ray burst etc.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How the Universe Works is a mini-series that originally aired on the Discovery Channel April 25, 2010 to May 24, 2010. It was narrated by Mike Rowe. This is just a small part from my favorite episode "Black Holes" (original air date May 2, 2010) directed by Peter Chinn.

# data[].attributes.headline
LIFE CYCLE OF A STAR- BY DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.subject
LIFE CYCLE OF A STAR- BY DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.headline
BASIC CONCEPT CLARIFICATION : BY AMEY ATHALE

# data[].attributes.subject
BASIC CONCEPT CLARIFICATION : BY AMEY ATHALE

# data[].attributes.body
1.) Firstly, "The Big Bang Theory" is just an effort to explain the birth of this universe.
2.) British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term "Big Bang" during a 1949 radio broadcast. Actually Hoyle supported the "Steady State" cosmological model and intended this to be pejorative to highlight the difference between the two models.

3.) In 1912 Vesto Sliper measured the first Doppler Shift of a "Spiral Nebula" (spiral nebula is the obsolete term for spiral galaxies), and soon discovered that almost all such galaxies were moving away from Earth.

4.)10 years later, Alexander Friedmann, a Russian Cosmologist and mathematician, derived the Friedmann equations from Einstein's equations of relativity, showing that the universe might be expanding in contrast to the static universe model .

5.)In 1924 Edwin Hubble's measurement of the great distance to the nearest spiral nebula showed that these systems were indeed other galaxies.

6.)In 1927, Geoges Lemaitre, a Belgian physicist , proposed that the recession of the galaxies was due to the expansion of the universe.

7.) After 1945, two major possibilities emerged. One was Fred Hoyle's "Steady State Model", in which new matter would be created as the universe expanded. In this model the universe is almost the same at any point in time. The other was Lemaitre's Big Bang theory, developed by George Gamvow, who introduced Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and whose collegues, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, predicted the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation.

8.) Thus, after around 2 decades later, it was finally decided upon that "The Big Bang Theory" was more accurate than the other Steady State Model.

# data[].attributes.headline
CLARIFICATION OF BASIC CONCEPTS- DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.subject
CLARIFICATION OF BASIC CONCEPTS- DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.body
WHAT DO THE PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT BLACK HOLES?

1.  What is a black hole? How does is it come into existence?

ANS:  A black hole is a region of absolute vacuum. When a star undergoes its supernova explosion, its core collapses and its volume closes to zero. Due to this its density tends to become infinite. Due to such a high density, a region of very strong gravitational field is created. This region of super strong gravitational field is called a black hole. Mostly, stars having mass 20 times that of the sun, form black holes after their end of lives.

2.  How can a black hole be detected?

ANS:  Although a black hole cannot be seen but it can be detected by observing the movements of  the objects around it.  The following effects  are used  by astrophysicists to detect black holes:

Mass estimates from objects orbiting a black hole or spiralling into the core

Gravitational lens effects

Emitted radiation

WHEN AND WHERE DID THE

STUDY OF THE BLACK HOLE BEGIN?

ANS:  The idea of a black hole, a body so massive that even light cannot escape, was first penned by physicist  ‘John Mischell’ in a letter written to  ‘Henry Cavendish’  of Royal Society in 1783, stating that:

If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun were to exceed that of the Sun in the proportion of 500 to 1, a body falling from an infinite height towards it would have acquired at its surface greater velocity than that of light, and consequently supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its vis inertiae, with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it by its own proper gravity.

— John Michell

In 1796, mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace proposed the same idea in the first and second editions of his book  “Exposition du system du Monde”,  but his idea was ignored because the concept of a mass less radiation like light getting influenced by gravity, was not understood then.

THE HEART OF THE STUDY OF THEORY OF BLACK HOLE- “ THE BLACK HOLE INFORMATION PARADOX.”

The  “black hole information paradox” is a result of the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity.  It states that the physical information of any particle or wave can disappear within a black hole.

As suggested by the scientist Stephen Hawking, black hole emits particles known as “Stephen Hawking radiation”. He suggested that the information of any particle entering into the black hole is not stored in the interior of the black hole, but is stored in its boundary, called “event horizon”. This information is then emitted in a scrambled form which is very difficult to decode. This is the “information paradox of a black hole.”

# data[].attributes.headline
how this branch is connected to other branches?

# data[].attributes.subject
how this branch is connected to other branches?

# data[].attributes.body
actually the core idea of this branch is individual ad the basic is from physics gravity equations so every beginner with a minimum knowledge of gravity and space .so at first as i mentioned imagination is the heart of the subject and so this can be linked to any subject,so this like a tree with branches which are made the trunk of other tresss.hahaha........

# data[].attributes.headline
The enthusiasim of a common man to astro physics

# data[].attributes.subject
The enthusiasim of a common man to astro physics

# data[].attributes.body
This is a branch which is highly recognised by a common man and we can come across some people whose dedication would be equal that of the scientists and also his work would be amazing and also path breaking.So this explanation gives us the answer for the question" how do we take the ascence of the branch to public"and hence we have the answer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Old man talk about: anti-gravity, time-travel, free energy, tesla tech etc.

# data[].attributes.body
For every physicist in the world the space-time relation would be like a red -cloth infront of a bull. his complete life would be dedicated to it and that dedicatio would be in such a way that he would prefer the development of the theory to his life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Aliens & UFOs explained by astrophysicist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
UFOs from the perspective of a world-renowned astrophysicist. Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space and a research associate in the department of astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History, explains his thoughts on reports of unidentified flying objects, extraterrestial life on Earth, and the Roswell aliens.

# data[].attributes.headline
How and when did the space-time relationship come into lght? - venkat

# data[].attributes.subject
How and when did the space-time relationship come into lght? - venkat

# data[].attributes.body
It was by sir isaac newton when he initially framed the gravity equations in 1702 and came across a mysterious relation which is beween the gravity and space which then grew further into space-time relationship.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sir Isaac Newton vs Bill Nye. Epic Rap Battles of History

# data[].attributes.body
Since few years, the topic which has fascinated the astrophysicists the most is the"Theory of black hole".This subject has even fascinated the layman, may be due to the secrets which still remain untold, like the wormhole paradox, time travel etc.

BLACK HOLE: In simple terms, a black hole is a region of nothingness.The theory says that when the core of a star collapses, its volume becomes zero and thus its density tends to be infinite, thus creating a region of very strong gravitational field.This is called a black hole. The gravitational field of a black hole is so strong that even light cannot escape.

A black hole can only be spotted, not explored,due to its strong gravitational field.due to this, the scientists have not been able to study a black hole completely.Many questions like "Where does a particle go after entering into a black hole?" or "Does a black hole serve as a passage between two universes?" still remain unanswered.

# data[].attributes.headline
"BLACKHOLE- "A THREAT" OR "THE KEY TO EXPLORE NEW UNIVERSES"   BY DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.subject
"BLACKHOLE- "A THREAT" OR "THE KEY TO EXPLORE NEW UNIVERSES"   BY DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.headline
SUMMARY ON THE BIG BANG THEORY : BY AMEY ATHALE

# data[].attributes.subject
SUMMARY ON THE BIG BANG THEORY : BY AMEY ATHALE

# data[].attributes.body
The phrase "Big Bang Theory" has been popular among astrophysicists for decades, but it hit the mainstream in 2007 when a comedy T.V show with the same name premiered on CBS. The Big Bang Theory is an effort to explain what happened before the birth of our universe. Various discoveries and assumptions have lead people to believe that this universe actually had a beginning. According to various astrophysicists and their theories, the universe just sprang into existence as a "SINGULARITY" some 13.7 billion years ago.

SINGULARITY : The topic which is still unknown to the scholars. But many astrophysicists believe it exits at the very core of a Black Hole. Black Holes are ares of very high and intense pressure. This pressure is thought to be so intense that any matter literally gets squished inside it. These zones of infinite pressure are known as "SINGULARITIES"

There are many misconceptions regarding this theory. The first and foremost one is that "The big Bang Theory" was a huge explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion. They rather believe it as an expansion. Secondly, people tend to imagine a "SINGULARITY" as a fireball in space. But according to the experts, space did not exist before Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, three British astrophysicists," Steven Hawking", "George Ellis", and "Roger Penrose" turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding common public's idea of time. According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The "SINGULARITY" didn't appear in space, rather, space began inside of the "SINGULARITY". Prior to the "SINGULARITY", nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing.

Basically, the notions which support The Big Bang Theory are :-

1.) We are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.

2.) Galaxies appear to be moving away at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law" , named after Edwin Hubble who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.

3.) If the universe was initially very, very hot as the theory suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for.

4.) The abundance of elements like Hydrogen and Helium found in this universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

# data[].attributes.body
Many scientists have spilled their blood in order improve the understanding of the subject, and almost havee contributed something or the other.What we need is just one experiment which gives data or answers to a huge number of questions .our life , the daily routine ,the values,the morals,the sayings,god everything vanishes just n a flash and we would travel to our desired space time coordinate and there is no use of money, living ...........................everything in a chaos in a confusion state .This is section which requires imagination in tonnes and loads and more,and not just thinking out of the box but out of the universe hahah.......................

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Program Description http://13chakras.com/purchase.html Eleven dimensions, parallel universes, and a world made out of strings? It's not science fiction, it's string theory. Bestselling author and physicist Brian Greene offers a tour of this seemingly strange world in "The Elegant Universe," a three-hour Peabody Award-winning miniseries.

# data[].attributes.body
my sub topic is space- time re lationship

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SpaceTime, Relativity, Quantum Physics, and Quantum Gravity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Summaries of Spacetime, Relativity, and Quantum Physics

# data[].attributes.body
-->STEPHEN HAWKING LECTURES

-->IN 2005

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This lecture is the intellectual property of Professor S.W.Hawking. You may not reproduce, edit, translate, distribute, publish or host this document in any way with out the permission of Professor...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The renowned physicist has a new book, "The Grand Design." Stephen Hawking will now take your questions. Subscribe to TIME - http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=timemagazine With 24/7 reporting, TIME puts the global news of the day into context-shaping the conversation and illuminating the common ground in its own distinct style.

# data[].attributes.headline
AN IMPORTANT SECTION                ****time******                          - venkat

# data[].attributes.subject
AN IMPORTANT SECTION                ****time******                          - venkat

# data[].attributes.headline
"IMAGINATION" the heart of the subject- venkat

# data[].attributes.subject
"IMAGINATION" the heart of the subject- venkat

# data[].attributes.body
In this branch, the only obstacle or an entity is that ANSWER. In order to continue our research or any view upon an entity we desperatlely need some experimental data to go further but this is too dificult to be attained as it deals with a huge amount of energy source,like a spae ship which is to travel huge distances, which cnt be made economically or frankly speking we aren't that adavnced.

# data[].attributes.headline
a closely related question                    "ARE WE ALONE"-venkat

# data[].attributes.subject
a closely related question                    "ARE WE ALONE"-venkat

# data[].attributes.body
This is a branch of science which doesn't require any technical knowledge, but just curiosity, interest, madness,dedication,insanity,not just work but literally damn(damn damn damn)hard work and should definetly be day dreaming.

# data[].attributes.headline
THE BROTHER OF A BLACKHOLE-"THE NEUTRON STAR

# data[].attributes.subject
THE BROTHER OF A BLACKHOLE-"THE NEUTRON STAR

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Neutron stars are created when giant stars die in supernovas and their cores collapse, with the protons and electrons essentially melting into each other to form neutrons.

Credit: NASA/Dana Berry

Neutron stars are city-size stellar objects with a mass about 1.4 times that of the sun. Born from the explosive death of another, larger stars, these tiny objects pack quite a punch. Let's take a look at what they are, how they form, and how they vary.

When stars four to eight times as massive as the sun explode in a violent supernova, their outer layers can blow off in an often-spectacular display, leaving behind a small, dense core that continues to collapse. Gravity presses the material in on itself so tightly that protons and electrons combine to make neutrons, yielding the name "neutron star." [Supernova Photos: Great Images of Star Explosions]

Neutron stars pack their mass inside a 20-kilometer (12.4 miles) diameter. They are so dense that a single teaspoon would weigh a billion tons - assuming you somehow managed to snag a sample without being captured by the body's strong gravitational pull. On average, gravity on a neutron star is 2 billion times stronger than gravity on Earth. In fact, it's strong enough to significantly bend radiation from the star in a process known as gravitational lensing, allowing astronomers to see some of the back side of the star.

The power from the supernova that birthed it gives the star an extremely quick rotation, causing it to spin several times in a second. Neutron stars can spin as fast as 43,000 times per minute, gradually slowing over time.

If a neutron star is part of a binary system that survived the deadly blast from its supernova (or if it captured a passing companion), things can get even more interesting. If the second star is less massive than the sun, it pulls mass from its companion into a Roche lobe, a balloon-like cloud of material that orbits the neutron star. Companion stars up to 10 times the sun's mass create similar mass transfers that are more unstable and don't last as long.

Stars more than 10 times as massive as the sun transfer material in the form of stellar wind. The material flows along the magnetic poles of the neutron star, creating X-ray pulsations as it is heated.

By 2010, approximately 1,800 pulsars had been identified through radio detection, with another 70 found by gamma-rays. Some pulsars even have planets orbiting them - and some may turn into planets.

Some neutron stars have jets of materials streaming out of them at nearly the speed of light. As these beams pan past Earth, they flash like the bulb of a lighthouse. Scientists called them pulsars after their pulsing appearance. Normal pulsars spin between 0.1 and 60 times per second, while millisecond pulsars can result as much as 700 times per second.

When X-ray pulsars capture the material flowing from more massive companions, that material interacts with the magnetic field to produce high-powered beams that can be seen in the radio, optical, X-ray or gamma-ray spectrum. Because their main power source comes from the material from their companion, they are often called "accretion-powered pulsars." "Spin-powered pulsars" are driven by the stars rotation, as high-energy electrons interact with the pulsar's magnetic field above their poles. Young neutron stars before they cool can also produce pulses of X-rays when some parts are hotter than others.

As material within a pulsar accelerates within the magnetosphere of a pulsar, the neutron star produces gamma-ray emission. The transfer of energy in these gamma-ray pulsars slows the spin of the star.

The flickering of pulsars is so predictable that researchers are considering using them for spaceflight navigation.

"Some of these millisecond pulsars are extremely regular, clock-like regular," Keith Gendreau of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, told members of the press in 2018.

"We use these pulsars the same way we use the atomic clocks in a GPS navigation system," Gendreau said.

The average neutron star boasts a powerful magnetic field. Earth's magnetic field is around 1 gauss, and the sun's is around a few hundred gauss, according to astrophysicist Paul Sutter. But a neutron star has a trillion-gauss magnetic field.

Magnetars have magnetic fields a thousand times stronger than the average neutron star. The resulting drag causes the star to take longer to rotate.

"That puts magnetars in the No. 1 spot, reigning champions in the universal 'strongest magnetic field' competition," Sutter said. "The numbers are there, but it's hard to wrap our brains around them."

These fields wreak havoc on their local environments, with atoms stretching into pencil-thin rods near magnetars. The dense stars can also drive bursts of high-intensity radiation.

"Get too close to one (say, within 1,000 kilometers, or about 600 miles), and the magnetic fields are strong enough to upset not just your bioelectricity - rendering your nerve impulses hilariously useless - but your very molecular structure," Sutter said. "In a magnetar's field, you just kind of ... dissolve."

With the highest density of any known space object, neutron stars can beam radiation across the galaxy.

Credit: by Karl Tate, Infographics Artist

Like normal stars, two neutron stars can orbit one another. If they are close enough, they can even spiral inwards to their doom in a intense phenomena known as a " kilonova."

The collision of two neutron stars made waves heard 'round the world in 2017, when researchers detected gravitational waves and light coming from the same cosmic smashup. The research also provided the first solid evidence that neutron-star collisions are the source of much of the universe's gold, platinum and other heavy elements.

"The origin of the really heaviest chemical elements in the universe has baffled the scientific community for quite a long time," Hans-Thomas Janka, a senior scientist at MPA, said in a statement. "Now, we have the first observational proof for neutron star mergers as sources; in fact, they could well be the main source of the r-process elements," which are elements heavier than iron, like gold and platinum.

The powerful collision released enormous amounts of light and created gravitational waves that rippled through the universe. But what happened to the two objects after their smashup remains a mystery.

"We don't actually know what happened to the objects at the end," David Shoemaker, a senior research scientist at MIT and a spokesman for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration, said at a 2017 news conference. "We don't know whether it's a black hole, a neutron star or something else."

The observations are thought to be the first of many to come.

"We expect that more neutron-star mergers will soon be observed, and that the observational data from these events will reveal more about the internal structure of matter," study lead author Andreas Bauswein, from the Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies in Germany, said in a statement.

Follow Nola Taylor Redd at @NolaTRedd, Facebook, or Google+. Follow us at @Spacedotcom, Facebook or Google+.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Neutron stars are city-size stellar objects with a mass about 1.4 times that of the sun. Born from the explosive death of another, larger stars, these tiny objects pack quite a punch. Let's take a look at what they are, how they form, and how they vary.

# data[].attributes.headline
 WHAT IS ASTROPHYSICS? BY DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.subject
 WHAT IS ASTROPHYSICS? BY DARSHAN PRABHUNE

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Hubble mosaic unveils a collection of carved knots of gas and dust in a small portion of the Monkey Head Nebula (also known as NGC 2174 and Sharpless Sh2-252). The nebula is a star-forming region that hosts dusky dust clouds silhouetted against glowing gas.

Credit: NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)

Astrophysics is a branch of space science that applies the laws of physics and chemistry to explain the birth, life and death of stars, planets, galaxies, nebulae and other objects in the universe. It has two sibling sciences, astronomy and cosmology, and the lines between them blur.

In the most rigid sense:

Astronomy measures positions, luminosities, motions and other characteristics

Astrophysics creates physical theories of small to medium-size structures in the universe

Cosmology does this for the largest structures, and the universe as a whole.

In practice, the three professions form a tight-knit family. Ask for the position of a nebula or what kind of light it emits, and the astronomer might answer first. Ask what the nebula is made of and how it formed and the astrophysicist will pipe up. Ask how the data fit with the formation of the universe, and the cosmologist would probably jump in. But watch out - for any of these questions, two or three may start talking at once!

Astrophysicists seek to understand the universe and our place in it. At NASA, the goals of astrophysics are "to discover how the universe works, explore how it began and evolved, and search for life on planets around other stars," according NASA's website.

NASA states that those goals produce three broad questions:

How does the universe work?

How did we get here?

Are we alone?

While astronomy is one of the oldest sciences, theoretical astrophysics began with Isaac Newton. Prior to Newton, astronomers described the motions of heavenly bodies using complex mathematical models without a physical basis. Newton showed that a single theory simultaneously explains the orbits of moons and planets in space and the trajectory of a cannonball on Earth. This added to the body of evidence for the (then) startling conclusion that the heavens and Earth are subject to the same physical laws.

Perhaps what most completely separated Newton's model from previous ones is that it is predictive as well as descriptive. Based on aberrations in the orbit of Uranus, astronomers predicted the position of a new planet, which was then observed and named Neptune. Being predictive as well as descriptive is the sign of a mature science, and astrophysics is in this category.

Because the only way we interact with distant objects is by observing the radiation they emit, much of astrophysics has to do with deducing theories that explain the mechanisms that produce this radiation, and provide ideas for how to extract the most information from it. The first ideas about the nature of stars emerged in the mid-19th century from the blossoming science of spectral analysis, which means observing the specific frequencies of light that particular substances absorb and emit when heated. Spectral analysis remains essential to the triumvirate of space sciences, both guiding and testing new theories.

Early spectroscopy provided the first evidence that stars contain substances also present on Earth. Spectroscopy revealed that some nebulae are purely gaseous, while some contain stars. This later helped cement the idea that some nebulae were not nebulae at all - they were other galaxies!

In the early 1920s, Cecilia Payne discovered, using spectroscopy, that stars are predominantly hydrogen (at least until their old age). The spectra of stars also allowed astrophysicists to determine the speed at which they move toward or away from Earth. Just like the sound a vehicle emits is different moving toward us or away from us, because of the Doppler shift, the spectra of stars will change in the same way. In the 1930s, by combining the Doppler shift and Einstein's theory of general relativity, Edwin Hubble provided solid evidence that the universe is expanding. This is also predicted by Einstein's theory, and together form the basis of the Big Bang Theory.

Also in the mid-19th century, the physicists Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) and Gustav Von Helmholtz speculated that gravitational collapse could power the sun, but eventually realized that energy produced this way would only last 100,000 years. Fifty years later, Einstein's famous E=mc equation gave astrophysicists the first clue to what the true source of energy might be (although it turns out that gravitational collapse does play an important role). As nuclear physics, quantum mechanics and particle physics grew in the first half of the 20th century, it became possible to formulate theories for how nuclear fusion could power stars. These theories describe how stars form, live and die, and successfully explain the observed distribution of types of stars, their spectra, luminosities, ages and other features.

Astrophysics is the physics of stars and other distant bodies in the universe, but it also hits close to home. According to the Big Bang Theory, the first stars were almost entirely hydrogen. The nuclear fusion process that energizes them smashes together hydrogen atoms to form the heavier element helium. In 1957, the husband-and-wife astronomer team of Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge, along with physicists William Alfred Fowler and Fred Hoyle, showed how, as stars age, they produce heavier and heavier elements, which they pass on to later generations of stars in ever-greater quantities. It is only in the final stages of the lives of more recent stars that the elements making up the Earth, such as iron (32.1 percent), oxygen (30.1 percent), silicon (15.1 percent), are produced. Another of these elements is carbon, which together with oxygen, make up the bulk of the mass of all living things, including us. Thus, astrophysics tells us that, while we are not all stars, we are all stardust.

Becoming an astrophysicist requires years of observation, training and work. But you can start becoming involved in a small way even in elementary and high school, by joining astronomy clubs, attending local astronomy events, taking free online courses in astronomy and astrophysics, and keeping up with news in the field on a website such as Space.com.

In college, students should aim to (eventually) complete a doctorate in astrophysics, and then take on a post-doctoral position in astrophysics. Astrophysicists can work for the government, university labs and, occasionally, private organizations.

Study.com further recommends the following steps to put you on the path to being an astrophysicist:

Take math and science classes all through high school. Make sure to take a wide variety of science classes. Astronomy and astrophysics often blend elements of biology, chemistry and other sciences to better understand phenomena in the universe. Also keep an eye out for any summer jobs or internships in math or science. Even volunteer work can help bolster your resume.

Pursue a math- or science-related bachelor's degree. While a bachelor in astrophysics is the ideal, there are many other paths to that field. You can do undergraduate study in computer science, for example, which is important to help you analyze data. It's best to speak to your high school guidance counselor or local university to find out what degree programs will help you.

Take on research opportunities. Many universities have labs in which students participate in discoveries - and sometimes even get published. Agencies such as NASA also offer internships from time to time.

Finish a doctorate in astrophysics. A Ph.D. is a long haul, but the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics points out that most astrophysicists do have a doctoral degree. Make sure to include courses in astronomy, computer science, mathematics, physics and statistics to have a wide base of knowledge.

Natalie Hinkel, a planetary astrophysicist who was then at Arizona State University, gave a lengthy interview with Lifehacker in 2015 that provided a glimpse into the rewards and challenges of being a junior astrophysics researcher. She described the long number of years she has put into doing her research, the frequent job switches, her work hours and what it's like to be a woman in a competitive field. She also had an interesting insight about what she actually did day to day. Very little of her time is spent at the telescope.

"I spend the vast majority of my time programming. Most people assume that astronomers spend all of their time at telescopes, but that's only a very small fraction of the job, if at all. I do some observations, but in the past few years I've only been observing twice for a total of about two weeks," Hinkel told Lifehacker.

"Once you get the data, you have to reduce it (i.e. take out the bad parts and process it for real information), usually combine it with other data in order to see the whole picture, and then write a paper about your findings. Since each observation run typically yields data from multiple stars, you don't need to spend all of your time at the telescope to have enough work."

Additional reporting by Elizabeth Howell, Space.com contributor.

Additional resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Astrophysics is a branch of space science that applies the laws of physics and chemistry to explain the birth, life and death of stars, planets, galaxies, nebulae and other objects in the universe. It has two sibling sciences, astronomy and cosmology, and the lines between them blur.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Big Questions | Science Mission Directorate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NASA Science seeks answers to questions that are as old as humanity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the Science Mission Directorate (SMD), the Astrophysics division studies the universe. The science goals of the SMD Astrophysics Division are breathtaking: we seek to understand the universe and our place in it. We are starting to investigate the very moment of creation of the universe and are close to learning the full history of stars and galaxies. We are discovering how planetary systems form and how environments hospitable for life develop. And we will search for the signature of life on other worlds, perhaps to learn that we are not alone.

NASA's goal in Astrophysics is to "Discover how the universe works, explore how it began and evolved, and search for life on planets around other stars." Three broad scientific questions emanate from these goals.

How does the universe work? - Probe the origin and destiny of our universe, including the nature of black holes, dark energy, dark matter and gravity.

How did we get here? - Explore the origin and evolution of the galaxies, stars and planets that make up our universe.

Are we alone? - Discover and study planets around other stars, and explore whether they could harbor life.

Astrophysics comprises of three focused and two cross-cutting programs. These focused programs provide an intellectual framework for advancing science and conducting strategic planning. They include:

The Astrophysics current missions include three of the Great Observatories originally planned in the 1980s and launched over the past 28 years. The current suite of operational Great Observatories include the Hubble Space Telescope, the Chandra X-ray Observatory, and the Spitzer Space Telescope. Additionally, the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope explores the high-energy end of the spectrum. Innovative Explorer missions, such as the Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory, NuSTAR, TESS, as well as Mission of Opportunity NICER, complement the Astrophysics strategic missions. SOFIA, an airborne observatory for infrared astronomy, is in its operational phase and the Kepler mission is engaged in K2 extended mission operations. All of the missions together account for much of humanity's accumulated knowledge of the heavens. Many of these missions have achieved their prime science goals, but continue to produce spectacular results in their extended operations.

NASA-funded investigators also participate in observations, data analysis and developed instruments for the astrophysics missions of our international partners, including ESA's XMM-Newton.

The near future will be dominated by several missions. Currently in development, with especially broad scientific utility, is the James Webb Space Telescope. Also in work are detectors for ESA's Euclid mission and hardware for JAXA's XRISM (X-Ray Imaging and Spectroscopy, previously named XARM) to provide breakthroughs in the study of structure formation of the universe, outflows from galaxy nuclei, and dark matter.

Completing the missions in development, supporting the operational missions, and funding the research and analysis programs will consume most of the Astrophysics Division resources.

In February 2016, NASA formally started the top Astro2010 decadal recommendation, the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST). WFIRST will aid researchers in their efforts to unravel the secrets of dark energy and dark matter, and explore the evolution of the cosmos. It will also discover new worlds outside our solar system and advance the search for worlds that could be suitable for life.

In January 2017, NASA selected the new Small Explorer (SMEX) mission IXPE (Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer) which uses the polarization state of light from astrophysical sources to provide insight into our understanding of X-ray production in objects such as neutron stars and pulsar wind nebulae, as well as stellar and supermassive black holes.

In March 2017, NASA selected the Explorer Mission of Opportunity GUSTO (Galactic/Extragalactic ULDB Spectroscopic Terahertz Observatory) to measure emissions from the interstellar medium to help scientists determine the life cycle of interstellar gas in our Milky Way, witness the formation and destruction of star-forming clouds, and understand the dynamics and gas flow in the vicinity of the center of our galaxy.

The Future

Since the 2001 decadal survey, the way the universe is viewed has changed dramatically. More than 3400 planets have been discovered orbiting distant stars. Black holes are now known to be present at the center of most galaxies, including the Milky Way galaxy. The age, size and shape of the universe have been mapped based on the primordial radiation left by the big bang. And it has been learned that most of the matter in the universe is dark and invisible, and the universe is not only expanding, but accelerating in an unexpected way.

For the long term future, the Astrophysics goals will be guided based on the results of the 2010 Decadal surveyNew Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics. The priority science objectives chosen by the survey committee include: searching for the first stars, galaxies, and black holes; seeking nearby habitable planets; and advancing understanding of the fundamental physics of the universe. In 2016 the New Worlds, New Horizons: A Midterm Assessment was released.

In 2012 the Astrophysics Implementation Plan was released (updated in 2014 and again in 2016) which describes the activities currently being undertaken in response to the decadal survey recommendations within the current budgetary constraints.

The Astrophysics roadmap Enduring Quests, Daring Visions was developed by a task force of the Astrophysics Subcommittee (APS) in 2013. The Roadmap presents a 30-year vision for astrophysics using the most recent decadal survey as the starting point.

Work on the upcoming 2020 decadal survey has commenced. Please visit the " 2020 Decadal Planning" page for additional information about the Large Mission and Probe Mission concept studies currently underway.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discovering the origin, structure, evolution and destiny of the Universe, and searching for Earth-like planets.