Science topic

# Astrophysics - Science topic

Astrophysics is the branch of astronomy that deals with the physics of the universe, including the physical properties of celestial objects, as well as their interactions and behavior.
Questions related to Astrophysics
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
In relativity (GTR, STR) we hear of masslessness. What is the meaning of it with respect to really (not merely measurementally) existent particles / waves?
I am of the opinion that, while propagating, naturally, wavicles have mass, and there is no situation where they are absolutely at rest or at rest mass. But we know that there are zero rest masses in physics. These are in my opinion masses obtained when the moving wavicle is relatively at rest. Thus, the energy here is supposed to be at a relative zero.
But such a relative rest is obtainable only with respect to a few movements (under consideration at a given relativistic situation); and always there will be some other physical processes around and within, with respect to which the zero rest mass wavicle already contextually taken as in zero rest mass is not at zero rest mass and zero energy.
If the relatively achieved zero rest mass and/or non-zero mass may always be conceived as the real mass, then nothing has a constant and permanent "own mass". In that case, any specific contextual mass must be fixed for contexts only, and the only thing that may be spoken of its mass is "finite", "non-zero and non-infinite".
This is a thing I have been thinking of giving as a realistic example for a method that I had developed in my 2018 book, in order to characterize the various, most general, accessible values attributable to processes. This is what I have called the maximal-medial-minimal (MMM) method of determining cosmological, physical, and other forms of access values of existent processes.
But I forgot to write down the said example. Recently I wrote it down as an example for discussing it in another book. But I realize that I can write a detailed section of a chapter about it.
The MMM method is based on determining the space, time, matter-energy content, etc. of anything, including the whole cosmos, as being of infinite or finite or zero value of any quantity. I have shown in the said book that this can be developed not only into a method in the philosophy of physics but also in the most general foundational notions and principles of all sciences.
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
INTRODUCTION TO GRAVITATIONAL COALESCENCE COSMOLOGY (GCC)
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
1. Pre-scientific Law of Causality: A Short Introduction
Anything can exist only non-vacuously and absolutely in Extension (having parts) and simultaneously and inseparably also in Change (existents and their parts impacting some other extended existents). Anything without these two mutually integral characteristics cannot exist. Physical entities are in finite change in themselves and in every part. In that state of finite change, they are also finitely stable in themselves. This alone is their identity as Extension-Change-wise processes. The entities within cosmos are such.
Hence, back to the cosmos. Even the allegedly “non-causal” quantum-mechanical constituent processes are mathematically and statistically circumscribed measuremental concepts from the results of empirical activity of experiments and thought on Extended-Changing existents and ipso facto the realities behind these statistical measurements are in Extension-Change if these processes are physically existent. Without such existence, statistics has no foundation at all.
If not in Change, how can something physical exist in Extension alone? And if not in Extension, how can something exist in Change alone? Hence, Extension-Change are the two fundamental and exhaustively complete implications of To Be, and hence may be termed the ontological Categories of all existence.
Finally, Extension-Change-wise existence is what we understand as Causality. That is, if anything exists, it is in Causation. This is the principle of Universal Causality...!
Space is the measured shape of Extension; time is that of Change. Therefore, space and time are epistemic categories. How then can statistical causality be causality at all?
In short, everything existent is causal: hence Universal Causality as the highest pre-scientific Law, second only to Existence / To Be.
Absolute vacuum is not an existent. The 3500+ years old gods are either vacua, or parts of this cosmos. And if the Absolute Divine should exist, the only remaining rational possibility is that it must have ubiquitously infinite Extension and infinite Change. Infinite Extension is not stability without Change. Infinite Extension must be just the infinitely intense state of affairs – infinite activity and the infinite stability proper to infinite activity.
If the Divine exists, it must be in infinite stability in its state of infinite Change. But is it possible to have rational arguments in favour of its existence? The whole history of humanity has not yet produced one with enough truth probability. Can cosmology now accomplish this task? We do not yet know.
Even if there is no common big bang within a fully finite-content universe, there will be expansions and contractions locally. Moreover, the universe will have outer limits. At the outer limits some gravitational and non-gravitational energies must be lost, because there is no force at the outskirts to block these from escaping. Additionally, if the universe has a finite but fixed speed limit of energy propagation, then what is lost at the outskirts can never be brought back by propagations that issue later. If there is a general expansion, then there will be contraction too. Naturally, there are consecutive expansions and contractions, however limited they are. These cannot go on infinitely, since the finite-content universe loses energy (convertible in terms of mass) at the outskirts.
A fully cyclic and geometrically fully spherical oscillating universe existing as the sole finite universe can never be defended. Within a finite (of course, very long) time, it will exteriorize its matter-energy and be entirely rarefied over a finite number of oscillations. This raises the question of the causal horizon of the first big bang of a finitely cyclic universe and/or the very beginning of this universe. If other such separate universes exist, the final residues of the first will form part of one or many of them, because the distance between them is always finite, and all of them have some gravitation.
Now there are the following two possible lines of solution for the first big bang of a finite-content universe: (1) the matter of our universe has come from other universes or (2) it was created in some way from a Source that is not a form of matter-energy with finite activity and finite stability (which finite activity and stability is the case only of the cosmos).
If the matter-energy of a finite oscillating universe is from other universes, there remains only the case of existence of an infinite number of them. All of them eventually will exteriorize their matter-energy into becoming parts of other universes in finite durations. Such universes exist at finite distances. Gravitation from one such universe will affect similar neighbour universes in finite time. So, they should coalesce gravitationally with each other and with others over the course of time. Gravitation has a finite propagation velocity, not infinite. If gravitation can vary in velocity, each such local gravitational coalescence will have a highest limit, whatever, of gravitational velocity at each phase of expansion from a common central black hole.
Moreover, at any time with respect to one finite-content universe, there are only a finite number of universes in mutual gravitational attraction, since an infinitely spatiotemporal universe can never form a fully gravitationally related infinite-content conglomeration. If it could, there would again appear the contradiction of infinite mass, density etc. and infinite velocity, which is the same as the absolutely miraculous action-at-an-infinite-distance. We do not need it.
The mass-and-volume differences among coalescences do not matter. Due to the tendency of matter as groups of island universes to form ever wider gravitational conglomerations or coalescences, the formation of an eventual common center for each such wider coalescence is a must. There is no time when a coalescence of such universes existed or exists without gradually forming a common gravitational center. This conclusion is absolutely inevitable if all existing universes and parts thereof are gravitational.
No such coalescence, however wide, can bring back the gravitons it has radiated to the peripheries from the common gravitational center at a time before or during or after its big bang or big crunch – and even if there is no big bang and big crunch. This process can only continue forwards forming ever wider coalescences; and never backwards in a de-coalescence or de-coherence of gravitational coalescences, because gravitational propagation is an outward, not inward, process of some sort of energy propagations.
If the cosmological scalar Λ-addition is a dark energy qualified solely by its alleged ability to repel, no amount of dark energy should possess the capacity to attach itself to any other dark energy quantum. Ipso facto, it never exists in any real universe. If it includes also gravitational radiation, it is impossible to understand why there should be these ad hoc quanta of repulsion if, naturally, the limits of density that each conglomeration of matter-energy possesses by reason of its mass, volume etc. can produce repulsion between parts of the conglomeration after the conglomeration has attained critical density.
As is evident, it is irrational to posit the existence of repulsons – as quanta / wavicles of repulsion to keep dark energy on par with gravitation. Hence, I discuss gravitational coalescences to theoretically circumvent any irresolvable problem that the concept of dark energy can offer.
It is common knowledge that gravitational propagation is an outward, not inward, process of energy propagation from any gravitating material body. This should take place also from within a universe to other universes. Hence, there should be coalescences of universes at some time or other due to gravitational attraction.
At no time relative to the coalescing universes of universes can an infinite coalescence be actualized via gravitational influence from a central black hole common to all the infinite number of universes, although infinite such gravitationally coalesced universes, groups of universes, etc. exist in an infinite-content multiverse.
Hence, no gravitational coalescence, however big, is a gravitational member of an infinite number of gravitational coalescences. This fact and the fact of loss of energy at the fringes of universes flow logically from the foregoing discussions. I shall now define in the following paragraph the paradox of matter-energy creation implied above.
The Gravitational Coalescence Paradox (GCP): At any time in an infinite multiverse, there will be an infinite number of gravitationally ever broadening coalescences, none of which can be traced back to other such coalescences for their origin. Each maximal gravitational coalescence at any timerelative to the local set of coalescences is irreducibly finite and hence has a finite past in the absence of any past contact with any other outer universes.
Each of the infinite number of coalescences is thus cosmogenetically isolated from other such coalescences, because, at any time, there exist an infinite number of coalescences which are cosmogenetically isolated and cannot be traced for any causal inheritance from an infinite number of them. All the universes from which a certain universe has had causal inheritance is already included within its broadest possible gravitational coalescence.
3. Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology
The above Paradox facilitates the question to be posed of the origin of each such gravitational coalescence in the finite past of each such, since at any given time none of the designated infinite coalescences has had past gravitational or any other causal contacts with any other cosmic entity. I term the foregoing discussion the backbone of Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology (GCC).
Bibliography
(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.
(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.
(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.
(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.
(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
“The Essence of ‘E’: Unveiling the Infinitely Infinite” for your consideration. Enclosed, you will find a comprehensive exploration into the enigmatic concept of “E,” a cosmic force that transcends the boundaries of finite and infinite existence.
This manuscript represents a labor of passion and dedication, offering a unique perspective on the role of “E” in the universe. From its profound cosmic order to its paradoxical nature of being both infinitesimal and infinitely powerful, this work delves deep into the heart of a concept that defies human comprehension.
The content is structured meticulously, with an abstract that provides a concise overview of the manuscript’s scope, an engaging introduction that draws the reader into the subject matter, and detailed sections that explore the mass of “E” and the cataclysmic events it undergoes. The manuscript concludes with a thought-provoking summary of our journey into the infinitely infinite.
I believe this manuscript would make a valuable addition to [Company/Organization Name]’s collection of publications, given its unique perspective and the depth of research invested in it. It has the potential to appeal to a wide audience interested in cosmology, astrophysics, and the mysteries of the universe.
I would be delighted to discuss any further steps or provide additional information as needed. I eagerly await your response
There seems to be something quite unclear about the interplay of elements stemming into different causal orders (we shall define them as expressions of different, hierarchically ordered complex systems [their concept, too, being such an expression]).
We cannot speak of absolute and homogeneously present and consistent "heat", with the same being held for "mass".
A fundamental problem therefore arises from mixing different levels of analysis, whose specific articulations tend to negate one another.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
If it is true that space-time is expanding, how does the measure of space-time change?
The shape of space-time is the shape of the universe; how can expansion without a boundary be called expansion? If the boundary of spacetime is the boundary of the universe, can spacetime expansion with a boundary have no background? How is the boundary maintained? If the boundary of spacetime is infinite, how does it expand?
We will use these paired terms to describe spacetime: infinite/finite, absolute/relative*, flat/curved, continuous/discrete, four-dimensional†/higher-dimensional, and so on. Normally we think of these properties as opposites ‡ and only one or the other can be chosen. But the full range of properties of spacetime will be combinations between these different properties. For example, spacetime has infinite, absolute, continuous, flat, four-dimensional properties, or spacetime has finite, discrete properties, etc. In any case, none of us thinks that there is a concept of "multiple spacetimes", or that spacetime should have its own background, or that spacetime can overlap, although physics suggests that there may be local "warps" in spacetime.
Astronomical observations show that the universe is in a process of accelerated expansion [1][2][3], with all stars moving away at an accelerated rate and possibly never returning. Physics attributes the expansion of space-time to the presence of dark energy with negative pressure [4]. Dark energy has been hypothesized in various ways (including non-existence), one of which is the cosmological constant Λ in Einstein's field equations (the zero-point radiation of space [5], the energy of the vacuum, the zero-point energy [6]).
Physics has not exactly explained the exact relationship between spacetime and the various fields assumed by the Standard Model [7], but only assumes the existence of vacuum energy [8][6], and is not sure which field's vacuum energy it is, whether it is the electromagnetic field, the electron field, the muon field, or the up-quark field, the charm-quark field, the Higgs field [9], or just the sum of their respective vacuum energies. So when it is assumed that space-time is expanding, and vacuum energy is expanding, are they created in it, or are they diffused across the boundary? Are they the driving force or the result? How do they manifest within microscopic particles when expanding at high speeds on the macroscopic scale?
Physics does not explain the origin of the dynamics of the Big Bang, nor does it explain when and how all the various fields in the Standard Model were formed, how they were formed, how they were maintained in existence, and how they evolved along with, or determined, the evolution of the Universe throughout the entire evolution of the Universe from the Big Bang onward. It is not clear how the various particles were excited initially from their own fields, but the explanation of nucleosynthesis [10] to the current period is relatively clear.
Usually we think of the universe as a set of space-time and matter-energy. There are many different models of the universe, and in addition to the Standard Model, there are many cyclic universes and multiverse views [11][15]. Then, when we haven't confirmed the model of the universe, there is no confirmed goal of the evolution of the universe, and there is no confirmed shape and boundary of the universe.
Both Einstein and Hawking say that the universe is "finite and unbounded" [12]. They believe that the universe is a finite three-dimensional sphere with a finite volume but no boundary. Topological theory says, "The boundary of a region has no boundary itself. "** [13]. Wheeler's statement is, "The boundary of a boundary is zero" [14]. What is the result of the infinite extension of the three orthogonal coordinate axes for a finite three-dimensional spherical universe?
Mathematically, there are four combinations between measures and boundaries: finite bounded, infinite unbounded, finite unbounded, and infinite bounded. The first two concepts are clear, but the latter two need to be recognized carefully when translated to physics. The "singularity" is a typical example of an "infinite bounded". Usually in physics, when time or space shrinks to zero, the corresponding physical quantity tends to infinity. For example, E=hν, when ν→0; F=q1*q2/r^2, when r→0. However, we believe that this is only a trend and that there can be no state that reaches a singularity. Therefore, "infinitely bounded" is not real. The Koch Curve, often thought of as a fractal geometry expressing "finite unbounded", is one of the nth iterations of the Koch snowflake that can be implemented in the Wolfram Language as KochCurve[n]¶. The difference between physical reality and mathematics can be shown here, as n cannot be chosen to be infinite, so the Koch Curve will always be in a definite state in reality, and although it can evolve, "finite and unbounded" is a tendency, not a state. The formulation of the Mobius strip††, the irrational numbers, is another way of saying "finite unbounded". In physics, a typical example of "finite unbounded" is the electron. The electron has a fixed charge e, but the boundary of the electric field E of the charge extends infinitely (the field strength is convergent). Of course, the concept of zero-dimensional "point particles" is also a kind of abstract "finite unbounded". In short, in physical terms, finite must have boundaries.
General relativity is the basis for modeling the universe, but is there any good reason why we should be able to determine the evolutionary goals of the universe, its shape, and its boundaries through general relativity alone? Shouldn't such boundaries be "boundary conditions" of GR?
There should not be any boundary conditions, which are the conditions necessary for the model of the universe to hold correctly.
------------------------------------------------------
Notes
‡ As long as we do not have a precise definition of spacetime, viewing these properties as opposites can only be taken for granted. As with the wave-particle duality of particles, which property is presented depends on the observer's perspective; the structure of the particle itself does not change. Further characterizations of spacetime include whether it is inherently existent or generative, whether the vacuum contains energy, and so on.
¶ https:// mathworld.wolfram.com/KochSnowflake.html; Stephen Wolfram, Founder of Wolfram Language, is very interested in the question of the evolution of the universe, and is the author of the book "a new kind of science", which has been trying to find out how the universe evolves using metacellular automata.
** e.g. the two-dimensional region has as its boundary a one-dimensional loop; the loop has no end, that is, it has no boundary itself.
†† The Möbius strip is bounded as long as one does not confuse metrics with boundaries.
------------------------------------------------------
References
[1] Linder, E.V., Exploring the expansion history of the universe. Physical Review Letters, 2003. 90(9): p. 091301.
[2] Riess, A.G., The expansion of the Universe is faster than expected. Nature Reviews Physics, 2020. 2(1): p. 10-12.
[3] Freedman, W.L., The Hubble constant and the expansion age of the Universe. Physics Reports, 2000. 333: p. 13-31.
[4] "Dark Energy Survey, Collaboration." from https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/the-des-project/overview/.
[5] Oks, E. (2021). "Brief review of recent advances in understanding dark matter and dark energy." New Astronomy Reviews 93: 101632.
[6] Carroll, S. M., W. H. Press and E. L. Turner (1992). "The cosmological constant." Annual review of astronomy and astrophysics 30: 499-542.
[7] Group, P. D., P. Zyla, R. Barnett, J. Beringer, O. Dahl, D. Dwyer, D. Groom, C.-J. Lin, K. Lugovsky and E. Pianori (2020). "Review of particle physics." Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2020(8): 083C001.
[8] Jaffe, R. L. (2005). "Casimir effect and the quantum vacuum." Physical Review D 72(2): 021301.
[9] Springer (2020). 100 Years of Fundamental Theoretical Physics in the Palm of Your Hand: Integrated Technical Treatment.
[10] Cyburt, R. H., B. D. Fields, K. A. Olive and T.-H. Yeh (2016). "Big bang nucleosynthesis: Present status." Reviews of Modern Physics 88(1): 015004.
[11] Carr, B. and G. Ellis (2008). "Universe or multiverse?" Astronomy & Geophysics 49(2): 2.29-22.33.
[12] Hawking, S. W. and M. Jackson (2001). A brief history of time, Bantam Books New York.
[13] Yang, C. N. (1980). "Einstein's impact on theoretical physics." Physics Today 33(6): 42-49.
[14] Misner, C. W., K. S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler (2017). GRAVITATION, Princoten University Press.
Dear Chian Fan
There's no such notion as ``mainstream physics''-there's only physics, which is the mathematically consistent description of natural phenomena.
Regarding energy and momentum: In curved spacetime energy and momentum aren't well-defined notions, because translations in time and space-which is what lead to the definition of energy and momentum-aren't globally defined. So the answers to your questions are all, in fact, No.
Regarding Einstein's equations-of course boundary conditions must be imposed and they are imposed. For describing cosmology the boundary conditions are, typically, radiative. It is possible to impose different boundary conditions and compare the results with observations.
While it was thought that including the cosmological constant was optional, it turns out that it is mandatory-the only question is its sign and its value. For a long time it was thought to vanish and a lot of effort went into trying to describe this. In 1998 it was finally possible to measure its value that turned out to be non-zero and positive. What matters is that the cosmological constant is the only term, besides the Ricci scalar, that it is possible to include in the Einstein-Hilbert action.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
DEFINING THE ONTOLOGY BEHIND PHYSICS (5 Paragraphs, meant for the theoretical approach in physics)
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
In the definition of the ontology of physics (generally as the study of the cosmos), I shall posit the necessity of the highest possible grounds that I find as fundamental for physics and philosophy alike. The reason for these Categories’ (a few universals that apply to all existents, and not merely to all discourses) being meant also for philosophy (especially for the philosophy of science) is that both philosophy and physics have physical existents in common as their object range.
Philosophy additionally has the pure universals of physics within the ambit of study, and both physics and philosophy have different manners of treating their object range. Hence, well-grounded physical foundations cannot do without the most suitable among these universals as its fundamental Categories, selected from among the universals forming part of the objects of philosophy.
Although many physicists and mathematicians may find the following definition of the ontology behind physics queer due to their pragmatic and near-sighted concept of physics (where physical objects are part of their object range, and not their universals / qualities / forms) in a non-grounded manner, I define here ontology for use in physics with the purpose of later elaboration of the various aspects brought forward in the definition.
The Ontology behind physics is (1) the rationally consequent science of the totality of physical existents, their parts, and their sine qua nons, namely, the pure universals (whereas “properties” are the conglomerations of universal qualities) as pertinents of existents and their parts, (2) prioritized as objects in terms of the To Be (Greek, Einai) of Reality-in-total and only thereafter in terms of the to be (einai) of its parts (reality-in-particular), (3) serving to achieve ever better measuremental approximations of the cosmos and its part-systems (4) in terms of the epistemological ideal of Reality-in-total, namely, the theoretically highest possible notion of Reality-in-general, (5) grounded in the unique and exhaustive implications of To Be, namely, Extension and Change, that are the absolutely necessary touchstones of observables and unobservables which exhaust the object range of physics, (6) in properly physical activities that let Reality and realities be measured in term of measuremental and classificational categories that facilitate both experiments and theories equally well.
I have merely used here the highest Ideals of philosophical and scientific thinking, namely, To Be, Reality-in-total, and Reality-in-general. These are not explained here well enough. I have treated them with detailed justifications in my books: Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, Frankfurt, 2015, and Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 2018, Berlin.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
It is well-known from the literature that there exist diverse acoustic waves in compact astrophysical objects, such as white dwarfs, neutron stars, etc. Can anyone please give us a concise glimpse of the state-of-the-art astronomical observations of such existent acoustic wave spectra?
Individual viewpoints may please be put forward as per the above request
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
A research by Prof. Juan De Vicente (CIEMAT, Madrid), author of dozens of publications in the field of astrophysics, was recently published (May 23), which demonstrates, in the opinion of the author, that the universe is not expanding and that the observed cosmological redshift must therefore be attributed to some other physical cause. For example, the decrease in the speed of light over time.
If Prof. De Vicente's research were confirmed, it would put an end to the Big Bang model that the recent observations of the JWST are strongly questioning.
I, not being an expert in astrophysics or statistics, am unable to understand the article in which De Vicente explains the methods and results of his research.
This is the link of the article:
Prof. De Vicente's research is based on the analysis of public data, published on the website:
therefore it is perfectly reproducible.
Is anyone interested in checking De Vicente's research and confirming/denying these results?
It goes without saying that if these data passed the examination of careful criticism they would represent a revolutionary result that would change the history of astronomy forever.
In the event that someone is about to do this check, could he explain exactly the steps taken (possibly limiting to a few dozen galaxies in order to make the method adopted clear) so that this check can also be performed by non-experts?
So objects (planets) revolving around a star are not, according to the standard ΛCDM model, subject to cosmic expansion, as they are gravitationally bound.
Objects (stars) gravitating around the nucleus of a galaxy (stars) are not subject to cosmic expansion as they are gravitationally bound.
Objects (galaxies) rotating around the nucleus of a cluster are not subject to cosmic expansion as they are gravitationally bound. In fact, if the redshift of any galaxy belonging to a given cluster is measured, the same redshift is always found.
According to the ΛCDM standard model the only objects subject to cosmic expansion are clusters.
But what prevents us from thinking that clusters also revolve around the nucleus of a supercluster?
For example, our Galaxy rotates around the nucleus of our Local Cluster (or Local Group), which rotates around the nucleus of a super-cluster called Laniakea extended for 160 Mpc.
If this is true then all clusters of the Laniakea supercluster should not be subject to cosmic expansion since they are gravitationally bound.
Then the redshifts that are measured for the Laniakea clusters are not due to cosmic expansion, but some other cause.
What is wrong with this reasoning?
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
As far as we are aware, the coulomb proton breakup cross-section is the astrophysically significant reverse process of the proton capture reaction. Therefore, is it feasible to determine the relationship between the astrophysical s-factor and the proton removal cross-section using any method or theoretical framework?
It will be very interesting if there is direct connection between breakup cross-section and s-factor.
Yes it is possible to calculate the astro physical s factor using break up fusion reaction. As it is the measure of the probability of two particles interacting via the nuclear force and, it is commonly used in nuclear astro physics to study nuclear reaction in star.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
As a consequence of a "bad" evaluation last year, when the outcome of the institute was judged between good and excellent, but not outstanding, the Senate of the Leibniz Association recommends that the Federal and State Governments terminate the joint funding of the Leibniz-Institut für Sonnenphysik (KIS, previously known as the Kiepenheuer-Institut für Sonnenphysik) in Freiburg, Germany.
This would be dramatic for the solar physics community in Germany and in Europe, and in the long term for research in astrophysics and beyond. Therefore, the international research community is asked to sign the following petition to support the funding of KIS at an unchanged level:
An appealing procedure for reevaluation in a proper channel seems to be there
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
ELECTROMAGNETIC QUANTA HAVE EXTENSION AND CHANGE WITHIN.
DO THEY ALSO GRAVITATE? AND DO THE GRAVITONS GRAVITATE OR REPEL?
Raphael Neelamkavil, Ph.D., Dr. phil.
1. MODES OF EXISTENCE OF ENERGY-CARRIER EXISTENTS
Without the presence of existent gravitational propagation wavicles / particles, nothing physical can hold together. Additionally, there are electro-magnetic and other non-gravitational propagation wavicles / particles. Both are carriers of energy. Thus, there can be two kinds of force-carrier existents (energy wavicles / particles) which are forms of physical matter processes and hence irreducibly are matter:
(1) force-carrier existents that get propagated from existent physical processes and pull other objects a step backwards, thus attracting the object gradually into the graviton-issuing object, and
(2) force-carrier existents that get propagated from existent physical processes, do not pull other objects to the issuing object, and thus give a portion of themselves off to other objects.
Do these gravitational and non-gravitational (electromagnetic and other) wavicles exist? Before using them in physics, it must be determined whether they exist and how they may exist, for them to exert causally real physical effects. Existents cannot be vacua, and hence, they must exist, and hence they are:
(1) in Extension (each having a finite number of finite-content parts), because if not extended, EM quanta would be non-existent, and
(2) in Change (existents, which are always with parts, possessing parts which always exert finite impacts on a finite number of others, inclusive of exertion of finite impacts on some parts within), because anything that has no change is not in existence.
In short, any matter particle and any force-carrier wavicle can exist only Extension-Change-wise. Whether they really exist is clear enough: if they do not exist, then the matter particles that issue force-carrier existents (wavicles) too need not exist, since force-carrier wavicles are just another (relativistically, and not absolutistically, source-independent) form of existence of mater particles.
An existent without own parts and own exertion of impacts will be imaginable as existent. Anything that is not in Extension-Change is non-existent – a physical-ontological fact at the foundations of physics, which most physicists (and other scientists) forget while performing their statistical and other related miracles!
This much for an introduction. Now, what are the implications of such existence in the case of EM wavicles and gravitons?
2. ELECTROMAGNETIC AND GRAVITATIONAL QUANTA
If electromagnetic and gravitational wavicles are EXISTENT, then they possess also EXTENSION and CHANGE. They are not absolutely geometric particles, instead, they are elongated at various dimensions.
Let us assume the following as a general principle in physics: Anything physical issues gravitons, which are the basic attractive forces within physical existents.
If an existent energy wavicle is thus a matter wavicle with extension, it must also issue gravitons! In that case, the only stuff in the cosmos that cannot themselves issue further gravitons from within are gravitons themselves. What can this work to in physics and cosmology? I believe that we need a revolution from this viewpoint. This is a proposal that waits being tested by future physics and astrophysics.
Gravitons too are extended and changing wavicles. But they are themselves the wavicles possessing also their parts that attract each other, and are long-range in nature. If they issue sub-gravitons, they will naturally be kept attracted within the issuing sources, because the parts from which they are supposed to be issued are themselves attractive by nature and other matter and energy particles attract each other basically by means of issuing gravitons.
But naturally, gravitons too must be existent, and hence possess parts. What would be the sort of parts that gravitons can possess? Repulsons or Gravitons? Sub-repulsons or sub-gravitons? I think that they cannot themselves be repulsons and sub-repulsons, because repulsons and sub-repulsons without coherence will not stick together as parts of gravitons. Gravitons cannot issue gravitons themselves, since this is self-creation. But they can possess sub-gravitons as parts, but these need not be of the same power as their totality that each graviton is.
In any case, one thing should be accepted: BOTH ELECTROMAGNETIC AND GRAVITATIONAL QUANTA MUST ISSUE THEIR OWN WAVICLES OF ATTRACTION. IN THE CASE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC QUANTA, THE ISSE IS THAT OF GRAVITONS (and whatever other sub-wavicles that might be there for them to give rise to). IN THE CASE OF GRAVITONS, THE PARTS WILL HAVE TO BE SUB-GRAVITONS (plus whatever other sub-wavicles that might be there for them to give rise to).
3. CAUSAL NATURE OF ALL WAVICLES
The Extension-Change kind of existence is what we call Causation, and therefore, every existent is a causal Process in all parts. This is nothing but the Universal Law of Causality. That is, no more do we need to prove causation scientifically. This Law is a pre-scientific and hence physical-ontological Law, meant also for biological existents.
Hence, no quantum physics, statistical physics, or quantum cosmology can now declare that certain processes in nature are non-causal or acausal, after having admitted that these processes are in existence!
That is, existents at any level of formation are fully physical, possess at least a minimum of causal connection with others in its environment, are not merely virtual (nor fully modular / non-local / non-emergent / self-emergent / sui generis in a totally isolated manner). Therefore, any existent must have causal connections with its finitely reachable environment and within its inner parts.
4. IF IN EXTENSION-CHANGE, WHY THEN IN SPACE-TIME?
Physical-ontologically real generalities must be about, or pertinent to, existents in groups, i.e., as parts of a type / natural kind. These generalities are not existents, but pure ontological universals in natural kinds. Extension and Change are purely ontological and absolutely basic characteristics of all existents. Hence, I have termed them Categories.
Space and time are just the measurement-based epistemic notions or versions of the more generally physical-ontological Extension and Change respectively. The latter two are ontological generalities of all existent processes, because nothing can exist without these two Categories.
Hence, space and time are not physical-ontological, not real about, not pertinent to, existents. In short, physical science working only on measuremental space-time cannot verify newly discovered energy wavicles and matter particles by use of the physical “properties” they are ascribed to.
The test criteria for the existence of any existent particles will be Extension (each having a finite number of finite-content parts) and Change (existents, which are always with parts, possessing parts which always exert finite impacts on others, inclusive of exertion of finite impacts on some parts within).
Bibliography
(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.
(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.
(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.
(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.
(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.
Sergey Shevchenko "- if there is some free “field source” for its field being “ statically co-moving” it is necessary for the source at the motion constantly radiate new and new “field” , which has “energy density”/energy, having for that some mystic practically infinite energy – most of the “sources ” in Matter yet now “radiate fields” when constantly move soon 14 billion of years, but remain be the same as were 14 billion of years."
Sorry to say this very clearly, but this statement is wrong.
If the force-field is co-moving with its source, absolutely no action from the source is required to keep the status of the field.
The field is not vanishing at its old place and being re-established at the new location. No it only moves unchanged from the old- to the new location. The field source exactly moves along the same pathway without any exchange between source and field. By thew way, it is sufficient to consider force-fields around elementary particles. All other fields only are overlays of the elementary fields.
Only if the source is accelerated, it sends out some radiation, which moves with the speed of light. This radiation has an aperiodic and a periodic part.
The aperiodic part re-establishes the field to the co-movement of the source after the acceleration has ended. The periodic part fulfills the wave equation in combination with the aperiodic part.
Ignoring the aperiodic part one of the most embarrasing fallacies of standard physics.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
According to James C. Keith, see appended PDF files, two components of gravitational drag are to be expected on rotating systems, a 1/c5 order drag to be observed preferably on systems of astronomical size, and a 1/c3 order drag preferably observable on millimeter size systems. Observation is limited in either case by experimental resolution of rotational frequency shift. In the early 1970s, Hulse and Taylor [1] determined relative deceleration of a binary neutron star system at 1.5 x 10-12 per second in agreement with theoretically accepted gravitational quadrupole radiation. A relative deceleration of about 2 x 10-11 per second was observed around the same time [2] on a 2.5 mm diameter steel ball at 75 kHz rotational speed. This observation has not yet been accepted by established theoretical science as due to gravitational interaction. The access of experimental results to serious analysis seems to be largely a matter of decision by representatives of theoretical rather than engineeering science.
[1] Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 195, p. L51-L53 (1975)
[2] Physical Review Letters, Vol. 30 (16), p. 753-757 (1973)
Preston Guynn:
I am very pleased with your discussion of Keith's electron model starting with equation (38). However, I do not see to what extent the electron discussion is decisive for the effect of retarded gravitational interaction, which already ends with equation (25) and a possible confirmation of Mach's principle.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
Seeking expert advice from academia. Both my bachelor’s and master’s are in the field of computer science. I have research, industry, and entrepreneurship experiences related to that field only. However, I would like to explore something new. I have always been fascinated by astronomy and astrophysics. Would it increase my chance for a Ph.D. if I have a publication relevant to the new field? Or are there other opportunities that I don’t know about yet? Thank you!
Hi Nishargo Nigar Remember that if you take your breadwinning work out of computers you can expect a massive drop in income. Fortunately, re your interests the space industry is on an upswing, and you have enough already for anyone re computers.
To your specific question, I doubt that would it increase your chance for a Ph.D. if you have a publication relevant to the new field, at least in US and Europe. Having working experience in space industry might help a little and they use a lot of computer people. Mainly I would think just pursue the PhD and don't over-worry about side efforts to encourage it.
Enjoyed my visit to Hamburg.
Karl
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
The available source https://ingenieria.uatx.mx/orionfrg/cry/ currently doesn't have the dataset. The existing artIcles also mentioned the link. However, unable to find the dataset.
Janet,
Un placer poder ayudar en algo. Bonita y bendecida semana!!!
Saludos desde Puebla, Mx.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
How would we go about specifying the position of our solar system in the universe, let us say
to an intelligence residing in an unknown part of the universe (assuming for simplicity that we can neglect the sun's motion in our galaxy).
Are there any objects or "landmarks" in the universe that could be used as known points of reference that could be used to specify our location to other intelligent beings residing in a distant part of the universe ? I am thinking of an exact analogue of longitude and latitude for the earth's surface.
An obvious answer would be simply to specify the aspect of the sky (and all known data) as seen from earth or the sun. But would this really be helpful, even if this did specify uniquely our position ?
Relativistic considerations further complicate matters.
The gold plaque on the Pioneer and Voyager craft did this using pulsars as reference points:
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
Dear All;
If we look closely to scientific works, interviews and speeches of Stephen Hawking, we may see many points unacceptable to norms of science. I myself have identified questionable statements by him that may need to be clarified. I share you several examples:
1- As far as I have seen and read his books, I did not find any referencing styles, bibliography...
2- Strange Statements, for example about Black Holes, rejecting other sciences such as Philosophy,
3- Changing his views constantly, with no reference, talking about Big Crunch, then reject it, talking about Big Bang and then reject it.
4- Advertising "The theory of everything" and then giving it up silently...
5- Did not talk about opposite ideas by others, eg, those who don't accept Big Bang...
6- Changing his ideas about our fate constantly, for example saying we have 1000 years time to leave earth, 600 years, 200 years, 100 years...
7- The reasons he talks about for leaving the earth (such as possible nuclear wars, Viruses, climate change, ... ) could be easily challenged, as humans (if ever according to him ) leave the Earth, wont take with themselves their behavior, culture, tools, systems, policies, attitudes, understanding ideology, beliefs, systems, doctrines? just to name a few.
8- Alien invasion
9- other issues... we talk about later
Please share your ideas on points mentioned above, or other points you know
Thank you
A discussion about science popularization and the responsibility of scientists in this is a very general and brought one, and, although it is of great interest, I do not have the time to take part in this. Perhaps others may contribute. Concerning the discussion of Susskind and Hawkins, this was a scientific one, and, as Leonard Susskind wrote, he "deeply respected" Hawkins. Therefore this is another question and is not connected to Hawking's popular books.
Best regards,
Wolfgang
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
In reference to the attached document, it seems that scientist with the helping hand of metaphysics have created several scientific versions of Turtle All the Way Down viewpoint.
The article criticizes two widely accepted models for the genesis of the universe which can be listed under two hypotheses:
1. Nothing
2. Something
Both theories have been discussed in enough detail, but this question/discussion is related to the second theory.
I think the problem is that there already many observations that reject or are problems for current models. So, the problem is to explain these already know data.
I did see your paper on deceit. That is why I stated as I did - partly in answer to your investigation. The whole issue revolves around moral values and actions. The deceits are just to keep the population in line.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
I need some guidance to understand and properly use MESA.
My ultimate goal is to modify it such that I can use a variable G.
I saw a video using it to predict the evolution of a main-sequence star. I don't quite understand how it is used to predict observations (Stellar Population).
I am familiar with the Kennicutt-Schmidt Law, relating the rate of galaxy formation and gas surface density
The Tolman surface brightness test (surface brightness versus z), might be used together with wavelength information to determine star population as a function of z.
Then there is the initial mass function
It is not clear how this initial mass function would be changed in an epoch-dependent G.
IN SUMMARY
This is a very early stage of exploration of the issue of Stellar Population Modeling, Star Evolution under MESA.
My problem with MESA are:
a) I didn't know the existence of three mesa programs. I knew about the modules program and the SDK. There is at least one more related to Graphics. I tried to install the graphics program and after doing so, I had to reinstall my OS. Installing the requirements screw up my nvidia driver choices or something.
b) Now with the OS recovered, following the installation procedure doesn't lead to a working program. So, there is where I am - with the benefit that now I know about the MESA list-server and will be asking for help soon.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
I agree that Astrophysics is a multidisciplinary field and that students of Astrophysics are taught many subjects from diverse fields. For example Astrophysics curriculum covers mathematics, relativity, statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, radiation, lasers, electronics, optics etc. etc. But I am perplexed to find that neither Astrophysics text books nor the study curriculum of Astrophysicists cover theory of elasticity in general or working out stresses and strains in solid bodies in particular.
An obvious answer of most learned readers may be that Astrophysicists are not required to deal with solid bodies throughout their career and hence are not required to study theory of elasticity or to learn working out stresses and strains in solid bodies.
Actually however, the situation is other way around. Since Astrophysicists do not study theory of elasticity and do not know how to work out stresses and strains in very large spherical solid bodies under self-gravitation, they erroneously make them collapse under self-gravitation into black holes, thereby misleading the whole scientific community.
None of the current models of stellar core collapse make any attempt to compute the magnitude of STRESSES in the SOLID iron cores actually produced in massive stars at the end of their fusion burning stage.
As per current models when a solid iron core becomes degenerate, the degenerate electrons get freed from their parent iron atoms leaving behind 'positive ions' of iron. When the positive ions start falling towards the center of the core under gravity, the high energy degenerate electrons are SUPPOSED to push these ions outwards by their degeneracy pressure to counter the effect of gravity. However, to impart an outward push to the falling ions, the high energy degenerate electrons will have to exchange their momentum with the falling ions through elastic collisions. But the high energy electrons cannot exchange their momentum with positive ions through elastic collisions because of their electrostatic interactions and hence can never provide the so-called electron degeneracy pressure in stellar cores to counter the effect of gravity.
The main reason for ASSUMING the electron degeneracy pressure in solid iron stellar cores is the implied belief that a cooled down stellar core cannot maintain its Hydrostatic equilibrium in the absence of adequate thermal pressure and that nothing else can stop the gravitational collapse of such cores. Therefore, the constituents of a solid stellar core are first ASSUMED to be non-interacting for applying Hydrostatic equilibrium equations and then the electrons and ions are again ASSUMED to be non-interacting for invoking the electron degeneracy pressure to support the pull of gravity.
Hence, it turns out that all stellar cores which are said to be degenerate, where some sort of degeneracy pressure is invoked to prevent their gravitational collapse under Hydrostatic equilibrium conditions, are in fact SOLID stellar cores which acquire their stability through Equilibrium equations of elasticity. In current models, the stresses in a solid iron stellar core are never analyzed as a SOLID body under self-gravitation, by using the Equilibrium equations of elasticity. By taking into account the electromagnetic interactions among electrons, protons and ions we can show that the high density stellar cores transform into gravity induced solid state which can support the gravitational loading through development of radial and hoop stresses.
You wrote : "...The inner core of stars is not made from solid iron (iron-nickel)"
Stars of mass greater than ten solar masses, go through various stages of core and shell fusion of heavier elements finally ending with a core of iron. These iron stellar cores are normally surrounded by fusion shells of Si, O, C, He and H. The quasi-equilibrium Si shell fusion continues to grow the iron cores up to certain limit. Under high pressure and density environment prevailing in stellar cores, the mean separation between two adjacent iron atoms or ions will be much less than the normal free size of iron atoms. This leads to grid locking of these atoms or ions in a lattice structure.
In situations of very high core densities, atoms and ions will occupy relatively fixed positions and may experience thermal vibrations about their mean positions. When the mean separation distance between ions is less than the normal mean size of their parent atoms, of the order of Bohr radius or less, the electrostatic repulsion between the ions will force them into a lattice gridlock, leading to a solid state. In a solid state, particles maintain their normal separations through mutual interactions and cannot move past one another. It must however, be kept in mind that this is not a ‘naturally’ or freely occurring solid state but a ‘forced’ solid state brought about under extreme gravitational loading in a stellar core.
This has been explained in greater detail in section III. "Invalidity of Electron Degeneracy Pressure Model" and section IV. "Final Solid State of all High-density Stellar Cores" in my paper titled, "Stellar Core Collapse Models are Erroneous and Misleading".
In a solid state the mutually interacting constituent particles are mostly at rest, apart from some thermal vibrations about their mean positions. The mean positions of these solid-state particles constitute some sort of geometric pattern, a lattice structure. When some external force is applied to one or more of these lattice particles, the mutual separation distances between the adjacent particles in the vicinity will slightly change so as to produce additional reaction forces just to balance the externally applied force. This slight change in separation distances, which implies a slight change in the lattice structure, can be described as slight deformation of the lattice structure. If the externally applied force is now removed, the change or the deformation in the lattice structure will also get eliminated and this characteristic of the lattice structure can be described as elasticity of the solid ensemble of interacting particles. In fact, quantification of the magnitude and direction of the deformation by a displacement vector produces the best characterization of the elastic nature of the solid. Thus, central regions of all stellar cores will physically constitute a solid state. Stresses induced in such cores due to self-gravitation can only be analyzed by study of its displacement vector field through equilibrium equations of elasticity and not by hydrostatic equilibrium equations of the kinetic theory.
Best Regards
Gurcharn
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
The offended paper is here:
This is a rhetorical question since, in my mind, that is utterly non-acceptable.
I say that while accepting the reality that it takes time to write a few paragraphs in a rejection letter.
That said, it might take years to polish the arguments contained in a paper.
In my case, it took 16 years.
My issue is that, on purpose, I chose to tackle the Big Bang Theory first. It is the weakest model in the whole Physics. There are "Crisis in Cosmology" articles written by everyone and their cats. There is Hubble Tension, S8 tension... Missing Dark Matter, Early Galaxy Formation Conundrum...
Not to mention the lack of any evidence of a False Vacuum, Inflaton Field or Inflaton Particle, etc, etc.
My theory starts with a new model for matter, where matter is made of shapeshifting deformations of the metric (so, it is not Mass Deforms Metric, but modulated metric is mass).
It cannot be simpler. It allows the Universe to have just space, deformed space and time - the simplest possible model.
Occam's Razor will tell you that this model should be part of the conversation.
The Universe starts from a Heisenberg-Dictated Metric Hyperspherical Fluctuation, which after partial recombination is left with an Inner Dilation Layer (IDL) and the Outermost Contraction Layer (OCL).
As one would expect OCL breaks apart when it starts to move, pushed by the IDL. This process has a physical analogy in the Prince Rupert Drop
SO, the model is disappointly simple. No metrics, nothing for you to polish... just a simple model that explains EVERYTHING.
It also debunks General Relativity (Einstein's equations do not describe the Universe expansion). And replicates all Einstein's successes, while providing simpler explanations (instead of time dilation, we have the weakening of forces with absolute velocity).
What about ABSOLUTE VELOCITY? Well, we all know we can define absolute velocity using the CMB. Period. So, absolute velocity (and the breakdown of Relativity) shouldn't be a surprise.
So, my theory also challenges the current Cosmic Distance Ladder and in doing so (using an epoch-dependent law of Gravitation), it parameterless predicts the distances using just the redshifts. The predictions are attached.
So, in doing so, it attacks Dark Matter and Dark Energy and all the sordid interests behind them. I say sordid in the sense that I believe that all these entrenched interests are at play in this summary rejection of my work.
Why would I say that? There is a simple reason. If an editor (and all the other editors) don't bother to justify their actions, one is left with nothing to do other than speculate on the WHY.
Why is it ok for preprint repositories to block my already published work?? That is happening (and happened during the last 16 years) at the Los Alamos Archives.
Why would it be ethical for an editor not to write a single paragraph pointing to an specific scientific reason for yanking a paper out of the review process?
How calous these people can be with respect to Science and Mankind's Future? Science is the key to the Future. It shouldn't be at the mercy of unconfessable motivations.
Prof. Marco Pereira: Do you support the preprint solution when you said "In addition, preprint repositories (Los Alamos, preprint.com) should always allow already published work to be posted."?
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
Recent numerical simulations show that the inner part of the disk seems to oscillate in presence of a Large scale magnetic field or when the disk is in MAD state. So, can we correlate this sort of behaviour with the variability of the source?
Strong Magnetic field inside the compact object plays the crucial role for understanding the variable x-ray burst. Change in internal structure due to the presence of superfluidity, superconductivity and external accretion also are responsible for this variable x-ray burst. What I understand that we have to consider these three first and then to compare with the simulation where the effect is changing, finally we will be able to understand what is actually going on.
Simulation can help us to know the magnitude of possible change and its location to find out inside the compact object.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
I would like to publish my Scientific Preprint Paper free-of-charge in an international Astrophysics journal with a satisfactory Impact Factor. Can you please suggest such a journal?
I have published my Research Results on a New Orbital Model for Moving Bodies in the Universe that I am asserting as a result of my scientific analysis, which can be found below:
"Everything Is A Circle: A New Model For Orbits Of Bodies In The Universe"
I will be presenting this work to the general scientific community at #COSPAR in Sydney, Australia, which will be broadcast Live according to Congress schedule on February 2, 2021
and will be available as Video-On-Demand in more detail.
To provide an introductory idea for readers and scientific community in general, here is a short video giving an overview description of the main and most significant findings:
Also a good suggestion would be Astronomy&Astrophysics with impact factor of ~ 5.8 as of 2020. There are no page charges for authors from sponsoring countries (find the list below):
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
We all know that accretion disks around BHs are presumably be magnetized in nature. If we consider ideal MHD, we know magnetic fields are frozen within the plasmas. Now, magnetic fields are turbulent, so can they help in raising the temperature of the disk? And is it significant?
The Boltzmann interpretation of temperature is that it is related to particle velocity. Considering that many of the particles in an accretion disk are expected to be electrically charged the magnetic field would be expected to cause a geometrically anisotropic distribution of temperature and associated thermal effects. This obviously complicates analysis of the thermal profile.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
Do such measurements make sense? Do they exist?
Comparing redshift and luminosity distances, if that is a sensible question, may bear on the 4/3 scaling hypothesis as it relates to dark energy.
Cepheid and RR Lyrae variables are well known standard candles, and important tools in the cosmological distance ladder. For example, Cepheid variables, which were discovered by Henrietta Swan Leavitt, have the property that their luminosities can be directly inferred by observing their pulsation period, which then allows one to calculate their luminosity distance, given that the observing instrument (telescope) also measures their flux.
However, although nothing stops you from making redshift measurements of relatively nearby objects, this will induce an error in any cosmological parameters inferred from these measurements (such as the luminosity distance), because the peculiar velocities of these objects would be comparable to their Hubble flow, giving you highly inconsistent results. Luminosity distances calculated by interpreting the measured redshifts as cosmological redshifts, become more reliable at larger distances, where the Hubble flow dominates over the peculiar velocities.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
I want to create preprint of a research article via arXiv. Do you recommend any specific latex template?
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
I conducted a experiment whose conclusions were opposite as that of Big Bang. So, based on the conclusions of my experiment I concluded that some points in Big Bang Theory are wrong...
I am in agreement that the Big Bang theory is not correct:
Furthermore I think that the current ideas about the formation of the solar system need revision:
I hope this helps.
Richard
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
The existence of turbulence in astrophysical fluids has been living as a well-known unsolved problem for a couple of decades. The range transitions among three distinct scales of the micro-fluidic kinetics are still lying obscure. In this context, is there any equation of state to describe turbulent fluid media in the fabric of the modified (by turbulence) macroscopic Navier-Stokes equation?
Dear Professor Karmakar
Can you please explain which conventional equations are you talking about for turbulent fluids?. Is there any equation available for turbulent fluids?
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
There are several papers which are using following formula (as shown in the picture) to calculate the dust mass (Md) of the dusty environments such as Nebula, loops etc in the ISM. The expression for dust mass shows that it depends on grain size, grain density and grain emissivity, here, for IRAS Survey, grain size = 0.1 micron, density = 1000 kg/m3 and emissivity = 0.0010 for 100 micron, respectively, are used. Are these constants same for AKARI and WISE survey too? OR, are there any other methods for the dust mass calculation using AKARI and WISE data? I would be very much happy to get your valuable suggestions. Thank you :)
The grain size, density and emissivity are not properties of the data/telescope (IRAS, WISE or AKARI), but of the physical objects you want to study. Hence, deciding which parameters to use is complex and must come from your knowledge of these objects. Have a look on how these parameters were derived from IRAS data - what kind of objects, assumptions, conditions? If they roughly can be applied to the objects you want to study with AKARI, then you can justify using the same parameters. If your objects are completely different then you need to somehow derive or find a different set of parameters (or at least a range of possible values).
Good luck,
Michał
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
..
Because we always wonder;
- where we came from,
- how we were created,
- who we are...
And questions like that...
I think we realized that we can't answer these questions just looking our home(earth).
Universe tells us the past, present and future. And it makes me really very excited. 🤩
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
Dr. Hans-Otto Carmesin is a prolific theoretician who wrote among other things, these two books:
Modeling SN1a data:
That said, he leads a field where a lot of unsupported claims are tossed around without anything to support it. That is why they are unsupported..:)
As Dr. Carmesin professed, scientists should follow the teachings of Aristotle and always use the simplest possible model that is consistent with Reality.
Dr. Carmesin's model has nonlocality, dimensional transitions, the usual suspects (Dark Matter and Dark Energy), and an epoch-dependent Dark Energy (figure 8.15 on the first book above).
It is a fantastic work and from my point of view, unnecessary and incorrect.
Unnecessary because there is HU which is capable to explain everything Dr. Carmesin explained without the need for a Big Bang, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, epoch-dependent Dark Matter, Polychromatic Vacuum. Because of that, Aristotle and Occam's Razor would support HU and rebut Dr. Carmesin's work.
Attached is my summary of the problems I found on Dr. Carmesin's claims that SN1a distances support his work.
#########################################
#########################################
#########################################
This is an ongoing discussion.
Dr. Carmesin provided a reply to my objections and confirmed that he is not sure if his model can predict the SN1a distances.
In fact, he said: "My theory does not fail to predict these distances. I just did not calculate these distances yet for a good reason: I tested my full theory by calculating the measured Hubble constants of the Hubble tension."
First, that is not a good reason. Second, I calculated the distances according to his model and the model failed. See the plot and the attached python script.
#########################################
My plot of his model showcases that the model fails to predict the observed distances.
I also drive home the fact that Dr. Carmesin's model modifies the meaning of H0 (the Hubble Constant). Because of that comparison of results are not straightforward and seems to not have been considered before.
The plots also show that HU model predicts the observed distances without any parameters.
Dear Hans-Otto,
I thank you, in the name of all the readers, for your books and wisdom.
I also derived Quantum Gravity and offered everyone these articles.
I remind you that my work has no parameters and that my prediction for the G-dependence of the Absolute Luminosity yielded a G-factor that was off just by 11% from the observed.
My Quantum Gravity theory predicts the maximum density inside a Black Hole and creates Matter directly from deformed space.
Here is the maximum density inside a Black Hole:
I also predicted the position of Earth in the Hyperspherical Universe and replicated the CMB observations (together with the spherical harmonic spectral decomposition). I did that using interdimensional hyperspherical harmonic spectral decomposition, after a grid search for the best location. Here is the grid search:
Here is Planck's CMB observation:
and here is the hyperspherical harmonic acoustic spectral simulation of the same:
at Earth's position:
χ= 339.46 degrees
θ = 341.1 degrees
ϕ= 104.08 degrees
More details here:
Here is the Equation of State of the Universe:
Here is the 3D Map of the Observable Universe:
CENSORSHIP
My theory has been published since 2007 and it has been censored at Los Alamos archives and mainstream journals (including the one where Dr. Amendola is the editor)!
You have your voice. You are allowed to publish your work. I am not.
I have a story to tell, one that is distinct from the story you tell and that everyone wants to hear.
Can Scientists handle that? Science should be able to do so.
I would like you to offer to be my endorser at Los Alamos Archives.
Best Regards,
Marco Pereira
PS- Please confirm that your theory failed to predict the SN1a distances and please provide me with its E(z).
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
This is to understand how the concepts of statistical mechanics is applied in astrophysics.
It depends on which subject of Statistical Mechanics.
Let's say for neutrons starts you can follow the chapter on Neutron Stars in the book:
Landau, L. D., & Lifshitz, E. M. 1980, Statistical Physics (Elsevier Ltd.) the chapter entitled "properties of matter at very high-density" chap XI.
For gas dynamics and fluctuations in interstellar media you can follow:
1. Spitzer, L. 1962, Physics of Fully Ionized Gases (New York: Wiley)
2. Braginskii, S. I. 1965, RvPP, 1, 205
3. Parker, E. N. 1953, ApJ, 117, 431
Best Regards.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
Dear Researchers in the field :
Does anyone know what the KAGRA Gravitational Waves Observatory it's been up to ?
KAGRA announced at the end of last year (2019) that they were ready for the kick off. And that in February this year (2020) they were turn to the sky for the first (real) observations and be ready to joing the efforts of the LIGO-Virgo collaboration.
But I haven't hear anything about KAGRA since that time.
I'm sure they had to close due to the COVID-19 pandemic, probably since March.
But, now in December, almost the end of the year, I would have expected to hear news about Observatory.
Does anyone know what is it status nowadays ? Maybe the explanation is that the facilities kept shut down almost the whole year since the pandemic.
If someone know fresh news, I'll appreciate the sharing.
Best Regards all ! :)
Dear FranklinUrielParásHernández: Thanks. Let us wait for first observation from KAGRO.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
A Cosmology based on a Chaos-borne Hubble Law
Otto E. Rossler
Division of Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tubingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 8, 72076 Tübingen, F.R.G.
Abstract
A recent classical-mechanical finding, Fermi deceleration, implies a classical Hubble-like law. While its exact size is still open, it is bound to co-determine empirical reality. Some old and new questions concerning the size and the age of the cosmos arise. The current enigma of early old galaxies supports the prediction of a potentially much larger and older cosmos. So does Riccardo Giacconi's finding of ultra-high-redshift x-ray point sources.
(October 8, 2004)
Recently, a classical-mechanics based Hubble-like law was described [1,2]: Light rays
negotiating galactic clusters that are in random motion with up to 1 percent the speed of light (as is realistic) suffer a distance-proportional redshift through "Fermi deceleration." The latter phenomenon was discovered by Loskutov et al. [3] on a chaotic billiard: A fast-moving, low-mass billiard that is subject to random grazing-type collisions with slowly moving high­mass boundaries suffers a distance-proportional loss of momentum called Fermi deceleration [3]. The repelling grazing-type boundaries of Loskutov et al. can be replaced by attracting high-mass point centers - with the same grazing-type interactional effect. The slow attracting centers may be galaxies or clusters of galaxies and the billiard may be a light ray. The size of the effect depends on the density, mass and speed of the attracting centers.
The size of the effect appears to be neither too large nor too small to accomodate the empirical Hubble law [1]. If this preliminary result is taken as a cue, the implied lack of cosmic expansion re-opens the age-old question of the size of the cosmos. Fortunately, perhaps, a general-relativistic size limitation remains in charge if the mass density in the cosmos is uniform. In this case, not too much is changed compared to the standard paradigm: The cosmos can still be a pulsatile cosmos, for example, albeit so on a longer time scale.
If the assumption of a uniform mass density is dropped, on the other hand, the general­
relativistic bound is no longer finite. This stationary solution to the original Einstein equations was discovered by Benoit Mandelbrot [4], a fact which is not very well known. If the fractal dimensionality of the mass distribution is assumed to be unity (so that twice as large a radius contains not eight times but only twice as much mass - as in an ultra-light hole­ ridden Swiss cheese), the Schwarzschild radius which limits the size of the cosmos becomes infinite. For twice as much mass by definition has twice-as-large a Schwarzschild radius (and so on), so that no finite limit is reached in the present case. An exactly 1-D Mandelbrot cosmos is both stationary and unbounded. Peebles almost immediately found that the empirical fractal dimensionality of galaxies is about 1.2 up to large distances [5]. This and subsequent data can be re-evaluated by dropping the original assumption of a progressive lack of volume as the remaining distance to the primordial fireball shrinks toward zero. The validity of Peebles' near-unity result will thereby be extended to covering the greater part of the visible universe.
If this prediction is correct, a "Brunian cosmos" (in honor of Giordano Bruno) of potentially unbounded extension in both space and time becomes an option again- But would not the other "pillars of the big bang" automatically preclude so far-reaching a conclusion? Surprisingly, this is not the case. The cosmic background radiation -- the strongest ally -- would assume the role of "mean cosmic temperature" in the sense of Assis [6]. The also observed large-scale fluctuations in the WMAP would reflect a giant honeycomb structure that lies beyond the range of current telescopes (although some infrared and x-ray sources may already be pointing the way). The three other major pillars - primordial nucleosynthesis, inflation and accelerated expansion - would have to wait in line until the gross features have been straightened out. The third (large-distance dimming) may, by the way, prove reducible to Peebles' little-known (1+z)--4 formula [7], cf. [8].
But how about the riddles newly imported by a modern Brunian cosmos? First, in the absence of a far-from-equilibrium big bang, the persistent far-from-equilibrium state of the observable universe becomes incomprehensible. A gravitational effect partially anticipated by Einstein in 1912 [9] may possibly solve the mystery: Any particle in rectilinear motion inside a Newtonian (or Einsteinian) void enjoys a forward acceleration [10], cf. [11]. If this is so, gravitational energy gets "recycled" into kinetic energy in a Carnot-like manner. The same mechanism, by the way, could explain - jointly with Hawking radiation [12] - the second major new riddle that arises: the empirical "non-devouredness" of almost all matter by age-old black holes.
The main asset of a classical explanation of cosmological redshift, when held against the backdrop of the standard model, seems to lie in the fact that it introduces no hypotheses. lt only uses facts that are implicit in classical (post-Newtonian) mechanics and special and general relativity anyhow. lts predictions are irrefutable once their size has been correctly determined. What is surprising is only how many accepted hypotheses suddenly lose their hard-won plausibility.
Nevertheless it would be nice to have direct evidence as well. Very faint distant x-ray point sources appear to possess redshifts in excess of 30. This is because, on the one hand, the sensitivity ofx-ray telescopes is presently 1000 times greater than that of light telescopes [13]
- so that they can look 30 times (squareroot of 1000) deeper into space in principle - and, on the other, x-ray point sources continue to pop up at the lowest brightnesses [13]. This empirically suggested, two-tiered conclusion is incompatible with the big bang scenario (which leaves no room for redshifts beyond about 10 for massive objects). lt is about tobe decided by direct redshi:ft measurements in progress [13]. A hard - if weaker - fact is the recent optical discovery of strongly redshifted old galaxies 12 billion light years away, which has put cosmology into a full-fledged crisis [14,15]. While almost any way out appears acceptable at the time being, the above explanatory scenario was arrived at independently.
To conclude, the classical-mechanical finding of Fermi deceleration has upset the decades­ old belief that only a relativistic mechanism can account for the Rubble law. By coincidence, an empirical crisis holds cosmology in its grip in which fiddling with the usual culprits (like the star formation rate in young galaxies) seems insufficient to rescue the big bang model. In
,.:;uch a situation, even an at first sight alien, chaos-borne ray of light can acquire a warm glow.
Acknowledgments
I thank Christophe Letellier, Heinrich Kuypers, Dieter Fröhlich, Normann Kleiner, Peter Weibel, Erwin Wendling, Hans Diebner and Florian Grond for discussions. For J.O.R.
References
[1] O.E. Rossler, D. Fröhlich and N. Kleiner, Time-symmetric Hubble-like law: Light rays grazing randomly moving galaxies show distance-proportional redshift. Z. Naturforsch. 58 . 807-809 (2003).
[2] O.E. Rossler, Cosmic shear's temporal fluctuations generate a distance-proportional redshift in both time directions: Minibang theory. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 12, 1335- 1338 (2004).
[3] A. Loskutov, A.B. Ryabov and L.G Akinshin, Analysis of billiards with time-dependent boundaries. Facta Universitatis Series Mechanics, Automatic Control and Robotics 11, 99- 116 (2001).
[4] B.B. Mandelbrot, CR. Acad. Sci. Paris A 280, 618 (1975).
[5] M. Seldner and P.J.E. Peebles, Astrophysical J 215, 703 (1977).
[6] A.K.T. Assis, "Relational Mechamics." Montreal: Apeiron 1999.
[7] P.J.E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology. Princeton University Press 1993, p. 226.
[8] O.E. Rossler, "Darkness intensified: Existence of a nonlinear threshold in redshift­ induced dimming." Z. Naturforsch. 54, 453-454 (1999).
[9] A. Einstein, Does there exist a gravitational effect analogous to electrodynamic induction?
"Collected Papers," English Translation edition, Vol. 4, pp. 126-129. Princeton University
Press 1996.
[10] O.E. Rossler, A morphogenetic instability in gravitation. Physica D 2004 (invited paper submitted).
[11] The term "Fermi acceleration" was already reserved by Loskutov et al. [3] for a different mechanism (the heating-up of billiards subject to repetitive head-on collisions with moving boundaries). Thus, a new term (“Einstein acceleration”?) will be needed for the present mechanism which has nothing to do with billiards and, by the way, does not extend to light, provided it is going to be confirmed.
[12] S.W. Hawking, Particle creation by black holes. Commun. Math. Phys. 33, 323 (1973).
[13] R. Giacconi, Kepler lecture, held at the University of Tübingen, July 2003.
[14] J.-M. Bonnet-Bidaud, Le big bang face à ses contradictions, Ciel&espace No. 412, 42- 44, September 2004.
[15] Editorial: Mature galaxies in young universe at odds with theory, Scientific American online, September 2004.
Remark added in 2020: Since this paper was written in 2004, Cryodynamics – explaining cosmology causally for good – got discovered; so this text remains just a step on the road.
Have a look at
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
Is that has an effect on the biological life
Wonderful question and interesting discussions.🌷🌷🌷
Fondest regards
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
If the Earth going through space would be close to a black hole, it would be gone to the center of it. Perhaps it is surrounded by low-density air
My questions are:
1. Could exist a black hole there without eating Earth surrounded perhaps by vacuum?
2. If it is possible that the black hole generates a lot of energy in the out border of the event horizon that could explain that the Earth heating is about twice the received sun power?
3. If it could explain the Earth magnetic field
4. It's mass
5. How to detect it
6. If it is true, perhaps earth temperature is higher than several million years before. It is known what was the Earth temperature then?
I make these questions because I am worried about the danger of generating a stable black hole in a scientific test. If one of them were created, it would go to the center of the Earth eating earth generating a thin tunnel.
I agree with dear Joachim Pimiskern
If we recall the TOKOMAK project, then a black hole can be artificially created. Skeptics see this end of the world.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
Physics is one of the physical sciences. The two other physical sciences are chemistry and astronomy. Astrophysics is the branch of physics that deals with space and celestial bodies.
Weitter Duckss "Astrophysics today (and before) is a fabrication of nonsense. "Scientists" (based on astronomical observations) fabricate their results without evidence (mostly)".
"When are lies and nonsense removed from the classrooms?"
You haven't posted a single thing to substantiate any of those wild allegations.
What is your problem with those lists you posted of exoplanets, brown dwarfs & stars?
What is your problem with the contents of the paragraph you quoted from Jim Kaler's http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/star_intro.html ?
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
Carroll and Ostlie in An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics, second edition at page 1099 remark: “Cosmological redshifts are caused by the expansion of the space through which the light travels, so for extremely large distances the total elongation of the wavelength depends on how the expansion of the universe has changed with time.” The 4/3 laws are based on dimensional capacity and imply a distance in 3 dim space stretches by 4/3 compared to the same distance in 4 dim space-time. Is there a connection?
1. A. Chubykalo , A. Espinoza , V. Kuligin, M. Korneva. Once again about problem“4/3”. International Journal of Engineering Nechnologies and Management Research. Vol.6 (Iss.6): June 2019, ISSN: 2454-1907 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3271356
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
It may be a binary black hole accretion disk or an AGN.
Their study shows that B is around for 33 G for V404 Cygni
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
Can anybody please share the IDL source code for Hapke photometric modeling?
Thank you,
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
Dear Sirs,
I think many knows the ideas due to Jules Henri Poincaré that the physics laws can be formally rewriten as a space-time curvature or as new geometry solely without forces. It is because the physics laws and geometry laws only together are verified in the experiment. So we can arbitrary choose the one of them.
Do you know any works, researchers who realized this idea. I understand that it is just fantasy as it is not proved in the experiment for all forces excepting gravitation.
Do you know works where three Newtons laws are rewritten as just space-time curvature or 5D space curvature or the like without FORCES. Kaluzi-Klein theory is only about electricity.
Force, mass, and energy are a parallel set of descriptions of the effects of special relativistic Thomas Precession. All matter and space, and their interactions are described with distance in three dimensions, time, and their derivatives.
Newton's first law of motion is , "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it."
Yet the concept of motion requires at least two objects, and if there are two objects, then there is always an external force, which is gravitation.
So the idea of rewriting Newton's laws without force (or mass or energy) is good, but it should be extended to incorporate the most basic non-linear effects of motion in space time, which are special relativity and Thomas Precession.
See my article describing the recent discovery of the effects of Thomas Precession the particle and galactic scales.
Article Thomas Precession is the Basis for the Structure of Matter and Space
Recommended / Share
• 3 Recommendations
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
astrophysicst
What is the role of anisotropy in the dynamic modeling of star. For realistic modeling of star what should be the trend of anisotropy from center to boundary.
Following.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
Some petroleum and geophysics companies use controlled-source seismology for Mineral Inspection and cavity detection. These methods based on impulsive source controllers such as (dynamite, air gun seismic source, etc.). More efficient techniques use a Seismic vibrator for seismic wave generator such as chirp, sine or square seismic waves.
I wonder if recents detections of Gravitational Waves coming from earth or space using optical interferometry, and how to distinguish between each of them, especially when seismic wave have a same chirp form such as Gravitational Waves?
Example of Seismic Source: http://seismicsource.com/html/index.php
Go to https://gracedb.ligo.org/superevents/public/O3/ You will see lots of candidates, 56 to be exact. Half of them have been rejected. The rejected ones, have shape of gravitational waves but turned out to be noise from other sources, such as cleaning equipment. Many "confirmed" ones were detected only by one detector, such as GW190425 (the only confirmed detection from the 3rd run) or GW170817 ( the only one supposedly with a visual). LIGO mistook different types of noise for grav waves before so nothing can be ruled out.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
If global warming cannot be resolved by controlling/minimising gas emissions, then extraordinary measures may be the only viable options, one of such ideas is placing a solar shield between the sun and earth at the L1 lagrangian point to obtain a reduction in solar insolation . It may sound crazy, more like science fiction to know that a disk of 2000km in diameter would be necessary to reduce solar radiation reaching earth by 1.7%. I wonder about the sort of stresses that would be experienced by such an enormous body. Also, what sort of materials' properties would be required to withstand the conditions at L1, for example solar radiation, other rays. While it is possible to calculate the disk's orbital velocity around the sun, its angular velocity (around its axis) is difficult to calculate. I would be grateful if those with relevant experience could share their thoughts about how such calculations could be achieved.
The following article is relevant:
This paper presents a novel method of space-based geoengineering which uses the mass of a captured near Earth asteroid to gravitationally anchor a cloud of unprocessed dust in the vicinity of the L1 position to reduce the level of solar insolation at Earth. It has subsequently been shown that a cloud contained within the zero-velocity curve of the largest near Earth asteroid, Ganymed, can lead to an insolation reduction of 6.58% on Earth, which is significantly larger than the 1.7% required to offset a 2 °C increase in mean global temperature. The masses of the next largest near Earth asteroids are found to be too small to achieve the required level of insolation reduction, however, they are significant enough to be used as part of a portfolio of geoengineering schemes.
Cheers
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
Hi everyone,
I am studying MSc Astrophysics and my supervisor informed me last year that I would need to know Python to create plots in order to analyse data.
So I had started watching Python videos but when it came to using it for Astrophysics it turned out I still had not learnt anything. Being new to Python I had been 'learning' it in the ways of building a website and not for Astrophysics.
It's not applicable to what I am working on.
Long story short, I have been given some code to work with for analyzing chemical abundances in dwarf galaxies in the MW Galaxy. I feel I am learning by trial and error and ideally I would like to replicate scatter plots that I have seen in research papers but using my own data.
Is it possible to 1.) Know what programming software/language a scientist has used in their paper and 2.) Is it possible to get the code (the structure/layout) more than anything else?
I'm teaching myself Python and whilst everyone says it's easy compared to other programming languages, this is my first and therefore no comparison: just a lot of libraries that do many different things. I am finding it rather frustrating and need a "all you need to know" book on Python for Astropysics.
Equally if anyone knows any helpful resources I would be very grateful. Thank you!
I would advise you to use Matplotlib as Richard Epenoy suggested or even Seaborn which are both Python libraries for plotting data. Getting the very same Figures may not be straightforward but Matplotlib is very well documented and Stack Overflow has fixed me countless problems. Moreover, you may find the code for a given Figure in the supporting information related to the research paper (for instance we did so in 10.1002/jcc.26157).
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
What we actually mean by "Dark Matter Energy" in layman language?
Do you have any good abstract for this topic in your mind? Please feel free and share with us.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
Dear Colleagues,
I am a liaison (informal) at my university between science and the arts. I have family in planetary astronomy but this is far afield.
A question or two:
What does this newly-reported Radcliffe Wave of gaseous proto-stars tell us about how our galaxy originated?
Is there any chance that this wave will make some difference in our own sun's behavior?
Dear Preston,
Intriguin view, thanks for sharing Vera Lima
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
I was once told that stable isotopes of lighter elements such as H, N C , etc are found in stars, planets, etc. Can anyone suggest any literature which talks about the formation of these isotopes?
The lightest elements (mainly hydrogen and helium and in trace amounts lithium and beryllium) were formed about 100 seconds after Big Bang through the Big Bang nucleosynthesis (this process lasted up to 20 minutes after Big Bang).
After the formation of stars new elements, from helium to iron, are produced in stellar nucleosynthesis (thermonuclear fusion: CNO cycle, proton–proton chain reaction and triple-alpha process) during stellar evolution.
Elements higher than iron are produced in supernovae through the r-process and s-process.
A very good book about this and generally about properties of stellar interiors and the structure and evolution of stars is: "The Physics of Stars" A. C. Phillips.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
Does the New Astronomy Journal charge fees for publishing accepted papers? Are there any page charges?
Or is it totally free like Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics Journal of IOP or Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy of Springer?
Hi, you don't need to pay to publish a paper in New Astronomy as it is the case for all Elsevier journals. Neverthess, if you need the paper to be available to everyone you need to pay (see attached document).
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
There are some Computational fluid dynamic numerical simulations available like John Hopkins CFD numerical simulations database is available to use. Is that can be used for Astrophysics purposes?
[I am not the right person to answer your question but this might help]
Two kind of CFD methods are more popular in Computational Astrophysics, compared to Mechanical/ Chemical/Civil engineering CFD, and there are solid reasons for that:
1) Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) method. It is developed in first place for astrophysics and due to its Lagrangian nature it can tackle questions of astrophysics very nice.
2) Spectral Methods (I do not mean spectral FEM, I mean methods such as Chebyshev polynomials spectral method): Those methods are of very high order and they are computationally effective and suitable for "large" domains of astrophysics, on one hand; On the other hand, in astrophysics we are not dealing with odd and dynamic geometries of the domain and this fact eliminates one of the main limitation of spectral methods.
Hope it helps,
Kaveh
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
What are the major unsolved theoretic problems on the astrophysical dust molecular clouds and their evolutionary dynamics?
Thanks a lot for positive feedback
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
We can direct this question to astrophysics scientists, theologians, philosophers, scientists thought and civilizations! why?
Astronomy shows that the universe is very wide and the distances between the planets are very far away, especially those distances between solar groups or between galaxies. So, for now, humans can not get out of the earth and settle outside.
Nor have we found references in religious beliefs about the possibility of humans coming out of the earth.
As well as philosophy scholars did not deviate from the geographical framework of the Earth!
Surely no
Best Regards Nasser Farhat
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
It was amazing to see the very first image of a black hole. I'm not expert in the field of astrophysics, but in the interest of AI, I think the image is worth to be discussed more. I have made a blog to explain my point of view:
Agree? Disagree?
Hi,
yes i agreed..
The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT), which uses a network of telescopes around the globe to turn all of Earth into an enormous radio telescope, has taken the first direct image of a black hole. There is general consensus that supermassive black holes exist in the centers of most galaxies. Despite its invisible interior, the presence of a black hole can be inferred through its interaction with other matter and with electromagnetic radiation such as visible light. Hawking showed that quantum effects allow black holes to emit exact black-body radiation. ... This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.
Best Wishes..
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
Astrophysical S-factors for thermonuclear reactions that produce electron neutrinos.
Good morning Dr. Fontana.
Thank you for your information, I appreciate it. I have been reading the article you just shared and it is really helpful. I was wondering if you have some information about the Astrophysical S-factor when it is evaluated in the gamow peak (S(E_0)). I checked a couple of articles and they had the value for some neutrino reactions, but not all of them. I have e.g. p + p, but they do not have the rest of them. I'd appreciate it if you may give me a hand with this, because I've been stuck at this and also need an expression for events number in a solar neutrino detector.
Thank you very much.
Best regards.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
To publish a Unified Theory of Everything, which includes a series of papers describing and proving its Astrophysics, Electromagnetics & Optics, Gravitation, Weak Force, and Strong Force counterparts, what would be the best Scientific Journal to publish it altogether, or is it better to publish it as a book with chapters covering individual proofs in different physics disciplines? If submitting to a Journal, how can the intellectual rights be protected in the peer-review process? If published in a book, what would be the pros and cons in comparison to being published as an Academic Journal Paper?
Regards,
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
Dear all,
in accordance with Friedmann-Lemaitre-Equation there are three different possibilities of space curvature which can be described mathematically and imparted graphically or analogously (Closed, Openend or Flat Universe). In the attached poster a fourth graphic representation is shown, which is however only graphically derived.
Is this sketch describable within Friedmann-Lemaitre-Equations? How can we interpret this sketch? A Universe that is truly infinite, although it has a defined start and a defined end point?
What would be a 3-Dimensional mathematical object to describe the plot (closed hypertorus, while closed means without a connection in the center?). And what numbers for curvature parameter k and density Parameter Ω make sense for this sketch?
I have created this plot purely graphically and wonder whether a mathematical interpretation of such a shaped space-time is possible, or whether it inevitably leads to paradoxes and is thus a graphic that can be drawn abstractly, but ultimately makes no mathematical sense.
Thank you!
I might add that my paper on a "Bipolar Model"...of hyperbolic space was rejected by Physics journals as being too mathematical and by Mathematics journals as being too physical. It primarily raises the question of what coordinates are "physical". This is not easy to answer. For example rotating coordinates are considered non-physical, but if you are in them, they are real and there is physics associated with them. As mentioned above, one needs to consider the matter distribution to make sense of them.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
Dear Sirs,
I would like to find out more precisely whether the 2nd Newton law is valid or not in wide range of masses, accelerations, forces. Particulary I have a question whether the inertial property of body (inertial mass) is able to stop the body for small external forces or not. I have found in the Internet the fresh articles with tests of the 2nd Newton law for small accelerations (10^-10), small forces (10^-13) and SMALL masses (about 1 kg). The articles deal with the question of dark matter and MOND theory in astrophysics.
But I am interested in BIG masses. Could the test be carried out in planetary scale? Maybe for the Moon or asteroids? Or for masses like 1000 kg? Thank you very much for any references.
- When calculating ephemeris in the most accurate models of EPM and in some DE models, only miserable corrections are obtained from the PPN formalism. The Newtonian gravitation remains in the basement of celestial mechanics and of the GR. To my point of view, and stem from the fact, that geodetic lines in the presence of masses get bent, the Newton’s gravitation law suffers from a fundamental flaw due to violation of the inverse square law, underlying it. Let's try to go down from generalizations to specifics.
For example, discussing the modification of the law of Newton, I will argue that the mass is not an invariant, and the APPARENT gravitational mass depends on the distance to the observer Ma = M (1+ KR), where, for particular body, K = const. To verify the validity of the modified law, one will have to a) recalculate the masses of all celestial bodies in accordance with modified law, and b) get the Shapiro amendment, which will also depend on the (apparent) mass. As a result, using appropriate Shapiro delay values, we may get confirmation of the modified law.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
the gravitational waves are travels through the universe with the speed of light and it is the disturbances/ ripples in the fabric of space-time. as observe in the electromagnetic radiation light is decays/redshift, similarly in the case of gravitational waves curvature of any massive astrophysical objects affects or deacay it???
Gravitational waves decay like EM, so the power falls as r-2 in free space, but LIGO measures only the strain which is like just one part of the EM field so that falls as r-1. That
The waves couple very poorly to matter so it has no dissipative effect and is essentially transparent to them but they are affected by gravity in the same way as light so subject to gravitational bending and the Shapiro delay for example. Weber Bars were constructed in such a way that they resonated at a specific frequency but could only extract any energy over a very narrow frequency.
Keplerian orbits can be assumed when the bodies are far apart and the waves frequency from that period tells us basic properties like the chirp mass and luminosity distance. Non-linear effects are very important in the strong field region which occurs close to the final merger and decades of work on supercomputers was required to create the templates predicted by GR which can be used for comparisons and extraction of additional parameters like mass ratio and spins.
You can discount any criticism that LIGO didn't detect waves, they published the exact location and range of GW170817 some 12 hours before it was found and that was what allowed the successful highly targeted search by SWOPE. The range given meant they could examine just a handful of galaxies instead of thousands in the area of the sky and subsequent optical measurements confirmed their figure was accurate to within 5%.
There are a lot of people out there with "theories" that said waves couldn't exist who now have trouble dealing with reality.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
Kepler-186f is the first earth-sized planet located in the habitable zone of another star that has been discovered. With this discovery, the search for life on other planets has entered into a new zone of discovery.
Nice discussion...
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
This question relates to naturalistic explanations, because they can approach to the reality or retreat from it with time.
To ensure prosperity without destroying ourselves.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
A three-dimensional (3-D, nonplanar) geometrical configuration of astrophysical fluids could be conveniently visualized.
What is a justified way to visualize one-dimensional (1-D, planar) geometrical configuration of dust molecular cloud fluids in astrophysics?
What is well represented by the single spatial variable, x, in this context?
In continuation, it is well known that a spherical (3-D) problem (with total degree of freedom # 3) could be reduced into a radial (1-D) problem (with total degree of freedom # 1) at the backdrop of spherically symmetric geometry. In both the cases (3-D + 1-D), the radial coordinate, r, can be well visualized in a sphere.
The same problem for analytic simplicity can also be worked out in a planar cartesian geometry (1-D). In this case, what does the cartesian position coordinate, x, represent? Is it possible to draw a crystal clear pictorial visualization of the latter in reference with the former under the condition that r=x if and only if (1/r)~0?
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
The constitutive dust grains in astrophysical environments are partially ionized. What should be the most appropriate (effective) form of dust-dust interaction in astrophysical environments? In a broader sense, how should we improve the existing models in the above light?
The charged dust-dust interaction is electrostatic in origin. What is the expression of the interaction potential?
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
Astrophysical fluids are nonthermal in nature. Could you please provide a list (preferably, tabular form) of various nothermal distribution laws for the constitutional particles relevant in large-scale astrophysical fluids?
An appropriate answer to the above question is kindly requested for your needful action as early as possible.
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
Can any body name some astrophysical fluid instabilities still lacking theoretical explanation?
All are kindly requested to answer this question with full energy
• asked a question related to Astrophysics
Question
Paranomal Research should be considered research, we all understand that, but what kind of research? What branch?