| Pages:
1
..
8
9
10 |
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen  | | Ah, I wasn't around to experience that hype. From what I can gather they were discovered before BHs were commonly accepted as real objects. And it
wasn't until the 70's that accretion disk models were able to explain the observations. So I don't agree that they were already known, in fact it
seems that our understanding of BHs were advanced by the discovery and explanation of these quasars. While BHs were predicted from GR without any
observable evidence I don't think anybody predicted the extreme physics of the accretion disk before the quasars were observed.
|
No disagreement, earlier I stated I don't know for sure if the astrophysics (which should include: or physics) community knew about black holes with
accretion disks focusing beams of energy or whether one pointed at us could account for their observation of incredible energy, if one considers they
concluded this same energy level radiated in all directions. I have to believe your conclusion is correct that in the next decade or two this study
gave them the current state of theory. It was cool at the time though. Hard to explain by the mindset of today but fantastic claims sort of sparked
the public imagination in a way that resulted in new products being named after the Quasar. No idea why this occurred but there it is. Not having to
get up to change the channel was like being part of the new wave of the future. Actually this is true but I'm not so sure it was a good thing if one
considers the content being aired today. Maybe entire generations would have been better off without such creations.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1693
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
Well at least it only produced some silly ideas, just think of the radium-hype of early 20. century or the quantum-spiritual bullshit peddled by
alternative quacks today.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
If your referring to Tom Cruise... Take that back!
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen | | Well at least it only produced some silly ideas, just think of the radium-hype of early 20. century or the quantum-spiritual bullshit peddled by
alternative quacks today. |
Help yourself to some of that Deepshit Choprak quantumspiritzy thingymejibs!
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
The Chopra analogy is quite apt.
Quantum is basically a way for people to barble crap as much as they like so long as they produce some maths, sufficiently impenetrable, in order to
claim some sort of Prize, such as A Theory.
Testosterone expressed mathematically.
The Facts relating to the nature of matter stand much as they were before 1990 : we do not know.
We have ideas, impossible for us to test, but we don't really know.
With this as the Reality, random ideas from idiots might have some value : they may well be avenues to explore that lead somewhere useful, maybe not,
same as any other idea from any other route.
However the Norm is to ignore any ideas that come from Outside, much as a Baboon would shoo away a Baboon not of their troupe.
Can't escape the fact that we're mere Apes trying to understand the Universe.
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1693
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
We might not know fundamentally more, it's pretty much been about furthering the Standard Model. But we do know more about what we don't yet know,
solving the dark energy/matter-mystery will probably change a lot.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by aga | The Chopra analogy is quite apt.
Quantum is basically a way for people to barble crap as much as they like so long as they produce some maths, sufficiently impenetrable, in order to
claim some sort of Prize, such as A Theory.
|
Damn yeah. That must explain why QM explains most of Chemistry! Doh!
'Some math'... Just because it's impenetrable to YOU doesn't make it whatever you think it might be, Homer.
That Deepshit Choprah thingy isn't an analogy in any way, shape or form: it's a spoof of a huckster who hijacks pseudo-QM speak for Big Buck$$$. To
peddle to idiots. Sadly, it's easy for snake oil merchants to blind people with pseudo-science (or sciency sounding New Age speak or religion
or whatever) for base commercial gains. To confound Deepquack with QM is murderously stoooopid.
Want to know something else? Basic QM is A-level math. Maybe you should try it?
I mean, if you're going to gratuitously rubbish an entire scientific paradigm don't you owe it to its practitioners to at least familiarise yourself
with its fundamentals?
[Edited on 8-7-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
I'd rather have a whole bunch of nothing than nothing at all.
That is in the spirit correct?
Could someone please post up something from a quantum math example so I could see if my idea of what it is, is really what it is.
I imagine it being, one zero plus another zero equals two zeros... In reality it's still zero.
Einstein had some quote about reality, and math... I forget what it is tho. Something about how math can explain reality but not really.
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1693
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 | | if you're going to gratuitously rubbish an entire scientific paradigm don't you owe it to its practitioners to at least familiarise yourself with its
fundamentals? |
Word, bro.
QM isn't simple, as Feynman put it: If you think you understand QM, you don't. Nevertheless, it works. If you come up with an alternative that has
better predictive powers you'll be the "next Einstein", but that won't happen by simply dismissing a century of hard work by the world's brightest
minds.
As I said, QM works. It might not make sense to you and me, but you can't argue with the results. Start with the basics, Planck's solution to thermal
radiation and Einsteins explanation of the photoelectric effect.
These are two very important discoveries that together with GenRel has fueled a century of unprecedented scientific advances. Toss out QM and you have
nothing. No understanding of anything smaller than an atom, no advanced chemistry or computers for that matter.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Zombie |
Could someone please post up something from a quantum math example so I could see if my idea of what it is, is really what it is.
|
I’m contemplating organising a seminar on QM/WM<sup>*</sup> on SM for beginners but only if the Evildoer Aga  joins, as a form of penitence!  Dressed in his tar and feathers costume,
naturellement!
| Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen | No understanding of anything smaller than an atom, no advanced chemistry or computers for that matter.
|
Advanced chemistry, Fulmen? ALL of chemical bond theory is QM/WM! As one post-Schrödinger physicist said [paraphrasing]: ‘QM
explained nearly all of chemistry, overnight’.
| Quote: Originally posted by Zombie |
Could someone please post up something from a quantum math example so I could see if my idea of what it is, is really what it is.
|
I'm not going to do that unless you 'fully' understand the particle/wave duality. But has it ever occurred to you to wonder where the Electron
Configurations of elements come from? Why the Periodic Table is the way it is? QM in action, man!
<sup>*</sup> Wave Mechanics, the calculus-based version of QM (very simply put).
Quantum Mechanics is arguably the most successful theory of science: reject it without requisite expertise and go play with your
marbles (assuming you haven't already lost them...)
[Edited on 8-7-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1693
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
Blogfast: I know, but fact is that we had a pretty decent understanding of chemistry even before QM. More empirical in nature perhaps, but it's not
like QM invented chemistry. But your point is well taken, chemistry is QM. No way to get around that.
As for understanding the particle/wave-duality I feel it's more a matter of accepting it. That's just the way it is whether you like
it or not. Rejecting QM is like rejecting gravity.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen | Blogfast: I know, but fact is that we had a pretty decent understanding of chemistry even before QM. More empirical in nature perhaps, but it's not
like QM invented chemistry. But your point is well taken, chemistry is QM. No way to get around that.
As for understanding the particle/wave-duality I feel it's more a matter of accepting it. That's just the way it is whether you like
it or not. Rejecting QM is like rejecting gravity. |
Inventing is not the same as explaining. Point taken though. The chemical bond is at the heart of modern chemistry.
The particle/wave duality IMHO is really no more counter-intuitive than was 'force' and all its implications for motion and gravity was from the
Ancient Greeks up to Newton. Read e.g. 'The Great Equations (Robert P.Crease)' to get an idea just how 'mysterious' these concepts were experienced
and how hard it was to get to the kind of definitions we now have. Nor did Newton explain the source of this mysterious central force field (re. solar
systems and other satellite systems).
What's truly near-impossible to grasp (visualise, imagine) is QM's ultimate consequence: spooky action at distance aka quantum entanglement. There
you need to apply a kind of logic that rubs against 'common sense'. Yet that too has been proved to work, beyond reasonable doubt.
Do you think a basic seminar on QM/WM and its implications for Chemistry would find fertile ground here on SM?
|
|
|
IrC
International Hazard
Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline
Mood: Discovering
|
|
"Do you think a basic seminar on QM/WM and its implications for Chemistry would find fertile ground here on SM? "
I would be interested in reading it. Now for my main problem. It is not fair, how come zombie gets his own stars? More importantly why can't he train
them to be quiet they are keeping me awake all night.
NASA's NuSTAR Captures Possible 'Screams' from Zombie Stars
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasas-nustar-captures-poss...
"Peering into the heart of the Milky Way galaxy, NASA's Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) has spotted a mysterious glow of high-energy
X-rays that, according to scientists, could be the "howls" of dead stars as they feed on stellar companions.
"We can see a completely new component of the center of our galaxy with NuSTAR's images," said Kerstin Perez of Columbia University in New York, lead
author of a new report on the findings in the journal Nature. "We can't definitively explain the X-ray signal yet -- it's a mystery. More work needs
to be done."
The center of our Milky Way galaxy is bustling with young and old stars, smaller black holes and other varieties of stellar corpses – all swarming
around a supermassive black hole called Sagittarius A*.
NuSTAR, launched into space in 2012, is the first telescope capable of capturing crisp images of this frenzied region in high-energy X-rays. The new
images show a region around the supermassive black hole about 40 light-years across. Astronomers were surprised by the pictures, which reveal an
unexpected haze of high-energy X-rays dominating the usual stellar activity.
"Almost anything that can emit X-rays is in the galactic center," said Perez. "The area is crowded with low-energy X-ray sources, but their emission
is very faint when you examine it at the energies that NuSTAR observes, so the new signal stands out."
Astronomers have four potential theories to explain the baffling X-ray glow, three of which involve different classes of stellar corpses. When stars
die, they don't always go quietly into the night. Unlike stars like our sun, collapsed dead stars that belong to stellar pairs, or binaries, can
siphon matter from their companions. This zombie-like "feeding" process differs depending on the nature of the normal star, but the result may be an
eruption of X-rays.
According to one theory, a type of stellar zombie called a pulsar could be at work. Pulsars are the collapsed remains of stars that exploded in
supernova blasts. They can spin extremely fast and send out intense beams of radiation. As the pulsars spin, the beams sweep across the sky, sometimes
intercepting the Earth, like lighthouse beacons.
"We may be witnessing the beacons of a hitherto hidden population of pulsars in the galactic center," said co-author Fiona Harrison of the California
Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, and principal investigator of NuSTAR. "This would mean there is something special about the environment
in the very center of our galaxy."
Other possible culprits include heavy-set stellar corpses called white dwarfs, which are the collapsed, burned-out remains of stars not massive enough
to explode in supernovae. Our sun is such a star, and is destined to become a white dwarf in about five billion years. Because these white dwarfs are
much denser than they were in their youth, they have stronger gravity and can produce higher-energy X-rays than normal. Another theory points to small
black holes that slowly feed off their companion stars, radiating X-rays as material plummets down into their bottomless pits.
Alternatively, the source of the high-energy X-rays might not be stellar corpses at all, astronomers say, but rather a diffuse haze of charged
particles, called cosmic rays. The cosmic rays might originate from the supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy as it devours material.
When the cosmic rays interact with surrounding, dense gas, they emit X-rays.
However, none of these theories match what is known from previous research, leaving the astronomers largely stumped.
"This new result just reminds us that the galactic center is a bizarre place," said co-author Chuck Hailey of Columbia University. "In the same way
people behave differently walking on the street instead of jammed on a crowded rush hour subway, stellar objects exhibit weird behavior when crammed
in close quarters near the supermassive black hole."
The team says more observations are planned. Until then, theorists will be busy exploring the above scenarios or coming up with new models to explain
what could be giving off the puzzling high-energy X-ray glow.
"Every time that we build small telescopes like NuSTAR, which improve our view of the cosmos in a particular wavelength band, we can expect surprises
like this," said Paul Hertz, the astrophysics division director at NASA Headquarters in Washington.
NuSTAR is a Small Explorer mission led by Caltech and managed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, for NASA's Science Mission
Directorate in Washington."
More information is online at:
http://www.nasa.gov/nustar
Extra X-rays at the Hub of Our Milky Way Galaxy
"NASA's Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array, or NuSTAR, has captured a new high-energy X-ray view (magenta) of the bustling center of our Milky Way
galaxy. The smaller circle shows the area where the NuSTAR image was taken -- the very center of our galaxy, where a giant black hole resides. That
region is enlarged to the right, in the larger circle, to show the NuSTAR data.
The NuSTAR picture is one of the most detailed ever taken of the center of our galaxy in high-energy X-rays. The X-ray light, normally invisible to
our eyes, has been assigned the color magenta. The brightest point of light near the center of the X-ray picture is coming from a spinning dead star,
known as a pulsar, which is near the giant black hole. While the pulsar's X-ray emissions were known before, scientists were surprised to find more
high-energy X-rays than predicted in the surrounding regions, seen here as the elliptical haze.
Astronomers aren't sure what the sources of the extra X-rays are, but one possibility is a population of dead stars.
The background picture was captured in infrared light by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope.
The NuSTAR image has an X-ray energy range of 20 to 40 kiloelectron volts.
Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech"
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
|
|
|
MrHomeScientist
International Hazard
Posts: 1806
Registered: 24-10-2010
Location: Flerovium
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I think it would be an awesome read. One of my favorite moments in all of my schooling was when we derived the energy levels of the hydrogen atom in
QM starting from wave equations. Bridging and connecting two branches of science like that was really amazing; it felt like the mysteries of the
universe were finally revealing themselves to me 
With entanglement, I like to think of the particles as just two aspects of a single entity (though I don't know if that's at all valid). To change one
is to affect the other because they are really the same object. To use a lower dimensional analog (as we usually have to do), it's like me as a 3D
being sticking two fingers through a 2D world. From the 2D perspective, it looks like two different circles that have the weird property that they
can't get farther apart than a certain distance (my armspan). The 2D beings might conclude there is some 'spooky' elastic force keeping them together,
but looking in the higher dimension reveals they are connected to one object.
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1693
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25 | | The particle/wave duality IMHO is really no more counter-intuitive than was 'force' and all its implications for motion and gravity was from the
Ancient Greeks up to Newton. |
Huh. That is an interesting point. And I think I've made a similar one myself in this thread, if reality was intuitive we wouldn't need science.
What I found really hard about the P/W-duality was reconciling a physical wave with a marble-like particle. Once I realized these were just metaphors
it became easier.
As for a seminar, I dunno. I (believe I) already have a decent conceptual understanding of QM, but I'm not really interested in advanced chemistry
anymore. So I'm not the right one to ask, as I don't really have any use for the math. I sure would read it if you did of course...
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
IrC and MrHS:
Thanks. I'll probably put out some 'feeler' thread to gauge potential interest.
I was thinking of a two parter: I. WM basics (up to and including atomic orbitals) and II. applications in chemical bond theory (mainly VESPR, as it's
slightly less abstract than MO theory). Each chapter developed in bite-sized 'lectures'. For the first part HyperPhysics provides an adequate online
textbook. For the latter I've my own fairly basic seminar.
[Edited on 8-7-2015 by blogfast25]
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
I'm 100% in. I only learn when I can ask my asinine questions.
I HATE it when I get back to a thread with lots of new posts. My mind scrambles.
First off I had NO idea that QM was involved in atoms. I assumed it was a simple calculation of frequency = density or something similar. X amount of
energy required to maintain valance shells or something.
If I knew this stuff.... watch out world.
Those NuSTAR images are fantastic. I get the impression that the center has to have an emission of energy, whether we see it, understand it or not.
The whole idea of gravity warping space time seems too simple for this. On a simple model sure but in reality it has to be as simple as something Blog
said. The deal with distant attractions that should not but DO occur. I said this way back in this thread. That atoms must be exponentially attracting
at the center of a BH. The idea of gravity creating this effect does not fit the model.
Gravity illustrates the model but does not explain it. The answer must be atomic attraction that grows as the entity grows. (BH's can be an entity
right?)
Going with the laws of attraction/repulsion these BH's must be repelling each other, and as they grow so does their energy that we can NOT see or yet
explain. Dark energy is what we are now calling it but the source I believe is the BH itself. Not the empty space.
Honestly I feel the answers are all in modeling a compressed atom. The one thing that I know of that has not been researched to the point of a
conclusion. The power to do this must be immense, and the power radiated from it has to be equal. Singularity!
Blogfast, Please post up something that old jerks like myself, and new comers to the sciences can sink our teeth into. I have no excuses for not
learning this earlier in life, and I sure would like to have something real to work with. You guys should only know what I don't post! Moon cheese,
and such. We could feed the world. (where did the moon cows go?)
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
aga
Forum Drunkard
Posts: 7030
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Education is required.
Someone who has a clue, please launch into Education mode.
|
|
|
blogfast25
International Hazard
Posts: 10562
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Neverland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
A thread will be started tomorrow. Thanks.
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1693
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
You have no idea. QM is essential to our understanding of reality. It mainly applies to the subatomic, but since everything is subatomic at some level
it applies to everything.
The "quant" is derived from "quantum", i.e. a measure of a quantity. To be more specific it's a quantity of energy. When one thinks of energy one
usually see it as a continuous stream, something that can be divided into infinitesimal small units. But all empirical evidence tells us that energy
only appears as discrete units. At some level you can't split en amount of energy into two halves.
It's a bit like an ocean wave. It seems continuous, but if you look closely at it sooner or later it becomes atomic in nature. And you cannot divide
the wave into slices of the atom, the whole atom moves as a unit. It's similar with energy, at some level it behaves "lumpy". You can split a ray of
light into many weaker rays, but at some level you'll see a single photon that cannot simply be divided into two weaker parts. It just doesn't work
that way. And while that might seem insignificant in the larger scheme of things the fact is it dictates everything.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
Zombie
Forum Hillbilly
Posts: 1700
Registered: 13-1-2015
Location: Florida PanHandle
Member Is Offline
Mood: I just don't know...
|
|
Now that I don't get Fulmen.
I would have to think anything can be continuously halved. I have this vision in my mind that there is no end to anything.
Perhaps there is. I can't argue that but as Mr. Aga states QM might just not have all the answers. In fact I'm sure everyone can agree on that.
I'm very curious to learn much more about this.
They tried to have me "put to sleep" so I came back to return the favor.
Zom.
|
|
|
Fulmen
International Hazard
Posts: 1693
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: Bored
|
|
Well, yes and no. You can't split a piece of iron into infinitely small pieces, sooner or later you end up with a single atom. Sure you can split the
atom itself, but then it's no longer iron. Right? It's the same with energy. If you attenuate a ray of light, sooner or later you'll see it as a
"spray" of individual photons. And this has been proven many times experimentally. It's not something to get or don't get, it's a
fact you just have to accept.
This was at the heart of Planck's discovery when he solved the problem with thermal radiation. Nobody could get the math to make any sense until he
assumed that energy was emitted and absorbed in discrete quantities. Later Einstein proved him right by using this model to explain the photoelectric
effect. It was also Einstein that solved the apparent paradox of the particle/wave-duality by realizing it couldn't be one. If light behaves as a wave
in some experiments and as a particle in others, the only conclusion is that both are right. Light isn't a simple wave or a particle, it's something
entirely different that has properties that resemble both. Now in the macroscopic world this doesn't make much sense, but you can't assume that the
subatomic behaves just like macroscopic objects.
If you're asking if one can smash a photon into smaller parts, and then these parts into even smaller parts, sure. Matter and energy is a bit like
matroska dolls, so far we've never been able to find anything that cannot be divided further. But that's a different question that I'm not qualified
to explain.
We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
..
8
9
10 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
