Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

For the other Astronuts out there

Discussion in 'Free Fire Zone' started by Biak, Nov 2, 2011.

  1. GRW

    GRW Pillboxologist Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    18,977
    Likes Received:
    2,151
    Location:
    Stirling, Scotland
    Well cor blimey, and luvvaduck.
    "It has been one of the most frustrating paradoxes of modern science - that light exists both as a wave and particle at the same time but can never be seen in both states simultaneously.
    Albert Einstein was the first person to describe this apparent dual state of light in 1905 in an attempt to explain some of the apparently contradictory behaviour it displays.
    Yet when scientists attempt to observe these states, it has only ever been able to see light behave as photon particle or as an electromagnetic wave.
    But now researchers based at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL), have captured the first ever snapshot of light behaving as both a wave and particle.
    The work shows that Einstein was right when he proposed that electromagnetic radiation could behave as both a wave and a particle at the same time.
    The technique for capturing the image could be used to help open up new areas of superfast computers that exploit the quantum states of materials.
    He said: 'This experiment demonstrates that, for the first time ever, we can film quantum mechanics - and its paradoxical nature - directly.
    'Being able to image and control quantum phenomena at the nanometer scale like this opens up a new route towards quantum computing.'
    The wave-like behaviour of light can be seen clearly when sunlight is refracted through a prism and splits into the different colours according to the wavelengths of the light.
    However, it can also be seen behaving like a particle - like photons hurled out as radiation by materials like uranium or when gas high in the atmosphere is battered by the solar wind to produce the aurora over the poles.
    In a paper published in the journal Nature Communications, the research team conducted an experiment and then used electrons to image the light.
    By firing a pulse of laser light at a tiny metal wire suspended on graphene, this added energy to the particle wire and caused them to vibrate."
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2977849/Einstein-RIGHT-Light-captured-wave-particle-time-photograph.html#ixzz3TNH7I2l9
     
  2. Poppy

    Poppy grasshopper Patron  

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    6,950
    Likes Received:
    572
    There was a bit recently about how the universe may not have had a beginning.
    So maybe the Big Bang is incorrect.
     
  3. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,747
    Likes Received:
    821
    I see the Big Bang as a cycle...blows out...then retracts to a singularity, then explodes again...current thinking may preclude this, but it is current thinking...plenty of models support the BB theory...it just maybe there's more than we are thinking, some additional factor .No! Imagine that...
     
  4. CAC

    CAC Ace of Spades

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,747
    Likes Received:
    821
    This is a bit of a der moment on one hand and massive news on the other. All matter exists as both...the proof in photographic form was just the last peice, not overly necessary. You can prove to yourself this theory any sunny day of the week....get an object, any object and put it out on a sunny day or put a lamp on in a dark room...and look at the objects' shadow....your brain sees a black shadow (and thinks light must be a particle, bouncing off the object)
    But look closer...the edges of that shadow aren't crisp as should be, instead there's a gray halo around the edge...Some of the light has bent around the object! Just like a wave! Proof of the theory in front of you all the time...
     
  5. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    10,154
    Likes Received:
    1,583
    Cyclic Universe vs. Endless Expansion vs. Steady State. I don't think we have a good grip on "the big picture" yet. If we do it would be like Orville and Wilbur getting it right on their first attempt at flight.
     
  6. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,291
    Likes Received:
    1,223
    Location:
    Michigan
    From what I recall reading the current rates of expansion look like they preclude a cyclical contraction and expansion. That sort of cycle would also tend to shift the ratio of the elements I would think with Iron eventually becoming the most common element.
     
  7. Biak

    Biak Adjutant

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    6,470
    Likes Received:
    934
    I still go with the Steady State Theory. Finding new Galaxies that don't conform to the physics of the BB theory are becoming fairly routine. I've said it before and still believe there was no beginning and will be no end for the Universe.
    Measuring vast distances by observation leaves too much room for error. Or as in most cases, personnel bias.
     
  8. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,291
    Likes Received:
    1,223
    Location:
    Michigan
    The fact that the universe is expanding rather points to there being a beginning of at least this expansion. The correlation of spectra with distance also suggest that. Steady state seems to me to be the least likely. A series of contractions and expansions is a possiblity but the question then becomes how do you differentiate this from the big ban theory. If you want to get into meatphysics then it's been speculated that universes are created when hyper strings or surfaces contact each other. So I guess you could have a more or less stead state "megaverse" with this model but it's rather dificult to test these hypothesis at least at this time.
     
  9. Biak

    Biak Adjutant

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    6,470
    Likes Received:
    934
    It is not a fact but a theory that the Universe is expanding. Cosmology is based on theories written each time a new observation puts into question a previous theory's explanation for an event. One being the expansion theory, which (in one case), was derived from observations of seeing Galaxies and other matter somehow accurately "measured" to be older than the Universe.

    It was not that long ago that the age of the Universe had been definitely estimated at being 6 Billion years old. Then 10 Billions years. Now 13.8 Billion years old. Each time was after the advancement in optical capability. I will not be surprised that after the next generation of Space telescope is put into operation the age will increase yet again. We should hear about this in the next couple of years.

    Even Stephen Hawking has recanted a few of his earlier proclamations after later studies. His statement of "nothing can escape an black hole" changed after observations of matter exiting the poles. Which is now known as Hawking Radiation.

    Recently another Galaxy was observed that is estimated to have evolved within 800,000,000 years after the Big bang. The explanation now being "things happened quicker than they do now". It takes 10's of millions, if not 100's of Millions of years to create one Sun and to have a Galaxy with Billions of Suns appear from 'nothing' in such a 'relatively' short time will no doubt cause the Theoretical Physicists to postulate another theory.
     
  10. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,291
    Likes Received:
    1,223
    Location:
    Michigan
    It's more than that. There is little esle to explain the fact that the further you get the greater the red shift of the objects detected. If new galaxies were forming across space or in one particuar region this would also be pretty obvious by the spectra of the various objects detected.

    Certainly possible but those ages were usually cast as minimums if you looked closely at the scientific litterature (as opposed to the popular literature). I wouldn't be surprised if the age is pushed back some but the type of objects being detected at the extremis doesn't suggest a huge jump unless of course they start detecting a new type of object which is certainly possible.

    Much of the early work and especially the popularization of black holes assumed that they were essentialy static objects. Once rotation was taken into account the possiblity of them excreteing matter became almost a certainty and it was/is suspected that smaller ones may even "evaperate".

    According to http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/how-do-stars-form-and-evolve/ it took Sol about 50,000,000 years to form from the start of the cloud collapsing until it reached "adulthood". Other stars would likely form both faster and slower but simultaneously. If the gas clouds were denser as they likely would be shortlya fter the Big Bang then star formation should be considerably faster and of course the formation of various stars would be mostly independent and in parallel. This article:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe
    suggest that stars started forming about 400,000,000 years after the big bang but if the gas clouds that prior to this alread were clupted into what would become galaxies it's not at all unreasonable that you could discern a galaxy at that point in time. There's also the question of how that time was determined. Was the base line how long ago the galaxy formed compared to estimates of the age of the universe or was the estimate base on the time from the Big Bang until the galaxy formed?
    Note that:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#Structure_formation
    Suggest that there are around 10 galaxies that formed within 500,000,000 years of the big bang.
    And this article suggest that the first galaxies formed 400,000,000 years after the big bang.
    http://firstgalaxies.org/the-early-universe
    And this one seems to indicate that galaxy and star fromation started in the period of 300,000,000 to 500,000,000 years after the big bang so your galaxy that formed 800,000,000 years ago seems quite reasonable.
     
  11. Biak

    Biak Adjutant

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    6,470
    Likes Received:
    934
    The expansion theory is used to explain some but leaves other unanswered questions. And creates many others.
    Angular Momentum was always known and in the equation, there were other considerations leading to the radiation escape.
    You assume I read only Popular Science?
    As for the recent discovery of the new Galaxy I hope you contact Nasa and the other Scientist working on this to explain how it is reasonable. Since they are all scratching their heads. Here is what I was referring to;

    "But A1689-zD1 defies that expectation: It's only about 700 million years old but holds a dust fraction that rivals that of the Milky Way (which, for comparison's sake, is about 13 billion years old)."

    I will not get into a debate over a simple post. Oh and my mistake I was off by 100 million.
     
  12. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,291
    Likes Received:
    1,223
    Location:
    Michigan
    As soft as the numbers are I certainly wouldn't worry about 700 million vs 800 million especially as the the latter is a more conservative number as regards to yor point. Wish you had posted a link however as the way it's posted it seems to be talking about the age of the galaxy rather than the time since the big bang and the dust fraction seems to be a sticking point.

    Looking at http://www.eso.org/public/usa/news/eso1508/ I don't see all that much in the way of head scratching defintily changeing the view of things though. And of course it does look like they determined the age of the galaxy by subtracting the distance from the estimated age of the universe so if the age of the universe gets pushed back a bit more it would be considered older. Indeed the the quote you gave seems to make the error of assuming the galaxy formed at the start of the universe but most of the links above would suggest that it wouldn't have formed for several 100 millin years after that.
    This link also doesn't make it seem to me like the galaxy is causing all that much head scratching although it is yielding some new insights:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14164.html
    The same seems to hold for:
    http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic0805/
     
  13. Biak

    Biak Adjutant

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    6,470
    Likes Received:
    934
    http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-highly-evolved-galaxy-early-universe-02553.html

    http://www.wallstreetotc.com/astronomers-find-a-mysterious-galaxy-that-is-too-mature-for-its-age/216192/

    http://www.natureworldreport.com/2015/03/04/mysterious-ancient-dust-filled-galaxy-baffles-scientists/

    And you can also Google " A1689-zD1 " for more.


    Nowhere does it state the Galaxy was formed at the beginning. It clearly says 700,000,000 years AFTER the supposedly big bang.

    Which has no bearing anyway. The dust observed should not be there in the quantity it is due to the age of the Galaxy.
     
  14. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,291
    Likes Received:
    1,223
    Location:
    Michigan
    Well your quote above said the galaxy was 700 million years old and the links that I listed above all said that the images are of the galaxy as of ~700 million years after the beginning of the universe. Looks a lot to me like 1 + 1 = 2. And indeed looking at your link:
    http://www.wallstreetotc.com/astronomers-find-a-mysterious-galaxy-that-is-too-mature-for-its-age/216192/
    So if the universe formed 700 million years prior to the galaxy's image we are seeing and it's 700 million years old then the only conclusion was that it formed at the same time that the universe was formed. Or the people writing the article screwed up.
    http://www.natureworldreport.com/2015/03/04/mysterious-ancient-dust-filled-galaxy-baffles-scientists/
    Makes a similar statment. The ones I linked above (which I did get by googleing by the way) didn't make that mistake but they all seem fairly consistent. Not exactly what was expected but hardly invalidating the Big Bang.
     
  15. Biak

    Biak Adjutant

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    6,470
    Likes Received:
    934
    Which is exactly my point; IF the Universe had a beginning.


    It is this old because according to Hubble Law and Big Bang proponents : it is 12.1 Billion light-years away from Earth. And we all know that the greater distance we see out into Space the farther back in time we are looking. The Galaxy in question is seen as it was when it was 700,000,000 years old (because it is 12.1 B lyr away) and which due to BigBang places it, due to the distance, 7 hundred million years after the Big Bang because we are told the BB happened 12.8 B lyrs ago. Rather ironic. Which places it too young to have the physical make-up of such an early Galaxy.

    Of course this is all based on the Universe being create from a Singularity at the beginning of Everything.

    If on the other hand, the measurement systems use to calculate Distances and therefore the related extrapolated Age of the Universe are flawed or merely off by a fraction of a fraction of a percent, the Galaxy could be far older than observed. Maybe just maybe Forever.
    Red shifting has nothing to do with the distance something is but with the momentum away from the observer.
     
  16. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,291
    Likes Received:
    1,223
    Location:
    Michigan
    I gathered that, I just don't see that you posts support it very well.

    NO. You are correct that we are seeing the galaxy as it was 12.1 Billion years ago. However we have no way of determining when it was formed so we don't really know how old it really is. Certainly if the Universe came into being 12.8 B years ago then it can't be any older than 700 million years but the galaxies are thought to have formed several hundred million years after the Big Bang so the galaxy in question is almost certainly not 700 million years old. Probably more like half that. Of course if the universe is older then the galaxy could be as well. Then there's the possiblity that the assumption of an isotropic universe is off a bit. Certainly the theories that talk of phase changes in the early universe implicitly bring this to question.

    Except I haven't seen any real calculations as to how old the Galaxy is. You are correct that it could be a bit older or even a bit younger if some of the assumptons and/or measurements are off a bit. Not sure what the impact of this is though.

    ??? Red shift is only related to momentum becuase it's related to the relative veloctiy of the two objects. On the other hand extra galactic and especiall very distant objects do show a correlation between their red shif and their distance.
     
  17. Biak

    Biak Adjutant

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    6,470
    Likes Received:
    934
    Did you read the articles? Seriously, you should contact the Scientists and ask them about your hypothesis.
     
  18. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,291
    Likes Received:
    1,223
    Location:
    Michigan
    What hypothesis? I read the articles. They didn't find quite what they expected but don't seem in any rush to junk the Big Bang theory and for good reason. For one thing what steady state theory is consistent with the observations and what we know of physics. Ossilating universes either don't work or end up with all or almost all the matter collapsing down into a sinularity and then something has to cause it to break up which is in essence a new "Big Bang". Steady state would require an area or areas where mass is being created, no sign of those. So what exactly are you proposing as an alternative?
     
  19. GRW

    GRW Pillboxologist Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Messages:
    18,977
    Likes Received:
    2,151
    Location:
    Stirling, Scotland
    Oh, Jesus wept...
    "ALIEN conspiracy theorists have pounced on images of Mars released from India claiming they show a nuclear bomb mushroom cloud rising from the planet's surface.
    UFO conspiracy theorists compared shapes in images of Mars to this nuclear blast
    Startling images of the geology of the "Red Planet" captured by India's space probe currently orbiting Mars are being used by online alien hunters as "evidence" that a civilisation may have been wiped off the face of Mars…and NASA is somehow involved in a cover up.
    The image that is going viral across the web is a zoomed in section of Valles Marineris 2,500-mile long canyon on Mars which have been uploaded to the website of the Indian Space Research Organisation.
    But it has been quickly debunked as an optical illusion by scientists across the world.
    Despite this, Youtube channel UFOvni Disclosure has published a short film showing the "cloud of smoke" which it claims is either an extra-terrestrial methane or nuclear explosion
    Sub titles on the video say: "India's Mars orbiter captured something strange in the gigantic Valles Marineris Canyon of Mars. The image shows a huge mushroom cloud and we may wonder whether it is an enormous rare dust wind cloud , or caused due to a nuclear or methane explosion."
    The theory has been further fuelled by UFO buffs amid claims the image was taken around the time the comet Siding Spring passed close to the planet around October 19 last year, nearly a year after the probe was launched."
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/562873/Scientists-dismiss-Martian-nuclear-bomb-blast-conspiracy-theory-as-optical-illusion
     
  20. Biak

    Biak Adjutant

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    6,470
    Likes Received:
    934
    It was probably just the Gronons taking potshots at Mars as they rode by on the comet. Kinda like Rednecks shooting at empty beer bottles.
     

Share This Page