Out of Nothing: An Emergent Universe

Stormer0628 · Feb 10, 2017

Like hydrogen, helium tells us a lot about the early universe (hydrogen and helium abundance is fundamental to the Big Bang Theory, for example). Now it also tells us what could be happening in other parts of it.

Here on Earth, two facts are known about helium:

While other noble gases have been successfully bonded in high-pressure experiments, helium has never before been capable of forming a compound
Because this reaction was possible in conditions that mimic those in high-pressure locations in outer space, this research could help us to understand how chemistry is different outside of Earth

NOBLE GASES

Noble gases—helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon—have long been believed to be the least reactive elements on the periodic table. Helium’s composition in particular, with its full outer electron shell, makes it theoretically unable to interact with other atoms to form a stable compound. So while other noble gases like xenon, krypton, and radon have successfully reacted to create compounds under extreme pressure, helium has thus far been incapable.

However, despite the assumed impossibility, a team of international scientists has recently created a stable helium-sodium compound.

“Chemistry changes when you apply high pressure, and this can be achieved inside our Earth and on different planets like Saturn,” said Ivan Popov from Utah State University in an interview with Gizmodo. “But this is a book changer.”

In previous attempts of pairing helium with other elements, results have always been fleeting. Helium’s closed shell configuration makes it difficult, if not downright impossible, for the element bond with other atoms. But this restriction is tied to the assumption that conditions are the same or similar to those on Earth’s surface. In outer space, it’s very possible that helium’s ability to react is very different given the change in environment.

“[E]xtremely high pressure, like that found at Earth’s core or giant neighbours, completely alters helium’s chemistry,” adds Utah State researcher, Alex Boldyrev told Phys.org.

To test this theory, the team used a ‘crystal structure predicting’ computer model in which they could observe how helium would react under extreme pressure. By exposing helium and sodium to atmospheric pressure 1.1 million times more than Earth’s, they were able to create the compound Na2He (depicted above).

This compound, along with breaking the rules of Helium’s reactivity, it also didn’t bond in a typical way. The cubic arrangement of alternating sodium and helium atoms isn’t held together by chemical bonds. According to Boldyrev, “…when we performed chemical bonding analysis of these structures, we found each ’empty’ cube actually contained an eight-center, two-electron bond… This bond is what’s responsible for the stability of this enchanting compound.” Helium changes the interaction between sodium atoms so much that if it is removed, the entire structure becomes unstable.

UNEXPECTED

Because it challenges long-standing assumptions about modern chemistry, experts are quick to note that this study has yet to be supported by or replicated in independent experiments that deliver the same, or similar, results. This means that more studies will have to be conducted to fully understand and validate the breakthrough this particular team has uncovered.

This curious discovery implies that there might not be a lot of applications on Earth. Essentially, the results were derived from following altered scientific rules and very extreme conditions, which we wouldn’t naturally find on this planet. But environments similar to what was created in this experiment, like the center of gas giant planets like Jupiter and Saturn where helium abounds, provide a context for these reactions that offer insight into how chemistry works on other planets.

It also raises a lot of questions about our understanding of chemistry. Our benchmark for chemical reactions is derived from our knowledge of this world. With the impending possibility of long-term space travel on the horizon, we have to be open to the fact that chemistry as we know it is not always the way that we know it.

Stormer0628 · Feb 14, 2017

WILL THIS BE the year humans finally crack the mystery of dark matter? Late last year, Verlinde created quite a stir with his emergent gravity to seriously question the existence of dark matter in order to explain the anomaly of galaxy rotations that Einstein's general relativity could not sufficiently account for (also Newton's theory of gravity, to be fair about it); now another physicist—Dr Mike McCulloch—is using the concept of quantized inertia, which suspiciously bears some conceptual similarity to Verlinde's theory, to explain the same anomalous galaxy rotation—while also explaining the physics at work in the EmDrive at the same time.

One of the biggest problems in physics today is how galaxies rotate. Galaxies are collections of millions of stars swirling around, and galaxies spin so rapidly that their centrifugal force should cause them to fly apart, as there isn't enough visible matter in them to hold them together by the force of gravity.

To try explain how galaxies are held together, astronomers use the popular theory of dark matter, which was proposed by Fritz Zwicky in 1933 and then popularized by Vera Rubin in the 1970s.

Galaxies and how dark matter works
The theory is that galaxies contain dark matter and that this makes them gravitationally stable in the standard model of physics. McCulloch is skeptical about dark matter and he says that it is an implausible theory to explain dwarf galaxies, which are super-tiny galaxies containing only between 1,000-10,000 stars that revolve around the milky way.

There are 20 dwarf galaxies in existence from Segue-1 (the smallest) to Canes Venatici-1 (the largest), and dark matter is only meant to work by spreading out across a wide distance, but it is still used to explain dwarf galaxies, even though this requires dark matter to be concentrated within these systems, which is implausible.

Instead, McCulloch asserts that quantized inertia can be used to explain how galaxies rotate without using dark matter, and he has written a paper that has been accepted by the bi-monthly peer reviewed journal Astrophysics and Space Science.

"The photons in the EmDrive, when they go into the narrow bit of the EmDrive, fewer Unruh wavelengths fit into that narrow bit, so they lose inertial mass, and that's what I'm saying causes the EmDrive to move," he told IBTimes UK.

"In the galaxy, as you go out to the edge, the acceleration of the stars reduces, and that means the Unruh wavelengths get longer. Just like for the EmDrive, few of them fit into the cosmos so their inertial mass decreases in the same way. This is further evidence that this theory is correct, as it seems to explain both the EmDrive and galaxy rotation."

To prove that quantized inertia exists in dwarf galaxies, McCulloch came up with an equation and used it to analyse data compiled by the Panoramic Survey Telescope Rapid Response System (Pan-STARRS), which is an international collaboration of astronomers hunting for dwarf galaxies.

Using quantised inertia to explain dwarf galaxies
The formula v = (2GMc2/Θ) ¼ states that the velocity of the stars in the cluster (v) is given by gravitational constant (G), times the visible mass (M), times the speed of light squared (c2), divided by the cosmic diameter (Θ).

"As you look out into the sky, you see stars moving away from you all the time because the universe is expanding and at a certain distance away, they're moving away so far that they're going faster than the speed of light, and then you can't see them anymore. This is the cosmic horizon. The cosmic diameter is the distance across the cosmos from side to side," explained McCulloch.

"The great thing about this formula for quantized inertia is that you don't have to add anything you can't observe. The formula has no adjustability. There is only one possible prediction and it fits the data, whereas you can't see dark matter."

McCulloch's paper, entitled "Low-acceleration dwarf galaxies as tests of quantized inertia", will be published by Astrophysics and Space Science in March, but it is available to read online now in its entirety on ResearchGate.

"There's lots of evidence for quantized inertia on a huge range of scales, be it the EmDrive, fly-by anomalies, dwarf galaxies, galaxies and galaxy clusters, and the cosmic acceleration. I believe all this evidence is pointing towards new physics, that works by extracting energy in a new way from the zero-point field using horizons," he said.

Life since the EmDrive paper

McCulloch says that after international media covered his paper in April 2016, he received a huge amount of abuse online from people who don't believe the EmDrive works, but he also now receives fan mail from other physicists and EmDrive enthusiasts, which he really appreciates.

"Some of the things people have said about me have been incredible. You'd think I was committing a crime. But now my predictions about the EmDrive are far better than before because I realized that some of the experiments used dielectrics, which reduce the speed of light in the cavity, and when I included that, my predictions actually improved," he said.

"There's a famous saying coined by the Royal Society, Nullius in Verba. It means that words mean nothing, the data is the important thing. If you're doing science, you have to be willing to put up with critics. The important thing is focusing on the data, and sometimes you need to ignore what the group is saying."

McCulloch is now seeking to organize the first EmDrive-specific conference in Plymouth, but he says he would only feature presentations from people who are willing to share all of their theories and methodology, and they must have the data to back up their theories.

Stormer0628 · Feb 19, 2017

THE DISTRIBUTION OF NORMAL MATTER precisely determines gravitational acceleration in all common types of galaxies, a team led by Case Western Reserve University researchers reports—a finding that directly challenges the currently accepted dark matter paradigm.

The team has shown this radial acceleration relation exists in nearby high-mass elliptical and low-mass spheroidal galaxies, building on last year's discovery of this relation in spiral and irregular galaxies. This provides further support that the relation is tantamount to a new natural law, the researchers say.

"This demonstrates that we truly have a universal law for galactic systems," said Federico Lelli, formerly an astronomy postdoctoral fellow at Case Western Reserve University and currently a fellow at the European Southern Observatory.

"This is similar to the Kepler law for planetary systems, which does not care about the specific properties of the planet. Whether the planet is rocky like Earth or gaseous like Jupiter, the law applies," said Lelli, who led this investigation.

In this case, the observed acceleration tightly correlates with the gravitational acceleration from the visible mass, no matter the type of galaxy. In other words, if astronomers measure the distribution of normal matter, they know the rotation curve, and vice versa.

"But it is still unclear what this relation means and what is its fundamental origin," Lelli said.

The study is published online in Astrophysical Journal today. Co-authors are Stacy McGaugh, chair of the Department of Astronomy at Case Western Reserve, James Schombert, astronomy professor at the University of Oregon, and Marcel Pawlowski, former astronomy postdoctoral researcher at Case Western Reserve and current Hubble fellow at the University of California, Irvine.

The researchers found that in 153 spiral and irregular galaxies, 25 ellipticals and lenticulars, and 62 dwarf spheroidals, the observed acceleration tightly correlates with the gravitational acceleration expected from visible mass.

Observed deviations from this correlation are not related to any specific galaxy property but completely random and consistent with measurement errors, the team found.

The tightness of this relation is difficult to understand in terms of dark matter as it's currently understood, the researchers said.
It also challenges the current understanding of galaxy formation and evolution, in which many random processes such as galaxy mergers and interactions, inflows and outflows of gas, star formation and supernovas, occur at the same time.

"Regularity must somehow emerge from this chaos," Lelli said.

To make their discovery, researchers combined different tracers of the centripetal acceleration found in different types of galaxies, from which they made 1-to-1 comparisons.

The kinematical tracers were cold gas in spiral and irregular galaxies, stars or hot gas in ellipticals and lenticulars, and individual giant stars in dwarf spheroidals.

The investigation included so-called ultra-faint dwarf spheroidal galaxies, but due to their lack of light—which makes them hard to study—the researchers can't confidently offer a clear interpretation of the radial acceleration relation in these.

Nevertheless, the growing proof of the relation, or natural law, requires new thinking about dark matter and gravity, the researchers said.

"Within the standard dark-matter paradigm, this law implies that the visible matter and the dark matter must be tightly coupled in galaxies at a local level and independently on global properties. They must know about each other," Lelli said. "Within alternative models like modified gravity, this law represents a key empirical constraint and may guide theoretical physicists to build some appropriate mathematical extension of Einstein's General Relativity."

The team's research so far has focused on galaxies in the nearby universe. Lelli and his colleagues plan to test the relation in more distant galaxies, just a few billion years after the big bang. They are hoping to learn whether the same relation holds during the lifetime of the Universe.

Explore further: Acceleration relation found among spiral and irregular galaxies challenges current understanding of dark matter

More information: "One Law to Rule Them All: The Radial Acceleration Relation of Galaxies," Federico Lelli, Stacy S. McGaugh, James M. Schombert & Marcel S. Pawlowski, Astrophysical Journal, 2017 Feb. 20 iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/152 , Arxiv: arxiv.org/abs/1610.08981

Research team finds radial acceleration relation in all common types of galaxies

Stormer0628 · Feb 20, 2017

The Big Bang Theory suggests that there should be three times as much lithium as we can observe—but there is a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Why is this?

To get into that problem, let’s back up a bit.

The Big Bang Theory (BBT) is well-supported by multiple lines of evidence and theory. It’s widely accepted as the explanation for how the Universe started. Three key pieces of evidence support the BBT:

observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background
our growing understanding of the large-scale structure of the Universe
rough agreement between calculations and observations of the abundance of primordial light nuclei

But the BBT still has some niggling questions.

The missing lithium problem is centred around the earliest stages of the Universe: from about 10 seconds to 20 minutes after the Big Bang. The Universe was super hot and it was expanding rapidly. This was the beginning of what’s called the Photon Epoch.

At that time, atomic nuclei formed through nucleosynthesis. But the extreme heat that dominated the Universe prevented the nuclei from combining with electrons to form atoms. The Universe was a plasma of nuclei, electrons, and photons.

Only the lightest nuclei were formed during this time, including most of the helium in the Universe, and small amounts of other light nuclides, like deuterium and our friend lithium. For the most part, heavier elements weren’t formed until stars appeared, and took on the role of nucleosynthesis.

The problem is that our understanding of the Big Bang tells us that there should be three times as much lithium as there is. The BBT gets it right when it comes to other primordial nuclei. Our observations of primordial helium and deuterium match the BBT’s predictions. So far, scientists haven’t been able to resolve this inconsistency.

But a new paper from researchers in China may have solved the puzzle.

One assumption in Big Bang nucleosynthesis is that all of the nuclei are in thermodynamic equilibrium, and that their velocities conform to what’s called the classical Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. But the Maxwell-Boltzmann describes what happens in what is called an ideal gas. Real gases can behave differently, and this is what the researchers propose: that nuclei in the plasma of the early photon period of the Universe behaved slightly differently than thought.

This graphics shows the distribution of early primordial light elements in
the Universe by time and temperature. Temperature along the top, time
along the bottom, and abundance on the side. Image: Hou et al. 2017

The authors applied what is known as non-extensive statistics to solve the problem. In the graph above, the dotted lines of the author’s model predict a lower abundance of the beryllium isotope. This is key, since beryllium decays into lithium. Also key is that the resulting amount of lithium, and of the other lighter nuclei, now all conform to the amounts predicted by the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution. It’s a eureka moment for cosmology aficionados.

The decay chains of primordial light nuclei in the early days of the Universe.
Notice the thin red arrows between Beryllium and Lithium at 10-13,
the earliest time shown on this chart. Image: Chou et. al.

What this all means is scientists can now accurately predict the abundance in the primordial universe of the three primordial nuclei: helium, deuterium, and lithium. Without any discrepancy, and without any missing lithium.

This is how science grinds away at problems, and if the authors of the paper are correct, then it further validates the Big Bang Theory, and brings us one step closer to understanding how our Universe was formed.

Eureka!

source

manfred · Feb 21, 2017

What really being explained in this thread is science of universe that we Filipinos didnt even have in college, I mean whats the point of digging the beginning of existence when the base knowledge is just being sky high for any genius to understand with lots of theory over theory when in reality a simple nuclear plant is not even in existent or just a simple rocket made to protect us from China's over bullying us. (point 1)
Its also a baseless propaganda to twist the Christian belief that this and that will ultimately lead someone to disbelief by which the life force could have evolve out of nothingness is so baseless likewise can never be established in science itself. (point 2)
Lastly, I dont wish to be mean while this discussion going on, just sending out that (point 3) , I'm out.

Stormer0628 · Feb 22, 2017

Well ... that was quick. I just wrote about the problem of lithium shortage in the universe in relation to the Big Bang Theory and within a day there's this: the trouble now is that currently the universe has more lithium than the previous calculations tell us. What gives? And boy, what a difference a day does make! Perhaps we need to backtrack a little then....

The gist is that a mysterious cosmic factory is producing more lithium than we are wise to. But not to worry, scientists are getting to the source of the mystery.

Lithium in Everyday Life
Lithium is everywhere these days. As far back as the mid-19th century, the soft, silver-white metal was medicine. Doctors used it to treat gout as well as psychiatric disorders such as mania. Even today, lithium remains a common treatment for bipolar disorder.

But for many people, lithium has become synonymous with batteries. It is a crucial ingredient for powering your phones, laptops and other portable gadgets. With the rise of hybrid and electric cars, the market for the metal will only grow; as much as three-fold by 2025, according to an estimate by Goldman Sachs.

Most of the world's reserves are in South America, with the single largest deposits under dry lakes in the high Andes. But lithium has been around a lot longer than any mountain or even Earth itself. In fact, lithium is one of the original elements—along with hydrogen and helium—that were born in the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago.

The history of lithium is long, but also shrouded in mystery. In the aftermath of the Big Bang, most of the newly-created lithium somehow went missing. What's more, when astronomers look at the current Universe, they find extra lithium: about four times more than what should have been produced in the Big Bang.

For more than a decade, scientists have been hunting where this extra lithium came from. Thanks to recent discoveries, however, the search for mysterious cosmic lithium factories may finally be over.

There is more lithium present now than the Big Bang created (Credit: Siloto/Alamy)

From the oxygen you breathe to the iron in your blood, the vast majority of the elements in your body were forged in the nuclear furnaces of stars. As the astronomer Carl Sagan said, "We are made of star stuff."

Heavier elements, though, such as the titanium often used in bicycles, require something more violent. Most were produced in nuclear reactions during the explosive deaths of massive stars. Some metals, such as gold, may even have been created in the powerful collisions between neutron stars, the ultra-dense cores of dead stars.

But the most basic elements were made within the first three minutes after the Big Bang. The early Universe was a hot soup of plasma, and as it expanded and cooled, it coagulated mostly into atoms of hydrogen and some helium, the two simplest and most abundant elements, with nuclei made of one and two protons respectively.

The Big Bang also produced traces of a heavy version of hydrogen called deuterium—whose nucleus carries an additional neutron instead of only a proton—and a lighter version of helium, with a nucleus that has one neutron instead of two. Finally, the Big Bang left behind even tinier amounts of lithium.

And that is it. After three minutes, the Universe was cooling too much for any more elements to form.

Even though this happened 13.8 billion years ago, scientists have a good understanding of the nuclear reactions that produced the first elements. Satellites like WMAP and Planck have taken precise measurements of what the early Universe was like, allowing researchers to calculate exactly how much of each element and isotope should have been made.

But when researchers compare their calculations with what they observe, not everything matches. "The deuterium is bang-on," says Brian Fields, an astrophysicist at the University of Illinois in the US. "The helium is looking good. Lithium is the one that's off."

And it is off by a lot. There is three times less lithium than there should be, a discrepancy that has been dubbed "the primordial lithium problem".

Cosmologists first noticed the missing lithium nearly 20 years ago, and they have come up with a host of explanations.

Maybe, scientists hypothesize, some unknown process inside stars destroyed the ancient lithium. Or maybe the explanation is more radical, involving completely new physics. For example, interactions with dark matter, the unknown stuff that is thought to comprise roughly a quarter of the cosmos, might somehow have eliminated lithium in the early Universe.

REVERSAL OF ABUNDANCE IN CURRENT EPOCH
But while early epochs seem to lack lithium, the current cosmos has a surplus. Astronomers have found relatively abundant amounts of lithium on the surfaces of young stars, which formed relatively recently, as well as in meteors in the Solar System. There is about four times more lithium than what was supposedly made in the Big Bang, enough in the galaxy to weigh as much as 150 suns.

Something, then, must have created this excess lithium and scattered it across the cosmos, where it eventually became incorporated into the nascent Solar System and, billions of years later, into the batteries of your mobile phone. The question is what?

One possibility is cosmic rays: high-energy particles—mostly protons—that whiz around space. As a cosmic ray zooms around, it can crash into stray atoms like oxygen. The collision shatters the oxygen atom into pieces, fragmenting it into a flurry of smaller elements, including lithium.

Although this process is likely happening all over the galaxy, Fields says, calculations suggest these collisions account for no more than about 20% of the observed lithium. Another 20% is attributed to the Big Bang, which still leaves 60% without an explanation.

Some of that 60% could be coming from a certain type of star called an asymptotic giant branch (AGB) star. These low- to intermediate-mass stars—no heavier than about 10 suns—are near the end of their lives. The nuclear reactions inside the stars are producing lithium, which can then rise to the surface. But it is unclear how much lithium actually gets expelled and distributed throughout the galaxy.

Then there are stellar explosions called novae. Unlike supernovae, their bigger and more powerful siblings, novae are not directly the result of stellar deaths. These milder explosions happen on the surface of a white dwarf, the Earth-sized corpse of a smaller star like the Sun.

Two dense white dwarf stars orbit each other
(Credit: Nasa/Strohmayer/GSFC/Dana Berry/Chandra)

If a white dwarf happens to be in orbit with another star, the white dwarf's gravity can pull hydrogen gas and other material from its partner. Layers of material accumulate on the white dwarf's surface. This drives up temperatures and pressures that eventually trigger thermonuclear fusion—and nuclear reactions that produce lithium.

Nuclear fusion increases temperatures even more, leading to yet more fusion reactions. Soon, those layers of material blow up in an explosion that appears to Earth as a brightening star: a nova.

The blast launches material—including lithium—into space at speeds of a few thousand kilometres per second. That makes novae much better at dispersing the metal than AGB stars, says Luca Izzo, an astronomer at the Institute of Astrophysics of Andalucia in Spain.

For years, astronomers have been trying to determine which of these three processes—cosmic rays, AGB stars or novae—might produce the most lithium. "We know all of those things definitely make lithium," Fields says. "The question is, do they all contribute exactly equally, or is one really dominating the scene? That has been a very longstanding debate."

LITHIUM

When it comes to novae, researchers first recognised them as potential lithium factories nearly 40 years ago. More refined calculations further supported this hypothesis in the mid-1990s, but the research remained entirely theoretical without any corroborating observations. For decades, no one was able to see any lithium-producing novae in action. But then, in early 2015, that changed.

Armed with new and improved instruments and techniques, two groups of astronomers in Japan and Europe finally detected lithium in novae. Not only does the discovery confirm that novae indeed make lithium, but also that novae make lots of it – potentially enough to account for the majority of the galaxy's lithium.

"The results, at the time I saw them, were quite startling," says Sumner Starrfield, an astrophysicist at Arizona State University and one of the first to study the lithium-producing potential of novae in the late 1970s.

The first reported discovery came in 2015. A team, led by Akito Tajitsu of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, found beryllium in a nova. This was a telltale sign that novae are lithium producers, since beryllium decays into lithium.

A few months later, Izzo and his team published a study in which they directly detected lithium in another nova. Early in 2016, Tajitsu's team followed up with the discovery of beryllium in two more novae, including one called V5668. Later that same year, Izzo was part of a team, led by Paolo Molaro of the Astronomical Observatory of Trieste in Italy, that confirmed the detection of beryllium in V5668.

That is a total of four novae with evidence of lithium production, one of which was confirmed by two independent teams. "Experts on spectroscopy are actually getting similar results," says Jordi José, an astrophysicist at the Technical University of Catalonia in Spain. "That starts to say something."

"They've managed to capture a nova in action right after it exploded, and they can measure the stuff that's spewing out," Fields says. "And lo and behold, it has tons of lithium."

In fact, Izzo says, the nova that his team observed produces so much lithium that two similar novae per year could create all the observed lithium in the galaxy. That is a preliminary estimate, however, and astronomers will need to study more novae to refine and confirm their measurements.

Still, having any sort of data at all is significant. "With these measurements, we're starting to get ground truth," Fields says. Researchers like Starrfield and José, theorists who have been starved of data for decades, now plan to redo their calculations and models and compare them with the new observations. "Now," José says, "the game begins."

Next, scientists can validate current models of how novae work and determine exactly how much lithium they churn out. Based on previous models, researchers like José estimated that novae could account for half of the lithium that was not made in the Big Bang. But with the new observations, he says, novae may produce as much as 80% of the non-primordial lithium.

To be clear, none of this solves the primordial lithium problem—the mystery as to why the early Universe had so much less of the metal than scientists predicted. But the new discoveries could help. [Refer to first part]

"As we have a better understanding of the non-primordial processes that make lithium—the way that living and dead stars make lithium—that helps us disentangle the history of lithium in our galaxy, how much it was born with, and at what point the more recent sources of lithium start to enter the picture," Fields says.

Scientists hope to uncover the complete history of this humble metal on which so much technology now depends. Whether from the fiery birth of the cosmos or from nuclear explosions on a dead star on the other side of the galaxy, those lithium atoms have come a long way.

SOURCE

Stormer0628 · Feb 23, 2017

manfred said:
What really being explained in this thread is science of universe that we Filipinos didnt even have in college, I mean whats the point of digging the beginning of existence when the base knowledge is just being sky high for any genius to understand with lots of theory over theory when in reality a simple nuclear plant is not even in existent or just a simple rocket made to protect us from China's over bullying us. (point 1)
Its also a baseless propaganda to twist the Christian belief that this and that will ultimately lead someone to disbelief by which the life force could have evolve out of nothingness is so baseless likewise can never be established in science itself. (point 2)
Lastly, I dont wish to be mean while this discussion going on, just sending out that (point 3) , I'm out.

I'm sorry, but the localized dogma of a tribe of Bronze Age shepherds, goat herders who really made a point of not getting along well with their neighbors has no place in discussions of the wonders of the universe.

- - - Updated - - -

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there-on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

― Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space

Marco D2 · Feb 24, 2017

pakibasa po yung attachment...salamat and God bless you...
tungkol po yan sa beginning of the universe...

Sa taon 1916 gumawa ng theory si Albert Einstein which is the Theory of General Relativity. Isa sa mga sinasabi sa theory na ito ay “the universe is expanding”. Actually hindi matanggap ni Einstein ang kanyang theory because it implied a Beginner.
Isa sa mga scientist na tumulong patunayan na nag-eexpand ang universe ay si Arthur Eddington kung saan hindi rin niya matanggap ang idea na nag-eexpand ang universe.

“Philosophically the notion of a beginning of the present order is repugnant to me. I should like to find a genuine loophole. I simply do not believe the present order of things started off with a bang….the expanding universe is preposterous….it leaves me cold” Sir Arthur Eddington, astrophysicist 1882-1944

Dahil sa kapanahunan ni Arthur Eddington ang kumakalat na worldview is “Scientific Materialism” which mean that the universe is eternal, self-existent and has no beginning. Samantalang kabaligtaran naman ang ipinapakita ng mga ebidensiya mula sa science kaya masakit para sa kanyang tanggapin ito.

Pagsapit ng ikadalawang daan taon (20th Century) nadiskubre ng mga cosmologist na ang universe ay may simula o beginning. At nangyari ang discoveries na ito nang unang maobserba ni Edwin Hubble isang astronomer na nagtratrabaho sa southern California. Gamit ang 200 inches dome telescope sa Palomar Observatory sa Mount Wilson nadiskubre niya na kahit saan siya tumingin sa kalawakan ay maraming galaxies. Imagine na sumisilip ka sa isang butas na sinlaki ng butil ng buhangin at kahit saan ka tumingin, maraming galaxies ang nakikita mo tulad sa picture.

View attachment 304610

Ito ang unang nadiskubre ni Edwin Hubble. Pero isa sa kahanga-hangang (mind blowing) nadiskubre niya ay nang mapagtanto niya na ang mga galaxies na ito ay lumalayo sa atin (moving away from us). At kapag mas malayo ang isang galaxies mas mabilis ang paglayo nito. Naobserve nila na ang pinakamalayong galaxies ay papalayo sa earth sa bilis na 100 million miles an hour”.

Pinag-aralan ni Edwin Hubble ang Doppler Shift of light, sometimes called “red shift” kung saan nadiskubre niya na lahat ng galaxies ay gumagalaw o papalayo sa isat-isa nang napakabilis (incredible speed). Para sa mga hindi nakakaalam po, ang Doppler Shift po ay nangyayari for example kapag ang tunog (sound) nang isang umaandar na tren ay nagbabago ng pitch (highness or lowness of sound) kapag papalapit ang tren sa isang observer (tao) at kapag ito ay papalayo sa kanya.

Sa papanong paraan niya nalaman na ang mga galaxies ay papalayo? Halimbawa, ikaw ay nakatayo sa kalye at may ambulansya na dumaan sa harapan mo. Habang papalapit s'yo ang ambulansya, ang soundwave (wavelength) na nilalabas ng sirena nito ay nagiging compressed habang papalapit s'yo ang ambulansya. Itong compression ng soundwave (wavelength) ay naglilikha ng high frequency o high pitch sound. At habang papalayo naman s'yo ang ambulansya , ang soundwave nito o wavelength ay nag-iistretch out o humahaba kaya ang nilalabas nitong sound ay low frequency o low pitch.

Kung ang sound may soundwave ganoon din po sa light, partikular sa lightwave na nilalabas ng mga stars. Para sa isang observer, kapag ang isang star ay papalapit sa isang observer, ang lightwave na nilalabas ng star na ito ay nacocompressed at nagbibigay ng high frequency lightwave at ang kulay nito ay blue kaya tinatawag itong “blue shift”. Kapag naman ang isang star ay papalayo (moving away from the observer) ang lightwave na nilalabas nito ay nag-iistretch out o humahaba habang ito ay papalayo at ito ay nagbibigay ng low frequency lightwave at ang kulay nito ay red na tinatawag naman “red shift”. At para madetect po o masukat itong “red shift” na ito kailangan gumamit ng scientific equipment.

Kaya kapag tinignan natin ang mga stars sa kalawakan meron silang “red shift” which means na ang mga stars ay papalayo sa atin at ang universe ay nag-eexpand.

View attachment 304612

Isang illustration ay ang lobo na may botones na nakadikit dito. At habang hinihipan ang lobo (which stand for the universe) lumalayo ang mga botones (which stand for the galaxies). Ngayon kung lumilipas ang mga araw at papalaki ng papalaki ang universe (the universe is expanding), ang tanong ngayon is “ano ang hitsura ng universe if we go back in time?

William Lane Craig says, “As you trace this expansion back in time the universe goes denser and denser and denser (mas siksik) until finally the entire known universe is contracted down to a state of infinite density which mark the beginning of the universe. At this point which cosmologist called the “Singularity” all matter and energy, physical space and time themselves came into being. This literally represent the origin of the universe from nothing”.

View attachment 304613

Hoes does the expanding universe prove a beginning? Think about this way: if we could watch a video recording of the history of the universe in reverse, we would see all matter in the universe collapse back to a point, not the size of a basketball, not the size of a golf ball, not even the size of a pinhead, but mathematically and logically to a point that is actually nothing (no space, no time, and no matter). In other words, once there was nothing, and then, BANG, there was something – the entire universe exploded into being!
Physicist have theorized that the universe is getting bigger now but when rewind we can take the universe back as it shrink and shrink (paliit ng paliit) to 13 Billion years ago when the universe is very very small and by using this they came up with the theory of the Big Bang, the belief that the universe began in a colossal explosion a finite time ago.

Putting an expanding universe in reverse leads us back to the point where the universe gets smaller and smaller until it vanishes into nothing. Based on such measurements, it has been calculated that the universe may be 13 billion years old (some say 15 billion).
Physicist Stephen Weinberg says; “In the beginning there was an explosion like those familiar on Eath....[It was] an explosion which occurred simultaneously everywhere, filling all space from the beginning with every particle of matter rushing apart from each other particle”.

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies wrote, “These days most cosmologists and astronomers back the theory that there was indeed a creation...when the physical universe burst into existence in an awesome explosion popularly known as the Big Bang. Whether one accepts all the details or not, the essential hypothesis – that there was some sort of creation – seems, from the scientific point of view, compelling.”
Hawking agrees. “Almost every one now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.”
Only one conclusion is evident: The universe had a beginning. As physicist Alexander Vilenkin stated, “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

Ang tanong ngayon is “What cause the universe into existence (Space, Time, Mater and Energy)?
Since the universe can't cause itself, it's cause must be beyond the space-time universe. If the universe is characterized by Space, Time, Mater and Energy, the cause must be Spaceless, Timeless, Immaterial, Uncaused and unimaginably Powerful must like _ _ _?

View attachment 304614

Stormer0628 · Feb 24, 2017

^ And this was one of the views floating around before the physics of the vacuum was well understood and the Inflation Model came along. For that, read the first page. Gist: there is no need to extrapolate an external cause outside of the universe, which would just add more problem to the first question of the origin of the universe. The physics of the vacuum matches the universe as we know now.

Stormer0628 · Feb 25, 2017

On Wednesday February 22, 2017, NASA announced the discovery of a potentially habitable "Sister Solar System" just 39 light-years away—boasting an astounding, record-breaking seven Earth-sized planets orbiting a star called TRAPPIST-1.

These planets appear to be made of rock, have life-friendly surface temperatures, and some, if not all, could potentially host liquid water, so NASA went ahead and created a whole bunch of travel posters and fan art of the coolest new place in the Universe for us to get all misty-eyed about.

If you missed the announcement, head here right now to catch on everything, but the gist is that this solar system is the closest thing we've found so far to our own, with the researchers calling it "a compact analogue of the inner Solar System".

It's so compact, in fact, that if you were standing on the surface of one of these planets, the neighboring planets in the sky would sometimes appear even larger than our Moon does to us.

NASA went all-out to mark the occasion, launching an entire website dedicated to our Sister Solar System, complete with travel posters, infographics, videos, and glimpses into the future of our investigations of TRAPPIST-1.

Here are some interesting findings about the solar system:

All seven are potentially habitable

All seven stars are a similar size to Earth and all are thought to be rocky. The star they orbit is far smaller and cooler than our Sun. This means, to have a surface temperature warm enough for liquid water, they need to be much closer than Earth is to the Sun. If the planets in Trappist-1 were in our solar system, they would all be closer to the star than Mercury is to the Sun.

Study author Michael Gillon said: "This is the first time so many planets of this kind are found around the same star. They form a very compact system—they are very close to each other and very close to the star—reminiscent of the moons around Jupiter. The star is so small and cold the seven planets are called temperate, meaning they could have some liquid water and maybe life by extension on the surface."

The three most likely planets to host life are Trappist-1e, f and g
These three planets are located in the "Goldilocks zone," or the habitable zone. Researchers think that their location in the solar system is most likely to provide conditions right for liquid water to exist—in that it is neither too hot or too cold. For scientists, this is an important marker for potential for life because this is what we understand from our own planet and solar system.

However, further studies on their atmospheres will provide key information on whether or not they have the conditions right for life.

The view from the surface would be spectacular
Study author Amaury Triaud explained that if you were standing on the surface of Trappist-1f, the amount of light you would receive would be about 200 times less than what we get from the Sun: "Think of the light you see at the end of a sunset, brighter than the moon but dimmer than the sun. However, you would still feel warm because you still get energy from the star," he said.

"The spectacle would be beautiful because every now and again you would see another planet maybe twice as big as the moon in the sky – depending on which star you are on and which you are looking at. On 1f, the star has a diameter that is three times that of the sun seen in the sky. We had a debate about the color. Originally we thought it would be extremely red like a deep crimson. But in the end the star is so red that most of its light is in the infrared, so we would see something more salmon colored."

or go here:

Exoplanet surface in 360 VR

HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE TO GO TO TRAPPIST-1?

BONUS: FIVE PLANETS THAT COULD HOST ALIEN LIFE

Stormer0628 · Mar 2, 2017

In the wake of John Travolta's ... err ... make that Erik Verlinde's Emergent Gravity publication, scientists are now hot on the trails of evidence that might prove or disprove the serious dark matter challenger.

Remember that gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of nature, which means it’s not derived from anything else – it just is. At least, that's according to our presently accepted theories. But this may be about to change.

The warping of spacetime in the General Relativistic picture by gravitational masses.
Image credit: LIGO/T. Pyle.

Physicists today describe the gravitational interaction through Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, which dictates the effects of gravity are due to the curvature of space-time. But it's already been 20 years since Ted Jacobson demonstrated that General Relativity resembles thermodynamics, which is a framework to describe how very large numbers of individual, constituent particles behave. Since then, physicists have tried to figure out whether this similarity is a formal coincidence or hints at a deeper truth: that space-time is made of small elements whose collective motion gives rise to the force we call gravity. In this case, gravity would not be a truly fundamental phenomenon, but an emergent one.

The problem is if emergent gravity just reproduces General Relativity, there’s no way to test the idea. What we need instead is a prediction from emergent gravity that deviates from General Relativity.

The fabric of spacetime, illustrated, with ripples and deformations due to mass. A new theory must
be more than identical to General Relativity; it must make novel, distinct predictions.
Image credit: European Gravitational Observatory, Lionel BRET/EUROLIOS.

Such a prediction was made two months ago by Erik Verlinde in his new paper. Verlinde pointed out that emergent gravity in a universe with a positive cosmological constant – like the one we live in – would only approximately reproduce General Relativity. The microscopic constituents of space-time, Verlinde claims, also react to the presence of matter in a way that General Relativity does not capture: they push inwards on matter. This creates an effect similar to that ascribed to particle dark matter, which pulls normal matter in by its gravitational attraction.

Verlinde’s idea is interesting and solves two problems that had plagued previous attempts at emergent gravity.

First, he conjectures that the deviations from General Relativity come about because the microscopic constituents of space-time have an additional type of entropy. In the thermodynamic formulation of gravity, the entropy – that is the number of possible microscopic configurations – which a volume can maximally have is proportional to the surface area of that volume. This is also often referred to as a “holographic” entropy because it demonstrates that all what happens inside the volume can entirely be encoded on its surface. The additional entropy that Verlinde introduces instead grows with the volume itself.

The modification to General Relativity then comes about because matter – so the conjecture goes – reduces the new, volume-scaling entropy in its environment. The entropy decrease leads to a decrease in volume which, in turn creates a force pushing inwards on the matter. This force, Verlinde shows, is similar to the force normally attributed to dark matter – which pulls in normal matter from its additional gravitational mass.

The dark matter halo around galaxies could be explained, in principle, by a new type of entropy
that's affected by the normal, baryonic matter present in space. Image credit: ESO / L. Calçada.

However, the new entropy that Verlinde introduces can’t become less than zero. Therefore, once the additional entropy is entirely depleted, one is left with only the usual, holographic entropy and gets back ordinary General Relativity. This happens in systems with a comparably high average density, such as solar systems. On galactic scales however, the modification to General Relativity becomes noticeable, and manifests itself as apparent dark matter. This solves a serious problem with many modifications of gravity which usually work well on galactic scales but not on solar system scales.

Second, Verlinde’s idea explains a previously noted numeric coincidence. In modified gravity scenarios, the departure from General Relativity becomes relevant at a particular acceleration scale. That scale turns out to be similar – on the same order of magnitude – to the temperature of de-Sitter space, which is proportional to the (square root of the) cosmological constant. In the new emergent gravity model, this relation follows because the apparent dark matter is, in fact, related to the cosmological constant.

The amount of dark matter and dark energy is determined through independent sources:
supernovae, the CMB and BAO/large-scale structure. In emergent gravity, there is only a
new type of entropy, responsible for what we perceive as the effects of both dark matter and
dark energy. Image credit: Supernova Cosmology Project, Amanullah, et al., Ap.J. (2010).

So, it’s a promising idea and it has recently been put to test in a number of papers.

One paper is particularly critical, with the authors claiming that they have ruled out the model by seven orders of magnitude using solar system data. But they seem not to have taken into account that the equation they are using does not apply on solar system scales. Their conclusion, therefore, is invalid.

Another paper that appeared two weeks ago tested the predictions from Verlinde’s model against the rotation curves of a sample of 152 galaxies. Emergent gravity gets away with being barely compatible with the data – it systematically results in too high an acceleration to explain the observations.

A trio of other papers show that Verlinde’s model is broadly speaking compatible with the data, though it doesn’t particularly excel at anything or explain anything novel.

One should interpret these studies with caution. They all test one particular equation that Verlinde derived in his paper, which describes an extremely idealized situation. Moreover, it is not entirely clear exactly which approximations must be made to arrive at this equation to begin with. I therefore regard the existing tests of this model as inconclusive. I am optimistic that with better understanding of the model, it will come to fit rotation curves as well, if not better, as previous variants of modified gravity.

The real challenge for emergent gravity, I think, is not galactic rotation curves. That is the one domain where we already know that modified gravity – at last some variants thereof – work well. The real challenge is to also explain structure formation in the early universe, or any gravitational phenomena on larger (tens of millions of light years or more) scales.

The fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background, or the Big Bang's leftover glow,
contain a plethora of information about what's encoded in the Universe's history.
Image credit: ESA and the Planck Collaboration.

Particle dark matter is essential to obtain the correct predictions for the temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. That’s a remarkable achievement, and no alternative for dark matter can be taken seriously so long as it cannot do at least as well. Unfortunately, Verlinde’s emergent gravity model does not allow the necessary analysis – at least not yet.

In summary, particle dark matter is doing fine, and emergent gravity still has a long road ahead to dislodge it.

SOURCE

Stormer0628 · Mar 4, 2017

What do the particles that don't naturally exist on Earth tell us about the universe itself?

School teaches us about three or four phases of matter—solids, which have a shape and volume; liquids, which have a volume only; and gases and plasmas, which have neither a definite shape nor volume. But using the laws of physics, you can create incredible substances that behave nothing like the ones you learn about in chemistry. That includes a substance that behaves like both a solid crystal and a frictionless, perfectly-flowing liquid at the same time.

Now, groups of American and Swiss researchers have both created this strange new “supersolid” in two different ways. It’s not like they’ve created something you can hold in your hand—these are highly-engineered materials that exist in ultracold vacuum chambers. But there’s been a sort of race to create supersolids, which will help us understand the nature of matter itself.

“Our goal is to discover new materials with new properties, ones that people don’t even know are possible,” Wolfgang Ketterle, physics professor at MIT, told Gizmodo. “We want to make materials that have never existed on Earth.”

Ketterle’s experimental setup (Image: MIT)

Each team created their supersolid differently, but both groups started by turning atoms into a “Bose-Einstein condensate”, a hyper cold gas made from atoms with even numbers of electrons. Having even numbers of electrons (or the same number of electrons as protons) means the atoms that have a whole number spin value, a quantum mechanical property that can either assume half or integer values. Atoms with whole number spin values are called bosons, which the laws of physics says can occupy the same space. These cold gases, therefore, begin to show the weird effects of quantum mechanics on a macroscopic scale, like flowing without any resistance. It’s a field Ketterle would know quite a bit about; he created one of the first Bose-Einstein condensates, and won the Nobel Prize in physics for it back in 2001.

How would a substance that flows like a liquid also be considered a solid? Well, the structure would keep a regular, rigid shape like a solid. At the same time, any change in the crystal, like a missing atom, would flow right through the shape without any resistance, explains Rice University physicist Kaden Hazzard in a comment for Nature.

Each team’s goal, then, was to take their Bose-Einstein condensate and impart it with the rigid properties of a true solid. The MIT team used lasers to alter the value of the spin of half of the atoms in their material, which was made of sodium, creating two different Bose-Einstein condensates at the same time. They observed the density of their solid manifest itself in stripes, and when they shined a light on their material, it bounced off of it as if it had hit a grating. This convinced Ketterle’s team that they’d created their coveted new material, and they published their result Wednesday in the journal Nature.

ETH Zurich’s team’s experimental setup (Image: ETH Zurich)

The group at ETH Zurich in Switzerland used a different approach to impart the rigid properties of a solid. They kept their condensate, of rubidium atoms, in a cavity between pairs of mirrors with light particles, photons, bouncing back and forth. This caused the light to scatter in between atoms, which eventually formed the regular crystalline pattern. They published their result in Nature the same day.

These aren’t solids you can hold in your hands by any means, Ketterle warned. They’re highly-engineered materials that don’t show their “solid” characteristics in every dimension. That makes them even stranger, if you think about it. “Our material...is blurring what people learn in high school about the three phases of matter. It combines properties of a gas, solid and a liquid.”

Other physicists were impressed by the groups’ creations. “It is an amazing effect,” Jeff Steinhauer, physicist at the The Technion – Israel Institute of Technology in Israel, told Gizmodo in an email. “It might help shed light on the physics of solid helium.”

Katterle was excited that both groups had released their discoveries at the same time—it means there’s a lot of buzz about the materials in the field.

There’s no purpose for making these weird substances aside from basic research—it’s not like someone’s going to find a use for a vat of frigid crystalline liquid helium any time soon. But forms of matter like these demonstrate just how much more we have to understand about the way our universe works.

“What motivates us is that once it’s possible, then people know the laws of nature allow us to realize such materials,” said Ketterle. “We hope that 10 to 20 years down the road it influences materials designers to go further, and maybe create a supersolid that exists outside a vaccuum chamber.”

SOURCE

Stormer0628 · Mar 8, 2017

Mathematicians discover an unexpected connection emerging between the results of physics experiments and an important, seemingly unrelated set of numbers in pure mathematics.

Some Eastern philosophies tell us that our notion of separatedness is but an illusion, that we are all really one.

Physicists notice that disparate areas of science are fundamentally linked.

What's going on?

Is this how the universe wants to direct us to that final theory of everything—through the idea of convergence?

Archimedes, Pythagoras, Democritus. The history of science famously dates back to the brilliant minds of classical Greece. Another beginning is attributed to the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century, culminating in Isaac Newton’s discovery of order in the heavens, and the founding of the Royal Society in London.

Arguably, there was a much more fascinating reboot in the 1850s, when two near-simultaneous events changed the landscape for all time and transformed our understanding of what science is. These events were: (1) the new understanding of energy and its conservation; (2) Charles Darwin’s idea about evolution by natural selection.

These breakthroughs, arriving in the same decade, were important not just for themselves, but also because each brought together what had hitherto been seen as disparate disciplines. These were the two greatest unifying ideas of all time and this was when the process of convergence was first observed.

The conservation of energy, first codified by Hermann von Helmholtz in Berlin, brought together the sciences of heat, optics, magnetism, electricity, food- and blood-chemistry. It identified the concept of “energy,” an entity which cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another.

With evolution, Darwin collected copious results from zoology, botany, geology and astronomy to show that there was an “order in the rocks”, that living forms varied across the geological ages in systematic ways and that the heavens were themselves evolving, providing ample time for natural selection to have produced its effects.

The importance of these two insights was the way they brought seemingly different activities under the same umbrella. This was doubly important because it showed that the sciences, unlike other forms of knowledge (and this is the crucial point), support one another in a reciprocal framework.

Since then the convergence has gathered pace: Niels Bohr’s discoveries showed how physics and chemistry are intimately linked (through the electrons that orbit the nucleus, which give the different elements their properties; Albert Einstein famously linked space and time, to create spacetime; and Max Planck’s discovery of the quantum, that matter is itself discrete and not continuous, linked up with Mendel’s discovery that genes produce discrete effects—blue eyes or brown, but never blends. During World War II Erwin Schrödinger showed how physics governed the characteristics of the gene. Since the war astronomy and physics have been married. “Early cosmology has become synonymous with particle physics”—this is Abdus Salam, the Indian winner of the Nobel Prize in his Dirac lecture in Cambridge, UK, in 1988.

More recently various aspects of biology—photosynthesis and the remarkable ability of birds to navigate huge distances—have been shown to be explicable by quantum physics. And psychology has been amalgamating with economics. Richard Thaler has described how the economic profession has been transformed by the experimental discoveries of behavioral science. In his 2015 book, Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics, he charts its advances over a forty-year period, from the wilderness to the point where he himself became (in 2015) the president of the American Economic Association.

Convergence is not a trivial matter. Steven Weinberg, the Nobel Prize-winning professor of physics at the University of Texas, Austin, says it may be “the most important thing about the universe.”

The way the disciplines have come together, in a reciprocal framework, has produced the greatest story there could ever be—the history of the universe 13.8 billion years ago right up until now, with all discoveries fitting on one coherent line.

This unique success means, that the sciences are set to invade other areas of life not traditionally associated with science: law, the arts, politics, morality, social life. Sam Harris, the American philosopher and neuroscientist, has described morality as “an undeveloped aspect of science” and believes we shall eventually be able to define “human values” satisfactorily. Patricia Churchland, the Canadian-American neuroscientist, argues that our understanding of “human nature” can be refined by neuroscience, to the benefit of all.

The latest developments are aided by the recent accumulation of big data sets and our snowballing abilities in computation. For example, mathematicians, physicists and psychologists have all examined aspects of capitalism. If there is an overriding focus it is what Science magazine, in a special issue, called “The Science of Inequality.” This stems from the realization that under capitalism, except for a few decades following the two world wars in the twentieth century, when many industrial states were on their knees financially, the basic economic order has been a growing wealth disparity within populations.

This finding—which applies to many countries—appears solid and has emerged from a wave of big data, tax returns for the past two centuries. This richness means that, as Science put it, the “stuff of science” can be applied to it—analysis, extracting causal inferences, formulating hypotheses.

In other words, the methods of science, which have proved so successful—observation, quantification, experimental testing—are being increasingly applied in new areas. By the same token, the personality of jurors is being investigated to see how psychology influences their understanding of evidence and the bringing of verdicts. In political research, psychology—again—is being used to assess which voters vote for a candidate and which vote against, and which aspects of a candidate’s personality appeal to which type of voter. How much do politics and psychology overlap?

These are exciting but challenging times. As Robert Laughlin, the Nobel Prize-winning professor of physics at Stanford, has pointed out, all areas of life—economics no less than psychology or quantum biology—are getting more accurate and therefore more predictive. The speed of light in a vacuum is now known to an accuracy of better than one part in ten trillion, atomic clocks are accurate to one part in one hundred trillion.

If science can likewise improve accuracy in our legal, educational or financial lives, we shall be making real progress. The very existence of convergence—which lies at the heart of the scientific endeavor when we examine its history—should give us optimism for the future.

So take all your anti-ageing pills to get a chance to see how all of these finally unfold for us puny earthlings.

Adapted from HERE

Stormer0628 · Mar 11, 2017

When it comes to knowing the ways of science intimately, there is nothing more instructive than soaring in the sky and taking a bird's eye view of how one field comes to spur development in another and later links with it, and further on with others.

In retrospect, Mary Somerville would have been enthusiastically elected into the Royal Society of London in the 1800s — if women had been allowed to join. Celebrated in her time as an expert mathematician and thinker, she wrote a number of books on science, including “On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences,” published in 1834. Her aim, writes Peter Watson, “was to reveal the common bonds — the links, the convergence — between the physical sciences at a time when they were otherwise being carved up into separate disciplines.” She showed how dynamics, statics, hydrodynamics, optics and electricity could be placed under one roof of study. In fact, the term “scientist” was first introduced in a review of Somerville’s book to describe the members of this broader enterprise.

Watson considers this a seminal moment, the start of an avalanche that progressed into the 20th and 21st centuries. “Convergence” is his whirlwind exploration showing us “how linking one science with another could amplify understanding . . . converging and coalescing to identify one extraordinary master narrative, one overwhelming interlocking coherent story: the history of the universe.” When geologists revealed the time required to form sedimentary rock and paleontologists found fossils within those layers, questions inevitably arose concerning the origin of species, culminating in the work of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Their work, in turn, would influence Karl Marx in his Darwinian model of societal change.

Physics came to affect chemistry, chemistry entered into biology, and biology impacted the cognitive sciences. Watson offers the reader a “big history” of the modern sciences from this specific perspective. Those seeking a grand overview of science’s greatest hits over the past century will find it here.

The first wave in this amalgamating march was dominated by the application of physics to an array of fields. Dmitri Mendeleyev found a distinct periodicity in the properties of the chemical elements that hinted at an underlying structure, which was ultimately revealed by physicists who discovered that the arrangement of electrons around a nucleus of protons and neutrons determined an element’s chemical behavior. The chemist Linus Pauling, absorbing the new laws of quantum mechanics that described the behavior of those electrons, was able to go even further, explaining in the 1930s the mechanisms behind elements bonding to one another to form molecules. This transformed the field of chemistry. And Pauling didn’t stop there. In the succeeding decades he played a vital role in taking this newfound knowledge into biology, helping forge the field of molecular biology.

Watson chose a dynamic time in science to summarize. So, because of the wide breadth of discoveries being described, the presentation can at times feel rushed. The achievements of a list of notables — from Wilhelm Rontgen to Henri Becquerel to Pierre and Marie Curie, for example — are condensed to a few pages. The arc from artificial dyes to pharmaceuticals is swept through in just several more. It is when Watson slows his pace to go deeper into a particularly pivotal development that the book becomes more engaging.

One such episode is the “friendly invasion of the biological sciences by the physical sciences,” as described by Rockefeller Foundation official Warren Weaver, who persuaded his organization to fund this new venture. Physicist Erwin Schrodinger started the stampede in the early 1940s with his influential book “What is Life?,” in which he suggested that the gene, then a mysterious entity, must be a highly stable molecule that contains a code. A decade later, two avid fans of Schrodinger’s book, James Watson and Francis Crick, finally cracked that code. The application of physics to astronomy has wielded similar revolutions in our understanding of stellar and cosmic evolution. The author goes on to examine the development of such paired scientific entities as sociobiology, behavioral economics, evolutionary psychology and cognitive neuroscience.

These direct meldings of scientific fields get less tight in the closing chapters. The author, for example, shows how scientists traced the origin of the Indo-European mother tongue to Anatolia around 6500 BC. It’s a fascinating journey, but this result did not involve an actual union of sciences. It was the evidence, separately arriving from archaeology, linguistics and genetics, that converged on a common answer.

With the rise of computation and information theory, it’s likely that future convergences will more and more involve mathematics — as the author puts it, “Whether order, as defined by mathematical equations, is not just an organizing principle of reality, but reality itself.” Unfortunately, while exploring this fascinating question, Watson goes off the path of settled science. He offers in due course wild and speculative imaginings, the pet theories of a handful of scientists that are not yet ready for prime time, such as physicist Frank Tipler’s views on the “physics of immortality.” I would have preferred that “Convergence” stuck with scientific information that is either well understood or testable. I think Mary Somerville would have agreed.

SOURCE

- - - Updated - - -

A new phenomenon squeezes electrons to speeds physicists didn't even know were possible. Science is truly mind-boggling right now.

Imagine you've got 50 people all trying to squeeze through the same doorway at the same time. That stress-filled bottleneck would usually slow everyone down, but what if - somehow - that mob could actually get through faster than one person going through alone?

It sounds crazy, but that's what physicists have figured out how to do using electrons, demonstrating that under certain conditions, big groups of electrons can squeeze through a gap in a piece of metal faster than current physics could predict.

Referred to as a 'superballistic' flow, the newly discovered behaviour describes how groups of electrons can travel through tight spaces faster than a single electron, and it could lead to materials that can transmit electricity with almost no resistance.

That would be huge, because while superconductivity offers zero resistance - making it one of the most intriguing and potentially lucrative phenomena in physics - it can only be achieved at super-chill temperatures below 5.8 K (-267°C or -450°F).

If researchers can recreate this new superballistic flow of electrons in a conductive material, they could harness many of the benefits of superconductivity in the much-coveted room temperature environment.

Describing their new theoretical model of how electrons flow through tiny metal gaps, physicists from MIT found that large groups of electrons could actually 'coordinate' with each other to exceed what's been considered a fundamental speed limit for electrons in a tight space - known as Landauer's ballistic limit.

"[W]e can overcome this boundary that everyone thought was a fundamental limit on how high the conductance could be," one of the team, Leonid Levitov, told David L. Chandler at MIT News.

"We've shown that one can do better than that."

When simulating the behaviour of electrons squeezing through a constricted opening, they were surprised to find that these subatomic particles actually resembled the known physics at work in gas particles passing through a tight spot.

If you watch gas pass through a constricted passageway on a molecular level, you'll see that individual particles will move at random, and are far more likely to hit the walls of the tunnel a few times along the way than they are to make a clean, perfectly unobstructed journey all the way through.

And if you're bouncing off the walls as you go, you're losing energy, which slows down your progress every time.

"But with a bigger batch of molecules, most of them will bump into other molecules more often than they will hit the walls," says Chandler.

"Collisions with other molecules are 'lossless', since the total energy of the two particles that collide is preserved, and no overall slowdown occurs."

That means there's a kind of 'safety in numbers' when it comes to protecting individual gas molecules from energy-wasting collisions.

"Molecules in a gas can achieve through 'cooperation' what they cannot accomplish individually," Levitov says.

Not only that, but the laws of physics also dictate that when the density of the gas molecules in the tunnel increases, the pressure needed to push them through drops, giving the grouped molecules acceleration that individual molecules can't achieve.

When Levitov and his team recreated this scenario using electrons and various metals - including everyone's favourite wonder material, graphene - they found that the electrons could move in a neatly coordinated way.

This was completely unexpected, and broke the well-established Landauer's ballistic limit, making way for a new speed - superballistic.

"We ... see that electrons in a viscous flow can achieve through cooperation what they cannot accomplish individually," the researchers report in their paper.

"The reduction in resistance arises due to the streaming effect, wherein electron currents bundle up to form streams that bypass the boundaries, where momentum loss occurs. This surprising behaviour is in a clear departure from the common view that regards electron interactions as an impediment for transport."

So, what now? Well, given that the researchers have recreated the behaviour of gas in electrons - the things that power our electronic devices - the discovery points to electronics that could achieve high output with low power.

And unlike superconductivity, which achieves zero electrical resistance at the price of incredibly low temperatures that are expensive to achieve, this technique works at room temperature, and actually gets better the more you increase the temperature.

"[Superballistic flow] is assisted by temperature, rather than hindered by it," Levitov told MIT News.

The researchers admit that their work is so far purely theoretical, but point out that various aspects of its predictions have already been proven experimentally by previous studies.

And Stanford physicist David Goldhaber-Gordon, who was not involved in the research, says that actually testing these predictions experimentally would be entirely feasible in the lab using graphene.

We'll have to wait and see if the team's calculations are correct, but superconductivity better watch its back - we just might have something even better on our hands.

The research has been published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

SOURCE

ryanoo6 · Mar 11, 2017

Wooooooooooooooooooooow

shady45 · Mar 13, 2017

We need faith for both of these right??? :naughty:

View attachment 307213

Stormer0628 · Mar 14, 2017

You Think You Know Your Water?

These days, nothing is safe from the sharpened eyes of scientists. We've featured a rule-breaking metallic hydrogen and helium compound, things that would truly boggle the minds of previous scientists were they to become witness to these developments.

Water is another substance that has garnered a lot of attention from scientists. Here we present research that reveals totally unheard of properties of water, despite what we always thought we know about it.

MIT Freezes Water At Boiling Point

Quick, what temperature does water boil or freeze at? You probably know this like the back of your hand, 100 and 0 degrees Celsius or 212 and 32 Fahrenheit. Well, now we can freeze water above the boiling point. If you feel like your head's about to explode with that image, don’t worry. We’ll explain.

It is known to anybody who is familiar with the laws of pressure, or who has tried to cook in the mountains, that the boiling and freezing points of water change when the water is exposed to differing pressures. Normally this effect is small, and only has causes differences of a few degrees. Researchers at MIT found that if water is placed inside a tiny enough space, a space only slightly larger than the water molecules themselves, then the freezing point can be raised to above its boiling point. This is done by means of carbon nanotubes, small straw-shaped structures that are the workhorse of nanotech.

What use could this possibly have, other than just being a curiosity? More than you might suppose. Because of the high freezing point, the technology could be used to make ice wires, taking advantage of the extremely high conductivity of water and the stability of the ice at room temperature. Dr. Strano mentioned that application specifically, “This gives us very stable water wires, at room temperature.” Nanotechnology is a new field, with many possible applications, ranging from computers, to medicine of all kinds, and even to facial care.

There is still a great deal about this process that remains unknown. Chief among them is how the water even gets into the tubes; the researches set the water in place for this experiment, but carbon nanotubes are considered to be water repellent, and the entry of the water in the tubes is difficult to explain logistically. Dr. Strano also notes that the word “ice” is too precise to use to describe the water in the tubes. While it is solid, it may not have the crystalline structure of ice at the molecular level.

Bizarre fourth state of water discovered

You already know that water can have three states of matter: solid, liquid and gas. But scientists at the Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) have discovered that when it's put under extreme pressure in small spaces, the life-giving liquid can exhibit a strange fourth state known as tunneling.

The water under question was found in super-small six-sided channels in the mineral beryl, which forms the basis for the gems aquamarine and emerald. The channels measure only about five atoms across and function basically as cages that can each trap one water molecule. What the researchers found was that in this incredibly tight space, the water molecule exhibited a characteristic usually only seen at the much smaller quantum level, called tunneling.

Basically, quantum tunneling means that a particle, or in this case a molecule, can overcome a barrier and be on both sides of it at once – or anywhere between. Think of rolling a ball down one side of a hill and up another. The second hill is the barrier and the ball would only have enough energy to climb it to the height from which it was originally dropped. If the second hill was taller, the ball wouldn't be able to roll over it. That's classical physics. Quantum physics and the concept of tunneling means the ball could jump to the other side of the hill with ease or even be found inside the hill – or on both sides of the hill at once.

"In classical physics the atom cannot jump over a barrier if it does not have enough energy for this," ORNL instrument scientist Alexander Kolesnikov tells Gizmag – Kolesnikov is lead author on a paper detailing the discovery published in the April 22 issue of the journal Physical Review Letters. But in the case of the beryl-trapped water his team studied, the water molecules acted according to quantum – not classical – laws of physics.

"This means that the oxygen and hydrogen atoms of the water molecule are 'delocalized' and therefore simultaneously present in all six symmetrically equivalent positions in the channel at the same time," says Kolesnikov. "It's one of those phenomena that only occur in quantum mechanics and has no parallel in our everyday experience."

By using neutron-scattering experiments, the researchers were able to see that the water molecules spread themselves into two corrugated rings, one inside the other. At the center of the ring, the hydrogen atom, which is one third of the water molecule, took on six different orientations at one time. "Tunneling among these orientations means the hydrogen atom is not located at one position, but smeared out in a ring shape," says a report in the online news journal Physics.

"This discovery represents a new fundamental understanding of the behavior of water and the way water utilizes energy," says ORNL co-author Lawrence Anovitz. "It's also interesting to think that those water molecules in your aquamarine or emerald ring – blue and green varieties of beryl – are undergoing the same quantum tunneling we've seen in our experiments."

Because the ORNL team discovered this new property of water but not exactly why and how it works, Anovitz also says that the finding is sure to get scientists working to uncover the mechanism that leads to the phenomenon.

Kolesnikov adds that the discovery could have implications wherever water is found in extremely tight spaces such as in cell membranes or inside carbon nanotubes. The following video from ORNL provides more details on the discovery.

Stormer0628 · Mar 16, 2017

the universe: conceptual foundations

Quantum Fields: This Is Not What an Atom Looks Like

Some say everything is made of atoms, but this is far from true. Light, radio, and other radiations aren’t made of atoms. Protons, neutrons, and electrons aren’t made of atoms, although atoms are made of them. Most importantly, 95% of the universe’s energy comes in the form of dark matter and dark energy, and these aren’t made of atoms.

The central message of our most fundamental physical theory, namely quantum physics, is that everything is made of quantized fields. To see what this means, we need to understand two things: fields, and quantization.

Everybody should play with magnets. Michael Faraday, in the mid-19th century, was impressed with the way magnets reach out across “mere space,” as he put it, to pull on iron objects and push or pull on other magnets. He conceived the modern field idea. His view, still held by scientists, was that a magnet alters the very nature of the space around the magnet. We call this alteration a “magnetic field.” You have probably also noticed electric fields, for instance in the clinging behavior of cloth being removed from a clothes dryer. Faraday and others learned that electric and magnetic fields are aspects of a single “electromagnetic (EM) field,” that all EM fields arise from “electrically charged” matter such as electrons, and that shaking an electrically charged object back-and-forth sends waves of EM field outward in all directions through space. Examples of such EM waves include light waves and radio waves.

Fields are physically real. Suppose, for example, you send a radio wave from Earth to Mars. On Mars, this wave shakes electrons in a radio receiver. Such shaking requires energy, and implies the radio wave has energy—energy that must have been carried to Mars by the EM field. So fields contain energy and for most physicists, energy is definitely something real.

Early in the 20th century, experiments showed that a light beam shining on a metal plate can eject electrons from the metal surface. Analysis showed this was possible only if the light beam was made of small bundles of energy, each capable of dislodging an electron from an atom in the metal. Today we say the EM field is “quantized” into small but space-filling bundles called “photons.”

In 1923, Louis de Broglie proposed the germ of an idea that became the quantum revolution’s key notion: perhaps not only EM radiation, but also matter (stuff that has mass and moves slower than light) such as protons, neutrons, and electrons is also a quantized field. This seems odd: how can these presumed “particles” be fields?

Here’s how. As we saw in a previous blog, when electrons pass through a double-slit experiment, the results imply that each electron comes through both slits, implying it is a spatially extended object, and it then “collapses” to atomic dimensions upon impacting a viewing screen. Quantum physics was invented during the 1920s to make sense of such phenomena. Electrons, as well as protons, neutrons, atoms, and molecules, are not particles. Electrons are spatially extended bundles of field energy, quite similar to photons, but photons are bundles of EM field energy while electrons are energy bundles of a new kind of field, a quantized material field called the “electron-positron field” (e-p field).

Moving to a larger perspective, the central notion of quantum physics is that the universe is made of about 20 fundamental types of “quantized fields,” all of them similar to the EM and e-p fields. Each fills the entire universe, and each is packaged into “quanta”: highly unified spatially extended bundles of field energy. The EM field and e-p field are examples. The former has quanta called “photons” that are massless and move at light speed, while the latter has quanta called “electrons” and “positrons” that have mass and move slower than light speed. There are also six types of quark fields, three kinds of neutrino fields, two other kinds of electron-like fields, and other fundamental fields including the recently-discovered Higgs field whose quantum is the Higgs boson. It’s thought that a “theory of everything” will eventually emerge that will unite all these fields in a single unified quantum field theory analogously to the way the EM field unites the electric and magnetic fields.

Dark matter is probably a quantized field whose quanta have not yet been discovered because they don’t emit or interact with light or with most normal matter. Dark energy is even more mysterious and might be an expression of the quantum vacuum (see below).

How do atoms and molecules fit into this picture? These are composite quanta, made of proton and neutron fields (which are themselves made of quark fields) and e-p fields. Atoms and molecules are highly “entangled” objects, causing them to act in many ways like single quanta.

An important new principle arises when we ask the simple question: what happens when we remove all the quanta from some region of space? Will that region simply be empty of all fields? The answer is that it cannot be empty. In fact, if any one of the quantum fields were entirely absent from some region, the strength of that field in that region would have to be zero. But this value, zero, is precise and has no uncertainty, so it violates a core quantum principle called the “uncertainty principle.” Thus all quantum fields must have a minimum or “vacuum” value even when there are no quanta at all. The quantum vacuum field must be present everywhere in the universe. In fact, photons and other quanta are best visualized as disturbances, or waves, in this universal vacuum field.

A region of space that lacked even the primeval vacuum field would have to vanish altogether. Empty space simply cannot exist. This is perhaps the closest physics can come to explaining why there is something rather than nothing.

Understanding the field interpretation of the quantum world eliminates conceptual hurdles that prevent us from truly appreciating the universe as it is, the kind of hurdles that open up confusing ideas finally leading some to entertain absurdities.

SOURCE

shady45 · Mar 17, 2017

View attachment 307603

Believe it or Not... :naughty:

Stormer0628 · Mar 18, 2017

After more than 100 years of debate featuring the likes of Einstein himself, physicists have finally offered up mathematical proof of the third law of thermodynamics, which states that a temperature of absolute zero cannot be physically achieved because it's impossible for the entropy (or disorder) of a system to hit zero.

While scientists have long suspected that there's an intrinsic 'speed limit' on the act of cooling in our Universe that prevents us from ever achieving absolute zero (0 Kelvin, -273.15°C, or -459.67°F), this is the strongest evidence yet that our current laws of physics hold true when it comes to the lowest possible temperature.

"We show that you can't actually cool a system to absolute zero with a finite amount of resources and we went a step further," one of the team, Lluis Masanes from University College London, told IFLScience.

"We then conclude that it is impossible to cool a system to absolute zero in a finite time, and we established a relation between time and the lowest possible temperature. It's the speed of cooling."

What Masanes is referring to here are two fundamental assumptions that the third law of thermodynamics depends on for its validity.

The first is that in order to achieve absolute zero in a physical system, the system's entropy has to also hit zero.

The second rule is known as the unattainability principle, which states that absolute zero is physically unreachable because no system can reach zero entropy.

The first rule was proposed by German chemist Walther Nernst in 1906, and while it earned him a Nobel Prize in Chemistry, heavyweights like Albert Einstein and Max Planck weren't convinced by his proof, and came up with their own versions of the cooling limit of the Universe.

This prompted Nernst to double down on his thinking and propose the second rule in 1912, declaring absolute zero to be physically impossible.

Together, these rules are now acknowledged as the third law of thermodynamics, and while this law appears to hold true, its foundations have always seemed a little rocky—when it comes to the laws of thermodynamics, the third one has been a bit of a black sheep.

"ecause earlier arguments focused only on specific mechanisms or were crippled by questionable assumptions, some physicists have always remained unconvinced of its validity," Leah Crane explains for New Scientist.

In order to test how robust the assumptions of the third law of thermodynamics actually are in both classical and quantum systems, Masanes and his colleague Jonathan Oppenheim decided to test if it is mathematically possible to reach absolute zero when restricted to finite time and resources.

Masanes compares this act of cooling to computation—we can watch a computer solve an algorithm and record how long it takes, and in the same way, we can actually calculate how long it takes for a system to be cooled to its theoretical limit because of the steps required to remove its heat.

You can think of cooling as effectively 'shovelling' out the existing heat in a system and depositing it into the surrounding environment.

How much heat the system started with will determine how many steps it will take for you to shovel it all out, and the size of the 'reservoir' into which that heat is being deposited will also limit your cooling ability.

Using mathematical techniques derived from quantum information theory—something that Einstein had pushed for in his own formulations of the third law of thermodynamics—Masanes and Oppenheim found that you could only reach absolute zero if you had both infinite steps and an infinite reservoir.

And that's not exactly something any of us are going to get our hands on any time soon.

This is something that physicists have long suspected, because the second law of thermodynamics states that heat will spontaneously move from a warmer system to a cooler system, so the object you're trying to cool down will constantly be taking in heat from its surroundings.

And when there's any amount of heat within an object, that means there's thermal motion inside, which ensures some degree of entropy will always remain.

This explains why, no matter where you look, every single thing in the Universe is moving ever so slightly—nothing in existence is completely still according to the third law of thermodynamics.

The researchers say they "hope the present work puts the third law on a footing more in line with those of the other laws of thermodynamics", while at the same time presenting the fastest theoretical rate at which we can actually cool something down.

In other words, they've used maths to quantify the steps of cooling, allowing researchers to define set speed limit for how cold a system can get in a finite amount of time.

And that's important, because even if we can never reach absolute zero, we can get pretty damn close, as NASA demonstrated recently with its Cold Atom Laboratory, which can hit a mere billionth of a degree above absolute zero, or 100 million times colder than the depths of space.

At these kinds of temperatures, we'll be able to see strange atomic behaviours that have never been witnessed before. And being able to remove as much heat from a system is going to be crucial in the race to finally build a functional quantum computer.

And the best part is, while this study has taken absolute zero off the table for good, no one has even gotten close to reaching the temperatures or cooling speeds that it's set as the physical limits—despite some impressive efforts of late.

"The work is important—the third law is one of the fundamental issues of contemporary physics," Ronnie Kosloff at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel who was not involved in the study, told New Scientist.

"It relates thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, information theory—it's a meeting point of many things."

The study has been published in Nature Communications.

SOURCE

Out of Nothing: An Emergent Universe

Symbianize Angel

Attachments

Symbianize Angel

Attachments

Symbianize Angel

Attachments

Symbianize Angel

Attachments

Proficient

Symbianize Angel

Attachments

Symbianize Angel

Recruit

Attachments

Symbianize Angel

Symbianize Angel

Attachments

Symbianize Angel

Attachments

Symbianize Angel

Attachments

Symbianize Angel

Attachments

Symbianize Angel

Attachments

Recruit

Apprentice

Attachments

Symbianize Angel

Symbianize Angel

Apprentice

Attachments

Symbianize Angel

Attachments

Similar threads