Out of Nothing: An Emergent Universe

[Stormer0628]

Diamonds Fall from the Sky Outside Earth

Diamonds are rare on Earth.
Elsewhere, they fall from the sky

A hard rain descends on Uranus and Neptune

​

IN THE marketplaces of planet Earth, diamonds are both desirable and scarce, and that makes them expensive. Both the demand and the rarity are, however, largely artificial. Diamonds were made desirable in the 20th century mainly by a marketing campaign from De Beers, a big South African producer of the stones. The scarcity was, until recently, a result of the same company—which at one point controlled about 90% of the world’s production—ensuring that the number of stones which found their way into the world’s jewellery shops was well regulated.

In nature, though, diamonds are unremarkable. They are simply crystals of carbon, albeit crystals of a type that needs a fair amount of pressure to form. And carbon is the fourth-most abundant element in the universe. For that reason, diamonds are thought to be the commonest gemstones on Earth. Elsewhere in the cosmos, as demonstrated in a paper just published in Nature Astronomy, they are probably available in embarrassing abundance.

Dominik Kraus, a physicist at the Helmholtz Centre in Dresden, and his colleagues, are interested in ice-giant planets, such as Uranus (pictured) and Neptune. Unlike gas giants (Jupiter and Saturn being local examples), which are made mostly of hydrogen and helium, ice giants are rich in comparatively heavy elements such as oxygen, nitrogen and, crucially, carbon. That carbon is locked up in compounds, mostly hydrocarbons such as methane, ethane and the like.

Ice giants, as the name suggests, are also big. This means that, in the depths of their thick atmospheres, temperatures are high enough to split those hydrocarbons into hydrogen and carbon, and pressures are sufficient to compress the carbon into diamonds. The consequence, 10,000km or so beneath the top of the atmosphere, is a constant rain of diamonds. Those diamonds sink towards the planet’s core, encrusting it in a thick layer of gem stones.

That, at least, is the prediction. Testing it is tricky. Previous attempts, using anvils to compress hydrocarbons and lasers to heat them, have hinted that theory may, with a few tweaks, match reality. But Dr Kraus’s paper is definitive. He and his colleagues put tiny samples of polystyrene—which, like methane, is made of carbon and hydrogen—in front of a giant X-ray laser at the National Accelerator Laboratory, near Stanford University in California, in order to squeeze and heat it at the same time.

The results confirmed what researchers had long suspected. Diamonds do indeed form in such conditions, although the pressure required is a bit higher than previously thought. And Dr Kraus’s research will be of interest to more than just gem-cutters of the distant future looking for new sources of supply. Knowing the temperature and pressure at which parts of an ice giant’s atmosphere start to decompose into their elementary constituents can help astronomers fix the relationship between the radius and mass of such planets. That is useful, for these days scientists are interested in planets outside the solar system as well as those within it. For such bodies, mass and radius are often the only data available. Knowing how they relate will help astronomers catalogue just how many more diamond-encrusted planets are lurking out there in the cosmos.

SOURCE

 

[Stormer0628]

Re: Diamonds Fall from the Sky Outside Earth

...

In everyday life, ultraviolet, or UV, light earns a bad reputation for being responsible for sunburns and other harmful effects on humans. However, research suggests that UV light may have played a critical role in the emergence of life on Earth and could be a key for where to look for life elsewhere in the Universe.

A new study by Sukrit Ranjan of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) in Cambridge, Mass., and colleagues suggests that red dwarf stars might not emit enough UV light to kick-start the biological processes most familiar to our planet. For example, certain levels of UV might be necessary for the formation of ribonucleic acid, a molecule necessary for all forms of known life.

"It would be like having a pile of wood and kindling and wanting to light a fire, but not having a match," said Ranjan. "Our research shows that the right amount of UV light might be one of the matches that gets life as we know it to ignite."

This research is focused on the study of red dwarf stars, which are smaller and less massive than the Sun, and the planets that orbit them. Recently, several planetary systems with potential habitable zones, where liquid water could exist, have been discovered around red dwarfs including Proxima Centauri, TRAPPIST-1, and LHS 1140.

Using computer models and the known properties of red dwarfs, the authors estimate that the surface of rocky planets in the potentially habitable zones around red dwarfs would experience 100 to 1,000 times less of the ultraviolet light that may be important to the emergence of life than the young Earth would have. Chemistry that depends on UV light might shut down at such low levels, and even if it does proceed, it could operate at a much slower rate than on the young Earth, possibly delaying the advent of life.

"It may be a matter of finding the sweet spot," said co-author Robin Wordsworth of the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Science. "There needs to be enough ultraviolet light to trigger the formation of life, but not so much that it erodes and removes the planet's atmosphere."

Previous studies have shown that the red dwarf stars in systems such as TRAPPIST-1 may erupt with dramatic flares in UV. If the flares deliver too much energy, they might severely damage the atmosphere and harm life on surrounding planets. On the other hand, these UV flares may provide enough energy to compensate for the lower levels of UV light steadily produced by the star.

"We still have a lot of work to do in the laboratory and elsewhere to determine how factors, including UV, play into the question of life," said co-author Dimitar Sasselov, also of the CfA. "Also, we need to determine whether life can form at much lower UV levels than we experience here on Earth."

There is intense interest in probing these questions because red dwarf stars provide some of the most compelling candidates for detecting putative planets with life, including those mentioned above. As telescopes such as the James Webb Space Telescope and the Giant Magellan Telescope come online in coming years, scientists need the most information possible to pick out the best targets in their search for life outside our Solar System.

One limitation of these studies is that we know only one example where life formed on a planet, the Earth, and even here we are not certain exactly how life emerged. If life is found on a red dwarf's planet, it might imply a pathway to the origin of life that is very different from what we think might have played out on Earth.

These results were published in the July 10th, 2017 issue of The Astrophysical Journal and are available online.


SOURCE

 

[Stormer0628]

Spooky "Fingerprints" of Antimatter Observed at CERN for First Time

...

Spooky "Fingerprints" of Antimatter Observed at CERN for First Time

The ALPHA experiment at CERN hopes to answer one of the most fundamental questions in physics: why is there more matter than antimatter in the universe? This is a rather troublesome quest to pursue, because antimatter is notoriously difficult to contain – as soon as it touches regular matter, both are annihilated.

Nevertheless, steps are being made to better understand the unusual structure and behavior of antimatter, and a new Nature paper out this week represents the latest success in this regard. Using cutting-edge techniques, an international team of physicists have managed to observe, for the first time, something in antihydrogen – the counterpart to regular hydrogen – named the “hyperfine structure”.

In much the way atoms of matter have electrons orbiting them, antimatter anti-atoms have positrons orbiting them. When these particles and antiparticles are energized, they leap “up” to a higher energy state, and when they lose energy, they fall “down” to a lower energy state.

Seen from a “zoomed out” perspective, this is known as the fine structure; zoomed in to a more precise level, this is known as the hyperfine structure.

This has been observed in regular hydrogen atoms for many decades now, but CERN are now reporting that they’ve observed this in antihydrogen. Apart from the obvious, there was no difference in the hyperfine structures between hydrogen and antihydrogen.

In order to get to this point, they first created a fair few antihydrogen anti-atoms through a series of high-energy collisions.

For every million particle collisions at CERN, about four proton-antiproton pairs are created. Using extremely powerful magnetic fields, these antiprotons are then drawn away and brought to the Antiproton Decelerator, which reduces their speed from 96 percent to just 10 percent of the speed of light.

In much the same way one typical hydrogen atom contains just one proton, one antihydrogen anti-atom contains just one antiproton. Isolating these at ALPHA and using precise microwave energy bursts to energetically excite them, the team could observe with remarkable precision the antimatter’s hyperfine structure.

Some have referred to this as the spectral “fingerprint” of antihydrogen, a key identifying feature that no other piece of antimatter displays. Now that it’s been documented, the team will be able to repeat the same experiments for heavier samples of antimatter, including antihelium.

Ultimately, the unfamiliar atomic mirror world to our own will be entirely mapped out by the cartographers of CERN – and perhaps one of the greatest enigmas of our time will be closer to being resolved.

SOURCE

 

[Stormer0628]

Does light experience time?

Okay, let's get it out right off the bat and wrap your head around the idea: light does not experience time. Or distance. If light started from the beginning of the universe and found itself at the end, it wouldn't know about the time that elapsed in between. In the same way, if it traveled from the starting point of the universe and found the edge (assuming there is one), it wouldn't know that it has traversed that much space or distance along the way. In both instances, time and distance remain zero.

We humans never fail to notice that time flies when we're having fun. But not light. Photons don't experience any time at all. It's a mind-bending concept that should shatter our brains into pieces.

Let's do a quick review. If we want to travel to some distant point in space and we travel faster and faster, approaching the speed of light, our clocks slow down relative to an observer back on Earth. And yet we reach our destination more quickly than we would expect. Sure, our mass goes up and there are enormous amounts of energy required, but for this example, we'll just ignore all that.

If you could travel at a constant acceleration of 1 g, you could cross billions of light years in a single human generation. Of course, your friends back home would have experienced billions of years in your absence, but much like the mass increase and energy required, we won't worry about them.

The closer you get to light speed, the less time you experience and the shorter a distance you experience. You may recall that these numbers begin to approach zero. According to relativity, mass can never move through the universe at light speed. Mass will increase to infinity, and the amount of energy required to move it any faster will also be infinite. But for light itself, which is already moving at light speed… You guessed it, the photons reach zero distance and zero time.

Photons can take hundreds of thousands of years to travel from the core of the sun until they reach the surface and fly off into space. And yet that final journey that could take it billions of light years across space was no different from jumping from atom to atom.


SOURCE

 

[Stormer0628]

Universe did not start with the Big Bang

The Universe began not with a whimper but with a bang!

At least that's what you're commonly told: the Universe and everything in it came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang. Space, time, and all the matter and energy within began from a singular point, and then expanded and cooled, giving rise over billions of years to the atoms, stars, galaxies, and clusters of galaxies spread out across the billions of light years that make up our observable Universe. It's a compelling, beautiful picture that explains so much of what we see, from the present large-scale structure of the Universe's two trillion galaxies to the leftover glow of radiation permeating all of existence. Unfortunately, it's also wrong, and scientists have known this for almost 40 years.

The idea of the Big Bang first came about back in the 1920s and 1930s. When we looked out at distant galaxies, we discovered something peculiar: the farther away from us they were, the faster they appeared to be receding from us. According to the predictions of Einstein's General Relativity, a static Universe would be gravitationally unstable—everything needed to either be moving away from one another or collapsing towards one another if the fabric of space obeyed his laws. The observation of this apparent recession taught us that the Universe is expanding today, and if things are getting farther apart as time goes on, it means they were closer together in the distant past.

An expanding Universe doesn't just mean that things get farther apart as time goes on, it also means that the light existing in the Universe stretches in wavelength as we travel forward in time. Since wavelength determines energy (shorter is more energetic), that means the Universe cools as we age, and hence things were hotter in the past. Extrapolate this back far enough and you'll come to a time where everything was so hot that not even neutral atoms could form. If this picture were correct, we should see a leftover glow of radiation today, in all directions, that had cooled to just a few degrees above absolute zero. The discovery of this Cosmic Microwave Background in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Bob Wilson was a breathtaking confirmation of the Big Bang.

It's tempting, therefore, to keep extrapolating backwards in time, to when the Universe was even hotter, denser, and more compact. If you continue to go back, you'll find:

• A time where it was too hot to form atomic nuclei, where the radiation was so hot that any bound protons-and-neutrons would be blasted apart.
• A time where matter and antimatter pairs could spontaneously form, as the Universe is so energetic that pairs of particles/antiparticles can spontaneously be created.
• A time where individual protons and neutrons break down into a quark-gluon plasma, as the temperatures and densities are so high that the Universe becomes denser than the inside of an atomic nucleus.
• And finally, a time where the density and temperature rise to infinite values, as all the matter and energy in the Universe are contained within a single point: a singularity.

This very final point—this singularity that represents where the laws of physics break down—is also understood to represent the origin of space and time. This was the ultimate idea of the Big Bang.

Of course, everything except that last point has been confirmed to be true! We've created quark-gluon plasmas in the lab; we've created matter-antimatter pairs; we've done the calculations for which light elements should form and in what abundances during the early stages of the Universe, made the measurements, and found that they match with the Big Bang's predictions. Coming forward even farther, we've measured the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background and seen how gravitationally bound structures like stars and galaxies form and grow. Everywhere we look, we find a tremendous agreement between theory and observation. The Big Bang looks like a winner.

Except, that is, in a few regards. Three specific things you would expect from the Big Bang didn't happen. In particular:

1. The Universe doesn't have different temperatures in different directions, even though an area billions of light-years away in one direction never had time (since the Big Bang) to interact with or exchange information with an area billions of light-years in the opposite direction.
2. The Universe doesn't have a measurable spatial curvature that's different from zero, even though a Universe that's perfectly spatially flat requires a perfect balance between the initial expansion and the matter-and-radiation density.
3. The Universe doesn't have any leftover ultra-high-energy relics from the earliest times, even though the temperatures that would create these relics should have existed if the Universe were arbitrarily hot.

Theorists thinking about these problems started thinking of alternatives to a "singularity" to the Big Bang, and rather of what could recreate that hot, dense, expanding, cooling state while avoiding these problems. In December of 1979, Alan Guth hit upon a solution.

Instead of an arbitrarily hot, dense state, the Universe could have begun from a state where there was no matter, no radiation, no antimatter, no neutrinos, and no particles at all. All the energy present in the Universe would rather be bound up in the fabric of space itself: a form of vacuum energy that causes the Universe to expand at an exponential rate. In this cosmic state, quantum fluctuations would still exist, and so as space expanded, these fluctuations would get stretched across the Universe, creating regions with slightly-more or slightly-less than average energy densities. And finally, when this phase of the Universe—this period of inflation—came to an end, that energy would get converted into matter-and-radiation, creating the hot, dense state synonymous with the Big Bang.

This was regarded as a compelling-but-speculative idea—but it turned out there was a way to test it. If we were able to measure the fluctuations in the Big Bang's leftover glow and they exhibited a particular pattern consistent with inflation's predictions, that would be a "smoking gun" for inflation. Furthermore, those fluctuations would have to be very small in magnitude: small enough that the Universe could never have reached the temperatures necessary to create high-energy relics, and much smaller than the temperatures and densities where space and time would appear to emerge from a singularity. In the 1990s, 2000s, and then again in the 2010s, we measured those fluctuations in detail, and found exactly that.

The conclusion was inescapable: the hot Big Bang definitely happened, but doesn't extend to go all the way back to an arbitrarily hot and dense state. Instead, the very early Universe underwent a period of time where all of the energy that would go into the matter and radiation present today was instead bound up in the fabric of space itself. That period, known as cosmic inflation, came to an end and gave rise to the hot Big Bang, but never created an arbitrarily hot, dense state, nor did it create a singularity. What happened prior to inflation—or whether inflation was eternal to the past—is still an open question, but one thing is for certain: the Big Bang is not the beginning of the Universe!

SOURCE

 

[SHEME SIYA]

Re: Universe did not start with the Big Bang

ang daming info dito, sarap basahin

 

[Stormer0628]

Periodic Table Element Breaks Quantum Mechanics

There's a lot we don't know about the actinides. On the periodic table, this series of heavy, radioactive elements hangs at the bottom, and includes a host of mysterious substances that don't naturally occur on Earth.

Among this cast of unknowns, berkelium looks to be even stranger than we realised. New experiments with this incredibly rare synthetic element have shown that its electrons don't behave the way they should, defying quantum mechanics.

"It's almost like being in an alternate universe because you're seeing chemistry you simply don't see in everyday elements," says chemist Thomas Albrecht-Schmitt from Florida State University.

For years, Albrecht-Schmitt has studied the complex, radioactive world of actinides, including plutonium, californium, and berkelium.

The latter, discovered in 1949, was named after the Berkeley scientists who first produced it, and one of the reasons it's so little understood, apart from its radioactivity, is because it's so difficult (and prohibitively expensive) to synthesise.

It's estimated that less than 1 gram of the element has been synthesised in the past 50 years. For his latest research, Albrecht-Schmitt was trusted with a whole 13 milligrams of the radioactive metal by the Department of Energy.

That might not seem like much, sure, but it's about 1,000 times more than anyone else has given for major research studies, and it enabled the researchers to observe something they never expected to see.

In a series of experiments over three years, the team engineered various compounds out of berkelium and observed that their electrons behaved unusually.

At the top end of the periodic table, which is dominated by light elements, electrons line up in configurations that are explained by quantum theory, which determines how electrons 'spin' around an atom's nucleus.

What Albrecht-Schmitt and fellow researchers discovered is that when it comes to berkelium, and other heavy elements, the principles of quantum mechanics can't actually explain what the electrons are doing.

Instead, it looks like the electrons are governed by Einstein's theory of relativity, which predicts that as objects with mass move faster, they get heavier.

In terms of the electrons in berkelium, the thinking goes that as the electrons begin to move at extremely fast speeds around each atom's highly charged nucleus – at up to significant fractions of the speed of light – this causes them to become heavy, and behave in ways that defy a quantum explanation of events.

"When you see this interesting phenomenon, you start asking yourself all these questions like how can you make it stronger or shut it down," says Albrecht-Schmitt.

"A few years ago, no one even thought you could make a berkelium compound."

The work builds upon previous research involving berkelium compounds published last year by the same team, which also teased that berkelium was "electronically different than what people expected".

As this body of work builds, it's yet more evidence that berkelium, like the periodic table itself, is something that's almost impossible to pin down – and it remains to be seen just how far these mysterious actinides will make our best theories bend or break.

"What this really gives us is an understanding of how chemistry is changing late in the table," Albrecht-Schmitt explained last year.

"The purpose is to understand the underlying chemistry of the element. Even after having [berkelium] for almost 70 years, many of the basic chemical properties are still unknown."

The findings are reported in the Journal of the American Chemical Society.


SOURCE

 

[mumen]

Re: Periodic Table Element Breaks Quantum Mechanics

Lahat lahat po ba ng scientist naniniwala sa mga ganito, kasi may rules ang science na kapag hindi dumaan sa trial and error isa lang ang punta nito kundi ang scifi movie at wala namang pakiramdam ang science. Mas naniniwala kasi ako sa mga pag-aaral na naging Law.

 

[Stormer0628]

Re: Periodic Table Element Breaks Quantum Mechanics

Lahat lahat po ba ng scientist naniniwala sa mga ganito, kasi may rules ang science na kapag hindi dumaan sa trial and error isa lang ang punta nito kundi ang scifi movie at wala namang pakiramdam ang science. Mas naniniwala kasi ako sa mga pag-aaral na naging Law.

You will find that Law and Theory are a matter of nomenclature in science, almost basically indistinguishable from each other. And for the nth time, "Theory" as used by science is not the same as its street version, which is all tantamount to guesswork. Hindi po hula-hula ang theory, or more properly, scientific theory. The Theory of Gravity does not use the phrase Law of Gravity, but who will dispute the veracity of the Theory of Gravity?

 

[mumen]

Re: Periodic Table Element Breaks Quantum Mechanics

You will find that Law and Theory are a matter of nomenclature in science, almost basically indistinguishable from each other. And for the nth time, "Theory" as used by science is not the same as its street version, which is all tantamount to guesswork. Hindi po hula-hula ang theory, or more properly, scientific theory. The Theory of Gravity does not use the phrase Law of Gravity, but who will dispute the veracity of the Theory of Gravity?

So sa anong paraan para maging totoo ang theory kasi kung puro papel lang naman, talagang nang galing lang yang sa pag-iisip ng scientist diba? Alam ko naman taon ang binibilang para magkaroon ng detelyadong teorya pero hindi sapat ang panahon para maging totoo, dapat maraming susubok na walang bias, masusubok sa realidad hindi sa isip lang, para kahit ang ordinaryong tao ay magsasabing totoo at higit sa lahat papayag lahat lahat ng scientist, kasi may mga teorya na sobrang tanda na minumulto parin tayo.
Pagkaka-alam ko law na ang gravity, pansin ko kasi lahat ng bagay ay hinihila pababa, walang pwersa sa ibang direkyon laging pababa(ewan ko lang basic lang kasi alam ko sa science). Siguro boss pinoy karin kahit taglish muna hindi ako kasing talino nyo, pasensya. At may pasingit akong tanong anong organization ba na maghahatol para maging law ang mga teoryang pinag-lalaban ng mga scientist or researchers at madaling ko itong makikita sa website nila kung meron man pero please walang bias, para hindi na ako basta basta maniniwala sa mga napapanood ko sa mga documentary especially kapag science, ang dami kasi nilang nakikita sa labas ng mundo eh, tapos biglang pa simpleng sasabihin na totoo daw at pinaka mabisang paraan nila ay tuloy tuloy nilang ituturo yun.

 

[Stormer0628]

Re: Periodic Table Element Breaks Quantum Mechanics

So sa anong paraan para maging totoo ang theory kasi kung puro papel lang naman, talagang nang galing lang yang sa pag-iisip ng scientist diba? Alam ko naman taon ang binibilang para magkaroon ng detelyadong teorya pero hindi sapat ang panahon para maging totoo, dapat maraming susubok na walang bias, masusubok sa realidad hindi sa isip lang, para kahit ang ordinaryong tao ay magsasabing totoo at higit sa lahat papayag lahat lahat ng scientist, kasi may mga teorya na sobrang tanda na minumulto parin tayo.
Pagkaka-alam ko law na ang gravity, pansin ko kasi lahat ng bagay ay hinihila pababa, walang pwersa sa ibang direkyon laging pababa(ewan ko lang basic lang kasi alam ko sa science). Siguro boss pinoy karin kahit taglish muna hindi ako kasing talino nyo, pasensya. At may pasingit akong tanong anong organization ba na maghahatol para maging law ang mga teoryang pinag-lalaban ng mga scientist or researchers at madaling ko itong makikita sa website nila kung meron man pero please walang bias, para hindi na ako basta basta maniniwala sa mga napapanood ko sa mga documentary especially kapag science, ang dami kasi nilang nakikita sa labas ng mundo eh, tapos biglang pa simpleng sasabihin na totoo daw at pinaka mabisang paraan nila ay tuloy tuloy nilang ituturo yun.

The key word is repeatability. Or pwede mo rin sabihin verifiability. Kung ang isang theory ay kayang ulitin ng kahit sino kahit saang parte ng mundo, at pagkatapos ay similar ang results, that is the time to say that the theory is well-founded.

Ang paggamit ng salitang "Law" ay nauso lamang nuong panahon ng mga sinaunang mga syentipiko na karamihan ay lumaki sa mga katagang ito galing sa religious practice. Nowadays, di ka na makakakita ng scientist who will use the term. The reason is that every scientist knows any experiment or research project is limited by issues of space and time localities. Ang ibig sabihin nyan, hindi komo tama dito sa lupa ay pwede rin na tama sa ibang regions ng universe. Or tama sa lahat ng panahon ng universe. Meaning a truly universal description. Halimbawa, ang Law of Gravity ni Newton ay tama lamang kapag ang pinag-uusapan ay hanggang planetary bodies. It could not account for higher space phenomena, bending of light around massive objects, for galactic rotations, etc.

Di lang papel ang theory. Sa papel sinusulat, oo, pero ang nakasulat dun ang dapat na intindihin at tutukan.

Many scientific societies have their own standards to certify the quality of works by scientists in their field.

The universal standard is by the use of standard deviation, denoted by the term sigma. A sigma level indicates the significance of experimental results. One sigma is low, two sigma is higher, and so on.

All these theories na makikita mo or kahit sino ay open to scrutiny and verification. Just google any one and search for the supporting papers, set up your own experiments, and confirm if the experiment follows or not. To your heart's content, para di mo na kailangan magrely sa mga pinagdududahan mong mga sources.

 

[Stormer0628]

Re: Periodic Table Element Breaks Quantum Mechanics

Inflation Isn't Just Science, It's The Origin Of Our Universe

Gist: In order to be considered a scientific theory, there are three things your idea needs to do. First off, you have to reproduce all of the successes of the prior leading theory. Second, you need to explain a new phenomenon that isn't presently explained by the theory you're seeking to replace. And third, you need to make a new prediction that you can then go out and test: where your new idea predicts something entirely different or novel from the preexisting theory. Do that and you're science. Do it successfully and you're bound to become the new leading scientific theory in your area. In this article, prominent scientist Ethan Siegel explains why Inflation Theory has become the leading scientific theory about where our Universe comes from.

 

[mumen]

Re: Periodic Table Element Breaks Quantum Mechanics

Ok, about naman po sa pinaka topic ng thread nyo, Ang From Out of Nothing, ito ba ay talagang 100% true ?. Kasi kung totoo sya dapat dumaan sya sa scientific methods diba, kung dumaan lang ito sa mga review ng mga kapwa one sided lang, assembly ng mga scientist, impluwensya ng media at walang Output, ewan ko baka in progress parin ito at ilang taon naba itong theory ?. Sigurado kasi ako ang lahat ng mga Law ay kayang obserbahan ng kahit sino sa Lab o sa anu mang experiment. Itong bang "Out of Nothing" ay kayang gawan ng observation at experiment ? Kapag hindi, sa tingin ko mananatili syang Belief (Faith). Iniisip ko kasi kung anong pinagdaanan ng mga pagaaral like gravity, genetics, thermodynamics etc, dapat ganun din ang Out of Nothing, napaka unfair kasi nun para sa ibang scientist na nagsakripisyo ng ilang taon, Batas kasi yun.

 

[Stormer0628]

Re: Periodic Table Element Breaks Quantum Mechanics

Ok, about naman po sa pinaka topic ng thread nyo, Ang From Out of Nothing, ito ba ay talagang 100% true ?. Kasi kung totoo sya dapat dumaan sya sa scientific methods diba, kung dumaan lang ito sa mga review ng mga kapwa one sided lang, assembly ng mga scientist, impluwensya ng media at walang Output, ewan ko baka in progress parin ito at ilang taon naba itong theory ?. Sigurado kasi ako ang lahat ng mga Law ay kayang obserbahan ng kahit sino sa Lab o sa anu mang experiment. Itong bang "Out of Nothing" ay kayang gawan ng observation at experiment ? Kapag hindi, sa tingin ko mananatili syang Belief (Faith). Iniisip ko kasi kung anong pinagdaanan ng mga pagaaral like gravity, genetics, thermodynamics etc, dapat ganun din ang Out of Nothing, napaka unfair kasi nun para sa ibang scientist na nagsakripisyo ng ilang taon, Batas kasi yun.

Ang physics ng vacuum energy at quantum fluctuations ay kasama sa tinuturing na foundation ng modern science. Ang cosmic background radiation (CMB) na nadiscover nuon pang 1960s ay matibay na ebidensyang naglalarawan kung paanong ang lahat ng structure sa universe, mula sa pinakamaliit na atom hanggang sa naglalakihang galaxy superclusters ay blown up image lamang ng events sa first trillionth of a second ng universe.

Any time ay pwedeng itest ng kahit sino ang CMB. Ganun din ang vacuum energy and quantum fluctuations. Ang lahat ng mga ito ay dumaan sa pinakamahigpit na pagsusuri at pagkilatis bago na-establish. Libo-libong laboratories sa buong mundo ang sumunod sa setup ng experimento at ang lahat ng findings ay nagkakatugma.

Sa panahon ngayon, lubhang napakahirap gumawa ng palpak na experimento kung saan nakasalalay ang career, hanapbuhay, at pangalan ng syentipiko. Ang isang matagumpay na research ay patuloy na ginagamit sa future research kahit saang panig ng mundo, kaya kung may maliit man na mali ito ay lilitaw din at siguradong magiging sanhi ng professional suicide ng syentipiko kung ang error ay sinadya.

 

[mumen]

Re: Periodic Table Element Breaks Quantum Mechanics

Ang physics ng vacuum energy at quantum fluctuations ay kasama sa tinuturing na foundation ng modern science. Ang cosmic background radiation (CMB) na nadiscover nuon pang 1960s ay matibay na ebidensyang naglalarawan kung paanong ang lahat ng structure sa universe, mula sa pinakamaliit na atom hanggang sa naglalakihang galaxy superclusters ay blown up image lamang ng events sa first trillionth of a second ng universe.

Any time ay pwedeng itest ng kahit sino ang CMB. Ganun din ang vacuum energy and quantum fluctuations. Ang lahat ng mga ito ay dumaan sa pinakamahigpit na pagsusuri at pagkilatis bago na-establish. Libo-libong laboratories sa buong mundo ang sumunod sa setup ng experimento at ang lahat ng findings ay nagkakatugma.

Sa panahon ngayon, lubhang napakahirap gumawa ng palpak na experimento kung saan nakasalalay ang career, hanapbuhay, at pangalan ng syentipiko. Ang isang matagumpay na research ay patuloy na ginagamit sa future research kahit saang panig ng mundo, kaya kung may maliit man na mali ito ay lilitaw din at siguradong magiging sanhi ng professional suicide ng syentipiko kung ang error ay sinadya.

Saan ko pwedeng mapanuod ang CMB na yan, meron ba nyan sa youtube ang gusto ko kasi actual gagawin sa video, ayoko ng puro explanation lang.

 

[JackFrost10]

Re: Periodic Table Element Breaks Quantum Mechanics

Ok, about naman po sa pinaka topic ng thread nyo, Ang From Out of Nothing, ito ba ay talagang 100% true ?. Kasi kung totoo sya dapat dumaan sya sa scientific methods diba, kung dumaan lang ito sa mga review ng mga kapwa one sided lang, assembly ng mga scientist, impluwensya ng media at walang Output, ewan ko baka in progress parin ito at ilang taon naba itong theory ?. Sigurado kasi ako ang lahat ng mga Law ay kayang obserbahan ng kahit sino sa Lab o sa anu mang experiment. Itong bang "Out of Nothing" ay kayang gawan ng observation at experiment ? Kapag hindi, sa tingin ko mananatili syang Belief (Faith). Iniisip ko kasi kung anong pinagdaanan ng mga pagaaral like gravity, genetics, thermodynamics etc, dapat ganun din ang Out of Nothing, napaka unfair kasi nun para sa ibang scientist na nagsakripisyo ng ilang taon, Batas kasi yun.

Hi, ang definition po nng "nothing" sa big bang ay time, may observation na po kng saan nag simula ang lahat, isa po syang play-back video simulation ng universe, pwd mo pong eh search si DR. Michio Kaku ang author ng "String Theory".

 

[Stormer0628]

Re: Periodic Table Element Breaks Quantum Mechanics

Saan ko pwedeng mapanuod ang CMB na yan, meron ba nyan sa youtube ang gusto ko kasi actual gagawin sa video, ayoko ng puro explanation lang.

Maraming videos sa YouTube about CMB. First time na madetect ang CMB nina Robert Wilson at Arno Penzias, gamit lang nila ang Earth-based instruments. Ang mga sumunod na CMB detectors ay gamit na ang mga highly sophisticated satellite or advanced Earth-based detectors at special locations on Earth, sa polar regions halimbawa.

===========




MORE:


How we are able to look into
the first trillionth of a second of the emergence of the universe​

- - - Updated - - -

---

---

 

[mumen]

Re: Periodic Table Element Breaks Quantum Mechanics

Maraming videos sa YouTube about CMB. First time na madetect ang CMB nina Robert Wilson at Arno Penzias, gamit lang nila ang Earth-based instruments. Ang mga sumunod na CMB detectors ay gamit na ang mga highly sophisticated satellite or advanced Earth-based detectors at special locations on Earth, sa polar regions halimbawa.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPalHdzsImc




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bnL_ztPo6s




===========




MORE:


How we are able to look into
the first trillionth of a second of the emergence of the universe​

- - - Updated - - -

---

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tCMd1ytvWg




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXfhGxZFcVE​

Bakit ganun andaming tumututol sa video at sobrang sobrang layo daw nito sa katotohanan akala ko ba walang bias dito. Saan galing yung pinaka simula nung simula at pinaka-simula nito at ano bang pinaka unang matter at ano ang composition nun. Saan galing yung singularity, wavelength na yan, time, space, matter, iba pang matter na mas nauna pa sa mga yan, Anong meaning bakit sumabog o baka meaningless lang at paano nagsimula bago pa ang walang big bang, Ibig sabihin may something hindi kasi pwedeng tawaging nothing ang space at time tsaka anong meron sa time at dapat may mas nauna pa dun diba ?, Sa mga sinabi ko sinong nauna sa lahat ? at sinong nauna ulit dun tapos tanong ulit sinung mas nauna din dun. Tapos walang katapusang tanong. Ano bumubuo sa quarks at ano mga bumubuo sa matter ng quarks , may sagot naba ang mga scientist doon sa mga ganyang tanong, kasi hindi naman pilosopo yun ?. Kaya ba talaga ng tao sagutin yun ? OK sige kontento nako. kasi ang tatlo galing sa dalawa at pinaka una ang isa, ang ZERO ay walang bilang. "0 + 0 = 0" Nagsimula sa wala darating sa wala tama naman diba? Paano nagakaraon ng explosion kung walang energy, tapos saan galing yung energy kung meron man ? At Paano nagkaroon ng fluctuation ? Pero bago ang wave motion anong mas nauna dun ? At maiba lang physical matter plus time nagkaroon ng buhay paano yun?? Paano mo ma-eexplain ang bagay na walang hanggan kung ikaw tao ay may limitasyon, agree naman kau dun diba ?

 

[Stormer0628]

Re: Periodic Table Element Breaks Quantum Mechanics

Bakit ganun andaming tumututol sa video at sobrang sobrang layo daw nito sa katotohanan akala ko ba walang bias dito.

Para matiyak mo kung sino ang may dala-dalang bias, kailangan mo munang tutukan ang mismong substance ng nakasaad na pag-aaral. Kung di mo tiyak kung ano ang mga involved sa pinag-uusapan, paano ka makakabuo ng reliable at independent na conclusion?

Ang YouTube at ibang forms ng social media ay democratic at open sa lahat. Alam natin na kahit sino from all walks of life ay hinahayaang magbigay ng kanilang pananaw. Okay lang yan sa pangkalahatan. Pero kung gusto mong irespeto ka at magkaron ng saysay ang iyong pananaw, you have to take the path of a professional. Paano?

Ito ay sa pamamagitan ng paglalathala ng kaukulang scientific critique galing sa sarili mong pag-aaral. Pag nagawa mo ito, be ready to face the judgment of independent teams who would subject your own findings to the fire. Pure hearsay and strong opinion just would not cut it.

Ang mga binanggit ko na pag-aaral ay dumaan na sa maraming scientific tests, the most violent objections, yet they have proven to stand the test of time. If you think this is an easy thing to do, remember that there is a strong competition among scientists and the institutions that fund and back them up. Kung mamalasin mo ang kaganapan sa development around CRISPR, makikita mo kung paano ang competing scientists and their backers dragged each other inside courthouses to secure the copyright and patents to this technology. Contrary to popular opinion, scientists are not the friendliest and lamest of the lot when it comes to their treasured studies. You will find they could be the meanest among us all when billions to trillions of dollar and their reputations are on the line.

Saan galing yung pinaka simula nung simula at pinaka-simula nito at ano bang pinaka unang matter at ano ang composition nun. Saan galing yung singularity, wavelength na yan, time, space, matter, iba pang matter na mas nauna pa sa mga yan, Anong meaning bakit sumabog o baka meaningless lang at paano nagsimula bago pa ang walang big bang, Ibig sabihin may something hindi kasi pwedeng tawaging nothing ang space at time tsaka anong meron sa time at dapat may mas nauna pa dun diba ?, Sa mga sinabi ko sinong nauna sa lahat ? at sinong nauna ulit dun tapos tanong ulit sinung mas nauna din dun. Tapos walang katapusang tanong. Ano bumubuo sa quarks at ano mga bumubuo sa matter ng quarks , may sagot naba ang mga scientist doon sa mga ganyang tanong, kasi hindi naman pilosopo yun ?. Kaya ba talaga ng tao sagutin yun ? OK sige kontento nako. kasi ang tatlo galing sa dalawa at pinaka una ang isa, ang ZERO ay walang bilang. "0 + 0 = 0" Nagsimula sa wala darating sa wala tama naman diba? Paano nagakaraon ng explosion kung walang energy, tapos saan galing yung energy kung meron man ? At Paano nagkaroon ng fluctuation ? Pero bago ang wave motion anong mas nauna dun ? At maiba lang physical matter plus time nagkaroon ng buhay paano yun?? Paano mo ma-eexplain ang bagay na walang hanggan kung ikaw tao ay may limitasyon, agree naman kau dun diba ?

Ang lahat ng binanggit mo dito ay nasagot sa unang page ng thread na ito. Uulitin ko na rin ang ibang points na ni-raise mo for the sake of others who might not have gone through the first pages.

Singularity, space, matter - The Inflation Model does not fully assume a singularity. In fact, ang current form nito tries to do away with singularity. The reason is that there is a growing suspicion that a singularity model does not fully describe the true events of the first microseconds of the universe.

Gaya ng sinabi ko, it could easily be proven that space itself possesses energy. This energy is not fully uniform, meaning there are small fluctuations. Now take what I said about singularity: if space itself is possessed of energy, it is easy to postulate that space itself had ripped apart first and expanded to a large size before all the fluctuations cooled and the radiation they left behind turned into matter and every structure that we know exist in the universe. If you go over again the previous statements, you will arrive at this flow:

Space (vacuum energy) ----► quantum fluctuations ----► ripping apart of space itself ----► radiation ----► matter (from the cooling of radiation ----► the so-called Big Bang moment, when photons were released and made everything in the universe transparent 300,000 years or so after the ripping of space.​

Nothing - Nothing is a wrong designation. It could easily be shown that at any given time, any one could see virtual particles oozing in and out of existence. The famous Casimir experiment beautifully illustrates this. Another study, the so-called Unruh Effect, shows that empty space will exhibit temperature if a moving observer passes through any given area of space. In short, as I said in the first page, there is strictly no nothing. There has always been something in space, but our faculties, senses are not adequately equipped to detect them. The use of instruments easily shows us why this is so.

What does all of these tell us?

Space itself is the creator of all things. You cannot reduce space. You cannot make it go away. Meanwhile, space with its vacuum energy and quantum fluctuations could always generate the radiation that given time will cool to form matter and everything you could imagine exists in a universe.

 

[Stormer0628]

Half the universe’s missing matter finally found

The missing links between galaxies have finally been found. This is the first detection of the roughly half of the normal matter in our universe – protons, neutrons and electrons – unaccounted for by previous observations of stars, galaxies and other bright objects in space.

Two separate teams found the missing matter – made of particles called baryons rather than dark matter – linking galaxies together through filaments of hot, diffuse gas.

“The missing baryon problem is solved,” says Hideki Tanimura at the Institute of Space Astrophysics in Orsay, France, leader of one of the groups. The other team was led by Anna de Graaff at the University of Edinburgh, UK.

Because the gas is so tenuous and not quite hot enough for X-ray telescopes to pick up, nobody had been able to see it before.

“There’s no sweet spot – no sweet instrument that we’ve invented yet that can directly observe this gas,” says Richard Ellis at University College London. “It’s been purely speculation until now.”

So the two groups had to find another way to definitively show that these threads of gas are really there.

Both teams took advantage of a phenomenon called the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect that occurs when light left over from the big bang passes through hot gas. As the light travels, some of it scatters off the electrons in the gas, leaving a dim patch in the cosmic microwave background – our snapshot of the remnants from the birth of the cosmos.

Stack ‘em up
In 2015, the Planck satellite created a map of this effect throughout the observable universe. Because the tendrils of gas between galaxies are so diffuse, the dim blotches they cause are far too slight to be seen directly on Planck’s map.

Both teams selected pairs of galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey that were expected to be connected by a strand of baryons. They stacked the Planck signals for the areas between the galaxies, making the individually faint strands detectable en masse.

Tanimura’s team stacked data on 260,000 pairs of galaxies, and de Graaff’s group used over a million pairs. Both teams found definitive evidence of gas filaments between the galaxies. Tanimura’s group found they were almost three times denser than the mean for normal matter in the universe, and de Graaf’s group found they were six times denser – confirmation that the gas in these areas is dense enough to form filaments.

“We expect some differences because we are looking at filaments at different distances,” says Tanimura. “If this factor is included, our findings are very consistent with the other group.”

Finally finding the extra baryons that have been predicted by decades of simulations validates some of our assumptions about the universe.

“Everybody sort of knows that it has to be there, but this is the first time that somebody – two different groups, no less – has come up with a definitive detection,” says Ralph Kraft at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Massachusetts.

“This goes a long way toward showing that many of our ideas of how galaxies form and how structures form over the history of the universe are pretty much correct,” he says.

Journal references: arXiv, 1709.05024 and 1709.10378v1

Read more:Galaxies in filaments spaced like pearls on a necklace


SOURCE