Daniel Baldomir added an answer:Why are there no stable states with more than three or less than two quarks?
It is known that hadrons can be divided in baryons (fermions of three quarks) and mesons (bosons of two quarks). The sum of their electric charge is always an integer number, e.g. the proton is one and the neutron is zero. What is the reason that we have not found one particle with, say, five or seven quarks?
Thank you very much for your answer and sorry for my delay in responding. The application to cosmology is not obvious at all, but it seems that in the first moments previous to the hadron formation, around 10^(-35) seconds, i.e. in the inflationary age, it seems that the implications of having so massive particles could change the application of theorems as the of Borde-Vilenkin-Guth for singularities. I know that this far of my original question but it could help to understand a little better hypothesis as the dark matter, what do you think about?Following
Edgars Alksnis added an answer:How are the space and time related to biocentrism?Robert Lanza’s Biocentrism Theory
Space is as per Descartes/Newton; with time is a bit more complicated- but, believe, not in Your case.Following
G. Bothun added an answer:How is the tagging of photons from astronomical sources, done?
How are the photons from different astronomical sources, which lie in the same solid angle from an observer, emitting in the same energy (i.e frequency or wavelength) region, tagged as coming from different sources? Does the Doppler shift play a vital role here? Or other techniques come in handy?
If you just have fluxes through bandpass filters, the separation is difficult and model dependent as discussed. If you can do integrated spectroscopy (often difficult) over the solid angle in question, you an do much better at resolving the individual components of the emission.Following
Russell Jurek added an answer:What is the limiting magnitude for detecting a galaxy in the SDSS image?
It's complicated by the fact that SDSS uses "luptitudes", instead of standard Pogson magnitudes. SDSS Luptitudes are designed to asymptote to fixed magnitude values. This avoids the weird magnitudes that you would otherwise get when you integrate noise.Following
Viacheslav Zgonnik added an answer:Looking for an advise on nebulae (molecular clouds, globules, protoplanetary disks)?
Our group of geochemists, geologists and chemists is looking for a astrophysicists or astronomer who will be interested to participate in our research. We discovered the correlation between ionization potential of elements and their abundance in planets and other bodies. This correlation could be explained by a simple termochemical equation. Predictions by this equation correlate impressively well with observed chemical composition of surface of planets. We propose a theoretical process which could explain observed facts. Details of our work are described in this document http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2909
We are looking for a person who could help us (in collaboration way) to improve and connect our theoretical model with observations of nebulae.
It is correct. In our work we tested it on new data from space probes then interpreted the observed correlation as a Boltzmann distribution depending on the distance from the Sun. We tested our model on factual data for Moon, Mars, Venus and Meteorites. We find that predictions force of the model is excellent. Then, we made surface-to-volume analysis for elements. We find periodical trends, related with affinity of elements to hydrogen and with their mass. This suggests that radial differentiation of elements inside the planet was chemically- and gravity-driven. We have far more interesting results, which are out of scope of this paper.Following
Joseph L Alvarez added an answer:Radiation can lose energy by collisions with other particles. Does all radiation tend to end up being infrared radiation?The loss of energy results in an increase in wavelength for radiation. If the time this progress takes is infinitely long, could all radiation (gamma, x, UV, etc.) finish with a larger wavelength.
Your question depends upon infinitely long. How and when we introduce infinity changes the results of a calculation. The result is a paradox if infinity is not properly introduced. A popular concept of entropy is that the entropy of a system increases. A closed, insulated system has constant entropy. When is it proper to introduce infinity in a closed system? Is the universe a closed system?
Suppose we begin with the most intense gamma ray burst attainable. The gamma rays will lose energy with each interaction with matter or other photons (except for some exceptions noted in other answers). Nevertheless, if this gamma ray burst occurred at the beginning of the universe, at the current age of the universe, we still have a probability that some of the initial gammas have not interacted. Is this a case of improper use of infinity, even if the probability is ridiculously small?
All the photons from the initial burst will have lost energy until some final gasp when that energy is absorbed in some process. We can say that the energy of the photons goes asymptotically to zero. So the answer to your question is that the photons degrade until they quietly absorb. That is the effect of carrying the equations to infinity.
If the universe is a closed system and the entropy does not increase, do we require continuous bursts of intense gamma rays? Will the universe finally degrade to the average with a small distribution in energy? I do not believe there is an equation that will answer these questions, but there is an equation that says a burst of gamma rays will asymptotically degrade to zero.Following
Josep M. Trigo-Rodríguez added an answer:What is the source of neutral sodium in comets?
Various authors have suggested sources in the dust tail, near the nucleus, in the plasma tail or some combination of all three (that might even turn off and on depending on what comet you are looking at at what time).
The two previous readings suggested are excellent as they review nicely our knowledge on Na in comets. Let me point out that if the general scenario of comet formation is correct we should expect the accretion of significant amounts of Na in these bodies, perhaps in neutral form forming part of the interstitial matrix (also in ices?). Its presence could fit our detected overabundance of Na in cometary meteoroids that could be consequence of extensive Na depletion of the inner disk during the early solar system stage. See e.g. our paper: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2004MNRAS.348..802T&db_key=AST&link_type=ARTICLEFollowing
Can accelerated expansion of galaxies be explained as an expanding wave?
In PNAS, August 25, 2009 edition, Blake and Smoller argued that perhaps the standard terminologies of dark energy and cosmological constant are not required for explaining the accelerated expansion of galaxies. According to them, the key to solve that puzzle is to find expanding wave solutions of the Einstein's equations.
So do you think it is possible to use expanding wave solutions of the Einstein's equations to solve accelerated expansion of galaxies? Your comments are welcome.
Thanks Allan, for your answer. I will read your papers soon. Best wishesFollowing
Do Einstein's equations correspond to solutions of Klein-Fock-Gordon equation?
I read somewhere that Einstein's equations may be expressed in terms of Klein-Fock-Gordon equation, but i am not sure yet how to do that.
In a paper, Fiziev and Shirkov discuss solutions of Klein-Fock-Gordon equation and its implications to Einstein's equations. In effect, this may imply that Einstein's equations have wave-type solutions.
What do you think? Your comments are welcome.
Thank you Stam, for your answer. Best wishesFollowing
Issam Sinjab added an answer:What is the origin of the magnetic field of a neutron star?After surpassing electron degeneracy and supported by quantum degeneracy pressure, these kind of stars are composed mainly by neutrons, particles without electic charge. They posses nevertheless very strong magnetic fields. So, if they are composed mainly from electrically neutral particles, what is the origin of their strong magnetic fields?
Dear Marek Wojciech Gutowski
Sorry for my late reply as I am on holiday and I should explain better my earlier post and point out some of the difficulties that come with the conservation of magnetic flux assumption especially in connection with magnetars.
"Where from did you get "the conservation of magnetic flux"? "
Well, it was first suggested by Manchester & Taylor (1977) and by Smith (1977). See for example:
Manchester, R. N., & Taylor, J. H. 1997, Pulsars (San Francisco: Freeman, W.H. & Company).
Also, please refer to Jeremy Heyl's post dated Dec 4 2012:
"The electrical conductivity is very high so that over the timescale of the collapse of the star the magnetic field lines cannot move far relative to the collapsing plasma, so the magnetic flux threading the core is conserved Flux ~ B R^2 so as R decreases the field increases."
There are however serious problems with this assumption as we shall see below.
A large value of the magnetic field near the neutron star's surface is customarily assumed to be associated with magnetic flux conservation during gravitational collapse, also called fossil field hypothesis. The simplest and most popular hypothesis, magnetic flux conservation, is that neutron stars magnetic fields are simple remnants of their main sequence (MS) progenitors. For a star of radius R and surface magnetic field strength B, Conservation of magnetic flux in gravitational collapse require the magnetic flux BR^2=constant. Consider a star of B=100G and R=7x 10^8 m. If a star of this surface magnetic field strength and radius collapsed to a neutron star of radius R(ns)=10 km, it would have a surface magnetic field of B(ns) equal to about 10^11 G. Admittedly, this is unrealistically optimistic estimate because the neutron star contains only some 15% of the progenitor's mass! The other major problem of course, as you rightly indicated, is that the magnetic field strength 10^11 G is at least 1-4 orders of magnitude weaker to explain magnetars with magnetic field strengths 10^12-10^15 G. The fossil hypothesis is therefore not an attractive one, at least not for magnetars.
One could argue that some MS stars have much higher fields, the strongest fields known in MS stars are around 10^4 G. Magnetic flux conservation during gravitational collapse of these stars would imply B(ns) equal to about 10^13. Not only is this still insufficient for magnetar but there is also a problem of statistics. Only a very small fraction of progenitors has magnetic fields as large as 10^4 G. Magnetars, on the other hand, are born frequently. Their birth rate is probably comparable to that of normal neutron stars-Woods(2008).
One other serious problem of the magnetic flux conservation is that not only the neutron star contains only some 15% of the progenitor's mass but also the core of a typical progenitor MS star occupy only some 2-3% of the star's cross section!
Here's a research paper that attempts to explain the phenomena using an approach for induced magnetic moments in neutron superfluids:
The Physics of Strong Magnetic Fields in Neutron Stars:http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0706/0706.0060.pdfFollowing
Milan Krkoska added an answer:Can fracture mechanics predict when the whole Universe will fracture?This question is open for chemists, metallurgists, physicists and astrophysicists:
Check out this diagram which has been released today on Universe inflation. It describes how the universe has been expanding with time. It says that the Universe, around 2 billion years after the Big Bang inflated at a rate of 1% every 44 million years. The expansion decelerated under the influence of dark matter before the expansion continued under the influence of dark energy.
Now Let's look at another [quite similar] diagram, called creep diagram:
The diagram describes the elongation of a structure under a static load with time, across three stages before fracture.
It happens that a certain concept in a scientific field can be used to describe (and predict) a phenomenon in a seemingly (and sometimes totally) different scientific field.
Can these two diagrams help make the case, one day?
are you elaborating on your idea? just out of curiosity ...
Jesús Varela López added an answer:Is anyone interested in the full data release of the ALHAMBRA data?The ALHAMBRA survey (http://alhambrasurvey.com/) has just published its 1st full data release.
You can find the the data (catalogs with photo-z and synthetic F814W images) through the following links:
* web server: http://cloud.iaa.es/alhambra/
* FTP server: ftp://ftp.iaa.es/alhambra
* Spanish Virtual Observatory: http://svo2.cab.inta-csic.es/vocats/alhambra/index.php
the description of the data in the catalogues can be found in Molino et al.(2014) paper:
If you have doubts about the content of the catalogues, I would suggest to contact directly the first author (Dr. Alberto Molino).
Regarding the public images, you are right, they are indeed the synthetic F814W images reconstructed from the narrow band images. The way in which they have been constructed is also explained in Molino et al.(2014).
Finally, with respect to the NIR images, I'll try to find out whether they will be made public.
Michael Clark added an answer:Does anyone know of any commercial high-reflectance (>98% in 300-400 nm) mirror film (thin flexible film)?I am looking for reflective mirror film (specular flexible film) which has high reflectance (>98%) in the UV region (300 - 400 nm) in order to use it in our astrophysics project. There are some products in the market (e.g. ESR by 3M), but all of them do not have high reflectance for wavelengths below 400 nm. It is technically possible to make such film if multi-layer coating is used, but a custom order will be very expensive.
I would very appreciate it if you could tell me any nice products.
I always wanted to try to make a mirror using two sheets of glass where
there would be an evacuated air space between the two sheets of glass.
One thin would curve down , while the other one would be thicker and more
resistant to changing shape. They would be separated by a ring of
uniform height at the perimeter and glued to both the upper and lower
circular cut glass slabs. I suspect the mirror could only be used in
a horizontal plane because tilting would warp the mirror and the image
due to Earth's Gravity. I also though of injecting a hot plastic between the
two layers, and seal it while hot, so upon cooling it would pull down the
thinner glass sheet using the thermal coefficient of contraction
of the plastic ( contraction on cooling creating a near circular or parabolic
mirror ) minimal grinding required. Since the mirror is the most expensive
part of a telescope, keeping its cost low, will aid in keeping the cost low
for the telescope.Following
Parviz Parvin added an answer:Why don't we consider the time before the Big Bang?The entire universe originated from a single point after the Big Bang. Then how can we explain the time before big bang?
Model is restricting " time". The fact may be something else and time may have existed even before Big-Bang. I asked similar question posted in RG:" What was before Big-Bang?" If we accept Big-Bang theory, what has been before that? No space, no time, no mass, no energy, no momentum, no event, no sequence...??!!Following
Are there wave models of planetary orbits in the solar system?
I just found a new paper by Chaudry and Thurman, with the title "A simple planetary evolution model using the solar nebula theory." (H-SC journal, march 2014). See : http://blogs.hsc.edu/sciencejournal/files/2014/03/Chaudhry.pdf
Other papers that I know include the wave universe model by Chechelnitsky, and the fractal Schrodinger model of Laurent Nottale.
Do you know other papers discussing planetary orbits in the solar system using the wave model? Your comments are welcome.
Thank you for your answer, Nainan. Best wishesFollowing
George E. Van Hoesen added an answer:Can a planet or star exist without rotating on its axis?Do magnetic fields exist because of the rotation of planets and stars, or do magnetic fields induce rotation in the planets and stars? Can we say a planet is dead if it does not rotate about its axis?
I know that the actions of the down vote are anonymous.. However I would like to know why my last comment which is well within the excepted science of today, was voted down.
I reserve the down vote for comments that are not scientific or intellectual in nature but just stabs at others. My concern here is that down votes should not be just because you do not like something or someone. Have the courage to tell me I am wrong.
If I have pointed out something outside of science or incorrect in this forum I except a rebuttal from someone that knows better than I do.
The down votes can be taken back as can the up votes. This is a scientific forum not a popularity contest.Following
Allard Jan Van Marle added an answer:What are the main astrophysical radio wave sources?I have a project and I need to know the sources of electromagnetic radiation along with the processes by which they are emitted in space. Any help would be appreciated.
Emission from molecular electronic transitions (rotational and vibrational)Following
Thomas Ihle added an answer:Scaling solution to BBGKY-hierarchy in AstrophysicsI am interested in finding closure relations for the BBGKY-equations and came across an old article ``On the integration of the BBGKY equations for the development of strongly nonlinear clustering in an expanding universe'' by M DAVIS, PJE PEEBLES, Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 1977. I am used to closures where the three-particle correlations are either neglected or are approximated by Kirkwood's superposition principle, which appears ad hoc to me and is inaccurate for certain applications.
In the article by Davis and Peebles, something I haven't seen before was used, a scaling solution where n-particle correlation functions are approximated by a simple power law. It looks like this only works if the particles are far apart from each other and if there is no characteristic length scale in the particle interactions, which is the case for gravity. This made me curious: How useful did this approach become in Astrophysics simulations, is it still used or was this a dead end? If not, has there been any recent improvements on this approach?
Has such a scaling approach to the BBGKY-hierarchy been used in other areas of physics, like plasma physics where there is also a power law (Coulomb) interaction?
Thank you for your answer. If your truth would be embarrassing for me, it would also embarrass such icons of soviet physics as Bogolubov and Landau, and I'd be totally fine with being part of that axis-of-shame :-) I agree that one has to be careful with ensemble averages when talking about inhomogeneous systems, for example, when describing soliton-like waves in active matter (see my Phys. Rev. E from 2013, and the Discussion on Ohta paper in 2014)). However, I disagree that hierarchy-equations like the BBGKY-hierarchy are useless in general. In your own papers, you also use such hierarchies of equations for multi-point correlation functions. In my opinion, for the ensemble average, one just has to imagine that only the proper microscopic members that describe a particular inhomogeneous state are part of the ensemble. For example, for a single soliton, only those microscopic states should be included that have the same density and momentum profile (coarse-grained over small cells in phase space) at the same time. Another argument to not dismiss BBGKY-like hierarchies is to consider the extreme case of a N-particle ensemble distribution that consists of products of delta-functions at time t. That means, all ensemble members have particles at the same positions with the same momenta and the BBGKY-equations would be equivalent to the evolution of a particular real system with those initial conditions. A more pragmatic argument: I recently used the first two BBGKY equations (adopted to my system) for self-propelled particles in a weakly-correlated limit where three-particle correlations are negligible compared to two-particle ones and I found perfect quantitative agreement with particle-based direct simulations. I didn't have to explicitly select the proper members of the ensemble, I did neither use thermodynamics nor Gibbs distributions, I just solved the time-dependent hierarchy equations until a stationary state was reached. Thus, if you have an alternative theory, I suggest testing it quantitatively with Molecular Dynamics simulations and see how it does. In contrast to experiments, simulations can be adjusted to mirror all the approximations made in a theory and thus allow ``comparing apples with apples''. In my opinion, the more serious problem with kinetic theory is the closure of the hierarchy. You mentioned in your papers that you somehow close your equations at the two-particle level but I couldn't find any details. For self-propelled particles, there is parameter ranges where the three-particle correlations are stronger than the two-particle ones and the four-particle-ones are even stronger than three-particle ones and so on. Thus, in this strongly-correlated system, some type of generating function should be found that contains correlations to all orders, at least approximately, or a systematic closure for all multi-particle correlations is needed. In your papers, you mention discrepancies between experiments and theory. Could that also be due to neglecting these higher multi-particle correlations or using an inappropriate closure ?Following
F. Leyvraz added an answer:Time freezes at the event of horizon therfore for observer the mass falling into it looks like it doesn't fall, so how could you get this pre and post flare?At the center of our Milky Way Galaxy, a mere 27,000 light-years away, lies a black hole with 4 million times the mass of the Sun. Fondly known as Sagittarius A* (pronounced A-star), the Milky Way's black hole is fortunately mild-mannered compared to the central black holes in distant active galaxies, much more calmly consuming material around it. From time to time it does flare-up, though.
The flare sequence is illustrated in the panels at the far right. X-rays are generated in material heated to over 100 million degrees Celsius, accelerated to nearly the speed of light as it falls into the Miky Way's central black hole. The main inset X-ray image spans about 100 light-years. In it, the bright white region represents the hottest material closest to the black hole, while the pinkish cloud likely belongs to a nearby supernova remnant.
Credit: NuSTAR project,APOD(NASA)
The motion of a particle near a black hole is given by the geodesics corresponding to the metric describing the black hole. The motion can be described in various coordinate systems, but it is, of course, always the same motion. This motion has no particular singularity at the horizon, if we are talking of an ordinary Schwarzschild black hole. However distant observers will in fact see strange things as the paticle nears the horizon, but these are simply due to the fact that the coordinate system of the distant observer cannot be used to describe the neighbourhood of the horizon.
Saying that ``time freezes'' is doubtless easier than attempting to describe in detail what a particle does when it comes near a black hole. But it is not nearly as clear, nor nearly as precise. What is the time we mean? In what sense does it ``freeze''? I do not deny that such expressions may be used to describe what happens, but it is very easy to be led to misconceptions when abstract concepts are used without reference to their concrete use and their precise definitions....Following
Mahak Singh Chauhan added an answer:How do I check the performance of the Genetic Algorithm in MATLAB ?As every time GA gives different results but how do I know which one is best ?
Maybe it is possible to check the fitness error but I do not know how to check it
Please add your answer.
Thanks a lot.Thank you all !! Your answers are really helpful.Following
Abhijeet Khandagale added an answer:What is the possibility of a Carrignton Type event in the recent future ?I got pulled to the Solar Physics field by interest and now exploring it in its full depth. One major area I have found highly intersting is the Effect of Solar Flares on the technology we possess. In accordance to several anomalies put forward by different research groups, I am curious to know the possibility of a Solar Super storm in the near future. Calling in seasoned researchers to spark a discussion and also come up with ideas to counter attack such an event.Thanks to all, this discussion has truly beefed up my current understanding. For a young researcher like me, its a gold mine :)
@yuri great work. if that's the frequency, i hope we should be ready in the next 450yrs for such an event. maybe on Mars?
@gary thanks for the link. I had read that. Interesting to note.Following
Daniele Sasso added an answer:What is the effect of microlensing and weak lensing on the stability of the International Celestial Reference Frame?Spacetime curvature creates a space time "seeing" effect, which is analogous to astronomical seeing. This is due to microlensing and weak lensing, which becomes problematic from an ICRF stability viewpoint as astrometric VLBI and optical measurements (e.g. GAIA) moves into the tens of micro-arcsecond accuracy region. This space time seeing effect will create a noise floor, limiting ICRF stability due to apparent source position distortions and amplitude variations. This will of course have an impact on the high accuracy requirements of the Global Geodetic Observing System (GGOS), which has the objectives of 0.1 mm stability and accuracy of 1 mm for the ITRF. The distribution of dark matter complicates the problem.Dear Matts, thank you for your useful clarifications that confirm what I think and wrote in my previous comments. You are right, cosmic muons quoted by me in the previous comment are secondary and derive from other charged primary cosmic particles. The astronomy in the twentieth century considered justly first of all neutral cosmic radiations (photons, neutrinos, etc..). Now we know the astronomy for the future will consider always more charged cosmic rays (leptonic or baryonic) that allow to have always more precise knowledges on the structure of the Universe. Thechnologies and methodologies
for this type of astronomy are today more complex but it represents certainly the way for the future astronomy.Following
Marcelo Iván Rojas added an answer:Why we are interested in Astronomy and Astrophysics? Why we are interested in studying the Cosmos and solving the mysteries of our Universe?Well... for me, I will tell why i am interested in studying the Cosmos...
"Knowing and understanding the stage on which our life is being played is crucial for any existence to have real meaning."
Astronomy has always been my passion since my childhood. I started looking at the pictures in astronomy books before I could even read. The pictures were beautiful,fascinating and intriguing. As I grew up I wanted to know all about what those pictures meant.I am still learning. Perhaps i like astronomy because we are personally a way of the Universe experiencing itself,or that we are all made of star-stuff,as Carl Sagan so elegantly put it. Astronomy is a science that seeks to explain everything that we observe in the Universe,from the comets and planets in our own solar system to distant galaxies to the echoes of the Big Bang. By studying the cosmos beyond our own planet,we can understand where we came from,where we are going,why is the universe organized as it is?Are we alone? And how physics works under conditions which are impossible to recreate on Earth. In astronomy,the Universe is our laboratory! Astronomy provides an example of an alternative approach to the scientific method- observation,simulation,and theory. It is an enjoyable,inexpensive hobby for millions of people- the naturalists of the night. But above all astronomy has shown us how insignificant the human physical existence is,and how great the human mind with an intelligence that is now embracing a dazzling range of phenomena,from the astronomically large to the infinitely small. I have very little doubt that what astronomy will still give us in the future will dwarf all of its past contributions by comparison. I am motivated by curiosity and a deep desire to understand some of the grandest and most beautiful phenomena in the universe,as well as a desire to share these wonders with others. To me, research is often a bridge to an ambitious goal - a bridge that needs to be crossed in steps..
Astrophysics strike me as one of the most exciting areas of research today. Thanks to new observations,better methods and more powerful simulations that we can now hope to answer,with reasonable confidence,some of the most profound questions ever raised.Astronomy has emerged forever from the old books of mythology to assert itself as an exact science,an unclouded crystal ball of the universe. I would like to be a part of it. Thank You.For me, it is the same curiosity that human kind have since its early existence: explore the environment where we are. Nowadays, we have resources to explore even far away from our home. But, in universal terms, the universe is also our home.Following
G. Bothun added an answer:Is there any experimental evidence for how much time a photon takes to flow from the core to the surface of the sun?I have seen different estimations of photon diffusion time in different papers (30000 to a million years). There are many different mean free paths used. I want to know if these results are just speculations or if there is a way to verify these results?
I also want to know what the current standard time of diffusion is. It would be helpful if you could give me the links to some important research papers on this subject.again
the original and most correct source for this kind of calculation is
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1992ApJ...401..759M (a 2 page paper)Following
James Dwyer added an answer:How can one explain existence of acoustic peaks in cosmic microwave background anisotropies?When delta T/T is plotted against angular separations between points we see several peaks in the plot. The first one is most prominent one is between l value 200-300, or in terms of angular scales at about 1 degrees. How to explain the existence of these
peaks. We know that CMBR anisotropies provide a snapshot of the surface of last scattering. How does acoustic oscillations deform that surface? What are acoustic oscillations in primordial universe?BTW - I found a very approachable article reviewing cosmological acoustic oscillations at http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2911177 - and http://aether.lbl.gov/bccp/PDFs/BAO.pdf - to be very helpful...Following
Oliver Manuel added an answer:Could a supermassive black hole singularity experience amplification of quantum fluctuations similar to AQFs that Linde claims cause a big bang?Could a singularity in a supermassive black hole experience amplification of quantum fluctuations similar to quantum fluctuations that form ever larger cycles, causing a big bang as described by Linde?
If it is reasonable to assume that an amplification of quantum fluctuations can occur spontaneously at the quantum level and continue to fluctuate in ever larger cycles until it produces a universe--forming big bang (Andrei Linde, inflationary multiverse and eternal chaotic inflation), then would it also be reasonable to assume that a singularity in a supermassive black hole could experience a similar amplification of quantum fluctuations?
(PhysOrg.com) – “In a new study by physicists Vanzella and Lima, it is proposed that gravity could trigger a runaway effect in quantum fluctuations, causing them to grow so large that the quantum field’s vacuum energy density could dominate its classical energy density. This vacuum-dominance effect, which emerges under some specific but reasonable conditions, contrasts with the widely held belief that the influence of gravity on quantum phenomena should be small and subdominant.”
“If the vacuum-dominance effect exists and is strong enough to have such consequences, scientists will still have to discover a new kind of quantum field that would react to gravity in this way, since none of the quantum fields based on known forces could induce these effects. Still, the physicists note that the possibility of vacuum dominance itself is surprising to discover within “a simple and classically well-behaved situation.” Read more at: http://phys.org/news193330592.html#jCp Daniel Vanzella and William Lima. “Gravity-Induced Vacuum Dominance.” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 161102 (2010).
Such an amplification of a quantum fluctuation in a supermassive black hole singularity could occur either spontaneously or possibly caused by some unusual event. The following are proposed as possible causes of cyclic amplification of quantum fluctuations: 1. Spontaneous event similar to the subatomic quantum fluctuation proposed by Linde; 2. The merging of two very large supermassive black holes; 3. The mass of the black hole exceeding the mass of the rest of the galaxy, thus causing an extreme warp of space; or 4. An usual interaction with dark matter.THE SUN's PULSAR CORE
Today JoNova and David Evans are in the process of discovering Earth’s climate is driven by the Sun’s deep-seated magnetic fields (and the X Force) from the Sun’s compact innards (Fe-mantle and/or pulsar core).
That was also the conclusion of a paper by Professors Barry Ninham, Stig Friberg and I [“Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate”, Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002)].
Can entropic force explain dark energy properly?
Since Verlinde's proposal that gravitation is related to entropy, there have been many papers discussing or extending his hypothesis. In a recent paper, Basilakos and Sola reconsidered entropic-force dark energy (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.6594v3.pdf). They wrote: "We reconsider the entropic-force model in which both kind of Hubble terms appear in the effective dark energy (DE) density affecting the evolution of the main cosmological functions, namely the scale factor, deceleration parameter, matter density and growth of linear matter perturbations. However, we find that the entropic-force model is not viable at the background and perturbation levels due to the fact that the entropic formulation does not add a constant term in the Friedmann equations."
So do you think that entropic force can explain dark energy?Dear Antonio, thank you for your answer. For your information, since 2010 there were many papers discussing entropic dark energy, including by Smoot et al. The file that i attached is one of the most recent papers. Best wishesFollowing
Remudin Reshid Mekuria added an answer:How can I perform weighted averages over mass or volume of the cell for cell count to get dark matter density?Having count in cell for different bins provides different densities in a cell. Therefore I think I need to perform weighted averages over mass or volume of the cell. I am looking for an explanation how to do the averaging in either over cell-mass or cell volume?Thank you very much!!Following
Demetris Christopoulos added an answer:How many dimensions are there in the universe?In particular, why do we only experience three spatial dimensions in our universe, when superstring theory, for instance, claims that there are ten dimensions — nine spatial dimensions and a tenth dimension of time?@Marshall, I don't refer to this conversation only, but to many past ones, where you couldn't even express your opinion and then... suddenly a downvote was always present at every post of you!
Probably the publicity to this process has led to an improvement... we will see.
As for the core of the problem, I agree with Bernard, since, as the 'like' process is so popular, then we don't need a 'negative vote'.Following
About Astronomy & Astrophysics
Everything about Astronomy & Astrophysics.