Movie Theater Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

[ssgp2]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

The next one maybe?


It is possible that the Eta Carinae hypernova or supernova, when it occurs, could affect Earth, about 7,500 light years away. It is unlikely, however, to affect terrestrial lifeforms directly, as they will be protected from gamma rays by the atmosphere, and from some other cosmic rays by the magnetosphere. The damage would likely be restricted to the upper atmosphere, the ozone layer, spacecraft, including satellites, and any astronauts in space, although a certain few[who?] claim that radiation damage to the upper atmosphere would have catastrophic effects as well. At least one scientist has claimed that when the star explodes, "it would be so bright that you would see it during the day, and you could even read a book by its light at night".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eta_Carinae

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3agymlfFXYY&feature=related"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3agymlfFXYY&feature=related" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

 

[Dogtown]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Like Betelgeuse, Eta Carinea may have already exploded - the light having not yet reached us. Giant stars like those live fast and die young, but on a astronomical scale, so that could be tonight, tomorrow or thousands of years from now - it's hard to say exactly. I personally hope to see Betelgeuse go supernova in my lifetime; it's much closer than Eta Carinea and a red supergiant instead of a binary.

 

[ssgp2]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">. I personally hope to see Betelgeuse go supernova in my lifetime; it's much closer than Eta Carinea and a red supergiant instead of a binary. </div></div>

Yeah!
Well mine is more massive than yours

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

That uncertainty due to the time lag and the vast distances being covered at lightspeed are major parts of the fascination for me.

In essence, the telescope and all other manners of deepspace electromagnetic spectral detection are time machines, looking ever deeper into the past as distances grow, well..., astronomically.

The potential linkage between novae and gamma ray bursts makes proximate pending novae relatively scary. Informed speculation suggests that such an occurrance may have led to at least one planetwide mass extinction in our planet's distant past, and possibly several. In addition to a lethal dosage of Gamma radiation, such an event would likely strip away the ozone layer and sterilize pretty much everything that depends upon DNA for seed/spore/egg based replication. Basically, it's the reset button for life in its entirety.

Greg

 

[Dogtown]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Yup, gamma ray bursts are the ultimate extreme range weapons platform

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

I thoroughly enjoyed this series and will definitely be purchasing the DVD set for multiple watchings.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Reviving this, after reviewing the <span style="font-style: italic">Morgan Freeman/Wormhole</span> series.

Last night was the rebroadcast of the episode <span style="font-style: italic">Dark Matter; Beyond the Darkness</span>.

There was a lot of speculation about dark matter and dark energy. Apparently, massive sums are being spent to detect these things, with results so small I personally speculate they are less than the threshold for error in the analyses.

Much is being postulated on the basis of observable limits and assumptions that are largely theoretical. Logical support for the speculations involves the need to suspend all sense of disbelief and to venture outside the realm of Einstein's rules and definitions.

I think there is some failure here, and a lot of it is a failure of imagination.

Let's look at what is postulated.

The known Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

Stars within galaxies rotate at very similar velocities, which defies known laws of gravity. This is called the Galaxy Rotation Problem/Rubin Paradox.

Mathematical models defining the process by which galaxies are originated cannot be sustained on the bases of visible mass and energy, but do work when the mass (and energy, maybe, I'm not sure) values are revised upward by several multiples.

Here's what we've been able to actually demonstrate.

A term called The CP Violation refers to the reason why our known Universe consists of matter, rather than antimatter, or a mixture of both.

As the post-Bang Universe cooled to the point where some of the energy could begin to condense into matter (and antimatter) the two interacted, annihilating each, re-liberating tremendous quantities of energy. Because there is some very slight imbalance in the rates of annihilation, more matter was created than antimatter, and when effectively all of the antimatter was annihilated, some small proportion of matter remained in existence. Essentially, the amount of matter and antimatter that was annihilated amounts to approximately 910 times the remaining mass.

This small remaining proportion constitutes the known Universe.

Here's what I think.

I think that a great proportion of this annihilation triggered origination of the first black holes, and that because the Universe was very small at the time, much/most of the mass was engulfed within the black holes and the much/most subsequent annihilation and energy release was confined within those black holes. It ain't gettin' out anytime soon.

I think that because of these supermassive Black Holes, which exist at the cores of essentially all galaxies, space time at the local Galactic center is stretched by the immensity of mass, <span style="font-style: italic">and the actual orbital radii of the galaxy's stars is actually many times the length of the visible radii. Because most of the radii are contained within the unobservable black hole, the observable portions constitute only a very small proportion of the entire radii, and their differences are actually very small, hence their similar orbital periods.</span>

Now, then; about the accelerating expansion of the Universe. I think that when we consider the Universe, we're just not thinking big enough.

I believe the basic flaw is that we assume that all we can see is all there is. I think that infinity is, in fact, truly infinite; <span style="font-style: italic">and that when we consider that all we can see is all there is, we impose implied limits on infinity. There is no factual or logical basis for that. There is no factual reason or logical basis to dismiss the concept that what we see is, maybe, just a small portion of an Omniverse that surrounds our known universe on all sides.</span>

So; the acceleration of the known Universe's expansion <span style="font-style: italic">could</span> simply be acceleration due to the gravitic attraction between it and all that other mass, way out there in all those surrounding unknown Universes that inhabit what I will call, for lack of a better term, an <span style="font-style: italic">Omniverse</span>.

If this is possible, no dark mass, dark matter, or any explanation beyond Einstein, Kepler, Newton, etc., is necessary. No strings, no 'branes, no parallel universes, no fifth through eleventh dimensions need be invented.

Unfortunately, I have no University or grants behind me to do more than speculate on any of this. I seriously doubt that any of this will proceed beyond SH. ...And maybe rightly so...

Greg

PS Please note I have delineated my personal speculation by means of <span style="font-style: italic">italics</span>.

 

[Dogtown]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

How does matter/anti-matter annihilation trigger black hole formation? Are you thinking energy densities close to infinity? If so I think while you can get huge amounts of energy in a small spatial volume I don't think there would be enough initial energy/mass to form anything other than the most microscopic black hole which would likely evaporate instantly and not start accreting new matter to grow massive.

And yes, it's possible the Universe is infinite in size however scientist already realize there is a limit to how far they can see, hence the term they use most often is "observable universe."

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Not sure. I think it could be something akin to how Supernovae trigger them.

But that is flawed as well.

The assumption being that the infant universe's energy/mass condensation would have initiated as hydrogen, while a supernova occurs only once all hydrogen has been fused from a stellar mass.

Interesting problem, but my suspicions lead me to consider that the conclusion that the products of the annihilation event(s) have utterly dissipated seems to me to be not a conclusion, but an oversight or oversimplification. I'm think there has to be more to it, the equivalent of 900+ observable universes had to leave some kind of a more obvious mark somewhere.

Hubble radiation, sure, but I'm thinking that's puny by comparison to what I'd be expecting.

The processes extant at the time of transition from a Universe of energy to one which also harbors matter is not something I profess to understand with any clarity. I am certain I am not alone in this, and also that some of it still defies being neatly boxed into theories and well understood sequences; probably by anybody as of yet.

But I still hold out hope that as the physicists say, the Universe may not make sense to us, but it does to itself, and that's what matters.

I also believe like Holmes that the simplest explanation, however bizarre, remains the likeliest. All this theoretical invention and convolution is overly complex, no matter how elegant it may appear, to fit such a criterion.

I want my universe to be elegantly simple. My thinking attempts to find the simplest explanations.

My thinking is that whatever energies and mass are being termed 'black' are indeed black, but essentially because they are trapped in the black holes. If the assumption that every galaxy has a supermassive black hole at its core, that galactic formation hinges on such a presence, is valid, then the black energy/mass/holes are as uniformly distributed throughout the observable universe in the same manner as galaxies. This parallels the assertions about the distribution of the invisible energies and masses.

We are stepping off the curb into a new era of astronomical exploration, with all of the newer orbital observatories that utilize spectra other than the visible. Initial data appear to indicate that whatever we're looking for isn't turning up under such observations.

I think we're looking for the right things in the wrong places.

If the Universe/Omniverse/whatever is indeed infinite, then the boundaries are indescribable, or more likely nonexistent.

To my thinking, such boundaries would be defined as regimes beyond which the laws of physics are incomprehensible/inapplicable.

Such places already exist, just the other side of the black holes' event horizons. So my view is that when one seeks the borders of the known Universe, one must look inward, and not outward. When one looks for the invisible, that's my guess about where it's all sequestered.

Greg

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Nanotubes, Buckyballs, and now, Graphene.

Whattahoot!

 

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

I for one am running out of popcorn waiting for the LHC project to pronounce judgment on the Higgs boson particle.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... according to the aerodynamicists, the bumble bee should be flightless....</div></div>
High speed videography provided the missing link. Their wings swivel throughout each stroke, much like sculling with a boat oar. They even can 'flap' one wing independent of the other. Their specialization apparently traded a more efficient form of flight for one that provided precise control so they can sidle through the blooms with minimal risk of dislodging pollen.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nanotubes, Buckyballs, and now, Graphene.

Whattahoot! </div></div>
As an ardent bicyclist, I dream of the day when I can buy a reasonably-priced Buckyball frame.

 

[Dogtown]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Fred, they need to confirm the other known elementary particles in the Standard Model before starting the hunt for the Higgs. It's taken almost 20 years to build the beast and only recently did they start running it at higher energies than the Tevatron - have patience.

The good news is the energy window they're going to be able to look into will either reveal the Higgs or rule it out, so either way we're going to see some progress in Physics in the next 3-5 years, and that's without considering what surprises may be in store.

 

[Mute]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Wow! I don't know what's scarier, that the above sounds plausible or that I actually understood what was written.

 

[Seekers]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Let's take government mandated social engineering clusterf*cks out of the mix.</div></div>

+1,000

This should be the NO/LAST PRIORITY INSTEAD OF THE FIRST! And no business of Government AT ALL!

OK, I'll shut up now before this gets locked or I get banned.

Seekers

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Missing mass, my a**!

Current Universe star count has just been increased by a factor of three...

Greg

 

[Dogtown]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Patience. It will take significantly more than this single paper to rule out Dark Matter. Increasing the Red Dwarf count isn't going to resolve the missing mass problem, though it could make a minor dent. Remember, it was suggested in the past that Brown Dwarf stars could make up the missing mass but that was easily ruled out. Both of those star types are low mass, much less in fact than our G-class Sun, and there's quite a bit more evidence for Dark Matter than just the missing mass problem. To believe this would somehow rule out DM would beg the question: how could the increased M-class star count explain the non-Keplerian motion of galaxies? Not to mention this wouldn't change the BaryonM ratio determined by WMAP data in any significant way.

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Patience. It will take significantly more than this single paper to rule out Dark Matter. Increasing the Red Dwarf count isn't going to resolve the missing mass problem, though it could make a minor dent. Remember, it was suggested in the past that Brown Dwarf stars could make up the missing mass but that was easily ruled out. Both of those star types are low mass, much less in fact than our G-class Sun, and there's quite a bit more evidence for Dark Matter than just the missing mass problem. To believe this would somehow rule out DM would beg the question: how could the increased M-class star count explain the non-Keplerian motion of galaxies? Not to mention this wouldn't change the BaryonM ratio determined by WMAP data in any significant way. </div></div>

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vPkGEVgOJK0"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vPkGEVgOJK0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

c'mon considering the measures of scale here it's not even worth consideration that tripling the star count can begin to account for dark matter

I went and saw Aleksei Fillipenko speak about a month ago on dark energy/dark matter was pretty good. Unsurprisingly mysteries remain.

Dogtown have you read The Tao of Physics?

This talk is actually really revealing for people to understand how we've come to the conclusions that the universe is expanding, how we know the speed, and these types of things.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

I think that dark matter is a misnomer.

I prefer to think of it more as unaccounted matter.

I think that the far side of the event horizons of singularities are neither dimensionless nor fully enumerated. A mass at a given distance exerts but 1/4 the gravitic attraction as the same mass at half the distance. I believe that considerably greater mass exists within the singularities than is currently accepted, and that there is some derivation of the inverse square rule at work within those singularities. I believe that this may be an attribute that could explain the galactic rotational velocity anomoly, and consider that anomoly as somewhat of a proof about my 'inverse square'/additional mass proposal.

Superlight velocity insists that more energy must be employed to accelerate a mass beyond light speed that exists within the entire universe. OK. But likewise, the current sum of mass and energy existant is only a very small percentage of that which was present at the instant of creation. Under such circumstances, might not enough energy been present to accelerate cosiderable mass beyond lightspeed? If so, what could have happened to that mass? Could it cross some threshhiold and enter/become singlarities? Cosmologists say singularities exist centric to all galaxies, and were present prior to their formation, in fact were obligatory to said formatoons.

I think that galaxies, singularities, and 'missing' mass are insufficiently understood, and that the current crop of paradoxes are not due to complex cogitative inventions, but rather to insufficient understanding and recognition of existing data. We can't even acquit the coexistanence of quantum theory with Newtonian and Einsteinian physics theory. I think we need to resolve that before we embark upon pangalactic 'Brane surgery.

Greg

 

[Dogtown]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

I don't think you're giving the physics status quo enough credit. CMB data alone shows evidence for DM and realize that just because we don't know what it is, knowing its properties and how it fits into the CMB data is enough to say it's "something" and not scientists flailing about intellectually.

I'm not fully getting how you think there's more mass in black holes than we think? Observing how objects move around them is the simplest way to determine their mass. This is exactly how the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy was "weighed."

Superlight velocities are impossible according to General Relativity and the more you understand Einstein's equations, the more you're realize that it's just a property of the Universe. (good read: "Why E=mc2 and why it matters") And yes, mass increases with velocity at relativistic speeds so as you approach 100% the speed of light it requires infinite energy to accelerate beyond that. That alone rules out faster than light speed through space. The classic caveat is the space itself can move faster than light, however.

Galaxy formation isn't still fully understood but it looks like supermassive black holes play an important part. So which came first, the galaxy or the black hole? I think that's a pretty easy one actually because we do know that the first stars that formed around 150 millions after the Big Bang were full Eddington scale monsters that lived fast and died young, all of them leaving behind a massive black hole. And the further back in time we look we see galaxies as irregular shaped messes, leading one to conclude the first black holes likely led to the first galaxies.

For more on the evidence for DM, check out...

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/11/the_simplest_argument_for_dark.php

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/11/hey_dark_matter_where_are_you.php

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think you're giving the physics status quo enough credit. CMB data alone shows evidence for DM and realize that just because we don't know what it is, knowing its properties and how it fits into the CMB data is enough to say it's "something" and not scientists flailing about intellectually.

I'm not fully getting how you think there's more mass in black holes than we think? Observing how objects move around them is the simplest way to determine their mass. This is exactly how the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy was "weighed."

Superlight velocities are impossible according to General Relativity and the more you understand Einstein's equations, the more you're realize that it's just a property of the Universe. (good read: "Why E=mc2 and why it matters") And yes, mass increases with velocity at relativistic speeds so as you approach 100% the speed of light it requires infinite energy to accelerate beyond that. That alone rules out faster than light speed through space. The classic caveat is the space itself can move faster than light, however.

Galaxy formation isn't still fully understood but it looks like supermassive black holes play an important part. So which came first, the galaxy or the black hole? I think that's a pretty easy one actually because we do know that the first stars that formed around 150 millions after the Big Bang were full Eddington scale monsters that lived fast and died young, all of them leaving behind a massive black hole. And the further back in time we look we see galaxies as irregular shaped messes, leading one to conclude the first black holes likely led to the first galaxies.

For more on the evidence for DM, check out...

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/11/the_simplest_argument_for_dark.php

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/11/hey_dark_matter_where_are_you.php </div></div>

Couldn't resist physics troll

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

A given mass attracts with a given value at a given distance, more at less, and less at more. In order to attain equivalent attraction at a greater distance, greater mass is required. It is a matter of spatial distortion.

Current models are theoretical regarding orbital radii about a singularity. Nobody knows the interior conditions (or dimensions) of a singularity.

Orbital center points (and therefore radii) can be in doubt.

We could be measuring them as originating at the event horizon. Or, we could be estimating a center point equivalent with the center of the accretion disk.

But without truly understanding the nature and manner of spatial distortion beyond the event horizon, we could be wrong (perhaps immensely wrong), in either instance.

If we are estimating the mass of the singularity based on the behavior of external masses and making assumptions about the orbital radii, then misunderstanding the radius means we are also misunderstanding the magnitude of the masses involved. If the greater resultant distortion mitigates toward far greater radii, then the masses involves must be equally greater.

It is just such a rethinking which could be at the basis of the galactic rotation anomaly. If one assumes that the rotational velocity differentials are smaller because the unseen (internal to the singularity) part of each radius is actually far greater, then what we are actually observing is the outer portion of vastly longer orbital radii. Under such a condition, orbital velocity variances would be proportionally smaller, which is precisely what we observe.

It could be that this galactic rotation anomaly provides evidence for vastly greater mass within singularities.

Greg

 

[Dogtown]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Sorry, but that doesn't seem to make sense to me. The physical radius of an object in this case is irrelevant as mass and distance are the key factors in gravitational force. Analyzing orbits to determine mass has zero to do with physical size - it's not even a term in Einstein's field equations. Sure, we'd like to know what's physically going on beyond the event horizon of black holes, but we don't NEED to know to determine its mass. Instead all we need is objects orbiting a black hole, determine the mass of those objects, then look at their orbits to determine the gravitational force exerted on them.

That's well established physics.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Maybe. Folks told Columbus the world was flat, too.

Well defined physics might be hard pressed to prove the existence of dark matter, too. But folks don't seem to have any better explanation for Dr.Vera Rubin's galactic rotation paradox than to 'invent' dark matter.

Just because the concept enjoys current popularity doesn't ensure its reliability. I suggest research into 'phlogiston'. Who among us is to say that our current grasp of cosmology is all that far advanced beyond the anciant Greeks? Are we closer? Sure. Are we actually in the ball park yet? I'd suggest the jury's still out on that one.

Gravitational force is dependent on mass, yes; but it is force acting over distance, subject to the inverse square rule. I'm not talking about the size of objects. I'm talking about the distances across which they act, and suggesting that the definitions of singularities are still indistinct, and especially with regard to the effects of the singularity's mass on orbiting objects, as noted by Dr. Rubin. Suggesting distance has no consequence in this argument is illogical. I don't know the (functional/effective) distance of the mass beyond the event horizon, and neither does anybody else. Conventional thinking makes assumptions regarding such distances, which may or may not hae any relation to actual values. Dr. Rubin's observations would sucggest they don't.

I choose to think in terms of larger possibilities, and it appears you may disagree. I can live with either.

Greg

 

[Dogtown]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Distance between objects and the physical size of objects are two different things. If the Sun were to suddenly collapse into a singularity of the same mass, NO orbits in the solar system would change, even though the physical size of the sun is much less in this scenario. The fact that the mass hasn't changed means that the gravitational effect is the same at the same distance. Size doesn't matter when it comes to gravitation. This is exactly why tracking objects orbiting a black hole is an effective way to determine its mass.

And inventing DM isn't arbitrary. It's based on observational data and as I stated in a previous post there's much more evidence for it than simply "the missing mass problem."

 

[Dogtown]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Actually, let me rephrase the "size doesn't matter when it comes to gravitation." It's only relevant when you have significant mass in tiny objects ONLY because the tiny size allows you to get physically closer to the center point of gravity. In the scenario I mentioned, the sun collapsing to a black hole of the same mass wouldn't change the orbits of the planets. It would however make it incredibly dangerous to get close. Because of the inverse square law the gravitational force will become MUCH stronger as you approach the black hole BECAUSE you can physically get closer to it (whereas before you would have smacked into the sun well before hand).

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Distance between objects and the physical size of objects are two different things. If the Sun were to suddenly collapse into a singularity of the same mass, NO orbits in the solar system would change, even though the physical size of the sun is much less in this scenario. The fact that the mass hasn't changed means that the gravitational effect is the same at the same distance. Size doesn't matter when it comes to gravitation. This is exactly why tracking objects orbiting a black hole is an effective way to determine its mass.

And inventing DM isn't arbitrary. It's based on observational data and as I stated in a previous post there's much more evidence for it than simply "the missing mass problem."

</div></div>

That video I posted should deal with all of this. Atleast I'd be surprised if it doesn't live he discusses it.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

OK. I'm failing to make my point. Nothing new there...

Not being snide, I just think there's a point when a dialogue fails to have meaninful value.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

OK, I'm gonna make one more try at this. It's speculation, so bear with me.

Mass distorts the fabric of space. These distortions play games with the distances and angles that affect energy and matter.

Let us suppose that when a singularity becomes supermassive, the fabric becomes so distorted that its mass tends to act effectively as though its center had grown further and further from the event horizon. Let's imagine this as the more massive singularity having a greater 'depth'. In so doing, might not this new effective distance be added to the orbital radius? If so, then its gravitic attraction could be seen to be acting across a greater overall distance.

Therefore, wouldn't the true mass need to be greater in order to achieve the same orbital path?

It's a theory.

Greg

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK, I'm gonna make one more try at this. It's speculation, so bear with me.

Mass distorts the fabric of space. These distortions play games with the distances and angles that affect energy and matter.

Let us suppose that when a singlarity becomes supermassive, the fabric becomes so distorted that its mass tends to act effectively as though its center had grown further and further from the event horizon. Let's imagine this as the more massive singularity having a greater 'depth'. In so doing, might not this new effective distance be added to the orbital radius? If so, then its gravitic attraction could be seen to be acting across a greater overall distance.

Therefore, wouldn't the true mass need to be greater in order to acheive the same orbital path?

It's a theory.

Greg </div></div>

Interesting idea! I can definitely see why you might come to this idea, although I don't know that there's evidence of this currently. I don't know enough about super massive blackholes to confirm or deny the idea, but I don't see why the scale here would change the general laws of relativity.

Then again stranger things have happened in science maybe dogtown can speak to this he's definitely more knowledgeable in this area than I am.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

I can consider this because I really don't believe the current evidence either supports or refutes such a concept.

I'm trying to work within the gray areas to see if some sort of explanation can be crafted for the Galactic Rotation Paradox and the Missing Mass Hypothesis that can exist without the presence of dark matter.

IMHO, the dark matter concept is just a bit too trite and unlikely to coexist with Einsteinian physics. IMHO, it' no more convincing than phlogiston.

When we study the <span style="font-style: italic">history</span> of science, we are repeatedly, perhaps constantly, reminded that for that entire time span while mankind has considered his environment, essentially every scientist and every theory has been disproven and displaced by new ones, which have, in turn, gone under the gun as well. All any of us can really say is that current evidence disproves prior. Personally, I have no more faith in what is currently vogue than what was so in the 1940's, for instance. I was literate and aware of basic science in the early 1950's and I've seen a buncha concepts come and go.

Greg

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can consider this because I really don't believe the current evidence either supports or refutes such a concept.

I'm trying to work within the gray areas to see if some sort of explanation can be crafted for the Galactic Rotation Paradox and the Missing Mass Hypothesis that can exist without the presence of dark matter.

IMHO, the dark matter concept is just a bit too trite and unlikely to coexist with Einsteinian physics. IMHO, it' no more convincing than phlogiston.

When we study the <span style="font-style: italic">history</span> of science, we are repeatedly, perhaps constantly, reminded that for that entire time span while mankind has considered his environment, essentially every scientist and every theory has been disproven and displaced by new ones, which have, in turn, gone under the gun as well. All any of us can really say is that current evidence disproves prior. Personally, I have no more faith in what is currently vogue than what was so in the 1940's, for instance. I was literate and aware of basic science in the early 1950's and I've seen a buncha concepts come and go.

Greg </div></div>

I prefer to think of it as a pyramid of knowledge that often has the top lopped off, and is then capped with a succesively larger pyramid of knowledge if that makes sense

After all, Newton is still relevant in many ways despite his many deficiencies for describing many things big and small.

I think darkmatter as a concept largely stands as more of a description of what we don't know than what we do. We can clearly see the forces at work, but we're lacking foundational knowledge required to illuminate them. Perhaps banging enough hadrons together will result in a new way of looking at these things. At worst we'll determine we're barking up the wrong tree and start working in another direction.

Einstein knew where the limits of his theory left off and with that I'll just quote drop Fred Hoyle;

"Present-day developments in cosmology are coming to suggest rather insistently that everyday conditions could not persist but for the distant parts of the Universe, that all our ideas of space and gemoetry would become entirely invalid if the distant parts of the Universe were taken away. Our everyday experience even down to the smallest details seems to be so closely integrated to the grand-scale features of the Universe that it is well-nigh impossible to contemplate the two being separated."

Darkmatter may end up with a more formal name, or be understood more clearly, but the effect of it will remain the same. Alexei F describes a stretching of space which effectively changes the forces we are familiar with. I imagine that to understand darkmatter as an answer you need to start with taking that into account, namely the stretch of the quantum fabric of space occurring between galaxies as the Universe expands. Really the transition from particles to waves and from energy to various particles is still being molded and until it is we won't really surpass the dark matter/energy hurdle.

Physics has followed a relatively linear path since the 1950s from what I can see looking back over it. There may have been research into all kinds of non-sequitor areas, but we don't arrive at Quantumfield or Electrodynamic theory withought every step prior. I expect that to continue even if Einstein's observations end up being significantly refined to account for new knowledge.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Much reading and thought later, I am prompted to question even deeper origins of the missing matter/expanding universe-based theories.

All of the redshift phenomena are assumed to be based upon Doppler effect.

A plausible assumption, but one becomes compelled to wonder whether such an assumption is quite so bulletproof. Were it to be faulty, were the redshift to derive from another, as yet unknown, <span style="font-style: italic">or unconsidered</span> cosmological phenomenon; then a lot of cards would fall.

It's like the old joke; we now know why lab mice develop cancer in test scenarios. Lab mice always develop cancer whatever the scenario.

Substitute redshift for mice; entertain the suggestion that redshift is a natural and inevitable consequence of light travelling across mega-intergalactic distances <span style="font-style: italic">and no other provable influence</span>, and a lot of ducks fall into rows.

So let me ask another question. If one were to remove the Doppler assumption as the explanation of redshift, what other evidence supports an expanding universe, and all the other baggage it brings to the journey? How about Parallax? Does it actually reveal receding targets?

When one really gets down to it, actual observational data does not reliably and directly correlate with theory, and no less than four (or more?) 'special states' must be employed to 'explain' the 'anomalies'.

Personally, I wonder just how solid a foundation actually supports theory expounding an expanding universe, missing mass, and dark matter.

Greg

 

[Dogtown]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Just remember that in science you rarely have one piece of information supporting the foundation of a theory but instead they typically have multiple legs supporting. Doppler Shift is well documented as a property of waves and there is no reason to believe that it's incorrect or different in other locations. The Dark Matter concept is supported by different independent lines of data and observation, not just the missing matter question.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Yes, no question about Doppler shift being a real phenomenon.

The question is, rather, whether it can be the only explanation for redshift.

I would imagine the dark matter question is equally well supported by observation, but how much does redshift figure into the explanations assigned to those observations?

My thoughts venture into phenomena like spatial curvature, gravity lensing, and the chromatic aberration/dispersion common to lensing. Such interactions might also well explain the dominance of lower wavelengths among electromagnetic radiations with the farthest origins. One needs but observe a sunset to know how reds can dominate an image without Doppler being a factor. The recent Lunar Eclipse makes another statement in this regard.

The one thing you can say with practical certainty is that light traversing mega intergalactic distances does <span style="font-style: italic">not</span> travel in straight lines, being instead deflected by gravitic lensing and/or spatial curvature; the greater the distance, the greater the deflection.

The more deflection, the closer the object actually is, giving over to the illusion of expansion. The light of an object has actually travelled a greater distance than the true distance between it and the observer. The greater the distance, the more instances of curvature and lensing are likely to occur.

In a universe populated with gravity wells and time-space curvatures; extragalactic objects must, by definition, always be closer than they appear, and the further they they are, the greater the disparity. They will practically never be located in the precise direction where they appear to be when viewed from any finite point. Space-time curvature demands it.

Given such simple truths, would light frequencies be shifted over mega intergalactic intervals, and in what manner?

Wish I could say, but I do think it's a good question.

Greg

 

[Dogtown]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

The "tired light" idea fell apart a long time ago so still to this day the only reason light wavelengths shift is from velocity of source and the expansion of the Universe. Gravity cannot stretch light, only distort its path. Remember there's a Conservation of Energy in nature so that if light was losing energy via gravitational distortion it would radiate or bleed that energy in one way or another, and that's not observed.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Good things to think about. I aways learn something when I dialogue with you. Enjoyed the exchange.

Greg

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Actually, I was not aware of the 'tired light' concept, nor was I intentionally referring to quite such a phenomenon.

Your post led me to Internet research on the specific concept of 'tired light', and I must admit, cleared up a few misconceptions on my part, mainly by offering evidence to support your own view.

I also learned that while being dominant views, the dark matter and accelerating expansion concepts are consensus views, and that other views still have respectable advocates. The issue I find most interesting is that for either/any of the prevailing theories to be supported, those theories must be adapted to fit observational data, whether pro or con the dark matter and accelerating expansion concepts.

To my my thinking, all this establishes is that both the theoretical and observational realms still possess some 'wiggle room', and both should be considered subject to refinement and at least some small reservation.

I have no problems with consensus views, and in fact; I would constitutionally have more suspicion of universal and absolute agreement upon any view.

It is my coming to terms with the unreliability of absolutes that leads me to question the dogmatic acceptance that redshift can only be explained by Doppler and expansion, and that photons can traverse mega intergalactic vastness, interact with other bodies/particles/waves, gravitic influences both vast and subtle, and still come out of it all with no appreciable alteration.

At the very least, I'd be a lot more comfortable if someone could finally determine to my eager/meager understanding whether a photon is a wave, or a particle, or something yet again. And the mechanics behind gravity, that's even less well defined. I'm getting that uneasy feeling again about the emperor's clothes, dark matter, and the whichness of why, etc.

But your arguments do have me tending more in your direction than previously.

Greg

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Just acquired the series on DVD; Wal-Mart, $10. It includes a short segment, 'Hawking 101'; a rather trite and irrelevent effort to give Prof. Hawking a more mainstream/folksy image(?). It adds little of value to the product.

Currently auditing the episodes. The content never fails to provoke more thought. As popular science, it's both appealing and informative, if also rather tamely speculative and mass-appeal-oriented. It hits its mark, but leaves me with somewhat more questions than answers.

He appears to make an effort to gloss over the poor congruence between Einstein's physics and Quantum Mechanics. I'd be remiss to take it at that.

I think that questions detailing immediate boundaries between spatial regions like event horizons; and relationships involving the extremes of time, temperature, and their effects on subatomic partical interactions are the places where more data is needed and where the broadest insights will originate.

Greg

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
He appears to make an effort to gloss over the poor congruence between Einstein's physics and Quantum Mechanics. I'd be remiss to take it at that.

I think that questions detailing immediate boundaries between spatial regions like event horizons; and relationships involving the extremes of time, temperature, and their effects on subatomic partical interactions are the places where more data is needed and where the broadest insights will originate.

Greg </div></div>

We're all lucky to be alive at a time when just such fascinating insights are being slowly unraveled!

They're still making sense of Hadron collision experiments of recent and all kinds of exciting information is becoming available.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

For me, this is the most exciting time of my life where physics and cosmology are concerned. As I am in my mid-60's and experiencing uncertain health, there is an element of feeling cheated. Some of that uncertanty has been allayed by recent indications of continued incremental heart health improvement, but I still treasure each chance I get to learn more of these subjects. The new VA Doctor tells me I am finally in good enough shape to indulge in a more aggressive exercise regimen. At this point that means walks and some of the more tame gym apparati.

Greg

 

[Dogtown]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

Indeed, the average person probably hasn't a clue to the new renaissance in physics and cosmology we are living through at this moment. Barely 15 years ago we weren't sure about exoplanets and now we've cataloged nearly 1000. Until WMAP, pretty much all cosmology was theoretical - now there's a flood of data to work off of. With the Spitzer, WISE, Fermi, and Kepler probes (and soon Hubble's replacement) collecting data, let along the LHC, we're poised to take a rather large step forward in our understanding of the Universe over the next 20 years or so.

 

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

It's not just physics, look what's happened to anthropology and paleoanthropology as a result of DNA sequencing and the Genome Project. I'm amazed how the different disciplines can correlate historic events like the Toba supereruption and the African diaspora with contractions or expansions in the human genome, plus putting a time stamp on the changes.

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fred_C_Dobbs</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's not just physics, look what's happened to anthropology and paleoanthropology as a result of DNA sequencing and the Genome Project. I'm amazed how the different disciplines can correlate historic events like the Toba supereruption and the African diaspora with contractions or expansions in the human genome, plus putting a time stamp on the changes. </div></div>

I found these events so exciting I decided to go back to school

Polymerase Chain reactions just started happening in the last 10 years didn't they? Imagine how that will impact the future.

Biology is like a sleeping giant of innovation just waiting to explode into our daily lives like the last 25 years have been impacted by advances in computer science.

I don't know how scared I should be of the whole thing, but eitherway I'm really excited!

 

[Dogtown]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

My prediction for the area of scientific knowledge that will fuck up social norms: neurology. In the next 50 years I think it's reasonable that we will have a highly deterministic view of the brain's functions. That's going to open up yet another front the religious fundamentalists will have to fight against.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

When you think about it, personal computing is still plagued with a major stumbling block, the user interface.

Crichton examined it in his fictional work, <span style="font-style: italic">Terminal Man</span>. Nothing in the system moves "at the speed of thought". The computers work immensely faster; the user interface, immensely slower.

Could we envision where Hawking's work would be if he could transfer his thoughts directly into and back out of the number cruncher?

Greg

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When you think about it, personal computing is still plagued with a major stumbling block, the user interface.

Crichton examined it in his fictional work, <span style="font-style: italic">Terminal Man</span>. Nothing in the system moves "at the speed of thought". The computers work immensely faster; the user interface, immensely slower.

Could we envision where Hawking's work would be if he could transfer his thoughts directly into and back out of the number cruncher?

Greg </div></div>

Interfacing the signals of the brain to direct electrical whether they be physical or otherwise will be one of the great biological revelations that people will have trouble imagining now, but will change the world at the same pace as the information revolution.

Of course, all of this exists inside the bubble of haves and have nots which is going to probably continue growing.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

It would go beyond being a revolution, being instead a huge evolutionary advance.

Before we say it's meddling, let's consider that many, maybe most children being delivered today were born via C-Section, and may not have otherwise survived a natural birth. When we think about Dark Ages Apocalyptic issues, let's consider what an edge this gives to the Third World.

Humanity has already naturally selected itself to be incapable of breeding without technological help.

I figure now that we're already firmly implanted within the midst of an irrevocable dependence on advanced technology; the rest is not only appropriate, it may even be proper.

Greg

 

[Dogtown]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

http://abstrusegoose.com/337

 

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://abstrusegoose.com/337 </div></div>
You won't catch me "jacking in" until Micro$loth is out of the software bidness.

 

[teknikallysekure]

Re: Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fred_C_Dobbs</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dogtown</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://abstrusegoose.com/337 </div></div>
You won't catch me "jacking in" until Micro$loth is out of the software bidness. </div></div>

Actully the current boogeyman is Google, Microsoft is already at the point of post relevance.