Neutron star collision!

News about space exploration and scientific advancements. What do you find interesting?

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Forum rules
The forum is intended only for space and science information. Discussions about how it applies to Starfire is encouraged - there might be some great ideas we can use!

1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Re: Neutron star collision!

Postby procyon on Fri 20 Oct 2017 07:38

Cralis wrote: so is that medium space-time itself


Yes.

Is space-time comprised of particles?


Ugh. That is a terribly complicated question.

Snipped the long complicated answer as I just don't feel it is needed for the current conversation.
It should be able to generate particles if 'excited'. But saying that it is composed of particles because it can generate them is not necessarily accurate.

The event horizon could be breaking spacetime


It does as we perceive...'everything'. Trying to conceive a region where time and space no longer 'exist' is...troublesome.

But do we actually know if that is from inside of the blackhole or a result of the interactions between the blackhole and spacetime at the event horizon?


See the answer above. In that we should never be able to 'see' a naked singularity...

white hole theory


They sound neat as a thought exercise. I have no reason to believe they exist, or could even be generated in a way that wouldn't simply amount to entanglement of a pair of black holes.

Whitecold wrote:The base function remains insofar you have some linear second order differential equation. This will support wave solutions, but the physics behind it is not equivalent. There is a fundamental difference, otherwise quantum gravity wouldn't make all this trouble, but be analogous to quantum electrodynamics or quantum chromodynamics.


In that I think you are just trying to say that Grand Canonical Ensemble is not equivalent to Canonical Ensemble, even if they are both used to resolve the same functions - I agree. But it doesn't change the base issue we are discussing.

I mean that if you are talking about gravitons, you are talking about a specific particle, which has certain predicted properties predicted by Quantum Field Theory...(snip)...What I am saying is that the term Graviton is very precisely defined what it is supposed to be and what it isn't. If you have a rose by another name, name it by the other name, because it is confusing otherwise.


And I think this is our major issue.
You seem terribly invested in a theory that is inherently flawed.
Yes, quantum predicts a 'graviton' as a spin 2 masses boson.
It also predicts that on small enough scales that these 'gravitons' should be producing an infinite number of virtual particles to that point that it breaks renormalization. By current 'theory' we should have spontaneous black holes generated regularly at small enough scale.
And I will refrain from my opinion of the shell game that renormalization is. To me, it is the equivalent of saying that the math used to 'prove' the sun orbits the earth is correct because although it is consistent on limited scales, and can be made to generate usable predictions when applied to other systems if you simply throw out all the garbage that it produces as a byproduct of flawed initial parameters...
I did (and occasionally still do) use quantum, as it CAN produce usable predictions.
But it is fatally flawed.

So, if you want me to define a graviton as quantum would require it to be, with all the non-sense issues that definition produces - I (with apologies) decline.

If you talk about General Relativity, there is no graviton at all proposed by that theory. There are no force carriers in GR


True. But there is energy.
Which is the capability to do 'work' (or generate heat...).
And gravity does a lot of work.
And at some point, there will be a base, indivisible unit of that 'quantity' which is measurable and quantifiable.
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Re: Neutron star collision!

Postby procyon on Fri 20 Oct 2017 07:40

But I have to admit, this is fun.
It has been almost a decade since I have debated this subject.

But several decades ago, this was the focus of my work.
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Re: Neutron star collision!

Postby Vandervecken on Fri 20 Oct 2017 22:37

Procyon, I know that you did 'sciencey' stuff for our country, then Farmer, then Nurse, but I am still hoping that someday you could add 'Published Sci-Fic Author to that list. OOOh, I forgot the most important of your jobs, Father.

I really wish you could say more about that first one though. It sounds fascinating, and what a wonderful time capsule on some great science work. In contrast, the paperwork I needed to fill out to work with Project Blue-Light had a 21 year confidentiality clause, but that was only Top Secret with some minor additional stipulations. I suspect that the SCI or SAP you fell under, was a bit more discriminating, due to the 'build upon it' nature of applied sciences.

As an aside - Has anyone here have to rethink what they thought was solid science theory, due to a later (and confirmed by multiple peer-reviewed tests) theory.
I weary of the chasssse. Wait for me. I will be mercccciful and quick.
User avatar
Vandervecken
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1214
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2012 20:21
Location: Minnesnowta

Re: Neutron star collision!

Postby Cralis on Sat 21 Oct 2017 00:58

Vandervecken wrote:As an aside - Has anyone here have to rethink what they thought was solid science theory, due to a later (and confirmed by multiple peer-reviewed tests) theory.


I would sooner think that the question is "who hasn't?"

While it's not quite at the same level you guys have been at, Marvin and I have several times re-developed some of the underlying principles for Starfire's pseudo-science because something in real-life physics or astronomy changed drastically enough that we couldn't leave it alone.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Neutron star collision!

Postby procyon on Tue 24 Oct 2017 00:45

Vandervecken wrote: I suspect that the SCI or SAP you fell under, was a bit more discriminating


My cutoff is one of two conditions.
Either it is 2048 (assuming that it isn't extended...). Or I see the same material published in a 'public' medium (newspaper, magazine, etc).

So I tend to snoop the news online looking for things that may have relation to my work so that I can discuss portions of it.

As an aside - Has anyone here have to rethink what they thought was solid science theory, due to a later (and confirmed by multiple peer-reviewed tests) theory.


Ok.

If this includes being proved incorrect by my wife on whatever we were disagreeing on - then yes. Daily.

If not, then yes. Just not daily.
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Previous

Return to Space and Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron