Astrospheres: the missing catalog and a proposal to make one

[Jayson]

Hello everyone.

 

This is my first post; cheers!

 

 

Almost two years ago I was reading discourses and related papers and writings between Bohr and Einstein. I tend to do this periodically as their great debates are fascinating reading to me.

I enjoy the puzzle, as a passing of the time, of trying to solve their debate.

 

It was when I was reading over Einstein's thought experiment of 1930 that a thought finally crystallized.

Often, something may bother me, but I can't immediately place a reason upon it. This was one of those cases.

What bothered me was the thought experiment, or design, itself.

 

Much of the argument on both sides, but definitely more so on Bohr's, rested on facts only applicable to the technological limits of their very clunky era.

For example, Bohr's argument against this thought experiment was based on having to add weights for measurement and the mechanical clock mechanism - both in regard to their relationship to relativity, reference frames, and indeterminacy.

 

Then it struck me that, indeed, this was true of almost their entire debate as a whole.

We have far more atomic knowledge in catalog than they did, and we also have a far greater catalog of space and astrophysics than they did.

 

They were constantly mashing the two worlds together (e.g. Einstein's EPR paper), but with very little data.

 

So, I thought rather simply that a very crude test of Einstein's assertion could most likely be accomplished today - His assertion being that there was SOME form of graduated relationship between the macro physics and quantum physics, and that the lack of such in quantum physics (to him) only meant that quantum physics was incomplete (still had things left to solve of its own definition).

 

For some reason, Einstein side-tracked for years arguing about indeterminacy instead of his primary point of a graduated relationship between scales, but I thought it would be a mere matter of data computation to see if Einstein's assertion held any merit or fell flat, because we have a wealth of information about proportions and sizes of atoms and stars.

 

Or...so I thought.

I quickly found out that I was gravely mistaken about the latter.

We have a great volume of details about the proportion and size of atomic subjects, and we have a great volume of cataloging regarding a star's size and properties, but what we don't have is the astrosphere (astropause, really, but for brevity, I'll just stick to the astrosphere).

 

That was a pretty huge set back, as to test Einstein's assertion you need to be able to compare the self-symmetry of the proportion of atomic nucleus radii and their covalent bond radii, as well as star radii and their astrosphere radii.

The reason being is that you're looking to find if there is any approximate relationship between the two scales in regards to how much percent their central energy core (nucleus or star) accounts of the "whole system" (covalent bond and astrosphere radii).

 

It's not meant to be capable of a conclusive positive proof, but it was intended to be at least capable of a conclusive negative, for if you can't find even a shared self-symmetry to the behavior of energy core's and their consequent system on both scales, then there is very little reason to expect much else to be shared between scales.

 

 

As mentioned, however, when I went to start collecting data on astrospheres, I found the amount of information poor.

People were using very different models from each other, not everyone was measuring in the same manner, and no one was cataloging any of the information at all (for example, unlike the Simbad database).

 

 

I already had a wealth of material, and while working on the original thought, I had ended up devising an equation which I came to realize could be used to behave as an engine for a catalog for astropheres and astropauses.

 

So, that is what is attached.

I have come up with a way to catalog and organize the material being produced regarding astrosphere estimates.

It's conceptually a simple idea.

 

If everyone's making estimates, and everyone's estimates are remarkably different from each other, and we don't know who's right or wrong just yet, then what we need is a line in the figurative sand to plot everyone else's estimates against so that we can begin defining estimate sets by their deviation from that line in the sand.

The way of accomplishing that "line in the sand" is the very simple equation examined in further detail (and more deeply explained) in the attached paper.

 

But, it essentially looks like this:

 

What this means is, for example, the Astropause is approximately equal to the radius of the Star divided by the Hunt Variable.

The Hunt Variable is an adjustable value that is an average from data sampling relationships between star radii, astrosphere radii, nucleus radii, and covalent bond radii.

Currently, that value sits at roughly = 0.0039%.

That is to say that, currently, the average of the data sample is that star and nucleus radii take up about 0.0039% of the distance to the astrosphere and covalent bond radii.

 

This then can generate a line for any given size of star that we wish to imagine, and across that line we can plot estimates for astrospheres and account for their differences and similarities.

The catalog even is able to define any given estimate's equation by a five part profile of that estimate equation's set's mean, max, and min from the line created with the Hunt Variable as well as an F and T test which test variance and correlation of the relationship between the radius of the star and the radius of the astrosphere.

 

I'll stop there and ask that folks look at the paper for the rest of the details.

It's not submitted for publishing yet.

I'd be rather interested in thoughts.

 

Cheers,

Jayson

Notes & Considerations on Proposal for Astrosphere Catalog and Baseline Model for Comparison and Reference over Time.pdf

[John Cuthber]

" to test Einstein's assertion you need to be able to compare the self-symmetry of the proportion of atomic nucleus radii and their covalent bond radii, as well as star radii and their astrosphere radii."

Why?

[Ophiolite]

I am not very bright, so I am probably missing something here that is meant to be obvious. It seems you are looking for some relationship between the ratio of the size of an atomic nucleus to that of the atom compared with the size of a star, to its system's limit as defined by the astropause. If that is what you are looking for I am forced to ask , why? Why would you imagine such a relationship would reveal something?

 

If you meant something else, perhaps you could explain it in simpler terms.

 

Edit: I see I have been anticipated in my puzzlement by John.

[imatfaal]

Damn - they tell me Einstein was a theist over in the Religion forum and I don't really believe it, but I could cope. But Einstein as a Numerologist - please tell me it ain't so...

[John Cuthber]

[koti]

Is there a name for the "art" of writing pages of text without making any point?

[Jayson]

I am not very bright, so I am probably missing something here that is meant to be obvious. It seems you are looking for some relationship between the ratio of the size of an atomic nucleus to that of the atom compared with the size of a star, to its system's limit as defined by the astropause. If that is what you are looking for I am forced to ask , why? Why would you imagine such a relationship would reveal something?

 

If you meant something else, perhaps you could explain it in simpler terms.

 

Edit: I see I have been anticipated in my puzzlement by John.

 

Originally, yes, however that is no longer the scope of my interest. Now my interest is simply to get a catalog of astropause/sphere where currently there is none and no order is found in the tracking of the variations in model approaches.

 

As to the why of the original concept before I pivoted to focusing on just the catalog: It was the simplest of comparisons. Einstein's conviction was that there was a graduated scaling of physics between the two scales. I considered that one very simple method of testing would be self-symmetry of energy core systems. It was more or less just to see what would happen if anything at all.

 

However, that idea was tossed and I'm not really interested in that notion for a multitude of reasons.

 

The focus of the paper and design is not that concept, but instead the composition of a means for cataloging the diverse methods of modeling astropause/spheres.

 

I only brought that part up as a back-history to how the idea of the catalog came about.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Jayson

[dimreepr]

Is there a name for the "art" of writing pages of text without making any point?

 

 

Bloviating.

[koti]

 

 

Bloviating.

Learnt a word today, thanks dimreepr.

[Ophiolite]

 

Originally, yes, however that is no longer the scope of my interest. Now my interest is simply to get a catalog of astropause/sphere where currently there is none and no order is found in the tracking of the variations in model approaches.

 

As to the why of the original concept before I pivoted to focusing on just the catalog: It was the simplest of comparisons. Einstein's conviction was that there was a graduated scaling of physics between the two scales. I considered that one very simple method of testing would be self-symmetry of energy core systems. It was more or less just to see what would happen if anything at all.

 

However, that idea was tossed and I'm not really interested in that notion for a multitude of reasons.

 

The focus of the paper and design is not that concept, but instead the composition of a means for cataloging the diverse methods of modeling astropause/spheres.

 

I only brought that part up as a back-history to how the idea of the catalog came about.

Thank you for your reply. At the risk of sounding, or even being, patronising, it is not a good idea to devote a substantial part of a 'pitch' to details that have no practical relevance. It is likely to obfuscate and frustrate.

 

Having scanned your attached document I am confused by your statement "the composition of a means for cataloging the diverse methods of modeling astropause/spheres." The paper seems rather to offer a means of assessing the results of diverse methods through comparison with observation. Would you clarify this please.

 

The concept appears to be a potentially useful one. I wish you success with it. I do suggest you get a good editor to attack the text: it needs substantial work.

[Jayson]

Thank you for your reply. At the risk of sounding, or even being, patronising, it is not a good idea to devote a substantial part of a 'pitch' to details that have no practical relevance. It is likely to obfuscate and frustrate.

 

Having scanned your attached document I am confused by your statement "the composition of a means for cataloging the diverse methods of modeling astropause/spheres." The paper seems rather to offer a means of assessing the results of diverse methods through comparison with observation. Would you clarify this please.

 

The concept appears to be a potentially useful one. I wish you success with it. I do suggest you get a good editor to attack the text: it needs substantial work.

Hmm, good point. I apologize about the confusing opening. If I could edit it still, I would take your advice and change the opening.

 

As to rest:

The purpose of cataloging the various methods is to be able to look back and assess them, so both of the statements are true.

 

Firstly it allows for the Hunt Line which then you can plot other estimates against (composition of a catalog), and then once you have some estimates over time, you can begin to compare them against a mean that would eventually arise (comparing diverse methods).

 

If direct observations were available, then of course you would include that data, but often times with astropause/sphere estimates, there is very little in the way of direct observation (usually just the star information, such as luminosity, and then it goes into equations from there - sometimes readings are taken to assess mass loss rates; sometimes those are estimated via equations, etc...).

 

I agree on the editor (work such as this is slow-going in Alaska due to the limited local resources; so it'll take some time); thank you on the thoughts and advice.

 

 

(Interestingly enough; some preliminary work was tinkered with early on with quasars and it may eventually be possible to include those as well - surprisingly; but through discourse with aids it was decided to refine the concept to one single tangent to reduce confusion and complication. As well, it was decided that quasar study is even less organized and controlled than astropause/spheres so it also needs more time to grow before such ideas may be applicable.)