Charting the slow death of the Universe

August 10, 2015
This composite picture shows how a typical galaxy appears at different wavelengths in the GAMA survey. This huge project has measured the energy output of more than 200 000 galaxies and represents the most comprehensive assessment of the energy output of the nearby Universe. The results confirm that the energy produced in a section of the Universe today is only about half what it was two billion years ago and find that this fading is occurring across all wavelengths from the ultraviolet to the far infrared. Credit: ICRAR/GAMA and ESO

An international team of astronomers studying more than 200 000 galaxies has measured the energy generated within a large portion of space more precisely than ever before. This represents the most comprehensive assessment of the energy output of the nearby Universe. They confirm that the energy produced in a section of the Universe today is only about half what it was two billion years ago and find that this fading is occurring across all wavelengths from the ultraviolet to the far infrared. The Universe is slowly dying.

The study involves many of the world's most powerful telescopes, including ESO's VIST and VST survey telescopes at the Paranal Observatory in Chile. Supporting observations were made by two orbiting space telescopes operated by NASA GALEX and WISE and another belonging to the European Space Agency Herschel.

The research is part of the Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA) project, the largest multi-wavelength survey ever put together.

"We used as many space and ground-based telescopes as we could get our hands on to measure the energy output of over 200 000 galaxies across as broad a wavelength range as possible," says Simon Driver ICRAR, The University of Western Australia, who heads the large GAMA team.

The survey data, released to astronomers around the world today, includes measurements of the energy output of each galaxy at 21 wavelengths, from the ultraviolet to the far infrared. This dataset will help scientists to better understand how different types of galaxies form and evolve.

All the energy in the Universe was created in the Big Bang, with some portion locked up as mass. Stars shine by converting mass back into energy, as described by Einstein's famous equation E=mc2. The GAMA study sets out to map and model all of the energy generated within a large volume of space today and at different times in the past.

The distribution of galaxies is seen as mapped by various Australia, US and European survey teams. In total we have mapped the locations of over 4 million galaxies that can be used to study the evolution of mass, energy and structure in the Universe over the past few billion years. Credit: ICRAR / GAMA.

"While most of the energy sloshing around in the Universe arose in the aftermath of the Big Bang, additional energy is constantly being generated by stars as they fuse elements like hydrogen and helium together," Simon Driver says. "This new energy is either absorbed by dust as it travels through the host galaxy, or escapes into intergalactic space and travels until it hits something, such as another star, a planet, or, very occasionally, a telescope mirror."

The fact that the Universe is slowly fading has been known since the late 1990s, but this work shows that it is happening across all wavelengths from the ultraviolet to the infrared, representing the most comprehensive assessment of the of the nearby Universe.

A galaxy from the GAMA survey was observed at 20 different wavelengths from the far ultraviolet to the far infrared. Credit: ICRAR / GAMA.

"The Universe will decline from here on in, sliding gently into old age. The Universe has basically sat down on the sofa, pulled up a blanket and is about to nod off for an eternal doze," concludes Simon Driver.

The team of researchers hope to expand the work to map energy production over the entire history of the Universe, using a swathe of new facilities, including the world's largest radio telescope, the Square Kilometre Array, which is due to be built in Australia and South Africa over the next decade.

The team will present this work at the International Astronomical Union XXIX General Assembly in Honolulu, Hawaii, on Monday 10 August 2015.

Explore further: Scientists drilling the universe to uncover its history

More information: 'Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA): Panchromatic Data Release (far-UV—far-IR) and the low-z energy budget' submitted to the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Available at www.simondriver.org/mwavev02.pdf

Related Stories

Our Sun came late to the Milky Way's star-birth party

April 9, 2015

In one of the most comprehensive multi-observatory galaxy surveys yet, astronomers find that galaxies like our Milky Way underwent a stellar "baby boom," churning out stars at a prodigious rate, about 30 times faster than ...

Galaxy survey to probe why the universe is accelerating

June 30, 2015

We know that our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, but what causes this growth remains a mystery. The most likely explanation is that a strange force dubbed "dark energy" is driving it. Now a new astronomical ...

Huge new survey to shine light on dark matter

July 9, 2015

The first results have been released from a major new dark matter survey of the southern skies using ESO's VLT Survey Telescope (VST) at the Paranal Observatory in Chile. The VST KiDS survey will allow astronomers to make ...

Hubble looks in on a galactic nursery

July 27, 2015

This dramatic image shows the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope's view of dwarf galaxy known as NGC 1140, which lies 60 million light-years away in the constellation of Eridanus. As can be seen in this image NGC 1140 has an ...

New record: Keck Observatory measures most distant galaxy

August 6, 2015

A team of astrophysicists using the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii has successfully measured the farthest galaxy ever recorded and more interestingly, captured its hydrogen emission as seen when the Universe was less than ...

Recommended for you

Rocky planet found orbiting habitable zone of nearest star

August 24, 2016

An international team of astronomers including Carnegie's Paul Butler has found clear evidence of a planet orbiting Proxima Centauri, the closest star to our Solar System. The new world, designated Proxima b, orbits its cool ...

Test for damp ground at Mars streaks finds none

August 24, 2016

Seasonal dark streaks on Mars that have become one of the hottest topics in interplanetary research don't hold much water, according to the latest findings from a NASA spacecraft orbiting Mars.

China unveils 2020 Mars rover concept: report

August 24, 2016

China has unveiled illustrations of a Mars probe and rover it aims to send to the Red Planet at the end of the decade in a mission that faces "unprecedented" challenges, state media said on Wednesday.

What do aliens look like? The clue is in evolution

August 19, 2016

Speculating about what aliens look like has kept children, film producers and scientists amused for decades. If they exist, will extra terrestrials turn out to look similar to us, or might they take a form beyond our wildest ...

88 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

OdinsAcolyte
5 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2015
Entropy is the Mutha
Tektrix
5 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2015
"Nobleness was one word for making a fuss about the trivial inevitabilities of life, but there were others." - D. Adams
jeffensley
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2015
This seems like a worthwhile use of intellectual energy...
dmichaeldavis
5 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2015
I agree, it's an amazing project that reveals much about the universe at a fantastic scale. A stupendous achievement...
Tuxford
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 10, 2015
This dataset will help scientists to better understand how different types of galaxies form and evolve.


Boilerplate language once again, because they don't have a clue.

Far too little explanation given about the assumptions made in this study. Likely suspect. They are missing something.

Note the near concentric ring in the UV spectrum: A recent galactic superwave propagating outward from the core. And very far out, the remnants of an earlier superware.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2015
This dataset will help scientists to better understand how different types of galaxies form and evolve.


Boilerplate language once again, because they don't have a clue.

Far too little explanation given about the assumptions made in this study. Likely suspect. They are missing something.

Note the near concentric ring in the UV spectrum: A recent galactic superwave propagating outward from the core. And very far out, the remnants of an earlier superware.


Evidence?
Mimath224
1 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2015
Well, I'm not too sure what a 'dying universe means exactly. In another few billion years our Sun will start to 'die' too and probably that fate, or similar, faces all stars. Will new stars form at a rate equal to those dying. If the birth of new stars is less then I suppose the universe might be transformed into something else but would gravity take over from there? If the birth of news stars is greater than those dying would the ratio of distribution be important?
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2015
Time to party.
jsdarkdestruction
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2015
This seems like a worthwhile use of intellectual energy...

This comes off as sarcastic to me. Is it?
Zeno of Citium
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 11, 2015
If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then how can the universe die? Or, how can it be born in a big bang? Scientists should avoid assuming the birth of the universe (i.e an uncaused first cause) or the death of the universe (i.e an effect which isn't followed by another cause) or else the whole chain of causality is contradicted. And the chain of causality is precisely that upon which the empirical method is based. All the ancient philosophers understood this very well.

Hannes Alfven also understood this well. As do many other scientists who haven't blindly followed the theological claims of modern science.
vlaaing peerd
3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2015
errh...no conservation of energy then? Isn't the energy distribution just less dense due to the expanding universe? Hasn't the energy been converted to mass?

Making an observation and concluding that the universe is dying without trying to answer why and how this is happening seems a little presumptuous. There's too much information missing here.
Enthusiastic Fool
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2015
If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then how..

...can there be perpetual high ampere currents in a steady state Universe? Good question.

else the whole chain of causality is contradicted

That's a bold assertion and a bit of tossing the baby out with the bath water. I'm not sure how Hannians see the expansion of the Universe and logically don't deduce that everything must have been closer beforehand. If you wind back to where space time is all bound up in a very dense state how can you have a prior cause? Thus the causal chain has a start. I suppose this is the part where you link to red shift caused by plasma to explain the Universal red shift although it doesn't.

All the ancient philosophers understood this very well.

http://rationalwi...t_wisdom

Hannes Alfven also understood this well...blindly followed the theological claims...

Rich coming from an Alfvenian Zealot appealing to ancient wisdom.
mytwocts
4 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2015
"blindly followed the theological claims of modern science."
And yet another goes on the ignore list.
mytwocts
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2015

...can there be perpetual high ampere currents in a steady state Universe? Good question.
/q]
Oh I belive in cosmic perpertual high amp currents as soon as someone discovers a cosmic wall outlet. For aurora the Sun is the outlet. To keep the current running in the EU you need a power source that is at least as big as DM and DE combined. But we have not seen any of it yet. Lets call it the Dark Wall Outlet hypothesis, DWO !
Enthusiastic Fool
5 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2015
Lets call it the Dark Wall Outlet hypothesis, DWO !

I'm conjuring images of the giant atmosphere-sucking vacuum ship from Space Balls.

docile
Aug 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
katesisco
1 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2015
https://en.wikipe...plankton
. Phytoplankton concentrations in surface waters were estimated to have decreased by about 40% since 1950 alone, at a rate of around 1% per year, possibly in response to ocean warming.
I suspect that not only the required minerals and B vitamins, the lack of brightness of Sol, our sun, is responsible.
swordsman
1 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2015
If the age of the universe is determined by the Doppler frequencies, and the energy is a function of frequency, then the result that they measured follows directly, resulting in a false conclusion.
docile
Aug 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Aug 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jeffensley
1.7 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2015
This seems like a worthwhile use of intellectual energy...

This comes off as sarcastic to me. Is it?


Yes, it was intended as sarcasm. Mostly directed toward the headline... it creates an image of great minds and expensive instruments focused on the inevitable "end" of the universe instead of the here and now. Not productive use of resources IMO. I also resent when we assume we know what's happening, or even worse GOING to happen, on the universal scale.
EnsignFlandry
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2015
If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, then how can the universe die? Or, how can it be born in a big bang? Scientists should avoid assuming the birth of the universe (i.e an uncaused first cause) or the death of the universe (i.e an effect which isn't followed by another cause) or else the whole chain of causality is contradicted. And the chain of causality is precisely that upon which the empirical method is based. All the ancient philosophers understood this very well.

Hannes Alfven also understood this well. As do many other scientists who haven't blindly followed the theological claims of modern science.


As energy gradients disappear, the amount of useful energy decreases. All energy ends up at the same level, so nothing can happen. You have a universe full of very low energy photons and very long-lived black holes.
What are modern science's theological claims? I've had 30+ science courses without a single theological claim announced.
bschott
2 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2015
What are modern science's theological claims? I've had 30+ science courses without a single theological claim announced.


You have a universe full of very low energy photons and very long-lived black holes.


Black Holes and their theorized properties for a start. The "Big Bang" was mentioned as well, there's a theory very well grounded in the realm of testable.

For the rest, see any mathematical construct with no observed counterpart in reality. I'm sure many were covered as "real" in your courses.

As energy gradients disappear, the amount of useful energy decreases. All energy ends up at the same level, so nothing can happen.


OK.....data? (I mean the measured kind, not the equation kind)

Zeno of Citium
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2015
I'm more than a little surprised that people can't see the theological implications inherent in believing that everything around us was created in an instant billions of years ago. I'm also shocked that people can't see the religious undertones in suggesting that the end of the world is nigh. A little philosophy can be a fine thing, and would help scientists understand the premises of their own arguments.
Enthusiastic Fool
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2015
@bschott
Black Holes and their theorized properties for a start...no observed counterpart in reality

Uhhhh...how can you explain away this?
The Proper Motion of Sagittarius A*. II. The Mass of Sagittarius A*
http://iopscience...ext.html

or
Compact Radio Sources within 30′′ of Sgr A*: Proper Motions, Stellar Winds and the Accretion Rate onto Sgr A*
http://arxiv.org/...82v1.pdf

OK.....data? (I mean the measured kind, not the equation kind)

It doesn't take a genius to understand he's just paraphrasing basic thermodynamics and entropy. I suppose I can google some scholarly articles on thermodynamics for you but lets be real you don't want to read anything that doesn't conform to your world view. Fortunately Science doesn't work like that.
Enthusiastic Fool
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2015
I'm more than a little surprised that people can't see the theological implications inherent in believing that everything around us was created in an instant billions of years ago. I'm also shocked that people can't see the religious undertones in suggesting that the end of the world is nigh. A little philosophy can be a fine thing, and would help scientists understand the premises of their own arguments.

I'm guessing you are the one that doesn't understand the premises of the scientists' arguments. It's not a theological statement if it's predictive, factual, observed, and tested. No one suggested the end of the world is nigh but if they did and it was based on evidence and well-reasoned inference ie: a catastrophic collision with a near Earth object, then it wouldn't be theological in nature. The Standard Model has been tested again and again and is not theological but scientific.
DavidW
1 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2015
Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

----------Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.----------

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Enthusiastic Fool
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2015
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.


Talk about self refutation there, bud.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 11, 2015
I'm more than a little surprised that people can't see the theological implications inherent in believing that everything around us was created in an instant billions of years ago. I'm also shocked that people can't see the religious undertones in suggesting that the end of the world is nigh. A little philosophy can be a fine thing, and would help scientists understand the premises of their own arguments.


And a little scientific knowledge would help so called philosophers realise that they don't actually know what they're talking about.
Zeno of Citium
2 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2015
And a little scientific knowledge would help so called philosophers realise that they don't actually know what they're talking about.


Democritus and Epicurus developed the atomism which was further worked on by Gassendi, Descartes and Mendeleev. It's a real shame that many modern scientists don't realise where the ideas come from which they believe in with such religious fervour.

Of course, there are many scientists who do realise the absurdity of believing in an uncaused cause (which is an anti-empirical assumption, and offers NO predictions whatsoever). Hannes Alfven is one (he won the nobel prize for his work on magnetohydrodynamics), and reading his work is an absolute pleasure, for someone like me who enjoys real science (i.e science based on the experimental method). But there are many others. Fred Hoyle for example.
jsdarkdestruction
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2015
Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

----------Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.----------

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.


What does this have to do with science?
DavidW
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2015
Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

----------Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.----------

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.


What does this have to do with science?


Science is important, but only because Life/Truth is Most Important.
The conclusion that science reaches here comes to something that was figured out a long time ago with far less financial resources, just by following the Truth with Life. Christ had/has this correct, as did/do others. The fantasy of a Goldilocks zone is a creation of science.
mytwocts
4 / 5 (8) Aug 12, 2015
My advice:
DavidW --> ignore
Zeno of Citium --> ignore
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2015
Of course, there are many scientists who do realise the absurdity of believing in an uncaused cause

Funnily enough we have every reason (read: experiment) to believe that strict causality isn't part of the natural order of things but merely an apparent averaging effect over many probabilistic events.

So an "uncaused cause" is not a problem as per standard theories. It doesn't have to be caused and because - by that very same fact - the 'beginning' isn't a cause as you would define it.

I'm more than a little surprised that people can't see the theological implications inherent in believing that everything around us was created in an instant billions of years ago. I'm also shocked that people can't see the religious undertones in suggesting that the end of the world is nigh.

So the surprise is all on our side (i.e. we're surprised that you haven't gotten the memo yet on how the universe works - or more precise: how it doesn't work). Get with the program.
mytwocts
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2015
errh...no conservation of energy then?

Energy is conserved.
Isn't the energy distribution just less dense due to the expanding universe?

Yes, but that is unrelated to the decreased emission per galaxy.
Hasn't the energy been converted to mass?

How, where and when would this happen?

Making an observation and concluding that the universe is dying without trying to answer why and how this is happening seems a little presumptuous. There's too much information missing here.

How can it be presumptous to report an observation?
gergroeneveld
1 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2015
Cosmic Background Radiation is a convincing argument (for many) for the Big Bang theory. These measurements should give a accurate value of the cosmological constant, which does define the (supposed) fate of the universe. But than they measure energy.

Also E^2 = (mc^2)^2+(pc)^2, in a frame of reference where the particles are 'at rest', pc == 0. Though c^2 is always positive, the mass can still be a negative quantity.

Essentially we see energy change/ mass change with no clue if the 'normal' matter (positive m) is increasing or decreasing against the 'dark' matter (negative m)
mytwocts
4 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2015
the mass can still be a negative quantity.

Imo no known matter has negative mass.

Essentially we see energy change/ mass change with no clue if the 'normal' matter (positive m) is increasing or decreasing against the 'dark' matter (negative m)

The observation is that galaxies are emitting less energy at all wavelengths. No mass change is involved.
Enthusiastic Fool
3 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2015
@gergroeneveld
mass can still be a negative

Negative Mass has no observational data to support it that I'm aware of. Furthermore, Dark Matter is by nature of its effects massive--thus proposals such as WIMPs and MACHOS.

@Anyone with a stronger physics background than me
If m is a negative number and E=mc^2 then negative mass begets negative energy?
If I look at E^2=(mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 and make p = 0 and m= -1 and I solve for E I get a positive E for a negative mass. Is this a quirk of math, am I being foolish, or is this explicable?
vlaaing peerd
3 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2015

How can it be presumptous to report an observation?


Thanks for getting back. It's not the observation report itself, it's the lack of how and why this is happening and connecting it to "the slow death of our universe" that bothers.

Of course energy can be converted into matter (sorry for using mass) in various ways, from photosynthesis to electron/positron pair production. Simply said, I would like to read a more comprehensive explanation of where the "missing" energy has gone
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Aug 12, 2015
@Anyone with a stronger physics background than me
OK

If m is a negative number and E=mc^2 then negative mass begets negative energy?
If I look at E^2=(mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 and make p = 0 and m= -1 and I solve for E I get a positive E for a negative mass. Is this a quirk of math, am I being foolish, or is this explicable?


If you know the mass of one mole of atoms using the mass number listed on the periodic table, then you divide that number by Avogadro's constant: 6.022x10^23 which gives you the mass of one single atom., always an absolute value number.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2015
If m is a negative number and E=mc^2 then negative mass begets negative energy?

Or an imaginary speed of light ;-)

Anyhow, p can't be zero because that would imply complete/defined rest (which isn't possible because of the Uncertainty principle. This part will always have a positive contribution)

Note that it is possible to create negative energy (e.g. squeezed light) or have virtual particles with negative energy (e.g. the part that falls in to diminish the mass of a black hole due to Hawking radiation). Also note that none of these phenomena result in a net negative mass/energy, but just a local negative mass/energy density

mytwocts
5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2015
@Anyone with a stronger physics background than me
If m is a negative number and E=mc^2 then negative mass begets negative energy?
If I look at E^2=(mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 and make p = 0 and m= -1 and I solve for E I get a positive E for a negative mass. Is this a quirk of math, am I being foolish, or is this explicable?

Interesting point. Imo only E>=0 and m>=0 (m= E/c^2 at rest anyway) have meaning, although the equation admits negative m and has solutions E=+/- sqrt((mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2). So the mathematics is broader than the physics.

p can be zero. Even in QM, which is not the subject here, p is zero for a suitable superposition of eigenfunctions of p.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2015
If the age of the universe is determined by the Doppler frequencies, and the energy is a function of frequency, then the result that they measured follows directly, resulting in a false conclusion.


GAMA is a spectroscopic survey, redshift is accounted for. Fluxes were converted to the rest frame, please actually read the paper before trying to claim it's wrong.
bschott
2 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2015
@Fool

Interpretation.

The photonic information we receive is selectively interpreted by mainstream scientists who are, shall we say, compromised by the model they support. You choose to support science that says these photons indicate that matter is self compressing out of existence due to it's own gravity. Since this is completely retarded I choose not to believe this interpretation. You, with your links that "prove" what you believe fail to realize that all you are saying is " this has ME convinced".

Science doesn't work like that either. Math does not validate a theory. Observation and experimentation do.

The observational evidence continues to pile up AGAINST a model that assumes gravity is responsible for the structure of the universe. (mainly because nobody can find the "missing" matter). My world view is NOT buying into math based delusion, it's called common sense.

Mainstream theorists/supporters are drifting out of touch with reality.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2015
It's not a theological statement if it's predictive, factual, observed, and tested.


Holy crap, this line is hilarious.

BH's have never been observed, they are completely untestable, fail miserably when attempts are made at using them to predict anything, (galactic rotation curves leap to mind) and can have no factual basis as they cannot be "measured" in any way.

Ditto on all of the above for DM.

Take me to church.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2015
So bschott, are you a defender of the Dark Wall Outlet (DWO) model ?
You know, the Invisible Wall Outlet that powers the EU?
I fail to see how the BH concept should predict a galaxy rotation curve.
It is imo irrelevant whether or not the compact, very heavy objects at the centre of galaxies are BHs in the sense that they are smaller than their event radius. Very heavy compact objects HAVE been observed, that is enough for me as far as galaxy dynamics is concerned.
mytwocts
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2015
The photonic information we receive is selectively interpreted by mainstream scientists who are, shall we say, compromised by the model they support. You choose to support science that says these photons indicate that matter is self compressing out of existence

The main message of the paper is that these photons become less numerous with time. How is that a selective interpretation?
mytwocts
5 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2015
[BHs] cannot be "measured" in any way.

Yes they can. The EHT will do that.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2015
Two cents. No EU here. Magnetic flux and it's organizational properties from quantum to macro. Magnetic structures which form due to a base field of flux being impinged by plasma currents, but no DWO.

The main message of the paper is that these photons become less numerous with time. How is that a selective interpretation?


My response regarding photon interpretation was at EFools response to my post about the theological nature of BH's, not the article's take on universal dimming.

The imaging from the EHT will be interpreted in the same manner as that from all other telescopes. With an assumption that the object it is aimed at was created by matter self compressed out of existence and leaving it's gravity behind to effect the matter that is still there.

I fail to see how the BH concept should predict a galaxy rotation curve.


LOL...me too. But they still try to use M of BH and M of galaxy to figure it out...and are missing a lot of M...so they say.

bschott
3 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2015
Very heavy compact objects HAVE been observed, that is enough for me as far as galaxy dynamics is concerned.


White Dwarf is as small and compact as it gets from an observational standpoint. Were back to the interpretation of radio waves and high energy photons from regions (some supposedly 7km in diameter in the case of a theorized neutron star) where the only thing that can be detected are the radio waves and high energy photons. Accelerating electrons magnetically produces the same types of output, it's why we can "hear" the Aurorae at our poles. To me this is a more likely scenario than an ultra compact object spinning at an insanely fast pace.

mytwocts
5 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2015

The imaging from the EHT will be interpreted in the same manner as that from all other telescopes. With an assumption that the object it is aimed at was created by matter self compressed out of existence and leaving it's gravity behind to effect the matter that is still there.

If Sgr A* is not a BH, the EHT will show that.
As far as I know, no assumptions are involved.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2015
What's your problem with neutron stars?
They make perfect sense to me.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2015

White Dwarf is as small and compact as it gets from an observational standpoint. Were back to the interpretation of radio waves and high energy photons from regions (some supposedly 7km in diameter in the case of a theorized neutron star) where the only thing that can be detected are the radio waves and high energy photons.

We know more than that. We also know that Sgr A* has 4 million solar masses and that it is smaller than the orbit of Mercury. That gives an average density 20 times that of the sun.
A single massive object is the only possibility.
bschott
1 / 5 (1) Aug 12, 2015
What's your problem with neutron stars?
They make perfect sense to me.


This for starters - "A normal-sized matchbox containing neutron-star material would have a mass of approximately 5 trillion tons or ~1000 km3 of Earth rock."

Well beyond the true compressability of ANY matter.

Along with 716 RPS (APP. 43000 RPM) of a body theorized to always have more mass than the sun.

The fact that this one is the only one ever to be Optically imaged, which then had to be "corrected" to fit the current model of neutron stars

https://en.wikipe...6.5-3754

But the SN theory seals the deal. You cannot have math which on one hand states unequivocally that the mean free path of a photon generated in the core of the sun needs thousands of years to escape the surface due to stellar density, yet also have math which states the kinetic energy transfer of a SN from a star 10 X the suns mass occurs faster.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2015
Convert the sun with its rotation of 30 days and mass of 2e30 kg into a sphere of neutrons and you get that kind of density, diameter and rotation speed. Nuclear matter has that kind of density and dimension. The rotation period of 30 days becomes less than a second for the same angular momentum. I do not see a problem.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2015
"then had to be "corrected" to fit the current model of neutron stars"
You make it sound as if this is a fraud. How could that ever pass a peer review?
And why would anyone want it to fit that model? A quark star would be a bigger sensation.
Observation of a lower surface temperature were the reason to alter its parameters.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2015
Convert the sun with its rotation of 30 days and mass of 2e30 kg into a sphere of neutrons and you get that kind of density, diameter and rotation speed. Nuclear matter has that kind of density and dimension. The rotation period of 30 days becomes less than a second for the same angular momentum. I do not see a problem.


Yes...the math works just fine. For the circumstance.

Just like the mean free path of a photon math, and the core collapse SN math for a body 10 X the mass of the sun.

It just doesn't work together. This eludes anybody who chooses to believe both are correct.

You make it sound as if this is a fraud. How could that ever pass a peer review?


I guess the same way both the photon free path guys and core collapse SN guys got their work through the peer review process. Nobody bothered to compare one against the other for validity.

bschott
3 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2015
IF the model of the sun is accurate, the math which calculates the transfer of a photon produced in the core, from particle to particle until it is emitted at the surface would be really close. (~3000 years)

IF a 10 X stellar mass star ceases nuclear reactions, experiences core collapse and goes SN, the body left could be a neutron star as described. But you cannot possibly have a process driven by kinetic energy transfer happen faster than photonic transmission through the same, if not denser medium....let alone 5 to 10 X as much of it. This is basic physics, something that gets ignored if all that is checked in peer review is if the situational math is done properly.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Aug 12, 2015
the math which calculates the transfer of a photon produced in the core, from particle to particle until it is emitted at the surface would be really close. (~3000 years)
Presuming this is what you are referring to as kinetic energy below?

But you cannot possibly have a process driven by kinetic energy transfer happen faster than photonic transmission through the same. This is basic physics, something that gets ignored if all that is checked in peer review is if the situational math is done properly.


KE=1/2mv*2 : particle to particle transmission alias "work", always less than speed of light.

E (photonic)=mc*2 : photonic transmission occurs at light speed.

.....as you stated bschott, "basic physics".

mytwocts
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2015
"you cannot possibly have a process driven by kinetic energy transfer happen faster than photonic transmission through the same, if not denser medium"
Yes you can, if the medium has sufficient radiation extinction then it is down to slow heat transport. This can take 3000 years for a distance of 700000 km
Observationally, an SN explodes in a very short time.
I do not see any problem.

Benni
3 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2015
"you cannot possibly have a process driven by kinetic energy transfer happen faster than photonic transmission through the same, if not denser medium"

Yes you can, if the medium has sufficient radiation extinction then it is down to slow heat transport. This can take 3000 years for a distance of 700000 km

Observationally, an SN explodes in a very short time. I do not see any problem.
......because you don't comprehend basic physics, that an exploding SN is a kinetic energy process whereby KE= 1/2 mv*2 is a mechanical work process of particle to particle heat transfer of energy (photons).

jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2015
The conclusion that science reaches here comes to something that was figured out a long time ago

That the universe will one day not have enough matter/energy for any further star formation and that in the last 2 billion years the em output has halved? Where is that in your parable or bible again? I've read it more than once and I don't remember that part...
with far less financial resources, just by following the Truth with Life. Christ had/has this correct, as did/do others.

They took a shot in the dark and were wrong except in at best a very vague way that can be chalked up to coincidence and your type stretching like crazy trying to convince others and connect your religious beliefs to real science . Where does the bible and Christ mention the death of the universe as described here?
The fantasy of a Goldilocks zone is a creation of science.

Why do you believe that?
Enthusiastic Fool
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2015
because you don't comprehend basic physics, that an exploding SN is a kinetic energy process whereby KE= 1/2 mv*2 is a mechanical work process of particle to particle heat transfer of energy (photons).


Nuh uh. It's not a transfer of heat via photons as if it was electrostatic repulsion but a pressure wave powered by degeneracy. One is a quantum effect and the other is mediated by photon transfer. Assuming a type II supernova the rapid collapse produces neutrons and given the correct mass neutron degeneracy causes a stall in the rapid implosion. The equal an opposite rebound accelerates the layers above the core to escape velocity. Applying basic day to day physics ignores a great deal of what's going on. The degeneracy powered shockwave annihilates the convective zone and leads to nuclear burning of heavier metals.
mytwocts
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2015
@Benni
I must say in the field of producing nonsense, you are the king.
R E P S E C T !
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2015
because you don't comprehend basic physics, that an exploding SN is a kinetic energy process whereby KE= 1/2 mv*2 is a mechanical work process of particle to particle heat transfer of energy (photons).


Nuh uh. It's not a transfer of heat via photons as if it was electrostatic repulsion but a pressure wave powered by degeneracy. One is a quantum effect and the other is mediated by photon transfer. Assuming a type II supernova the rapid collapse produces neutrons and given the correct mass neutron degeneracy causes a stall in the rapid implosion. The equal an opposite rebound accelerates the layers above the core to escape velocity. Applying basic day to day physics ignores a great deal of what's going on.The degeneracy powered shockwave annihilates the convective zone and leads to nuclear burning of heavier metals.
...........It's just so blatantly obvious you have never taken a Thermodynamics course, or you would not have just made such a blunderous statement.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2015
On the contrary, EF is right.
Benni, don't kill yourself but you are consistently wrong in all your posts.
Try gardening or electronics.
bschott
3 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2015
KE=1/2mv*2 : particle to particle transmission alias "work", always less than speed of light.

E (photonic)=mc*2 : photonic transmission occurs at light speed.


Precisely.

There is no mathematical way, nor is there a physical one, for both a core collapse supernova to happen the way it is modelled in the time frame that is observed and for the sun to exist as it is modelled based on the mean free path calculations.

Picture it this way guys, photon transmission is like the pitcher throwing to the catcher, kinetic energy transfer is like a line of people playing hot potato with the ball from pitcher to catcher. If travelling through the medium at light speed takes 3000 years, the physical transfer of kinetic energy through the same medium HAS to be orders of magnitude longer. There is no way for a 5 X stellar mass star to "blow off " this material and create a PN with a neutron star at it's center in a time period of weeks or months. At least one is wrong.
mytwocts
4 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2015
@bschott
So the observations are wrong ?
You and benni are the same author, correct ?
How else could you agree so perfectly on the same nonsense.
bschott
3 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2015
So the observations are wrong ?


Misinterpreted.

You and benni are the same author, correct ?


No. But he can comprehend the actual physics of both sets of equations and see the glaring discontinuity...why your own limitations prevent you from doing the same is any ones guess. Like I said, basic physics of energy transfer.

On the contrary, EF is right.


All he did was describe the Mainstream model of a core collapse SN.

I was a bit confused at first when Benni said:

because you don't comprehend basic physics, that an exploding SN is a kinetic energy process whereby KE= 1/2 mv*2 is a mechanical work process of particle to particle heat transfer of energy (photons)


I realized he is missing the word "instead" above after the word "process".

A photon needs 3000 years to traverse the distance from core to emission surface, a kinetic shockwave starting at the core cannot traverse the same distance through the same medium faster.

mytwocts
4 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2015
Which observation is misinterpreted?
E=1/2mv^2 also describes someone riding a bike or a dead bird falling from the roof. It is hardly sufficient to model solar heat production. You need a diffusion equation for that.
"E (photonic)=mc*2 : photonic transmission occurs at light speed." is wrong as is the conclusion. Not just because of a "*" ipo a "^".
"All he did was ..."
That is WHY he was right.
The heat takes 3000 years to traverse 700.000 kilometers. That is 100 meters a day. Could be right. Remember the sun is not transparant so forget photons travelling at light speed in vacuo.

What is surprising is that you two are so self assured while at the same time not making any sense.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2015
@EFool and 2cents:

Above is just one example, where the model and math of one structure or phenomenon could be correct if taken on it's own, applying the values to the variables as they must be for the model to be accurate and match observation. But when you model a different process to the same structure and the applied variables of that process make that model correct, but cannot be interchanged from model to model, it means one of the models has to be wrong....because the math has been done correctly for each one.

bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2015
The heat takes 3000 years to traverse 700.000 kilometers. That is 100 meters a day. Could be right. Remember the sun is not transparant so forget photons travelling at light speed in vacuo.


Wow...OK. One more time for the cheap seats:

Under no circumstances, in ANY medium, can kinetic energy transfer happen faster than photonic....NONE. One particle cannot "move" towards another particle faster than it can send a photon to it.

The heat takes 3000 years to traverse 700.000 kilometers.


These are Photons, they move faster than a kinetic shockwave. So if the heat takes 3000 years...how long should a shockwave take? How long does a SN last?

What is surprising is that you two are so self assured while at the same time not making any sense.


Not half as surprising as your ineptness on this subject. You cannot apply 2 different energy transfer principles to the same body and see why one model based on one type invalidates a model based on the other type.
mytwocts
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2015
You and Benni should first study some more astrophysics and
then point out exactly where all the mistakes are,
under reference to standard textbooks.
mytwocts
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2015
How fast does a photon travel through a brick?
And how fast does heat travel through a brick?
Now place a bomb under the brick and let it go off.
How fast does it take the brick to take off?
Compare the answers.
Come on kids, you are really really bad at this.
Take up gardening or programming.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2015
How fast does a photon travel through a brick?
And how fast does heat travel through a brick?
Now place a bomb under the brick and let it go off.
How fast does it take the brick to take off?
Compare the answers.
Come on kids, you are really really bad at this.
Take up gardening or programming.


LMAO. A brick eh? Compared to a star....OK a brick with a core temp. of 15 million degrees, composed of plasma, will still transmit an IR photon from core to emission surface faster than it will transmit kinetic energy from core to surface. Now lets heat a brick to that temp and test it....

Yeah. You have a handle on this....
mytwocts
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2015
Well a a brick may not be a good model of a star but it DOES prove that your earlier sweeping statements are crap.
The interior of the Sun does not transmit IR, in that sense my brick example is adequate.
If you can't understand a brick, as I think you can not, then what hope do you have for the Sun ?
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2015
Well a a brick may not be a good model of a star but it DOES prove that your earlier sweeping statements are crap.


No, it proves you have absolutely no clue how energy transfer works if you think particles move faster than light and you think a bomb and a photon are an apples to apples type of comparison.

mytwocts
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2015
In a brick a shock wave moves faster than light.
You have to be thick as a brick yourself not to get this.
mytwocts
4 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2015
In the sun, same story. It is opaque. No light comes through.
Heat transport occurs by convection. 1/2mv^2 in your "basic physics".
See http://hyperphysi...tra.html
A giant shock wave is much faster.
Ok boys I tried to make you see the light. The rest is up to you.
You can bring the horse to the water, but you can not make it drink.
Signing off.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (1) Aug 13, 2015
Hi all. :)

I've time for one thread/comment today. I chose this because of the seeming confusions between: 'free space mediated' propagation of 'phoTonic' energy perturbation in underlying energy-space 'field', and 'boundary-layer-mediated' propagation of 'plasMonic' energy perturbations in higher-level energy-space 'fields' such as contiguous -ponderous-matter aggregations

To illustrate: Consider what happens in Bose-Einstein Condensate when photon enters from outside the aggregation-boundary from one side. The photonic energy is transformed into a PHONIC pattern of perturbation (in the 'contiguous plasmonic layers' effectively existing between the atom surfaces in 'superposition states' forming a 'chain of contiguity' in that 'plasmonic field' which mediates the propagation of the 'energy pattern') at applicable SONIC 'v' across to other side; where the 'energy pattern' reconverts to photonic as it emerges and travels at 'c' once more in free space. Cheers. :)
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2015
In a brick a shock wave moves faster than light.
You have to be thick as a brick yourself not to get this.


I was thinking about the rediculous "brick" example last night.

Your experiment would have to be conducted like this: 1 side, your bomb and your brick.

A safe distance away, my brick, and some means of hitting the same surface of my brick with the equivalent energy of your bomb, converted to nothing but heat. Observe with the finest detection instruments possible to see if heat exits the top of my brick before the top of yours moves....

We can completely disregard the completely different nature of the sun vs. brick for this one.

In the sun, same story. It is opaque. No light comes through.
Heat transport occurs by convection.


Sure it does.
mytwocts
3 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2015
@ bschott
Heat travels through a brick by diffusion.
If you heat a brick on one side it will take a while before the temperature changes on the other side. If you hit it on one side with a hammer, you will feel the shock on the other side almost instantly as this disturbance travels with the speed of sound, which is high in a brick.

I introduced the bomb because you were talking about an SN.
The Sun does not act like a SN or a bomb, more like a compost heap:
"Despite its intense temperature, the peak power production density of the core overall is similar to an active compost heap"
https://en.wikipe...lar_core
viko_mx
1 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2015
Gravity is not responsible for the formation of the cosmic structures in the visible iniverse. It only hold the integrity of this structuers for a while. Because the results of calculation that modern shamans astrologers make according to their theories do not corespond to the observational and experimental data, they invented invisible and elusive dark matter. With such kind of imaginary phenomena they are traing to explain the reality while preserve their vain beleave system, which denies the root cause about our physical reality - the Creator. They do everything else but not science.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2015
the 'energy pattern' reconverts to photonic as it emerges and travels at 'c' once more in free space.


Actually RC, I'm not sure what you just said, but let me make a stab at it from based on your comment about reconverting to "c" in free space.

When heat (infrared photons) are traversing the distance between particles it occurs at light speed. It doesn't matter where those particles are located, inside the Sun or interstellar space, any "gap" from one particle to the next is traversed at light speed.

Infrared photons encountering an atom is absorbed into the mass of that atom & emitted after the passage of time during which it was energetically altering the atomic structure of the atom it encountered. The atomic structure of an atom is altered by the absorption of an infrared photon causing the electron shell to reconfigure electrons to a higher orbital position. Electrons changing orbital positions do so at 1/2 mv*2 & is what creates convective heat.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2015
Gravity is not ...

And your explanation is: God did it. Because.
He wrote it in his book.
No wonder I lose respect for religious folks.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2015
@Benni
When heat (infrared photons)

Dielectric response only contributes to energy transport if the medium is transparent. It does not describe heat transport.
causing the electron shell to reconfigure electrons to a higher orbital position.

This is polarisation and absorption --> dielectric response again.
Electrons changing orbital positions do so at 1/2 mv*2

This is not a correct description of polarisation or absorption at all. kinetic energy _decreases_ with increasing electron energy (but potential energy increases more). Again, related to dielectric response not to heat transport.
& is what creates convective heat.

None of the previous formulations are in any way related to convection.
You just picked up a term that sounded interesting.
You should read up on heat transport before your next post on it.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2015
Benni
What is your motivation to write about physics at all?
You know nothing about it, so you should learn, not teach.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2015
Hi Benni. :)

Sorry, can't say much more on this aspect without letting some ToE 'cats out of the bag' before I publish complete. I suggest you think through the associated implications/ramifications of the Bose-Einstein example I gave you to consider.

Also note the energy/electron/wave 'transport mechanisms' in plasma context recently presented in PO article: http://phys.org/n...oss.html

Now also consider these processes in the context of solar 'degeneracy pressures' and roiling turbulence in both plasm flows and magnetic interaction (ie, internal reflection/absorption/refraction/conversion etc etc) with high-energy E-M perturbations in the high-density dynamics of plasma/plasmonic of solar interior/exterior contexts.

It's more complicated than just the 'clean modes' already considered in discussion so far. Sorry I can't stay/say more at present.

Bye again for now, Benni, everyone. Cheers all. :)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.