Title doesn't match submission: it's not really a "coordinate" in 3D space, you "adopt" a pixel from the early imagery taken by the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope.
Maybe that can be reverse-projected back to something like a coordinate (if you know the distance), but it's not the same thing.
It's a coordinate on the celestial sphere, which is just as good a coordinate as anything else. Now, if the title had said something like "place" you might have a case that the expectation is that a specific spacetime point is being defined.
It's not even that though if we are going to be nit-picky: it's a coordinate (not quite sure what the pixel extent would subtend to solid-angle-wise, but...) based off the coordinate frame of where the space telescope will be when the image is taken in spherical coordinates.
That's not "exclusive". The "pixel" is the exclusive bit.
With much charity I can imagine you meant: "but what if Roman points at the same bit twice and they assign the same patch of sky to different people?". Well, in that case they probably messed up because to me it seems clear they intend to assign each patch of sky to a distinct identity.
However, as written it sounds like you are essentially objecting that an address along Central Park (in New York city) is "not exclusive" because there are other "Central Park"s in the USA.
that's only true if Roman were to do a continuous stare. However, it (as with any telescope) has to re-point from time to time in order to look at different targets.
They numbered all the pixels in the CCD of the telescope's sensors. The WFI is a 300.8-megapixel camera. So each pixel in that array is numbered. Wherever the telescope looks, your pixel will sense some light or darkness. That's it. That's the Tweet.
No coordinates involved. In fact, you'll need some math to convert the ordinal numbers of the pixels back into a 2D coordinate on the plane of the sensor array. It's laid out in a unique way. You can see the layout in the official logo.
Maybe we could map a discrete GUID to some amount of cubic volume of the universe and say that you 'own' that GUID and cubic volume of space.
Referencing how many possible GUID can exist:
The total number of theoretically possible GUIDs (Globally Unique Identifiers) is 2¹²⁸, which equals exactly 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456. This is approximately 3.4 × 10³⁸ (340 undecillion) unique values
a really quick calculation says that if you assigned every cubic area of the universe (ignoring that it's spherical?!) to a single GUID, each GUID would 'own' a cube of space about 680 AU on each side. So there's not really that many GUID.
This is a complete tangent, but how would you identify which cubic volume you own?
Would it:
1. Somehow remain static as stars and planets moved through it?
2. Be relative to some coordinate system that we define?
3. Follow some object like an asteroid or planet?
Option (1) is literally impossible. We tend to think of space on Earth as something you can reliably divide up statically, e.g. you can divide the space inside a box up into cubic segments, and that works fine. But in that case, you've defined a coordinate system relative to the box, which is of course moving through space relative to everything else. You eliminate the motion issue by making everything relative to the box.
We can't meaningfully do anything similar for the space between astronomical objects. Everything is moving relative to everything else, and there's no way to "stick a pin" in space. In a very real sense, there is no such thing as a fixed, static volume of space - space is relational, it's what exists between separated objects, it's not an object that can be divided up statically. All the relevant physical theories - special and general relativity, and quantum physics - confirm this.
For option (2), we can try to define a box - a coordinate system relative to Earth, or the Sun, or the Milky Way galaxy, or the Local Group of galaxies, or the Laniekea supercluster, etc. But those are all moving relative to everything else, so any location we identify with coordinates based on that will similarly be moving. One day you might own a piece of space on one side of the Andromeda galaxy, the next day it would be out in intergalactic space (because at those distances, radial coordinates move fast!)
You might think that perhaps we can define coordinates relative to the cosmic microwave background (CMB) rest frame - the reference frame in which the CMB radiation looks uniform and identical in every direction, i.e. not redshifted or blueshifted. In a certain cosmological sense, this is a good candidate for the rest frame of the universe. But the problem is, how do you assign coordinate values to that? You're left with the same basic problem - any point you pick either can't be reliably identified, or is moving along with some chosen object.
Option (3) ends up being the most sensible, for the relational reason I mentioned: we can, in many cases, reliably identify a particular object in space. Now we're back to the "star registry" kinds of scenarios, where you "own" a star. Owning a piece of space can't really work.
As this is all very theoretical and silly I think the only viable option would be to define some spherical or cubic volume of space with an individual star at the center, and say your unique ID number 'owns' that section of space. Which would over a geological time scale move along with the star's movement within its galaxy and the universe as a whole.
What about rotation, though? E.g. if you fix a coordinate system on Earth, then it rotates through the entire universe on a daily basis.
We might want to use something like the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF), which is designed to avoid rotation with respect to certain distant extragalactic objects.
It could make sense to sell spacetime worldtubes instead.
> geological time scale
Things appear to move slowly when viewed from the origin of the coordinate system, but unless you take steps to avoid it, like using comoving coordinates, then at great distances the motion of any given parcel would be enormous relative to local matter, easily exceeding the speed of light.
I got to say that while i had heard about jwst every week or so on how it was getting delayed and being overrun with costs, I didnt hear anything about Nancy grace. They were similar in price too.
It’d be nice if we could see the pixel in an image preview. We have images for every pixel assignable, some even as sharp as the ones the telescope will get.
They do this reachout all the time. I've got my (and family members) names on a usb stick held inside it and Mars lander (the non-mobile seismograph, whose name escapes me)
They do that for pretty much everything. It’s a nice way to involve the public. It’s mostly harmless (you won’t use an address you consider sensitive).
It’s something of a pity NASA doesn’t offer that chance to crush 1,000 independent peace loving democratic galaxies in my brutal rise to power as my soldier fanatics sweep the universe.
I’d pay for that. More exciting than owning a pixel.
I don't think there is a wrong pixel, each of them maps into thousands of galaxies but many of them may be outside of our visible sphere of the universe. The fact that even light from those subjects can't reach you is surely just a minor technicality
In fairness, nothing about the initials "non fungible token" ever really required a blockchain.
Though I suppose the only things which I'm aware of which actually benefit from a blockchain was version control systems like git.
(I heard there's some cases where self-executing contractual obligations are a money saver versus proving you're not engaged in unlawful collusion with the counterparty, but as this didn't come from a lawyer I don't even know if that was true).
Title doesn't match submission: it's not really a "coordinate" in 3D space, you "adopt" a pixel from the early imagery taken by the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope.
Maybe that can be reverse-projected back to something like a coordinate (if you know the distance), but it's not the same thing.
It's a coordinate on the celestial sphere, which is just as good a coordinate as anything else. Now, if the title had said something like "place" you might have a case that the expectation is that a specific spacetime point is being defined.
So you get a lot more than one point for your money, you get a semi-infinite line. EDIT: Is really cone, see below.
It's actually more like a really, really tall pyramid.
If you get a black pixel you get a 46 billion light-year line-cone
by the same logic, you get a lot more than your home lot, but also 6400km of rock below it
just as useless in practical terms
Are you saying this may be a bad investment?
It's not even that though if we are going to be nit-picky: it's a coordinate (not quite sure what the pixel extent would subtend to solid-angle-wise, but...) based off the coordinate frame of where the space telescope will be when the image is taken in spherical coordinates.
That's not "exclusive". The "pixel" is the exclusive bit.
With much charity I can imagine you meant: "but what if Roman points at the same bit twice and they assign the same patch of sky to different people?". Well, in that case they probably messed up because to me it seems clear they intend to assign each patch of sky to a distinct identity.
However, as written it sounds like you are essentially objecting that an address along Central Park (in New York city) is "not exclusive" because there are other "Central Park"s in the USA.
that's only true if Roman were to do a continuous stare. However, it (as with any telescope) has to re-point from time to time in order to look at different targets.
It's not a coordinate. It's not on any sphere.
They numbered all the pixels in the CCD of the telescope's sensors. The WFI is a 300.8-megapixel camera. So each pixel in that array is numbered. Wherever the telescope looks, your pixel will sense some light or darkness. That's it. That's the Tweet.
No coordinates involved. In fact, you'll need some math to convert the ordinal numbers of the pixels back into a 2D coordinate on the plane of the sensor array. It's laid out in a unique way. You can see the layout in the official logo.
Thank you for the clarification. My brain read the headline and imagined a combination of what3words and the stargate address system!
It's a solid angle basically, right ? That's a coordinate
NasaFTs are back in style!
Maybe we could map a discrete GUID to some amount of cubic volume of the universe and say that you 'own' that GUID and cubic volume of space.
Referencing how many possible GUID can exist:
The total number of theoretically possible GUIDs (Globally Unique Identifiers) is 2¹²⁸, which equals exactly 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456. This is approximately 3.4 × 10³⁸ (340 undecillion) unique values
a really quick calculation says that if you assigned every cubic area of the universe (ignoring that it's spherical?!) to a single GUID, each GUID would 'own' a cube of space about 680 AU on each side. So there's not really that many GUID.
This is a complete tangent, but how would you identify which cubic volume you own?
Would it:
1. Somehow remain static as stars and planets moved through it?
2. Be relative to some coordinate system that we define?
3. Follow some object like an asteroid or planet?
Option (1) is literally impossible. We tend to think of space on Earth as something you can reliably divide up statically, e.g. you can divide the space inside a box up into cubic segments, and that works fine. But in that case, you've defined a coordinate system relative to the box, which is of course moving through space relative to everything else. You eliminate the motion issue by making everything relative to the box.
We can't meaningfully do anything similar for the space between astronomical objects. Everything is moving relative to everything else, and there's no way to "stick a pin" in space. In a very real sense, there is no such thing as a fixed, static volume of space - space is relational, it's what exists between separated objects, it's not an object that can be divided up statically. All the relevant physical theories - special and general relativity, and quantum physics - confirm this.
For option (2), we can try to define a box - a coordinate system relative to Earth, or the Sun, or the Milky Way galaxy, or the Local Group of galaxies, or the Laniekea supercluster, etc. But those are all moving relative to everything else, so any location we identify with coordinates based on that will similarly be moving. One day you might own a piece of space on one side of the Andromeda galaxy, the next day it would be out in intergalactic space (because at those distances, radial coordinates move fast!)
You might think that perhaps we can define coordinates relative to the cosmic microwave background (CMB) rest frame - the reference frame in which the CMB radiation looks uniform and identical in every direction, i.e. not redshifted or blueshifted. In a certain cosmological sense, this is a good candidate for the rest frame of the universe. But the problem is, how do you assign coordinate values to that? You're left with the same basic problem - any point you pick either can't be reliably identified, or is moving along with some chosen object.
Option (3) ends up being the most sensible, for the relational reason I mentioned: we can, in many cases, reliably identify a particular object in space. Now we're back to the "star registry" kinds of scenarios, where you "own" a star. Owning a piece of space can't really work.
As this is all very theoretical and silly I think the only viable option would be to define some spherical or cubic volume of space with an individual star at the center, and say your unique ID number 'owns' that section of space. Which would over a geological time scale move along with the star's movement within its galaxy and the universe as a whole.
What about rotation, though? E.g. if you fix a coordinate system on Earth, then it rotates through the entire universe on a daily basis.
We might want to use something like the International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF), which is designed to avoid rotation with respect to certain distant extragalactic objects.
You'd also need to take the expansion of the universe into account. You'd really need to start using comoving coordinates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoving_and_proper_distances)
It could make sense to sell spacetime worldtubes instead.
> geological time scale
Things appear to move slowly when viewed from the origin of the coordinate system, but unless you take steps to avoid it, like using comoving coordinates, then at great distances the motion of any given parcel would be enormous relative to local matter, easily exceeding the speed of light.
We should dice up time instead.
You're on the right track. We really need to dice up spacetime. Everyone can purchase their own spacetime worldtube.
This reminds me of xkcd/865.
https://xkcd.com/865
My exclusive coordinates are whatever space I currently occupy.
I got to say that while i had heard about jwst every week or so on how it was getting delayed and being overrun with costs, I didnt hear anything about Nancy grace. They were similar in price too.
Good try, federal agency, good try.
Fair correction: this is a pixel in Roman’s detector and its corresponding image data, not a permanently owned 3D location in the universe.
Joke's on them, I already own a star from the International Star Registry 8)
Is lake Michigan taken?
Not any more. The governor of Wisconsin just renamed it.
It’d be nice if we could see the pixel in an image preview. We have images for every pixel assignable, some even as sharp as the ones the telescope will get.
I'm happily surprised they didn't ask for money.
They do this reachout all the time. I've got my (and family members) names on a usb stick held inside it and Mars lander (the non-mobile seismograph, whose name escapes me)
whose*
thanks
phoenix
I love the official certificate! Well worth my email address!
If I adopt a coordinate, does that make me a Space Lord or Space Baron?
What a great way to harvest an email list lol
Just use a temp email (if they allow it) and screenshot the email you'll receive?
It's much like their previous stuff - e.g. send your name to the Moon.
And there's definitely cheaper approaches than sending a $2.7b telescope to L2.
They do that for pretty much everything. It’s a nice way to involve the public. It’s mostly harmless (you won’t use an address you consider sensitive).
I wish to be named Emperor of One Thousand Galaxies.
Please see:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Norton
Yes, I would wear that little emperors hat too.
(And, the sword. The sword is a must ...
... poor sap: The sword was amongst the very few possessions found in his rented room when he died, suddenly and peniless.-
You sir shall be my loyal adviser and Master of Assassins.
(!)
It’s something of a pity NASA doesn’t offer that chance to crush 1,000 independent peace loving democratic galaxies in my brutal rise to power as my soldier fanatics sweep the universe.
I’d pay for that. More exciting than owning a pixel.
Imagine the headlines NASA To Sell the Universe.
You just gotta choose the right pixel
I don't think there is a wrong pixel, each of them maps into thousands of galaxies but many of them may be outside of our visible sphere of the universe. The fact that even light from those subjects can't reach you is surely just a minor technicality
here is a product preview .
Title closer to original: Adopt a Pixel on one of the first images from NASA Nancy Grace Roman Telescope
OK, I adopted Pixel 00150921. It has some nice divisors including 9. Hit me up.
But which one is mine? :S
Later on you can hover over the image, and the tooltip will pop up the address. It will be a great resource for contacting interesting people! /s
The generated image has an em dash in it.
Is this an NFT without the block chain? Sounds like it from a quick skim.
The idea of personalised pixels goes back way before NFTs, such as The Million Dollar Homepage[1]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Million_Dollar_Homepage
Jeez, that takes me back. I could have sworn that it was earlier than 2005 though
So, simply a *centralized* database?
Like a plain old database ?
"NFT without the Blockchain" is a weird thing to say
In fairness, nothing about the initials "non fungible token" ever really required a blockchain.
Though I suppose the only things which I'm aware of which actually benefit from a blockchain was version control systems like git.
(I heard there's some cases where self-executing contractual obligations are a money saver versus proving you're not engaged in unlawful collusion with the counterparty, but as this didn't come from a lawyer I don't even know if that was true).