I have been beavering away at the Beta Lyrae Binary Star Eclipse problem. I thought I would share THE THRILL OF DISCOVERING THINGS FOR YOURSELF, as advocated by Richard Feynman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Lyrae
This star Sheliak dips down to mag 4.4 from 3.3 every 12.9414 days which seems an impressively accurate figure. It is normally almost as bright as Sulafat which is 3.1.
Now all I need is an recent enough primary eclipse date, here 21 Oct 2017:
https://www.popastro.com/variablest...ng-binary-predictions-2017-september-october/
And to know how many days have elapsed to 14 Apr 2025 here 2732 days or a tidge less, and divide by 12.9414:
https://howlongagogo.com/date/2017/october/21
14 Apr 2025 = 211.105 cycles
13 Apr 2025 = 211.028 cycles
12 Apr 2025 = 210.950 cycles
We should be comparing it with the the top right and farthest left stars for comparing the faintest apparition. The last picture looks promising based on calculations.
I should get another chance around 25 April for the Primary dip, and there is a smaller one inbetween.
But TBH, I haven't got a clue! I have read that people use ASA 200 and f5 and 5 seconds to do this properly.
I used f2.8, ISO 800 and 4 seconds, so maybe I need better technique? Maybe its a question of dynamic range?
There is a lesson here for "The Hollow Men" who confidently advise on Forums. Between the Idea and the Reality falls the shadow! T.S.Elliot said that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Lyrae
This star Sheliak dips down to mag 4.4 from 3.3 every 12.9414 days which seems an impressively accurate figure. It is normally almost as bright as Sulafat which is 3.1.
Now all I need is an recent enough primary eclipse date, here 21 Oct 2017:
https://www.popastro.com/variablest...ng-binary-predictions-2017-september-october/
And to know how many days have elapsed to 14 Apr 2025 here 2732 days or a tidge less, and divide by 12.9414:
https://howlongagogo.com/date/2017/october/21
14 Apr 2025 = 211.105 cycles
13 Apr 2025 = 211.028 cycles
12 Apr 2025 = 210.950 cycles
We should be comparing it with the the top right and farthest left stars for comparing the faintest apparition. The last picture looks promising based on calculations.
I should get another chance around 25 April for the Primary dip, and there is a smaller one inbetween.
But TBH, I haven't got a clue! I have read that people use ASA 200 and f5 and 5 seconds to do this properly.
I used f2.8, ISO 800 and 4 seconds, so maybe I need better technique? Maybe its a question of dynamic range?
There is a lesson here for "The Hollow Men" who confidently advise on Forums. Between the Idea and the Reality falls the shadow! T.S.Elliot said that.
I decided to look into this.
Firstly, a muon is identical to an electron, except it is about 200 times more massive and unstable.
Theory predicts that the muon's magnetic moment, g, should equal 2. Any deviation from 2 would be due to the muon interacting with other, known and unknown, particles or forces. This makes measuring g important to particle physicists.
Comparisons of experimental measurements of g with the Standard Model prediction have provided strong evidence that the Standard Model is not complete and muons could be interacting with yet undiscovered particles or forces.
Read more here: https://www.anl.gov/article/muon-g2-experiment-announces-updated-result-thats-twice-as-precise
Fermilab's g-2 experiment
P.S. Interactions with other particles raise the value of g above 2. The difference from 2 is called g-2 (gee minus 2).
Last edited:
I only mentioned the Muon in passing with calculations of Binary Stars, which you so usefully diagrammed for a fuller Newtonian Kepler's Law:
This seems a thing I am capable of. And maybe there is some Quantum insight here too.
But the Muon g-factor is a severely difficult thing, perhaps best left to professionals who enjoy Feynman diagrams:
Mira is, of course, another famous variable star. Spooky, eh? There is no such thing as coincidence. 🙂
https://cerncourier.com/a/an-anomalous-moment-for-the-muon/
Muons have also been used to discover hidden chambers in the Egyptian Pyramids:
In studying Algol, I learned the Egyptian priests, who knew all about the Demon Star, stayed up all night burning incense and doubtless sacrificing small animals to ensure that the Sun, Ra, rises the next day.
Without their tireless and doubtless costly efforts, the Egyptians would have been stumbling and groping their way in the dark! 🙄
Which just proves to me that every generation believes a whole lot of nonsense. Are we immune? I don't think so. Have you tried to make sense of the news lately? 🤣
This seems a thing I am capable of. And maybe there is some Quantum insight here too.
But the Muon g-factor is a severely difficult thing, perhaps best left to professionals who enjoy Feynman diagrams:
Mira is, of course, another famous variable star. Spooky, eh? There is no such thing as coincidence. 🙂
https://cerncourier.com/a/an-anomalous-moment-for-the-muon/
Muons have also been used to discover hidden chambers in the Egyptian Pyramids:
In studying Algol, I learned the Egyptian priests, who knew all about the Demon Star, stayed up all night burning incense and doubtless sacrificing small animals to ensure that the Sun, Ra, rises the next day.
Without their tireless and doubtless costly efforts, the Egyptians would have been stumbling and groping their way in the dark! 🙄
Which just proves to me that every generation believes a whole lot of nonsense. Are we immune? I don't think so. Have you tried to make sense of the news lately? 🤣
Last edited:
Would you believe that we discussed this back on page 140!
Muon imaging makes use of the muons present in secondary cosmic radiation:
In an attempt to preserve what little sanity I have left, I tend to avoid studying the news in any depth nowadays!
Really, Galu, I prefer problems I can solve. The Muon g-factor is way beyond all our abilities here,.. and I am not holding my breath for new particles.
It is just a ruse to keep Particle Physicists in a job.
Even Muon investigations of the Pyramids are of little interest. Just a guess, but "The Secret of the Pyramids" is unlikely to be anything more than a chamber filled with Mummified Black Cats, IMO.
No. I am beavering away at the Binary Star problem. I want to know exactly what is going on. To reiterate:
To do this, I know that this is a Conservation of Momentum problem, with a fixed centre of Gravity. My go-to guy is Professor Shankar at Yale:
Momentum is always conserved even in Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Energy can do anything, but we assume elastic interactions. So far, the Quantum Mechanics solution is looking like the Hydrogen atom, but with a bigger mass.
All these interactions are conics in the end. Ellipses in bound states, hyperbolas in unbound collisions.
So Muonic Hydrogen is pretty much a ground state energy 13.6eV X 200 or so,
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/406247/modifying-the-bohr-model-for-muonic-hydrogen
I think you could do most of it from the Uncertainty Principle. Might throw in the Reduced Mass. We shall see. 🤔
It is just a ruse to keep Particle Physicists in a job.
Even Muon investigations of the Pyramids are of little interest. Just a guess, but "The Secret of the Pyramids" is unlikely to be anything more than a chamber filled with Mummified Black Cats, IMO.
No. I am beavering away at the Binary Star problem. I want to know exactly what is going on. To reiterate:
To do this, I know that this is a Conservation of Momentum problem, with a fixed centre of Gravity. My go-to guy is Professor Shankar at Yale:
Momentum is always conserved even in Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Energy can do anything, but we assume elastic interactions. So far, the Quantum Mechanics solution is looking like the Hydrogen atom, but with a bigger mass.
All these interactions are conics in the end. Ellipses in bound states, hyperbolas in unbound collisions.
So Muonic Hydrogen is pretty much a ground state energy 13.6eV X 200 or so,
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/406247/modifying-the-bohr-model-for-muonic-hydrogen
I think you could do most of it from the Uncertainty Principle. Might throw in the Reduced Mass. We shall see. 🤔
Firstly, I'm not opposed to physicists having jobs, and secondly, using muons to probe for new particles and forces is no doubt considerably less expensive than it would be to construct the proposed Future Circular Collider (FCC) that would replace the smaller Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
https://www.itv.com/news/2025-04-04/the-13-billion-race-to-build-the-next-particle-collider
Last edited:
Because of the small mass of brown dwarf stars (between 0.075 and 0.013 times that of the Sun), brown dwarf binaries are very rare.
However, a pair of eclipsing brown dwarf stars has recently been discovered (only the second such discovery) - and there's a weird twist!
Artist's impression of system 2M1510 AB, a pair of brown dwarfs (A and B) orbiting each other
While we've 'seen' planets orbiting brown dwarf stars before, we've never 'seen' a planet orbiting a brown dwarf binary in a polar orbit.
Work out the mechanics of that system, Steve!
https://www.space.com/the-universe/...stem-with-exoplanet-on-a-sideways-orbit-video
However, a pair of eclipsing brown dwarf stars has recently been discovered (only the second such discovery) - and there's a weird twist!
Artist's impression of system 2M1510 AB, a pair of brown dwarfs (A and B) orbiting each other
While we've 'seen' planets orbiting brown dwarf stars before, we've never 'seen' a planet orbiting a brown dwarf binary in a polar orbit.
Work out the mechanics of that system, Steve!
https://www.space.com/the-universe/...stem-with-exoplanet-on-a-sideways-orbit-video
Let's talk more gravity!
I've been reading about gravimeters based on atom interferometry which are among the most accurate and sensitive tools for measuring gravity.
An atom interferometer is analagous to an optical interferometer, but utilises matter waves instead of light waves.
In one type of gravimeter, a cloud of atoms cooled to near absolute zero is launched into a vacuum chamber.
As the atoms freefall, a laser splits the cloud into two clouds and another laser recombines them so that the matter waves of the atoms interfere with each other. The resulting interference pattern provides an extremely precise measurement of how much the atoms were accelerated by gravity.
NASA plans to test such an atom interferometer in the freefall conditions of low Earth orbit within the next decade, with the ultimate goal of measuring barely perceptible differences in the Earth's gravity with unprecedented accuracy: https://www.space.com/space-explora...based-quantum-sensor-for-gravity-measurements
I've been reading about gravimeters based on atom interferometry which are among the most accurate and sensitive tools for measuring gravity.
An atom interferometer is analagous to an optical interferometer, but utilises matter waves instead of light waves.
In one type of gravimeter, a cloud of atoms cooled to near absolute zero is launched into a vacuum chamber.
As the atoms freefall, a laser splits the cloud into two clouds and another laser recombines them so that the matter waves of the atoms interfere with each other. The resulting interference pattern provides an extremely precise measurement of how much the atoms were accelerated by gravity.
NASA plans to test such an atom interferometer in the freefall conditions of low Earth orbit within the next decade, with the ultimate goal of measuring barely perceptible differences in the Earth's gravity with unprecedented accuracy: https://www.space.com/space-explora...based-quantum-sensor-for-gravity-measurements
Can anyone here rationalize why mass increases when it is in motion? What property of mass or empty space would make that happen? Relativity says that once an object is in motion that it has a mass increase and classic physics says that its Kinetic Energy is 1/2(rest mass)*(velocity)^2. If one uses Einstein's relativistic mass equation at speeds much lower than the speed of light then it can be shown that the Kinetic Energy is equal to the Energy of the increase of mass from E=(increase in mass)*c^2. I am sure that I haven't discovered something new but wouldn't an object decelerating from a repelling force appear to be heavier if you try to accelerate it to a new velocity with an accelerating force? There would be less net force to accelerate an object when a resistive force to motion is already present and that force would be ever increasing at higher velocities. It seems rational to me that space has a resistive force when it is being pushed or warped or bent by a mass that has velocity. A decelerating force would stop an object in space if given enough time.
Here is a video that says that objects do lose energy in space so it makes me think that space is supplying the decelerating force to motion which would happen if there was something to push. I haven't tried to calculate any forces to see what makes sense. The resistance to constant motion seems small while the resistance to acceleration seems large but space is sparse while mass is dense. It seems that the density of space could be calculated in the same way that air density can be calculated by a cannonball traveling through it if we could get data points.
The video states near the 17 minute mark that energy is not conserved and I think that I believe it.
Here is a video that says that objects do lose energy in space so it makes me think that space is supplying the decelerating force to motion which would happen if there was something to push. I haven't tried to calculate any forces to see what makes sense. The resistance to constant motion seems small while the resistance to acceleration seems large but space is sparse while mass is dense. It seems that the density of space could be calculated in the same way that air density can be calculated by a cannonball traveling through it if we could get data points.
The video states near the 17 minute mark that energy is not conserved and I think that I believe it.
The video starts off by stating that a rock thrown in space will not continue with constant velocity but will eventually slow down and stop - a sort of clickbait introduction.
The video goes on to discuss how the symmetries in physics relate to conservation laws.
Noether's theorum, for example, connects symmetries to conservation laws, stating that every continuous symmetry corresponds to a conserved quantity.
Around the 17 minute mark we are told that because the Universe is not symmetric in time (because it is expanding and was different billions of years ago) we don't have energy conservation over the long time scales of the Universe.
The example given is that a photon released at the dawn of the Universe reaches us today (as a constituent of the Cosmic Microwave Background) after traveling through the expanding Universe and losing 99.9% of its energy. The question is posed: "Where does the energy go?" The answer is given: "It doesn't go anywhere. Energy is not conserved".
This is said to be what is happening to the rock at the beginning of the video. It slows down and stops as it travels through the expanding Universe. The energy just disappears.
The justification given for this is that conservation laws no longer apply where there is no time symmetry. When it comes to conservation of energy the expansion of the Universe can not be ignored as it breaks time symmetry.
To put it simply, energy is conserved in the short time scales of our everyday lives, but not over the long time scales of the Universe.
Discuss!
The video goes on to discuss how the symmetries in physics relate to conservation laws.
Noether's theorum, for example, connects symmetries to conservation laws, stating that every continuous symmetry corresponds to a conserved quantity.
Around the 17 minute mark we are told that because the Universe is not symmetric in time (because it is expanding and was different billions of years ago) we don't have energy conservation over the long time scales of the Universe.
The example given is that a photon released at the dawn of the Universe reaches us today (as a constituent of the Cosmic Microwave Background) after traveling through the expanding Universe and losing 99.9% of its energy. The question is posed: "Where does the energy go?" The answer is given: "It doesn't go anywhere. Energy is not conserved".
This is said to be what is happening to the rock at the beginning of the video. It slows down and stops as it travels through the expanding Universe. The energy just disappears.
The justification given for this is that conservation laws no longer apply where there is no time symmetry. When it comes to conservation of energy the expansion of the Universe can not be ignored as it breaks time symmetry.
To put it simply, energy is conserved in the short time scales of our everyday lives, but not over the long time scales of the Universe.
Discuss!
Last edited:
Forget the ether, I decided to ask Ethan! 😎
Energy conservation holds in a Universe that obeys time-translation symmetry, i.e., in a Universe that is the same from one moment to the next.
However, energy conservation does NOT hold in an expanding Universe, i.e., in a Universe that is different from one moment to the next.
Here's the low down:
The physical symmetry that corresponds to the conserved quantity of energy is called 'time-translation invariance'. This is the notion that physical properties and laws don’t evolve with time. We assume that this invariance holds when working with our local scale physics. However there is a physical property that evolves with time on cosmic scales. That property is the distance between any two cosmic objects that aren’t gravitationally bound together. Hence, time-translation invariance and energy conservation do not hold in an expanding Universe.
There appears to be a problem in physics in that energy can not be uniquely defined in an expanding spacetime, but can only be defined where we have time-translation symmetry.
Ethan's full explanation may be found here: https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/expanding-universe-conserve-energy/
Energy conservation holds in a Universe that obeys time-translation symmetry, i.e., in a Universe that is the same from one moment to the next.
However, energy conservation does NOT hold in an expanding Universe, i.e., in a Universe that is different from one moment to the next.
Here's the low down:
The physical symmetry that corresponds to the conserved quantity of energy is called 'time-translation invariance'. This is the notion that physical properties and laws don’t evolve with time. We assume that this invariance holds when working with our local scale physics. However there is a physical property that evolves with time on cosmic scales. That property is the distance between any two cosmic objects that aren’t gravitationally bound together. Hence, time-translation invariance and energy conservation do not hold in an expanding Universe.
There appears to be a problem in physics in that energy can not be uniquely defined in an expanding spacetime, but can only be defined where we have time-translation symmetry.
Ethan's full explanation may be found here: https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/expanding-universe-conserve-energy/
May one assume that time-translation invariance is in fact also working here locally but that the effect is so small that we cant hardly even measure it locally - still it should/must be also here... no? And may we also think that there isn't anything like gravitationally bounding but rather, again, that the effect is so weak over long distance that its almost zero... but not just zero.. or? 🙂
Or is there a "wall" in both cases where it actually drops to zero - perhaps at the Planc scale border?
//
Or is there a "wall" in both cases where it actually drops to zero - perhaps at the Planc scale border?
//
Gravity overcomes the expansion of space so, locally, time-translation invariance and hence energy conservation hold.
It is only in the vast voids between galactic clusters that space can expand in the absence of gravitational forces. There, time-translation invariance does not hold and hence energy is not conserved.
It is only in the vast voids between galactic clusters that space can expand in the absence of gravitational forces. There, time-translation invariance does not hold and hence energy is not conserved.
Here's one for the thread...cant vouch for the quote authenticity.
Townsend Brown asked Dr Paul Alfred Biefeld what instrument might demonstrate the link between electricity and gravity?
In discussing the question, If coupling did exist what instrument might it resemble?
"A capacitor" was his answer.
Townsend Brown asked Dr Paul Alfred Biefeld what instrument might demonstrate the link between electricity and gravity?
In discussing the question, If coupling did exist what instrument might it resemble?
"A capacitor" was his answer.
David Hilbert was quite obsessed with linking electromagnetism with gravity, but abandoned it. He ultimately passed on the General Relativity problems to his Gottingen colleagues too.
For one thing, his maths predicted singularities in General Relativity in 1915, and old curmudgeon Einstein wasn't having that. I guess they fell out.
AFAIK, it was Felix Klein and Emmy Noether, working jointly, who did the heavy lifting to rescue General Relativity from its alarming tendency not to conserve energy.
Of course, you have to wonder quite what is left to be conserved, if number 3, Energy Conservation fails in the empty and expanding Cosmic void.
Momentum, number 1, a translation symmetry, is looking wobbly. I think number 2 Angular Momentum and number 4 Charge Conservation are OK.
But in this household we believe in Conservation of Energy and Momentum.
Very interesting experiment I have tried. If you drop two superballs like this from 1 metre, how high does the small one bounce when they hit the ground?
Let's say the big one is 3x the mass of the small one. We can assume it is an elastic collision near enough.
https://plus.maths.org/content/outer-space-twos-company-threes-crowd
That's proper Momentum and Energy calculations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision
For one thing, his maths predicted singularities in General Relativity in 1915, and old curmudgeon Einstein wasn't having that. I guess they fell out.
AFAIK, it was Felix Klein and Emmy Noether, working jointly, who did the heavy lifting to rescue General Relativity from its alarming tendency not to conserve energy.
Of course, you have to wonder quite what is left to be conserved, if number 3, Energy Conservation fails in the empty and expanding Cosmic void.
Momentum, number 1, a translation symmetry, is looking wobbly. I think number 2 Angular Momentum and number 4 Charge Conservation are OK.
But in this household we believe in Conservation of Energy and Momentum.
Very interesting experiment I have tried. If you drop two superballs like this from 1 metre, how high does the small one bounce when they hit the ground?
Let's say the big one is 3x the mass of the small one. We can assume it is an elastic collision near enough.
https://plus.maths.org/content/outer-space-twos-company-threes-crowd
That's proper Momentum and Energy calculations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_collision
Dr. Biefeld seems blissfully unaware that a capacitor is an electronic component and not a measuring instrument! 🙂
However, I can say there is an analogy between gravity and electricity.
The gravitational field produced by a rotating object can be described by equations that have the same form as in electromagnetism.
This is illustrated by "frame dragging" where the spinning Earth induces a dragging of spacetime that is analogous to the way a spinning electron induces a magnetic field.
NASA's gravity probe B
Frame dragging was a prediction of Einstein's theory of gravity and has now been confirmed by measurements made by the gyroscopic instruments aboard the NASA Gravity Probe B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B
Do we assume that there is a separation between the two balls when dropped?
In that case, the large ball hits the ground, rebounds and then collides with the small ball that is still moving downwards.
The two balls will reach the ground with the same speed v since they are dropped from the same height. The big ball will rebound upwards with speed v so that an observer on the big ball would see the small ball approaching at speed 2v. The observer on the big ball would see the small ball bounce back with a speed of 2v, but since the large ball is rising at speed v an observer on the ground would see the small ball projected vertically at 3v and bounce to 9 times the drop height. I read it here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/doubal.html
I'll leave it up to you, the resident mathematician, to check that answer by applying conservation laws.
P.S. I read in the supplied link that the slingshot maneuver employed to speed up space probes is like the double ball drop.
He might have ment the capacitor effect / mechanism. But we all do know about cap microphonics - right 😉
//