On topic and if not for the graphics ... keep scrolling down 😉
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-thought-experiments-that-fray-the-fabric-of-space-time-20240925/
//
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-thought-experiments-that-fray-the-fabric-of-space-time-20240925/
//
Unfortunately, TNT, your site discombobulates my ancient laptop. The words and graphics jump about uncontrollably on my screen.
I did manage to read that black holes can store information on their surfaces. If only I could install a micro black hole in my laptop!
I did manage to read that black holes can store information on their surfaces. If only I could install a micro black hole in my laptop!
Last edited:
No. Is it a nonsense claim or are these apparent anomalies not anomalies at all - just the result of bad data - be they old measurements with old gear vs new measurements with the latest equipment?
Have you actually researched the scientists behind these "apparent anomalies", or found links which describe how their data was gathered?
Your "quantised redshift" link references an observation by Hoyle and Narlikar (1966).
The above pair came up with a theory of gravity that fits the quasi steady-state hypothesis which implies the universe is eternal.
According to Narlikar, multiple mini bangs would occur at the centre of quasars, with various creation fields continuously generating matter out of empty space due to local concentration of negative energy.
However, the quasi steady-state hypothesis is challenged by modern observation as it does not fit into the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) data which played a key role in establishing the current Standard Model of Cosmology, the Lambda-CDM model.
I'll leave it up to you to research the observation of Lopez-Corredoira and Gutierrez (2004) and judge its significance:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/...z-Corredoira & Gutiérrez ( 2004) we presented
Your "quantised redshift" link references an observation by Hoyle and Narlikar (1966).
The above pair came up with a theory of gravity that fits the quasi steady-state hypothesis which implies the universe is eternal.
According to Narlikar, multiple mini bangs would occur at the centre of quasars, with various creation fields continuously generating matter out of empty space due to local concentration of negative energy.
However, the quasi steady-state hypothesis is challenged by modern observation as it does not fit into the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) data which played a key role in establishing the current Standard Model of Cosmology, the Lambda-CDM model.
I'll leave it up to you to research the observation of Lopez-Corredoira and Gutierrez (2004) and judge its significance:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/...z-Corredoira & Gutiérrez ( 2004) we presented
Last edited:
The paper I linked to says the red shifts of very distant objects appear to cluster around specific values. You would expect, they say, to have redshits of these objects to be evenly distributed, but they are not, and we as yet do not have an explanation for these results.
It seems to me this is a valid observation, and just another discovery that will add grist to the ‘cosmological theories’ mill.
Separately, it’s not the first time I’ve read about the homogeneity and isotropic nature of the cosmos being called into question aka the cosmological principle.
It seems to me this is a valid observation, and just another discovery that will add grist to the ‘cosmological theories’ mill.
Separately, it’s not the first time I’ve read about the homogeneity and isotropic nature of the cosmos being called into question aka the cosmological principle.
The authors of the "redshift quantisation" say that "William G. Tifft observed periodicity in galaxy redshifts".
Here's the background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Tifft#:~:text=Redshift quantization. Based on observations of nearby
It would appear that Tifft's observations have not found widespread support and are now dismissed by the majority of astronomers.
One really has to look deeply into the claims of the authors of controversial articles.
Here's the background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Tifft#:~:text=Redshift quantization. Based on observations of nearby
It would appear that Tifft's observations have not found widespread support and are now dismissed by the majority of astronomers.
One really has to look deeply into the claims of the authors of controversial articles.
Astronomers have published a gigantic infrared map of the Milky Way comprised of 200,000 images and containing more than 1.5 billion objects - the most detailed ever: https://www.space.com/milky-way-detailed-map-vista-survey
The team has used the European Southern Observatory’s VISTA telescope to monitor the central regions of our Galaxy over more than 13 years.
The map below shows the regions of the Milky Way that have been covered.
Pictured below is the stellar nursery NGC 6357 as seen by the VISTA telescope. Known as the Lobster Nebula, it is 5,900 light-years away from Earth
You're looking at "newborn stars still cocooned in their natal envelopes of gas and dust". Mind boggling!
The team has used the European Southern Observatory’s VISTA telescope to monitor the central regions of our Galaxy over more than 13 years.
The map below shows the regions of the Milky Way that have been covered.
Pictured below is the stellar nursery NGC 6357 as seen by the VISTA telescope. Known as the Lobster Nebula, it is 5,900 light-years away from Earth
You're looking at "newborn stars still cocooned in their natal envelopes of gas and dust". Mind boggling!
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-logic-that-must-lie-behind-a-new-physics-20240925/
"So how do we conceptualize what we’re doing in quantum gravity? We’re drawing these diagrams in [our theories of quantum gravity]. But in drawing these things, we’re representing them spatiotemporally, because that’s the best we can do. But you can’t think of them as actually being anywhere. So it does really kind of make you wonder, how is this physics anymore? What are we doing? Have we pushed beyond the limits of what we’re able to do?"
//
"So how do we conceptualize what we’re doing in quantum gravity? We’re drawing these diagrams in [our theories of quantum gravity]. But in drawing these things, we’re representing them spatiotemporally, because that’s the best we can do. But you can’t think of them as actually being anywhere. So it does really kind of make you wonder, how is this physics anymore? What are we doing? Have we pushed beyond the limits of what we’re able to do?"
//
I'm in article interpretation mode!
Spatiotemporal means belonging to space and time or space-time.
A theory of quantum gravity could potentially describe the Universe beyond space and time, but must explain why the space-time of general relativity emerges from it.
So, the article turns out to be about "emergent space-time" - the suggestion that space-time emerges from a deeper theory.
I've written about the controversial theory of emergent space-time earlier in the thread:
"Some theorists believe that space-time is a property that emerges from the dynamics of some other underlying microscopic theory, and that this underlying theory must be quantum mechanical in nature.
This means that at some scale the notion of a smooth space-time has to break down. This is thought to happen at smaller scales and higher energies than are currently being probed by particle accelerators."
The final sentence above may answer your question regarding the "limits of what we're able to do" - a limitation is set by our particle accelerators.
I re-discovered the name of the star which passed close to our solar system in the distant past.
Scholz's star passed within one light year of the Sun at the time modern humans were just beginning to migrate out of Africa.
Steve supplied this link after I mentioned the star: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholz's_Star
Interestingly, a star is expected to pass through the Oort cloud every 100,000 years or so.
Much to get through as ever.
My arty friend Martin surprised me with tales of his recent visit to Greenwich in London for the freebie 2024 Astro Photography competition
https://www.rmg.co.uk/whats-on/astronomy-photographer-year
Worth exploring. I particularly liked this complex time-lapse effort showing asteroid Ceres rapidly moving in front of the M100 Blowdrier Galaxy over 8 hours:
I am still getting up to speed on my new Nikon f1.8 lens. I decided to focus it in daytime on a distant object and then switch to manual for night-time.
Alas I used zone focus and not centre-weighted, so it was a tiny bit short of infinity, hence the blue and slightly blurry stars, they come out more lilac beyond infinity:
Uranus bottom right, magnitude 5.7. But I have detected some retrograde motion in Uranus over the last ten days not too far from bright Jupiter in Taurus in the AM:
Which means we are moving faster than Uranus against the background at the moment. Planets usually move to the East.
William Herschel probably was not quite sure what he was looking at for this reason in 1781.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus
All talk of Quantum Gravity is quite the waste of time without starting with Special Relativity and high velocity and what it does to time. Then onto General Relativity to account for acceleration.
This 30m video is brilliant IMO. The animations explain it exactly.
Simultanaety, Light Cones, the Lorentz factor and boosts explained.
Having done that, the Mathematician can then do the analysis:
Ah, it's a lovely thing. All to do with conics. Circles and Hyperbolas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conic_section
The SYMMETRY of rotations and movement! Have you ever seen anything prettier? A child of ten can see it's the only way the Universe could possibly work. 😎
My arty friend Martin surprised me with tales of his recent visit to Greenwich in London for the freebie 2024 Astro Photography competition
https://www.rmg.co.uk/whats-on/astronomy-photographer-year
Worth exploring. I particularly liked this complex time-lapse effort showing asteroid Ceres rapidly moving in front of the M100 Blowdrier Galaxy over 8 hours:
I am still getting up to speed on my new Nikon f1.8 lens. I decided to focus it in daytime on a distant object and then switch to manual for night-time.
Alas I used zone focus and not centre-weighted, so it was a tiny bit short of infinity, hence the blue and slightly blurry stars, they come out more lilac beyond infinity:
Uranus bottom right, magnitude 5.7. But I have detected some retrograde motion in Uranus over the last ten days not too far from bright Jupiter in Taurus in the AM:
Which means we are moving faster than Uranus against the background at the moment. Planets usually move to the East.
William Herschel probably was not quite sure what he was looking at for this reason in 1781.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus
All talk of Quantum Gravity is quite the waste of time without starting with Special Relativity and high velocity and what it does to time. Then onto General Relativity to account for acceleration.
This 30m video is brilliant IMO. The animations explain it exactly.
Simultanaety, Light Cones, the Lorentz factor and boosts explained.
Having done that, the Mathematician can then do the analysis:
Ah, it's a lovely thing. All to do with conics. Circles and Hyperbolas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conic_section
The SYMMETRY of rotations and movement! Have you ever seen anything prettier? A child of ten can see it's the only way the Universe could possibly work. 😎
Well, I have no opinion either way, and there are some criticisms about the idea from mainstream cosmology. But . . . modern measurements are still showing redshift quantisation, and the debate now appears to have moved on to be about measurement method. Some say the anomaly is real, others say it has to do with the way the measurements are taken and the subsequent processing of the resultant data. We will just have to wait. I guess you've already made your mind up on this Galu!
Definition: An emergent property is one that can only be inferred from an understanding of the properties of its microscopic constituents. As in 'Spacetime is an emergent property of some underlying microscopic theory.'
Physicists are seeking a marriage between general relativity and quantum physics - they're searching for a theory of quantum gravity.
One of the contenders is Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG). Instead of being a smooth, continous fabric, LQG says that spacetime has structure on the smallest scales - just like zooming in on a piece of cloth and seeing the individual stitches, or zooming in on an LCD display and seeing the individual pixels.
The trouble is that when LQG physicists say small, they mean really small. The structure of spacetime would only be apparent on the level of the Planck scale - around a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a metre.
My mind is open and I should like to see references to these "modern measurements". Can you supply them? I'm fed up doing all the googling!
OK - my post above was not a language point but taken from the article as specifically pointed out wrt. to the use of that word.
//
//
Sabine Hossenfelder weighing in on LQG
https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2024/09/please-no-more-loop-quantum-gravity.html?m=1
Seems the real battle here is between it and string theory
(I haven’t watched the video BTW)
When you look at how complicated the attempts to explain gravity are you have to wonder about the Antykithera Mechanism used to explain the orbits of the planets assuming the Earth was at the centre of the universe. It gave plausible results, but was wholly and completely wrong. Ultimately, it was Newton and then Einstein that got it right.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2024/09/please-no-more-loop-quantum-gravity.html?m=1
Seems the real battle here is between it and string theory
(I haven’t watched the video BTW)
When you look at how complicated the attempts to explain gravity are you have to wonder about the Antykithera Mechanism used to explain the orbits of the planets assuming the Earth was at the centre of the universe. It gave plausible results, but was wholly and completely wrong. Ultimately, it was Newton and then Einstein that got it right.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
Last edited: