Interested to learn more, I've come across the yearbook “The Astronomical Almanac. Ephemerides of Minor Planets”.
https://iaaras.ru/en/about/issues/e...olicy of the International Astronomical Union.
I see that the yearbook includes data for the "positions of the antisun and the Moon".
So, what is the "antisun"? A hypothetical celestial body that orbits the Sun in the opposite direction as the Earth? The shadow of the Earth thrown by the real Sun?
https://www.universalworkshop.com/2...ll find something about the Antihelion Source.
Up till today, I have only heard the word antisun used in the context of a sunblock or sunscreen! 😎
P.S. I'm glad the ephemerides are keeping an eye on those pesky Centaurs - just in case!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaur_(small_Solar_System_body)
I have two points. And a distance between. And if I bend this distance, then these two points fall into the distance;-)
Or just one point;-)
Or just one point;-)
I was thinking that! I thought sentences ended in a stop, a question mark or an exclamation mark. A colon or semi-colon serve some purpose too. Why do we keep getting a wink? ";-)".
"Is this a question?" and all those old conundrums.
For sure the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Works in 4D Spacetime AFAIK, though we call it a geodesic there.
What idiot designed this road?
One of my favourite films. I liked it as a kid, and I still like it as I grow old.
I really wanted to discuss Comets tonight:
I missed that one in 2014. Came within a 100,000 miles of Mars (Barsoom).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2013_A1_(Siding_Spring)
There is some silly artwork at Wiki, which tries to portray all our satellites (orbiters) around Mars hiding from impact. Stupid nonsense. 🙄
"Is this a question?" and all those old conundrums.
For sure the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Works in 4D Spacetime AFAIK, though we call it a geodesic there.
What idiot designed this road?
One of my favourite films. I liked it as a kid, and I still like it as I grow old.
I really wanted to discuss Comets tonight:
I missed that one in 2014. Came within a 100,000 miles of Mars (Barsoom).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2013_A1_(Siding_Spring)
There is some silly artwork at Wiki, which tries to portray all our satellites (orbiters) around Mars hiding from impact. Stupid nonsense. 🙄
Last edited:
With your mathematician's hat on, you will remember the Comet of 1729 which was discovered by professor of mathematics, Father Nicolas Sarrabat, or Sarabat.
It is likely that the Comet of 1729 was an exceptionally large object, with a cometary nucleus of the order of 100 km in diameter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_of_1729
I had a marvelously clear view of Comet Halle-Bopp back in 1997, while driving over Beattock Summit at 1,016 ft above sea level.
A terrific sight!
I saw Hale-Bopp too! But the lights of Birmingham made observation difficult.
I am still majorly concerned with the sum of 4 squares. 1729 is the least of our problems.
I have made a major discovery today!
For want of anything better to do. I have been beavering away at my serious Physics Books:
Therein I have discovered that the Electromagnetic force (QED) is 1 dimensional. The Weak force (The W Boson) is 2 dimensional, and the Strong Colour force (QCD) has 3 directions.
We all know that we have only accounted for 5% of the mass of matter ( =Energy ) so far. Another 20% is Dark Matter. The other 75% is Dark Energy.
Here's the Weird Thing. 95% of the mass of Hadrons is pure movement energy and confinement of Quarks and Gluons. Not the smallish Quark mass. And you really only need Up, Down and the Electron and the Neutrino for the most part. So our 5% is looking an overestimate. Where that leaves the Higgs, IDK.
And what is with Gravity? An entirely different Classical approach.
So many Problems, so little Time. 🙁
I am still majorly concerned with the sum of 4 squares. 1729 is the least of our problems.
I have made a major discovery today!
For want of anything better to do. I have been beavering away at my serious Physics Books:
Therein I have discovered that the Electromagnetic force (QED) is 1 dimensional. The Weak force (The W Boson) is 2 dimensional, and the Strong Colour force (QCD) has 3 directions.
We all know that we have only accounted for 5% of the mass of matter ( =Energy ) so far. Another 20% is Dark Matter. The other 75% is Dark Energy.
Here's the Weird Thing. 95% of the mass of Hadrons is pure movement energy and confinement of Quarks and Gluons. Not the smallish Quark mass. And you really only need Up, Down and the Electron and the Neutrino for the most part. So our 5% is looking an overestimate. Where that leaves the Higgs, IDK.
And what is with Gravity? An entirely different Classical approach.
So many Problems, so little Time. 🙁
Last edited:
I don't quite follow that statement, but think I am correct in saying that, except for massless photons and gluons, all elementary particles get their masses from their interactions with the Higgs field.
I found the following clarification.
The Higgs Field gives mass to:
- Everything marked in purple i.e. the quarks and anti-quarks
- Everything marked in green i.e. leptons and anti-leptons, which includes electrons, positrons, tau-particles, neutrinos etc.
- The yellow marked particle i.e. Higgs Boson, an excitation of the Higgs Field
- The orange-red marked particles, except for two (photon [γ] and gluon [g])
Last edited:
Hale-Bopp was amazing. From here -n ice dark skies! - it was a huge splash across the sky. Beautiful.
I looked into the origin of hadron mass:
Firstly, a hadron is a composite particle made of several quarks. Protons and neutrons are the most familiar hadrons and make up most of the mass of the matter on the Earth.
Whereas the Higgs field gives elementary particles their mass, it explains only a few percent of the mass of a hadron, and it is still open how a hadron acquires its mass.
It is thought that the majority of a hadron’s mass actually comes from the mass-energy equivalence of the energy of the gluons that bind quarks together.
Wikipedia has more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics_binding_energy
Look (Hark), you raised the subject of 1729 recently. I find 1728 more interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-invariant
Frankly, Physics is NUTS!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaon
They seem to be saying the VACUUM has a handedness!
I shall stick to Mathematics:
This my sort of stuff:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/beho...fifth-fundamental-operation-of-math-20230921/
Most excellent. 🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-invariant
Frankly, Physics is NUTS!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaon
They seem to be saying the VACUUM has a handedness!
I shall stick to Mathematics:
This my sort of stuff:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/beho...fifth-fundamental-operation-of-math-20230921/
Most excellent. 🙂
Last edited:
Experiments have shown that the decays of a neutral kaon (or K meson) occur differently from those of its antiparticle partner, thus violating CP symmetry.
CP violation in kaons is thought to be a good place to look for new physics beyond the standard model.
I touched on this CP violation back on page 66.
However, I would need you to explain what you mean by "the VACUUM has a handedness", as I'm struggling to find mention of this in your Wiki link.
Question: if the energy density per cubic metre in inter galactic space is c 3-4 Hydrogen atoms worth (from E=MC^2), what is the energy density if we consider an infinitely small volume within that cubic metre?
Surely the energy density (energy per unit volume) is the same regardless of what volume you consider?
What you suggest seems like comparing the density of one cubic centimetre of lead with that of one cubic metre of lead - the densities are the same.
It's probably your mention of infinity that perplexes me most, and that's the point at which most physics arguments break down! 🤓
However, I read that the energy density of the vacuum is around 1.3 x 10^-19 joules per cubic metre, which is about 100 million times smaller than the energy density of water
What you suggest seems like comparing the density of one cubic centimetre of lead with that of one cubic metre of lead - the densities are the same.
It's probably your mention of infinity that perplexes me most, and that's the point at which most physics arguments break down! 🤓
However, I read that the energy density of the vacuum is around 1.3 x 10^-19 joules per cubic metre, which is about 100 million times smaller than the energy density of water
Maybe an unsatisfactory answer, but I think the Dirac Equation may answer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation
To me, the Universe is breaking news!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66890649
I was worried about that problem. 🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation
To me, the Universe is breaking news!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66890649
I was worried about that problem. 🙂
Last edited:
