Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by AbstractDreamer

  1. Given the spectral series of hydrogen is known, is there also proportionality between type 1a supernovae and quantity and rate of hydrogen emission? Or does this only apply to stars just normally burning their fuel and not for a supernova?

    Fermat's principle (which Snell's law is a derivation of) seems to require that a photon knows its final destination, in order to take the path of shortest time. Which is rather odd. Surely a photon travels in a straight line (along spacetime curvature) to where ever it might go, thus taking the shortest time to get there?

    If the entire mass of the type 1a supernova is converted into EM radiation, and all type 1a supernovae exhibit the same EM radiation spectrum of wavelengths and frequencies, then luminosity or intensity would be consistent, assuming conservation of energy.

    I've seen some references to supernovae remnants, such as the Crab Nebula, or strange cores, which leads me to think that the entirety of the mass is NOT converted to EM radiation. So if a type 1a supernovae leaves remnants such as gases or strange cores, then this matter could contain energy in the form of charge, kinetic, thermal, chemical?

    Would this account for the inaccuracy as described in wiki? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder

    For type1a supernova light curves (apparently rather accurate for extragalactic distance calculations) "The current uncertainty approaches a mere 5%, corresponding to an uncertainty of just 0.1 magnitudes."

    On homogeneity:

    So the observable universe has a sphere around us of 45 billion LY radius. If isotropic and homogeneous, An observer at the edge of that radius would also see a sphere of radius 45 billion LY. Then then things directly between us would be mutually observable, the things "behind" each of us would be mutually exclusively observable from each other, and some other volumes between might be observable by both due to curvature of the spacetime manifold?

    However if the universe has an age and a beginning, and spacetime started at the beginning of the universe, does that not contradict the homogeneity of time, if not the isotrophy of time as well?

    I'm starting to get an idea that expansion doesn't increase the volume of space, only it stretches it and wraps it around. Bit like a fractal set on the surface of a torus. Or like zooming in on a microscope. Observable boundaries are relative only, there are no edges, though singularities could be points of intersection (which don't exist on a simple torus). Can someone provide me some examples of 3D shapes, with finite surface area, no boundaries, point intersections, and can be formed from a finite 2D area.

  2. What precisely is an observer, in the way they are referred to in Quantum Physics?


    After agreeing on a definition, can we try to answer this question by listing things that:


    Almost definitely observers,

    Maybe observers,

    Almost definitely not observers.


    We can start with the definition from wiki, a quote from Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, p. 137


    "Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory."


    Some initial thoughts:


    Is the definition of an observer relative to that which is being observed?


    For example, to observe or register the presence of an object photon P1. Could an observer be another photon P2? If the P1 collides with P2, then can it be said that P2 has registered something about P1, therefore has an observation has been made?


    What if P1 collides with a mirror M2? Can the mirror have registered P1 even in the smallest conceivable sense at the instant of reflection.


    Is this about preserving information?

    How long and how far can information be preserved and does it need to be retrievable to remain observed.


    If P1 passed the event horizon of a blackhole BH2, can it ever be retrieved?


  3. There's also the refractive index of the atmosphere that will alter the direction of the velocities as experienced by the observer from their "true" direction. So if the observer is looking horizontally north and horizontal south, relative to him/her self, then for sure the velocities of the quasars relative to each other are not parallel.


    Overall its a poorly phrased riddle.

  4. When you pick something say a glass cup, a lot of "stuff" is transferred between you and the cup.


    Lots of molecules of oils on the surface of your skin, as well as dead skin cells, live bacteria and other contaminants will be deposited on the cup.

    The glass cup will probably be cleaner than your hand and not deposit much on your hand, as most of the glass molecules will be attached to other glass molecules that make up the cup.


    Thermal conduction also occurs when you get close enough to feel you are touching it.

  5. Ah a little progress!


    So, negative values of times can be used mathematically in certain simple collisions?


    But only because the collision "looks" the same "playing the tape forwards" as it does in "rewind".


    If i understood that correctly.


    Still far from saying that negative time really exists, or that it has direction, only that in some circumstances it doesn't make difference to the description of the collision.

  6. So reversible time invariance? whats that?


    Does that mean some classical physics can be mathematically performed backwards and forwards in time without changing the results?


    Wouldn't that indicate that at least time is mathematically directional? Or rather mathematically, time can be negative?


    I have argued on another thread against the validity of mathematics being any real, and now I'm hypocritically for its validity.

  7. Shell theorem, seems to require perfect spherical symmetry. The existence of more than one black hole could imply that the universe is not perfectly spherical in volume, especially assuming space expansion does not operate within the volume of a black hole. This difference would most likely increase over time, resulting in a greater deviance from spherical perfection and consequently a higher net gravitational force (from the greater infinite density) over time, as well a shift in the gravitation "center" of the sphere.

  8. How do you argue that something represented by equations doesn't exist in math?


    Admittedly tenuous at best in #52:



    A lot of lines can be described by maths. The field line "feels" like a temporal construct only* required to calculate the gradient of the tangent, for direction. Depending on how you perform and break down the calculation from EM equations to the direction of force, it doesn't need to exist. On the other hand, if there is any use in stopping the calculations before obtaining the derivative, and only to obtain the function of the curve - that is the field line - OR if the function can be used to measure something else, then i would concede. Is there anything legitimate in my beliefs?

  9. it is this fact that the mass is steady across many examples that allows its use as a standard candle. The peak brightness is very similar across many examples - magnitude 19.3 +/- 0.03. Missing elemental lines and strong elemental lines in the spectra allow us to confirm that a particular signal is a Type 1a

    Is mass directly proportional to luminosity? What if energy can be dissipated via mechanisms other than intensity of EM radiation, such as charge or angular momentum or other weird stuff? Could this result in a lower luminosity, and subsequently a false distance calculation?


    ...We assume... ...that the cosmos is isotropic and homogeneous. Bear in mind this is the scale at which the smallest entities you are bothering with is galactic clusters. If the cosmos were found not to be isotropic and homogeneous at such a scale then serious new thinking would be required.


    Is isotropism not a superset of homogeneity? Can anyone give me an example of something that is isotropic but not homogenous?
    If the cosmos is described as isotropic, does that mean the properties and direction of the "4D spacetime" is uniform everywhere in the universe? I think i mean, the spatial axes and time are always in the same "direction" (though time arguably has no direction)? How is this possible within blackholes? Or do we just describe black holes as not within our universe? Doesn't that contradiction invalidate the description?
    Consider the following:
    Imagine a block of glass that contains imperfections due to contamination. Glass is isotropic. The entire block (of glass and contaminants) is not isotropic. The glass within the block (but not including the contaminations) is isotropic.
    Imagine a universe of spacetime that contains imperfections due to blackholes. Spacetime is isotropic. The entire universe (of spacetime and blackholes) is not isotropic. The spacetime within the universe (but not including blackholes) is isotropic.
    Is it fair to say that spacetime is isotropic, and the universe is NOT isotropic?
    Following that potentially false premise above then, does expansion operate uniformly only within spacetime, and operate chaotically or not at all within black holes?
    Imagine a perfectly spherical volume of space containing multiple blackholes of significant volume, would the blackholes not affect expansion such that that over time, the volume is no longer perfectly spherical? Or is there an approximation to isotropism within limits, such as the tiny deviations found in the CMB? Could this variance be caused by black holes?

    So if you know the received wavelength and the distance to the source (i.e. the amount of redshift), you can work out the original wavelength.


    On the other hand, if you know the original wavelength (because it is a line in the emission spectrum of hydrogen, for example) then you can work out the redshift and hence distance.


    But upon receiving a photon of red-shifted wavelength, there's no way of knowing if it initially had a long wavelength that has since red-shifted a lot because its far away, or a short wavelength that red-shifted a little because its near. Unless the original full spectrum is known, and compared. So how do we know the original full spectrum? Do all supernovae have the same spectrum? Or are the spectrums the same within the same types?


    As we don't know what dark energy is, I don't think that can be answered. It might be that the two statements are equivalent.


    Does this not beak causality?


    Sorry, sneaky baseless theory coming up!:
    Could outside of the universe be blackholeness of infinite density, "sucking" the universe outwards (via gravitation), affecting the universe to expand into its infinite density, at the same time receding due to the constance of dark energy density within the universe, pushing the blackholeness backwards, providing the cause to the effect of volume expansion?
    Can someone shatter this illusion for me?
  10. baseless assertion:


    anti length?


    I thought by definition, symmetry means


    the quality of being made up of exactly similar parts facing each other or around an axis.


    If time is super symmetric, and time has an axis, am i wrong in concluding that there is negative (anti) time?


    What is the other part that is facing time, in the symmetry of time?

  11. Around my head is sphere of space, but the surface of Earth is locally flat.


    Magnetic "North" lies on plane in this sphere around my head perpendicular to my latitudinal line.

    Magnetic "North" lies on a longitudinal line on the surface of the Earth.


    A direction on a plane should have two values, you cant just assume zero for a value if one is not provided. OP did not specify he was looking horizontally North, or any angle along the vertical axis.


    As North does not exist if you look straight up or straight down, therefore the velocities of the quasars are only relatively parallel IF the vertical angle is 0 (zero)


    Your calculations are based on the assumption he is looking horizontally North and horizontally South, which were not stated in your solution.


    Without specific values or assumptions, calculations and answers are meaningless though not necessarily wrong.

  12. My stance is neutral, therefore has no head nor tail. I do not have enough knowledge to feel i can make a decision. I have no beliefs on whether field lines exist in reality or even in mathematics.


    (forgive my editing):



    Field lines... ... "exists in mathematics" there's no legitimate objection to that.


    I have only tried to argue why there could be a legitimate objection to the claim, and even tried to show when that objection might be illegitimised.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.