Black hole destroys corona High-energy X-rays emanating from a gigantic black hole rapidly petered out before it roared back to life again, leaving astronomers bewildered. An international team of scientists have been observing the hole, 1ES 1927+654, for years. It’s estimated to be roughly 19 million solar masses, and is classified as an active …
Actually, technically, in computer science it does.
That's in fact PRECISELY what it means.
RTP & RTSP, for example, are explicitly not real time, in a CS context, despite their names. All they do is provide to a human the illusion of realtime via non-interruption of stream on average. Dig down to the jitter handling if you initially disagree. Note the time-averaging, too. Likewise, by definition, Unix is not nor can ever be a realtime system. Google realtime systems.
If you can't be arsed crawling through the specs (which I whole-heartedly understand; not everyone is as anal as me), you can get a 2second total grokking of the concept by putting 2 radios next to each other: 1 DAB, 1 FM, both tuned to the same simulcast station. Note the DAB radio is always audibly "behind" the FM radio. Usually just a split-second but sometimes longer.
FM is realtime; DAB is not.
OP is talking realtime ("FM"); the downvoters are talking pseudo-realtime ("DAB").
OP cosymart made a joke based on this correct knowledge.
OK, technically and precisely, FM is not realtime, due to the speed of light delay between the broadcast station and your radio.
Give me a break: I was just trying to find an example readily understandable to non-CS types which would provide that zen-like enlightenment moment re the underlying core concept.
FM is realtime; DAB is not.
In both cases a 1 hour program(me) takes 1 hour to listen to, so both are realtime.
In both cases any observed point in the program(me) is delayed by a period from the moment when it was transmitted, either by processing delays or speed-of-light delays, but those processing delays are bounded and the speed-of-light delay is defined by the distance. FM radio is exactly as "real time" as the signals from this 100million-light-year distant black hole.
Actually, technically, in computer science it does. That's in fact PRECISELY what it means.
It doesn't because such a thing is not physically possible, and even computer scientists should know enough physics to know that.
What it actually means is something like 'the proper time between two timelike-separated and causally-related events A and B is some combination of bounded above by some constant and, usually more importantly, deterministic enough'. For instance 'the proper time between A and B needs to be no more than 3ms, and it also must not vary by more than 0.03ms between different runs'.
Going back to the original comment, the whole point is that the definition of 'now' which makes this thing happen long ago is frame-dependent and thus almost entirely useless. The only reasonable frame independent definition of 'now' would say that this event is, in fact, happening now.
That's why I gave my version of 'real time' uses the physically meaningful (frame-independent) notion of proper time: it might not be correct, but any definition that actually means something will use the notion of proper time.
This post has been deleted by its author
I think the only useful definition of 'now' is 'on the light cone of an event'. This is useful because it's invariant: any world-lines which pass through an event share the same light cone associated with the event.
On the other hand that's quite far from the standard definition of 'now'.
Depends on the speed of light, too.
Which is not a constant (swirl a Bose-Einstein condensate faster than IIRC 4mph: Look! A black hole!).
(which has some verrrrrry interesting mathematical consequences. A là Dirac's 30s prediction of half the universe, only discovered empirically in the 50s 60s+ . Spin too fast: you exit "now".)
The things people explore with BECs are analogues of black holes: they are not actually black holes. In particular the things that are trapped in such objects are phonons – quanta of sound, not light. BECs are useful for these analogue models because they are very nearly perfect fluids and the speed of sound in them is tiny.
None of this has anything to do with the constancy of the speed of light. There is no evidence that the speed of light is not constant in an inertial frame. Indeed, since general relativity treats the speed of light essentially as a problem in our choice of units (we should have used seconds for everything, or metres for everything) then demonstrating that the speed of light varies would mean falsify GR (and in fact special relativity with it). Lots of people, me included, would love to do that, but these theories keep passing tests.
Before and After aren't valid concepts for space-like separated events... It depends on who is measuring whether the Corona still exists or not.
It's only at the point that the enough time passes for information (speed of light) to reach all observers that the Event is time-like separated, and everyone can agree that it has already happened.
I believe this is one of those counterintuitive examples of relativity. Whilst you will never see an object cross the event horizon (it will just be red-shifted to Kingdom Come to the point of invisibility) it’s plain sailing from the object’s point of view. It will just pass through the event horizon like it will in any other regular patch of space. Never to leave again, of course.
How can it be plain sailing? If even light can't get past the event horizon, surely nerve impulses that want to travel away from the black hole can't either? Or carriers of force of any kind? How can things exchange photons or gluons away from the black hole? Does a whole dimension disappear, space become two dimensional rather than three? That seems very weird, on top of the whole infinitely-long-to-cross but the black hole dissolving again in finite time. Black holes are stupid.
but the light that bounced off you and the radio transmissions you made saying "everything is fine, no idea why you were so worried"?
Those never make it back out.
If the hole is sufficiently massive then you probably survive just fine until your air runs out - while a small hole rips your legs off due to gravitational gradients.
Everything you raised is roughly correct. Re nerve impulses becoming effectively one-way, eg, roughly same as the simple tidal strains which tear objects apart eg planets, stars. Your brain (if diving headfirst) would feel your limbs thrashing around at increasingly lunatic speed, whilst your limbs would be moving slower and slower as the brain's signals came slower and slower. (V.sharp gradient implied to have this effect over ~6ft...)
Further to your gut reactions, Einstein had pretty much precisely the same problems, when he looked at the limit of his theory.
This post has been deleted by its author
I believe Space and Time sort of flip-flop once you cross the event horizon, if we're to trust Roger Penrose. That's difficult for me to grasp. Outside the black hole, time seems to go on for infinity. If that flips inside the black hole, then space would go on for ... nearly infinity. There's plenty of room to not bunch up. I haven't slept in a long while, so feel free to disregard this as nonsense.
Well if you consider the possibility there is no such thing as time, its merely forward motion in the next dimension up, one planck frame at a time, then its starts to make sense. Time is probably a local phenomena, since we dont really know if a) the universe is closed or infinite, or b) the amount of energy in the universe is fixed or variable, in which case th Second Law of Thermodynamics is thus probably invalid when applied to the entire Universe and thus Entropy isnt what it seems, making time an unsupported concept...after all neither Relativity nor Quantum Theory are REQUIRED to have time, and in fact theres no sign of it at a quantum level. And i'd rate Penrose as smarter then Einstein or Hawking.
What is never mentioned is that by the time something finally enters the black hole the external universe could have ceased to exist and the black hole itself could have evaporated. God knows how this would seem from the objects POV but I suspect this is where theory runs out and speculation begins.
The mass and entropy is added to the Black Hole. These are related according the surface area of the Event Horizon. There isn't a reliable model of what happens to the matter while in this state - well as far as I know (which is not much).
Energy can't directly leave a Black Hole, but spontaneously generated Matter/Anti-matter particles are visible as Hawking radiation if the Anti-matter enters the Black Hole. So I guess at the very least, Matter/Anti-matter destruction functions in a BH, as this causes the Black Hole to "evaporate".
Most likely "something else" happens in a BH, because basically none of the current models Physics models we have can work there (we're currently at the point where they predict that BH can't exist in the first place). Most scientists leave these conjectures to SciFi movies... except when lubricated at the pub.
If you ignore the black hole evaporation thing (which, OK, is ignoring most of the interesting things here) it's worth noting that, from the infalling observer's POV they don't see the whole history of the universe unfold if they look out. All the information from the future history of the universe never catches up with them.
First of all from the perspective of the thing falling in it takes a finite (and very short) time (see below for a note).
From the perspective of a distant observer it does indeed take an unbounded amount of time. However what you (the distant observer) don't see is the infalling stuff hovering forever just outside the horizon. As things fall in any light (or any other information) they emit gets very rapidly dimmer and very rapidly more red-shifted. This means that the rate of arrival of photons at the distant observer drops dramatically over time. In a very short time (a small fraction of a second), the last photon which will ever reach the distant observer from the infalling matter has reached them. At that point there is no way of detecting the infalling matter any more: for all intents and purposes it is gone.
Note. If we assume (which we do now assume) that black holes have finite but normally extremely long lives, eventually evaporating through Hawking radiation in the (very!) distant future of the universe, then there's an obvious problem here, because the distant observer can reason that the infalling matter never quite reached the horizon, so surely it never did, and in fact the infalling matter never does pass the horizon because the black hole vanishes in front of it. I don't understand the resolution of this apparent paradox. But, importantly, it doesn't matter for any of the above.
I think that the paradox is less than it sounds. While the BH is a BH then you see the infalling effect, and it takes infinitely long for an object to fall in. If your BH evaporates, then the infinite time effect stops applying and you see a huge mass.
Whether matter "goes through" the Event Horizon is not really known (AFAIK). Like Schrodinger's cat, the space inside is disconnected from us, so unless you open the box it could be doing anything...
"I think that the paradox is less than it sounds. While the BH is a BH then you see the infalling effect, and it takes infinitely long for an object to fall in. If your BH evaporates, then the infinite time effect stops applying and you see a huge mass."
So, as we approach the heat death of the universe, only b;ack holes will be left with most of the mass of the universe "accreted" to their event horizons. As the only attractors left in the universe, they all eventually merge until that final evaporation and all the matter "stuck" the event horizon suddenly re-appears in "normal" space with a huge bang?
That "expand forever" idea evaporates if light loses energy as it travels. Which would be seen as a red-shift. At which point much of astronomy gets tipped upsidedown and the necessary extrapolation (which is all it is; people keep forgetting that) of the Big Bang goes away as a theoretical fiction as valid as Phlogiston. Which was equally well supported by the limited facts to hand at the time.
> If your BH evaporates, then the infinite time effect stops applying and you see a huge mass.
Assuming a black hole can evaporate to the point where it no longer has enough mass to form a black hole then, presumably, what is left will become visible. But whatever is left won't be a huge mass because it has to be small enough not to become a BH - so no more than a few solar masses.
There's no classical lower bound on the mass of a BH, so it goes right down to (very close to) zero, but the power emitted gets very large as the BH gets very light. I said 'very close to zero' because at some point you can't treat the object classically any more and you will need some proper quantum theory of gravity to know what is happening. This will only matter when it's extremely light though.
Yes, this is why I called it an 'apparent paradox'. What interests me is what things would look like from the point of view of an observer falling towards a horizon if the object is evaporating. I think this is what the whole 'firewall' thing is about: the thing must necessarily evaporate before they reach it, and since this take finite (and very short) proper time for the observer, they see the horizon as this extremely violent source of radiation.
However I'm really a classical GR person, I've realised that I don't have time left to understand both classical GR and QM so I don't worry about this. In my tiny world BHs are well-behaved classical objects and none of this pesky Hawking stuff happens.
There won't ever be a 'last' photon. It might take 1 year for the next photon to be emitted once it's ALMOST fallen in, then 100 years for the next, then 10,000 years for the next, then a million years etc but there can't be a last photon. Like there's no last prime number. Until the black hole evaporates and whatever was falling in isn't falling in any more which is very odd if the thing from its perspective ACTUALLY DID fall in.
The event horizon of a black hole is the surface described by points at which the escape velocity equals the speed of light.
Lots and LOTS of people have trouble understanding what this implies. A photon created at the event horizon and aimed directly away from the center would (in a perfectly symmetric world & absent other interactions) never return. But if it were angled 179 degrees from the center, it would behave like a cannonball.
Whats more, a photon formed a short distance inside the event horizon, and angled 179.9 degrees away from center, might only deflect to being 179 degrees from center as it passes the event horizon.
In the frame of reference of an object falling into a black hole, there current escape velocity is a mere curiosity. What matters is things like the difference in the gravitational pull experienced by one part of the object relative to another. As mentioned, for supermassive black holes, this is negligible at the event horizon.
Whats more, a photon formed a short distance inside the event horizon, and angled 179.9 degrees away from center, might only deflect to being 179 degrees from center as it passes the event horizon.
I'm not sure I understand you, but it is certainly not the case that anything which originates inside the event horizon ever passes it. There are no future-directed timelike or null curves which pass through any event inside the event horizon which cross the event horizon.
Watch out, that only works if you reverse the polarity of the neutron flow.
Ironically, you could do worse. Star Trek and Doctor Who had (or use to have) scientific advisers to help write their technobabble.
I was really surprised to meet the "Tachyon particle" in Special Relativity. It's a hypothetical particle (and so far not detected) travelling faster than the speed of light and thus "backwards in time".
Also if you reverse the polarity of an electric current, often electronics explodes. You'd think those consoles on the Starship Enterprise would have fuses and diodes...
"Yeah, I shouldn't have used Dr. Who as an example - He/She'd have used the Sonic Screwdriver to get away"
Not necessarily - it's only the recent stories that can't be bothered to come up with a decent solution. William Hartnell would have explained it all in a way a child (of space and time) could understand. Patrick Troughton would have played his flute at it. John Pertwee would have taken Bessie for a spin across it. Tom Baker would have offered it a jelly baby. Peter Davidson would have bowled it out (or got Adric to solve the equations while Tegan bored the poor thing to tears). Colin Baker would have made it go crazy. Sylvester McCoy would have asked Ace to feed it some Nitro Nine. Paul McGann would have married it. Christopher Ecclestone would have told it not to get typecast. David Tennant would have raised his eyebrow at it. Matt Smith would have gone all timey-wimey on it's ass. Peter Capaldi would have given it a mean stare and played his guitar at it.
They might have used their sonic screwdriver to figure out what was going on (moreso for Mr Ecclestone onwards) but they all had better ways of sorting it than relying on that blue hedgehog...
Start with a black hole. It is black. Put a star in orbit next to it. The side of the star closest to the hole experiences more gravity and is pulled closer to the black hole. The side of the star further from the black hole experiences less gravity and moves further out. The inside track around the black hole is shorter so stuff on the inside pulls ahead. The outside track is longer so stuff falls behind. Quickly the star becomes a disk around the black hole like the rings around Saturn.
Saturn's rings are in every way on different scales from a black hole accretion disk. Saturn is a huge, a lightweight and it takes hours to days for ice to slowly orbit Saturn. Bits of Saturn's rings occasionally collide with each other. Bits of an accretion disk rub against their neighbours continuously. Lots more mass, tiny distances and everything going really fast. The friction heats the disk up till it glows. We are not talking boring red hot, sun-yellow hot or blue super giant hot. The colour for this temperature is X-rays. Enough X-rays to push stuff away from the accretion disk and limit the rate at which a black hole can grow (yes really - lumps of light pushing stellar masses away from the intense gravity near a black hole).
The black hole is still black but people talk about light 'from a black hole' when they mean light 'from an accretion disk'. No wonder people get confused and think scientists contradict themselves faster than a president.
And if you compress them with a supermassive black hole, they'll beam across the observable universe.
Theoretically, any luminous object beams across the observable universe, give or take some blocking by an inbetween object. It's just that someone switching on an outdoor light on Proxima Centauri B won't significantly contribute to the general emission of visible light from that planet, plus that the chance of even a single photon from that light reaching a detector on Earth is very very very small.
This being El Reg, I will accept your pedantry in the spirit it is offered. Although your "give or take some blocking" has to include scattering by and gas (extinction) and allow for gravitational red shifting.
That's the problem with your light on Proxima Centauri b - most of it is extinguished before it leaves the atmosphere. But even if a photon hit our detector - we wouldn't be able to recognise it as such because of the noise.It's just another splat on our CCD.
I'd recommend that you don't try to understand it (unless you are embarking on a Physics or Mathematics degree), but you can look up "Hawking Radiation" on Wikipedia...
The basic principle is that Quantum Mechanics predicts that just above the Event Horizon photons will be created some of which can escape. This causes Black Holes to "evaporate".
This post has been deleted by its author
Christ. Here's another one.
OK, in this instance, "Christoph" has put his own name to it. That's almost a little bit like taking some responsibility for the deaths unnecessarily caused. Well done, you, Christoph; well done.
>TDS. Trump Derangement SyndromeChrist, is there NOWHERE you can go to get away from these psychos.
Do please be aware that the later research which was loudly screamed globally, contradicting and destroying the early experimental data referenced by Trump, has subsequently been exposed as scientific fraud. Google variations on Lancet-gate etc. The initial results were valid and have been subsequently profoundly enhanced by combining HCQ with AZM, such that even 100yos+ in intensive care with multiple co-morbidities are now routinely recovering.
To put another way: the psycho anti-Trumpsters are responsible for the bulk of the USA's COVID-19 deaths. That means YOU, "anonymous coward".
Does it by any chance follow a repeating pattern? Can you find one with a repeating pattern that would be impossible in your existing model? e.g. a repeating interval too short to be rotation or similar. Are you sure its accreting and not excreting? i.e. might you have found my possible *ejecting* blackhole*, complete with its wobble. The only thing ejecting will be monopoles and photons, not matter and as it wobbles you'll get sprayed by its photon ejection according to the oscillation pattern of the wobble.
I've been asking for these, but there may be many reasons for this effect, e.g. some sort of lensing effect, or any other cause. So maybe don't get your hopes up.
* Yeh yeh, gravity is attraction only, blah blah blah escape velocity, blah blah blah, lots of magic numbers, complex equations mean must be true etc etc etc. Science is never wrong and so on.
Let me walk you through matter as it in in peasoup simulation, walk you through gravity, where the speed of light comes from, and from that in simple terms to time and space and what the inside of a black hole looks like. After that, feel free to click 'downvote' and hope I'm not right.
From observation, matter is always in motion and we only detect the net effect of the motion of the observed object on the detector:
a) You detect a particle (e.g. electron) at position P1, then you detect it again and it has moved to P2.
b) So particles are constantly in motion.
c) They don't just move when detected, they constantly interact with other particles, and could never determine what constitutes detection and what doesn't. That would be impossible so they really are moving. All the time.
d) To be stationary the particle must return to the same place / have no net overall movement.
e) So the electon is performing some complex oscillation that ultimately goes nowhere.
f) And this is true for all particles, protons also move when detected, neutrons apparent detected location changes.
g) Consider a particle E1 doing a simple oscillation along a horizontal axis. This is a wave with a polarization.
h) Consider an observer 'OB1 electron' with an oscillation along a vertical axis.
i) The net 'particle' detected by that OB1's observation of E1 is a spin around a plane.
j) So properties like 'spin' are not independent of properties like 'polarization'. They are interrelated effects of an observed particle relative to an observer.
k) Likewise you create an observer OB2 with relative oscillation to E1 such that E1 moves (translates) relative to OB2.
l) Thus linear motion, aka the velocity/momentum property, of E1 relative to particle OB2 is the same form of motion.
m) So velocity is the same motion. Momentum is the same energy.
n) Heat likewise is motion of one relative to another, also the same motion, just a more complex oscillation pattern.
o) YOU NEVER OBSERVE A PARTICLE, you observe the net effect between the observed particle and the observer particle.
p) Backward time effects seen in the cloud chamber are no more than rolling-shutter or strobe effects. The particle is not going backwards in time, the net observation is.
ag) All particles, even neutral ones are detected as +ve or -ve. With neutral ones detected as net zero.
ah) So there are only two particles. +ve, -ve, they have no mass (from x), and no since size comes from motion, then they also have no size.
Added: Nearly there, but you still need to understand the nature of space, and why the speed of light appears to be constant.
Point taken, in the general case of casual conversation.
But in _context_, of this chap explicitly varying paradigm assumptions left right & centre, to suddenly drop in as a major point something so jarringly stationary and so based on default assumptions...
Well, that's why I posted the actual.
Particles don't really exist in locations; they are the result of us interacting with mathematical wave functions by doing things that extract information (taking measurements). A wave function has units roughly describable as "square-root of probability density". The closest we experience to them in what we term "reality" is a magnetic field (except there's no magnet).
Although it's fun to try, there is no description of Physics outside of Mathematics because subatomic stuff just doesn't function in a way that we are used to experiencing. I'm not kidding when I say the mathematics of physics is *easier* to understand than the experimental results.
So if what you are writing is correct, by not writing it in formal mathematics you are actually making it harder to understand.
About that entanglement, all your motions derive from the same oscillation, and all are related.
Justification:
q) You have a particle as detected with properties {p1,p2,p3,p4....}. Things like polarization, spin, velocity, etc. From j-n it follows that these are not independent properties.
r) Note the net spin in i) could also be created if E1 oscillation was vertical and OB1's oscillation was horizontal.
s) So for each value of p1 there are several ways of configuring p2, p3, p4 possible.... this is why these properties appear independent. The relation is just complex as to appear random.
t) i.e. 'entanglement' is a smoothing out of those properties into one configuration, and when you filter for one value of P1, P2, P3, you would then expect P4 to be the same. There is no special magic there. There is no spooky distance effect. You just filtered before your Bells test.
u) If observer OB3 was moving with the same oscillation as observed E1, then it has no net motion, and no velocity and hence no momentum relative to each other. Then they are oscillating in resonance.
v) If observer OB4 was moving at ~ near the speed of light relative to E1, then the net detected effect has the maximum velocity and its all momentum (i.e. the net detected particle has no mass).
w) But E1 is the same particle in each case, I changed the observer, not the observed! Yet the mass of the observed thing changed! From all mass to all momentum/velocity. So E1's mass as observed is a measure of how stationary it is relative to the observer. Mass is not an intrinsic property of mass.
x) So mass is not an intrinsic property of E1, it is a function of how stationary E1 is relative to OB3 or OB4.
Added: in peasoup there are a pattern of oscillation patterns that return to the same location relative to the field they are moving over. The patterns correspond to the photon, the wrapper on an electron and as they get nested ever larger constructs which are the nuclei. When they return to the same place, that's mass, if they had some component of the oscillation slightly off resonance, then those oscillations don't return to the same place, and the whole thing moves across the field. Sometimes it oscillates, sometimes it processes, sometimes it is more complex. There is no difference between motion and mass, its the same oscillation. Mass is just motion that ultimately returns to the same place in the field.
"The patterns correspond to the photon, the wrapper on an electron and as they get nested ever larger constructs which are the nuclei."
F1 oscillation pattern is a photon
F2 is the wrapper of an electron
F3 is a proton wrapper
F5 is helium nucleus.
FPrime ....
and so on.
Justification for an electric force that propagates infinitely fast:
y) For resonance (as u), all forcing through all paths through space must happen simulateously. So the underlying force must propagate in zero time, path ABCD, must happen in the same time as path ACD, and AD, regardless of geometry. Otherwise resonance wouldn't be possible. And if B is ~0 distance from A, it must take the same time, so that time must be zero. This force propagates infinitely fast, it propagates in zero time through all paths in space.
z) So electric force (lets call it electric_h0) propagates in zero time.
aa) And since electrons are in motion and in resonance, electric force as created in experiments is a resonant oscillating force. You do not have electric force in physics, you have an oscillating force with the resonance pattern of electrons.
Anything travelling faster than light travels backwards in time, so you could use this to send yourself next weeks' lottery tickets.
Sadly, light is an electromagnetic wave and that has been measured to have a finite speed, so something in your analysis must be wrong.
Justification:
ab) Consider an electron oscillating relative to a proton along a vertical axis. Pair P1: up-down up-down up-down.
ac) Consider another pair P2: down-up down-up down-up, the counter phase.
ad) P2 would be attracted to P1. It cannot be pushed to be more in resonance and so has maximum attraction between P1 and P2.
ae) Consider P3, like P1 it is doing up-down up-down up-down.
af) P3's interation with P1 is to push the protons further apart and pull the protons further together. i.e. it configures itself into a net attraction force by pushing the repelling parts away.
ag) For all oscillations, their harmonics, their composites, their fractional harmonics there are similar 'net attraction' configurations. They configure themselves to oscillate in a pattern that is a net attraction.
ah) If the sum of these net-attractions isn't gravity, then where is it? Where is this missing attraction only force? So Gravity is the sum of all these organizational net-attraction forces.
Added 1: Notice that matter P1 oscillation next to matter P2 will order its resonance better than if P1 is in motion relative to P2. You can see why gravity is a function of mass. Less mass of P1 relative to P2, less clumping, less gravity between P1 and P2.
Added 2: You see these organization clumping forces everywhere, in water, in magnets, in crystal formation, they're very very common. You might think these don't scale because electric force does not propagate infinitely quickly, but that's because you think electric is (aa), when its (z).
So, all matter is oscillating at near resonance, the complexity of matter is a bunch of complex stacked harmonics and light is a simple pattern crossing the field. So what does that make space and time?
ai) If a particle's motion and lights motion across this field are the same mechanism, then if light travels N particles of distance over a given interval, then it doesn't matter how stretched 'space' is in that direction because it would equally affect both light and matter, the apparent speed of-light would still be 'N' particles over that 'stretched' space interval.
aj) Thus the apparent constant the 'speed of light' is and *observed* effect, not a *real* constant.
ak) So 'space' is a function of the field. N field lines = N units of distance to an observer made of matter is in the same field.
al) And the limit for crossing this field is ~ 1 wavelength per oscillation of resonance. So time is a function of the oscillations as observed by the observer.
am) So time is a function of the oscillations as observed by the observer, and space is a function of the number of field lines relative to the observer.
Added:
Let me put it a different way to you. Matters size comes form its motion. The speed of light comes from its motion. If the motion was twice as fast in a particular direction, it would affect both matter and light equally and the measurement for the speed of light you take in that direction would be the same. Giving the apparent effect of 'even' space with a constant speed of light in all direction.
i.e. space as you measure and perceive it is not the underlying model of space.
Added 2: If you think of the universe as always oscillating and motion as a per-oscillation. Then for us to measure time, we are really measuring a derivative to that oscillation (e.g. the oscillations in an atomic clock). So if that periodicity was twice as fast, to us those oscillations in the atomic clock would also be twice as fast.... i.e. time is also a perceived value.
For us, if it takes N oscillations for the data to flow down a neuron, then it doesn't matter how fast or slow the oscillations are, they are always N before that perceived 'time' has elapsed.
Light is caused by electric and magnetic fields interacting. The speed of light is a result of this. The speed of a beam of light has been measured and is unrelated to the motion of an observer and the source. We're on a rotating planet going around the sun, yet every single photon moves at the same speed.
In fact, usually we say the speed of light is 1. There's no point measuring it based on human defined measures like meters or inches and seconds.
an) If the apparent eveness of space in all direction is an observed effect (from ak) then the independence of the axis must also be an observed effect, and thus the apparent '3' dimensions must be an observed effect. Don't know why yet.
Added: So why are there three dimensions. It must be in the model, I can mess around with the underlying definition of space, and it still works, but I cannot see where the apparent 3 dimensionality is coming from.
Perhaps you can?
Can you find an oscillation pattern that would have 3 ( not 2, not 4 not 5,6,7,..) independent components. Because if there is one, then even the 3 dimensionality of space would be perceived.
Or is there some other reason. I suspect its also an observational effect, but I can't quite get it.
OK, so the universe is oscillating, all velocity is between 0 and 1 wavelength per oscillation, so a blackhole must be the 2x harmonic of that oscillation, and the universe inside to the people outside appears to be the same. They/we don't know we're in a blackhole, and blackholes can be nested.
ao) If N field lines is N units of space, 2N field lines is twice the amount of space. So compress the field into a blackhole and what's inside is what's outside. The more compressed the field, the more compressed the people inside and the bigger their inside universe appears. (from ak).
ap) So you can think of 'stretched space' of a blackhole as if it was 'compressed field'. It makes it easier to comprehend.
aq) So compress matter into a black hole, lets make it 1 hole deep, oscillating exactly twice for each outer oscillations, such that it has no outer spin, what does it look like to the people inside? It looks like space with an outer event horizon.
To them the space appears normal, the speed of light would be the same, the apparent dimensionality of matter would be the same.
ar) We're in a blackhole. The edge of our observable universe is the limit at which light would switch from our ~2F oscillation resonance to ~1F outer resonance. The edge of our observable universe is the event horizon of our outer black hole.
as) We'll never cross that event horizon, it shreds complex oscillations and it shreds matter.
Added: No big bang. And our universe isn't special.
Hmmm... whatever you are trying to say is waaaaay more complex than anything I ever learnt in post-grad maths.
Here is my summary of Physics (probably totally wrong):
1) The speed of light in a vacuum is constant to any measurement. <-- Special Relativity
2) Light travels in straight lines. Also light is affected by Gravity. <-- General Relativity
3) Particles are described by a wave function. It isn't possible to be "outside the experiment", so the act of measuring a property affects both you and the wave function (you become entangled with it). <-- Quantum Mechanics
4) Particles exist when they have stable wavefunctions. To be stable they must repeat. This is symmetry. there are three visible dimensions and so three symmetries of rotations. Two symmetries of reflection. So there are three pairs of two quarks (up/down, charm/strange, top/bottom). <-- Standard Model
5) Feynman diagrams show particles interacting... but they show particles interacting at specific points in spacetime. This is not allowed by Special Relativity. If the particles are replaced by "tubes" these will have interesting geometries at intersections (and may work with SR). <-- String Theory
I've been asking for these,
Most of the data from the observatories is publically1 available, therefore rather than waiting for someone else to do the work you want, maybe you should go and analyse the data sets yourself? Many discoveries - like Fast Radio Bursts - were originally found by trolling through old data and noticing something different.
* Yeh yeh, gravity is attraction only, blah blah blah escape velocity, blah blah blah, lots of magic numbers, complex equations mean must be true etc etc etc. Science is never wrong and so on.
Oh, you are one of those2, so obviosuly you won't go and do the research yourself, because you have no idea what the hell you are on about.
------------------------------------------------------
1. The small amount that isn't is usually just embargoed for 6 or 12 months so the researchers paying for or allocated the observing time for their project can have the first stab at the data to write their papers and publish first.
2. being those people who lack the educational background and intelligence to understand the concepts, therefore since it is outside their real-world experiences call it 'magic' and blame the science and the scientists for their own lack of understanding and claim it's all a conspiracy theory. Then they go off and propose their totally illogical, inaccurate, unsupported, mathematically wrong, factually wrong theories to boost their own self esteem and try and feel smart because they just aren't.
Spectra of the radiation.
If you heat up something (gas, tungsten) to around 2700K, it glows orange-white. Heat it to 6000K, it glows yellow-white, 10000K, blueish.
There's a very specific shape to this "black body" spectrum, check Wikipedia.
As to the round numbers - it's because the scientists don't claim more precision than they have actually measured.
Thanks for taking the time to reply.
Second question, how do you heat something at 10000K and beyond without burning the entire planet ? You'll have to do that somehow in order to calibrate your spectrometer. Wouldn't your temperature sensor be evaporated or at least its accuracy impacted ?
At the least - I am not a scientist - if the shape of the curve follows a known pattern (eg; linear, exponential, bell) you work on 'educated assumption'. But I'd also guess that a lot of things can be backed up and predicted by the mathematics (which is sort of the same thing).
As an example if they've measured the output from 100k to 1000k and the emitted wavelength is 150*<temperature in Kelvin> then it's not unreasonable to assume that the frequency emitted at 10000k is 15000000hz.
Of course it won't be that simple but science is all about deriving rules based on observation and then testing those rules. If you can't prove a rule then it doesn't invalidate it. It just makes it more of a theory. Lots of science is theory.
The answer to this is that you do the maths (or, I think Planck did the maths sometime in the late 19th century). And the maths tells you that objects at a given temperature have a very characteristic spectrum, that spectrum being shifted in frequency depending on the temperature of the object. If you then see something which matches this spectrum, you can infer its temperature, even if that spectrum is shifted a long way.
This is all slightly complicated by recession velocity: if the object is receding from you (or approaching you) its spectrum gets red (blue) shifted so unless you know the velocity you will misjudge its temperature. You deal with that problem by both working out what the temperature of various kinds of stars really is by understanding how they work and using them to calibrate things, and by looking for absorption lines from elements which are very characteristic: once you see them you can work out how far they are shifted and use that information to deshift the thermal spectrum.
There's an interesting story here. Long ago (1960s) people started seeing objects which had spectral absorption lines which made no sense at all. Maarten Schmidt (I think) had the astonishing insight that these lines were from hydrogen, but absurdly red-shifted. The conclusion from that was that, if the red-shift was cosmological (it was, we now know) then these objects were very, very distant, and thus, since we could see them, very, very bright: far brighter than any galaxy we knew about. These objects were quasars – supermassive black holes in fact.
This post has been deleted by its author
Leaving astronomers very interested.
FTFY
Why do some news stories feel that scientists have to be bewildered, baffled, etc, when observing something not seen before.
As credited to Asimov (possibly): "The Most Exciting Phrase in Science Is Not ‘Eureka!’ But ‘That’s funny …"
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
