No fireworks in the galactic center

January 4, 2016
A false-color infrared image of the region around the nucleus of our Milky Way, the supermassive black hole SagA*. The marker shows the location of the black hole, which glows faintly due to accretion of material; the other objects are stars or dense clouds either orbiting the black hole or in its general vicinity. The size scale of the image end is about one light-year. Credit: Stefan Gillessen and the Max-Planck Institute fur Extraterrestrische Physik

The center of our Milky Way galaxy, about twenty-five thousand light years from Earth, is invisible to us in optical light because of the extensive amounts of absorbing, intervening dust. Radiation at many other wavelengths, however, including the infrared, radio, and energetic X-rays, can penetrate the veiling material. At the heart of the galactic center is a supermassive black hole, SagA*, with about four million solar-masses of material. It is a relatively dim object, and shows some slight flickering that is thought to be the result of small blobs of material randomly accreting onto a disk around it. Its general passivity distinguishes SagA* from many other supermassive black holes in other galactic centers that actively accrete and heat large amounts of material, and then eject powerful bipolar jets of fast-moving charged particles.

A few years ago astronomers spotted a large cloud of gas (estimated to be three Earth-masses in size) moving relatively quickly towards SagA*. Some models projected that the cloud (known as G2) would be disrupted by the black hole during 2015, an event that might be accompanied by detectable radiation that could in turn shed light on a black hole's feeding mechanisms. That did not happen; the year passed without any fireworks, possibly because G2 was too dense to break up.

CfA astronomer Michael McCourt and his colleague have been able to make the most out of this recent non-event. They recognized that the ongoing X-ray emission from SgrA* implied an inflow rate of about a few Earth-masses per year from ambient material, but that this rate was inconsistent with almost every other measurement, including among other things the total luminosity of SgrA*. Sorting out the possible solutions required knowing the distribution of the gas very near the black hole - distances less than the distance of the Earth from the Sun. The scientists realized that they could use the changes in the orbit of G2 as it passed through this medium to probe the innermost gas. Even though the object was not devoured as expected, its path would be altered. They also took advantage of a second small cloud in the system, G1, to pin down some parameters as the two traveled during the year along highly eccentric, nearly co-planar orbits around SgrA*.

The scientists modeled slight changes in the orbital parameters of G1 and G2 as they moved, assuming the changes were due to encounters with the local material. Their analysis provides the first determination of the rotation axis of the accretion flow, and points to the source of the accretion as being from the large torus of molecular gas that is about 4 light-years from the black hole, rather than from the winds of stars that are present in the intervening volume. The result is an important clue to the nature of the black hole's environment, and moreover it has some observational consequences that might be tested in the next decade, including the future paths of G1 and G2 and the geometry of the emission close to the black hole's boundary.

Explore further: Researchers suggest gas cloud could reveal black holes near center of Milky Way galaxy

More information: Going with the flow: using gas clouds to probe the accretion flow feeding Sgr A* MNRAS (January 11, 2016) 455 (2): 2187-2199. DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stv2232

Related Stories

Milky Way's black hole shows signs of increased chatter

September 23, 2015

Three orbiting X-ray space telescopes have detected an increased rate of X-ray flares from the usually quiet giant black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy after new long-term monitoring. Scientists are trying to ...

Powerful jets from non-spinning black holes

November 18, 2015

A black hole is so simple (at least in traditional theories) that it can be completely described by just three parameters: its mass, its spin, and its electric charge. Even though it may have formed out of a complex mix of ...

Cosmic jets light up black hole's snack

December 16, 2015

A black hole is often thought of as a giant galactic vacuum cleaner constantly sucking in cosmic material, tearing it apart and swallowing it. So black holes should do exactly the same thing with stars, right?

Recommended for you

Spitzer Space Telescope begins 'Beyond' phase

August 26, 2016

Celebrating the spacecraft's ability to push the boundaries of space science and technology, NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope team has dubbed the next phase of its journey "Beyond."

NASA's Juno to soar closest to Jupiter this Saturday

August 26, 2016

This Saturday at 5:51 a.m. PDT, (8:51 a.m. EDT, 12:51 UTC) NASA's Juno spacecraft will get closer to the cloud tops of Jupiter than at any other time during its prime mission. At the moment of closest approach, Juno will ...

Rosetta captures comet outburst

August 25, 2016

In unprecedented observations made earlier this year, Rosetta unexpectedly captured a dramatic comet outburst that may have been triggered by a landslide.

57 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Bigbangcon
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 04, 2016
"Some models projected that the cloud (known as G2) would be disrupted by the black hole during 2015, an event that might be accompanied by detectable radiation that could in turn shed light on a black hole's feeding mechanisms. That did not happen; the year passed without any fireworks, possibly because G2 was too dense to break up."

So, like supersymmetric particles, "dark matter", super-strings, "theory of everything" etc. ad nauseum (supposed to be discovered by using the Large Haddron Collider) ; "black holes" do not exist.: http://www.thegua...comments
These are imaginary monsters conjured up by idealized mathematics of "New Physics" since Albert Einstein. These are fictitious mathematical entities, without any real existence. End of story!
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (15) Jan 04, 2016
So, like supersymmetric particles, "dark matter", super-strings, "theory of everything" etc. ad nauseum (supposed to be discovered by using the Large Haddron Collider) ; "black holes" do not exist

Jumping to conclusions much?

End of story.
Bigbangcon
3 / 5 (12) Jan 04, 2016
Jumping to conclusions much?
End of story.


" Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is mere opinion" - Democritus.
Back to the beginning of new cosmological stories! http://www.amazon...40414445
Tuxford
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2016
the location of the black hole, which glows faintly due to accretion of material;


ASSUMPTION (above): Or it glows dimly since it is not actually black, but rather grey, with some fraction of purely radially-directed emissions escaping. And it is actually a grey hole since matter never actually condenses infinitely as the math maniacs would contend. A grey hole condition is far more logical given the massive emissions detected from so many distant galaxies. And a grey hole condition would be more logical given the detection of a torus of material thereabout. After all, where comes the major sustaining source of the material if not from the hole itself.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2016

" Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is mere opinion" - Democritus.

Until we become aware of it's factual nature...

my2cts
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 04, 2016
Jumping to conclusions much?
End of story.


" Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is mere opinion" - Democritus.
Back to the beginning of new cosmological stories! http://www.amazon...40414445

By the rest D. likely meant the gods, not black holes.
Bigbangcon
3 / 5 (12) Jan 04, 2016
the location of the black hole, which glows faintly due to accretion of material;

ASSUMPTION (above): After all, where comes the major sustaining source of the material if not from the hole itself.


One possibility is the energetic ejection of matter and radiation (X-ray, gamma rays etc., specially from the core of the galaxies) caused by the periodic and explosive annihilation reaction of chance accumulated (varying) patches (that could include clouds, starts, cluster of stars etc) of antimatter and matter.

Long live (Late) Halton (Chip) Arp! "Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies" - http://redshift.v...2MAL.pdf
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2016
"Some models projected that the cloud (known as G2) would be disrupted by the black hole during 2015, an event that might be accompanied by detectable radiation that could in turn shed light on a black hole's feeding mechanisms. That did not happen; the year passed without any fireworks, possibly because G2 was too dense to break up."

So, like supersymmetric particles, "dark matter", super-strings, "theory of everything" etc. ad nauseum (supposed to be discovered by using the Large Haddron Collider) ; "black holes" do not exist.: http://www.thegua...comments
These are imaginary monsters conjured up by idealized mathematics of "New Physics" since Albert Einstein. These are fictitious mathematical entities, without any real existence. End of story!

The non-existence unified theory, or NUT.
All things described by math do not exist. Very deep.
rhugh1066
2.2 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2016

Agreed that saying, "All things described by math do not exist." is a great overstatement. It did bring to mind a question I asked in this forum some time ago. Specifically, what is spacetime? Besides a mathematical construct, I mean. What's it made of? Anyone? Thanks for your considered opinion(s).

my2cts
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2016
@rhugh1066
it is a valid question, but why not also ask: what is charge made of? what is momentum, energy, spin made of? what is a quark made of?
if you know the _correct_ answer to any of these questions, mail it to me.
I will publish under my name and make a trip to Stockholm next year.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2016
the location of the black hole, which glows faintly due to accretion of material;

ASSUMPTION (above): After all, where comes the major sustaining source of the material if not from the hole itself.


One possibility is the energetic ejection of matter and radiation (X-ray, gamma rays etc., specially from the core of the galaxies) caused by the periodic and explosive annihilation reaction of chance accumulated (varying) patches (that could include clouds, starts, cluster of stars etc) of antimatter and matter.

Long live (Late) Halton (Chip) Arp! "Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies" - http://redshift.v...2MAL.pdf

Excluded because the highly characteristic annihilation radiation is not observed.
Bigbangcon
3.4 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2016

"Excluded because the highly characteristic annihilation radiation is not observed."

Wrong. The most high energy cosmic processes, gamma ray burst GRBs), emissions from Active Galactic Nuclei(AGNs), quasars etc. show the most expected and characteristic photons peak of electron-positron annihilation process [e+/e- equivalent to two photons of energy ~ 0,51 MeV]. The Milky Way contains at least three large antimatter clouds identified by their annihilation emission at the periphery, with galactic matter dust.

Annihilation reaction of proton-antiproton (the other most expected process) and other hadrons and their anti-particles are more complicated because they are composite particles and can undergo various types of reaction. But a broad peak at ~ 1 GeV [energy roughly corresponding to two photons from p+/p- annihilation] is another most prominent peak observed in the various high energy processes mentioned above. Sorry, no time and space for references - available easily

my2cts
3 / 5 (8) Jan 04, 2016
@bigbangcon
Thanks for pointing out the positron cloud but how do you propose it is related to the infrared image of the article above?
http://www.nasa.g...ary.html
Bigbangcon
3.8 / 5 (8) Jan 04, 2016
@ my2cts
Infrared from these sources are intrinsic in the objects themselves. Any radiation from the lowest energy microwave to the highest energy gamma ray of the electromagnetic spectrum has its origin in matter, either through quantized transition (rotational, vibrational, electronic, nuclear) depending on the temperature; bremsstrahlung (brake radiation) of high velocity charged particles (mainly in the x-ray frequencies); matter/antimatter annihilation processes (mainly in the gamma ray frequencies) etc. or a combination of these processes from a particular source. The frequencies of various radiation from a source at cosmic distance is also effected (usually red shifted, not because of Big Bang expansion, which I and many do not believe) due to loss of energy in the intervening inter-galactic medium - the "tired light". Zero-point energy must exist even at 0 K due to uncertainty principle. The CMBR for many is the "zero-point" energy of the infinite universe. Refs. above.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2016
Specifically, what is spacetime? Besides a mathematical construct, I mean. What's it made of?

Why does it have to be made *of* something? There's currently a lot of stuff that we think aren't made of anything else beside themselves (electrons, photons, quarks, ... ).

The idea that is made of something is taken seriously, though (e.g. in quantum loop gravity (QLG)). There have been a few experiments to see whether spacetime is quantized by looking at arrival times of photons of different energies from distant supernovae. Quantized spacetime theories predict that there should be a lag between the longer and the shorter wave photons. But to current discerning abilities no such lag is observed.
Other theories (like string theory) treat spacetime as continuous.
bschott
5 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2016
Why does it have to be made *of* something?


It isn't "made of anything". His question is valid from the "mathematical construct" viewpoint.
Mathematically it IS treated as though it is a medium. You and I discussed this in our chat about the path of light through it in the presence of a gravitational field. If you support the theory that gravity warps "spacetime" then there there MUST be SOMETHING to warp.

There have been a few experiments to see whether spacetime is quantized


Describing the medium mathematically IS quantizing it.

Quantized spacetime theories predict that there should be a lag between the longer and the shorter wave photons. But to current discerning abilities no such lag is observed.


Of course not, but we'll keep it the way it is because it has worked in the past.

antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2016
Mathematically it IS treated as though it is a medium

It's not a medium. It doesn't interact. Spacetime by itself has no influence on anything. It is only when you add fields (Higgs field, etc.) that stuff happens. It's somewhere for stuff to happen IN. Whether it has a structure of its own is not known. (And that it is isn't a medium is known since Michelson-Morley. Aether theories went out the window that day)

Describing the medium mathematically IS quantizing it.

Huh? No. For one mathematics and quantization are two entirely different things. You can use mathematics to describe something that is qunatized. But you can also use mathematics to describe stuff that isn't quantized (differentials, infinities, ... ). Don't confuse quantized with quantitative.
For another: A description is not the thing (the map is not the territory). That something can be handled mathematically doesn't mean it must be real.
bschott
5 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2016
It's not a medium. It doesn't interact. Spacetime by itself has no influence on anything. It is only when you add fields


We are in perfect agreement on this.

That something can be handled mathematically doesn't mean it must be real.


And this. ( It's my most uttered statement here)

Don't confuse quantized with quantitative.


Wiki -" Quantization is the procedure of constraining something from a continuous set of values (such as the real numbers) to a relatively small discrete set (such as the integers). "

I didn't think that I was....


antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (8) Jan 05, 2016
I didn't think that I was....

Hello? Wiki just spelled it out to you: you're confusing the two.

To make it even simpler to understand: Math is quantitative. Using it you can put a number to things, but those numbers need not be discrete and need not be a small set (e.g. you can do infinities, use transcendental numbers, etc.. The numbers you use can be continuous (i.e. closer together than any epsilon you care to name...e.g. the real numbers)

Quantized means that something (in physics) has a FINITE number (or as wiki puts it: "a relatively small DISCRETE set (such as the integers)")
In physics such a set is never infinite in number and you can ALWAYS find an epsilon so that the difference between two members of the set will be greater than that epsilon.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2016
Hi antialias, bschott, all. I hope you all have a safe and constructive/productive new year in the spirit of co-operation and courteous discourse so important to solving all the problems facing humanity and science today and into the future. :)

To your discussion:

@antialias:
Spacetime by itself has no influence on anything.
If what you claim there is true, then can you explain how 'space-time' Inflation-Expansion as per Big Bang Hypothesis can claim spacetime affects photons if spacetime did not actually interact with them via some as yet unidentified physical-coupling-producing medium/mechanism/process which supposedly 'stretches' those photons? Thanks.

@ bschott:
Describing the medium mathematically IS quantizing it.
All should distinguish physically-constrained REALITY-mathematics from a purely philosophically-UNconstrained UNREALITY-mathematics---this latter is mere philosophical-logics 'train of thoughts' initiated from UNREAL 'dimensionless point concept'.
my2cts
3 / 5 (8) Jan 05, 2016

There have been a few experiments to see whether spacetime is quantized


Describing the medium mathematically IS quantizing it.

This statement has no meaning.
To describe any medium by any kind of math surely is not quantisation.
Uncle Ira
3.3 / 5 (14) Jan 05, 2016

There have been a few experiments to see whether spacetime is quantized


Describing the medium mathematically IS quantizing it.

This statement has no meaning.
To describe any medium by any kind of math surely is not quantisation.


You make the really good point. I guess everybody forgot about all the arguing the scientist-Skippys did more than a hundred years ago because of Planck-Skippy. A lot of the really real world is discribed using analog or linear mathematics that depend on a seamless continuum instead of discrete quantas.

Bet you did not believe a stupid coonass like me would know that, eh? Bennie-Skippy was surprised too when he found out ol Ira-Skippy even knew how to do the differential equations that he likes to say but not talk about.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2016
Prove it.
Uncle Ira
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 06, 2016
Prove it.


Are you commanding me there Cher? Or somebody else?
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2016

There have been a few experiments to see whether spacetime is quantized


Describing the medium mathematically IS quantizing it.

This statement has no meaning.
To describe any medium by any kind of math surely is not quantisation.


You make the really good point. I guess everybody forgot about all the arguing the scientist-Skippys did more than a hundred years ago because of Planck-Skippy. A lot of the really real world is discribed using analog or linear mathematics that depend on a seamless continuum instead of discrete quantas.

Bet you did not believe a stupid coonass like me would know that, eh? Bennie-Skippy was surprised too when he found out ol Ira-Skippy even knew how to do the differential equations that he likes to say but not talk about.

I'll pardon your french and it does not surprise me.
bschott
5 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2016

There have been a few experiments to see whether spacetime is quantized


Describing the medium mathematically IS quantizing it.

This statement has no meaning.
To describe any medium by any kind of math surely is not quantisation.


That's why I "5" rated the post where he corrected me on the difference between quantization and quantification and moved on.

Spacetime by itself has no influence on anything.


If what you claim there is true, then can you explain how 'space-time' Inflation-Expansion as per Big Bang Hypothesis can claim spacetime affects photons if spacetime did not actually interact with them via some as yet unidentified physical-coupling-producing medium/mechanism/process which supposedly 'stretches' those photons? Thanks.


Good one.
my2cts
3 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2016
good post bs.
bschott
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2016
good post bs.


Thank you.
thefurlong
4.8 / 5 (9) Jan 06, 2016
What's it made of? Anyone? Thanks for your considered opinion(s).

It is a reasonable thing to ask, but I think you need to be careful in thinking that it is the RIGHT thing to ask.

Suppose you found out space-time were made of particles. Why wouldn't this question then apply to the particles? You would get an infinite regression and never be satisfied.

I think a better question to ask is not what X is made of, but what is the simplest description that accounts for all of X's properties?

I suspect a lot of people are uncomfortable with the notion of space-time as being malleable because we are used to space being this inert object in which events take place, not something that physically interacts with matter.

However, the equivalence principle implies that this is, indeed, the case. In light of this, perhaps you should really be asking, "Is there a simpler description of the universe that accounts for this principle?"
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2016
Spacetime by itself has no influence on anything.

If what you claim there is true, then can you explain how 'space-time' Inflation-Expansion as per Big Bang Hypothesis can claim spacetime affects photons if spacetime did not actually interact with them via some as yet unidentified physical-coupling-producing medium/mechanism/process which supposedly 'stretches' those photons? Thanks.


Careful: Expansion has an influence. Spacetime (by itself) does not. Two different critters here.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2016
Hi antialias. Thanks for your polite response. :)
Careful: Expansion has an influence. Spacetime (by itself) does not. Two different critters here.
Can you 'parse' that for me to make clear what *effective* distinction you implying between spacetime *per se* and spacetime *expanding* regarding BB 'stretching' claim re photons moving through that spacetime? In other words, can you explain how 'expanding' spacetime can 'influence' anything unless that spacetime itself (in its *ground state*, as it were) already possesses coupling capability as now claimed during BB expansion? Or to put the question yet another way, are you claiming that spacetime can *not* influence anything *unless and until* it IS expanding (or contracting; ie, in NON-'flat/-static' states)?

I would be very interested to know what you think may be the nature of this physical property of 'spacetime' which allows it to 'influence' in one 'state' (expanding etc) but not the other (static/flat). Thanks. :)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2016
Spacetime by itself has no influence on anything. It is only when you add fields (Higgs field, etc.) that stuff happens.

Careful: Expansion has an influence. Spacetime (by itself) does not. Two different critters here.

Can you elaborate, please? GR tells us that gravity is the same thing as curvature, which is a property of space-time, so, spacetime, through it's curvature, DOES influence matter, no? I have not yes studied QFT (or even QED), so maybe I am missing something?
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2016
The way I see it if spacetime actually did influence stuff (by itself) then we'd be in trouble with all kinds of conservation laws (e.g. photons that were to actually follow a 'bent' path would have to radiate because of conservation of momentum).

Expansion of space stretches light (if the space where a photon travels through expands then the wavelength expands with it - hence redshift...similarly space contracts around massive bodies: hence blueshift when a photon goes down a gravity well) . It's the *differential* in curvature that has an effect - not the fact that there is spacetime itself.

Spacetime is tricky stuff. If we take the holographic universe view (which I'm not sure I do) then the entire warping is just an artifact of how we look at things. But certainly there's still to be a lot to be discovered about the nature of spacetime (unfortunately it doesn't look like LQG is going to pan out. I had high hopes for that one)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2016
The problem I see with that argument is that conservation laws require a notion of space and time to begin with. Classically, in order to have a notion of momentum, you need velocity, but space-time doesn't really have a velocity. I suppose you could refer the rate at which the metric is changing to proper time as a velocity-like quantity, but there is no good physical reason to assume that it should have a corresponding momentum (as far as I am aware).

In light of this, it seems like your argument is one of semantics--that for A to influence B, there must be an exchange of momentum and energy, but surely that's a limited definition of influence, and when we get to QM, we where you have things like the Aharonov–Bohm effect, where an electron can be affected by a potential despite the electric and magnetic fields vanishing.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2016
The problem I see with that argument is that conservation laws require a notion of space and time to begin with.

Oh, i don't dispute that spacetime exists. It just doesn't seem to do a lot by itself (i.e. away from any masses that warp it) other than cause a delay to stuff travelling through it.
It's like in a computer simulation where you have everything parcelled up into elements (e.g. via a finite difference method). some cells just don't do anything interesting.

that for A to influence B, there must be an exchange of momentum and energy

Yes. For A to influence B B must be in a different state afterwards.

The "afterwards" is what always bugs me a bit...because from the point of view of the only constant (read: objective) thing (photons) time doesn't exist. If you could travel at the speed of light then the moment when you left would be the same moment you arrived (went 'splat') somewhere else - no matter how far away that 'somewhere else' is.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2016
Actually from the POV of a photon space doesn't exist, either (no time until reaching destination means no space traveled through. Infinite length contraction at c).

Which, I guess, could be construed as another argument for the holographic principle. If we resign ourselves to this 'objective' POV of 'no space' then everything is flattened to a 2D membrane, with the distances on the membrane being the causal separations (not really spatial spearations in any sense).

In such a view there would be no spacetime (which would again mesh with my view of spacetime not doing anything by itself..because it would be just rationalized out of existence)

Hmm...interestig. Thanks for the talk. I thin I'll try to follow this idea up a bit. Just for kicks.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2016
Hi antialias, thanks for your polite, honest responses. Good to see you will be following all this up. :)

While you're doing that, you may like to reconsider the contradiction contained in the conventional abstract assumption re time and photons which you repeated in your last:
Actually from the POV of a photon space doesn't exist, either (no time until reaching destination means no space traveled through. Infinite length contraction at c).
The contradiction is, the Big Bang hypothesis claims 'spacetime expanding etc' and 'stretching photons' from what they were at emission. So, if photons ARE 'stretched', then they're being attenuated; and hence 'experiencing change'; and hence represent little 'clocks' even while moving at lightspeed; and hence DO experience 'time' (change/motion); else they would NOT BE 'changed' in any way by 'spacetime' transit.

Either photons ARE experiencing 'time' rates...OR...no BBang expansion. Can't have 'BBang' AND 'timeless photons'. :)
promile
Jan 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am doing fine me and just get home for awhile, thanks for asking.

You drop the ball on that one Cher. Who said anything about photons stretching? I don't think they have a size to get stretched. I think it is the spaces they are in that gets stretched or expanded and sometimes curved too. Like the anti-Skippy says, the photons just are.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2016
HI Ira. :) Thanks for politely, fairly addressing the science/ideas instead of the person. Keep that up and you may yet 'pass' the test to qualify as an 'Honorary Earthling'.
Who said anything about photons stretching? I don't think they have a size to get stretched. I think it is the spaces they are in that gets stretched or expanded and sometimes curved too. Like the anti-Skippy says, the photons just are.
If what you say is true, then the emitted wavelengths wouldn't be RECEIVED 'here' so 'redshifted' to CMB wavelength, would it....since it would only be 'delayed' via expanding 'distance' while traveling at same lightspeed over 'longer path', without any affect on the original wavelengths. See? If their speed does not change, but only 'distance traversed' (as you claim above), then wavelengths would not 'arrive here' as such 'extremely long' CMB-wavelengths.

Think about it some more, Ira: Consider IMPLICATIONS of photons NOT 'stretched' to CMB wavelengths... :)
Uncle Ira
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2016
Think about it some more, Ira: Consider IMPLICATIONS of photons NOT 'stretched' to CMB wavelengths... :)


Well I could be wrong because this is some hard to think about stuffs. But I thought the distance is what is getting stretched. Not the photons because a photon does not have any size to him. He just is. Is that wrong? If he has a size, how much he weigh? What his diameter is? Aren't all the photons the exactly the same except for how fast they wave wiggle?
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2016
P.S. for you Really-Skippy. Thanks for the offer about the Honorary Earthling thing. If it is all the same to you I will just stay the Louisiana Earthing for the time being me. We like to have to much fun to be the honorable anything (except we are pretty good at producing crooked politicians that go by the name The Honorable).

But maybe the dog he might be interested since like you say, he get the higher honor score than I got.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. I give you the 5 karma vote on that one for being nice to me for a change.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2016
Hi Ira, thanks for your continuing polite, science-directed participation. Much appreciated. :)

Well, claims by BBang hypothesis/explanation FOR observed CMB is that ORIGINAL 'shorter' wavelengths have been altered (from what they were when emitted from surface of last scattering) to what we NOW detect 'here' as 'longest' wavelengths.

It is precisely THAT claimed by BBang hypothesis as 'support for' interpretation of stretching/expansion of BOTH spacetime AND original photons NOW being 'detected here' AS lowest ranges of (CMB) wavelengths.

However, one can't have it ALL ways.

Either there is NO expansion in either spacetime/photon wavelengths...OR...there IS spacetime expansion but has NO effect on travelling photons...OR...there IS 'spacetime' influence via 'stretching' photons to CMB lengths.

See? No matter which CURRENT mainstream 'standard model' BBang/Expansion/CMB hypothesis, there is a self-contradictory claim at its heart, whichever way it is 'explained'. :)
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2016
Well I guess I got to try to read a little more because I still don't see what you are saying. Or maybe you are not seeing what I am saying. That is probably my fault because these things are hard for me.

Why the BB theory say the photons is getting stretched? I thought the photons stay the same and only the space and the time are getting stretched. Not both.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2016
HI Ira. :)

Read this wiki, then further afield:

https://en.wikipe...able=yes

In the opening paragraphs on that CMB entry it says:
The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely proportional to energy according to Planck's relation).
See? That 'stretching of photons by spacetime' is indispensable for BBang/expansion 'spacetime/CMB' explanations/models.

Without BOTH spacetime AND photon 'expansion/stretching' there is NO basis for current BBang modelings/interpretations claiming CMB/redshift as 'evidence in support' of said mainstream hypotheses.

Which is why antialias/others in mainstream now re-considering all prior BBang etc hypotheses/interpretations based on spacetime/photon expansion/stretching.

Some claim(s) not correct in BB model. :)
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2016
since the expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely proportional to energy according to Planck's relation).


See? That 'stretching of photons by spacetime' is indispensable for BBang/expansion 'spacetime/CMB' explanations/models.


Not really I don't see. I see you keep saying the photon stretches. But it is the spacetime that is stretching. And because of that the wavelength gets longer and the frequency slower. But the photon is not stretching only the spacetime. Anyhoo, like I say, it is really possible I am missing some thing so maybe somebody else will explain where I can understand why the photon has to stretch with the spacetime.

Which is why antialias/others in mainstream now re-considering all prior BBang etc hypotheses/interpretations based on spacetime/photon expansion/stretching.


I did not know that anti-Skippy has changed his mind. Maybe he will come around to help me too.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2016
Hi Ira, it's heartening to see you thinking deeply on a scientific level. Keep it up. :)

The point is subtle and easily missed by even the 'experts' sometimes!...so don't feel bad about missing it too. I'll try to make it clearer:

We receive CMB wavelengths in OUR local 'spacetime'; ie, a 'spacetime' NOT 'expanded' like it is claimed to be by BBang/expansion in deep space reaches of 'spacetime' which the original photons traveled to 'get here'.

In fact, our local 'spacetime' is effectively 'contracted' by GRAVITATIONAL influence.

So you see, the expansion/contraction either has NO effect OR it must also BLUESHIFT the CMB photons once they enter OUR local 'contracted' spacetime where we detect it.

But, since the CMB is NOT blueshifted to any significant discernible degree, we must assume that CMB photons are being received in the wavelength which EITHER (a) they were emitted as...OR...(b) which they were 'stretched' into by expanding spacetime through distance travelled.
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 10, 2016
I appreciate the time you spend to try to help me, it's the "stretching photons" that's hanging me up I think.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. I guess I was wrong about all spacetime expanding together. That's what I was thinking. But you say it expands more in other places than it does here? I am not quite up to trying sort that out so I will just have to trust you on that one.

Anyhoo, I just got home late last night and got to do something for Mrs-Ira-Skippette that I really don't want to do. (Our taxes for last year, hooyeei, there is a thing that makes me ache, eh?) And I also want to play with my radio stuffs too if I can sneak that in when I take a break.

Thanks again for trying. Like I say it is probably my fault I can't see the "stretching photons" stretching.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2016
Which is why antialias/others in mainstream now re-considering all prior BBang etc hypotheses/interpretations based on spacetime/photon expansion/stretching.

You're kidding, right?

Not only are you pulling stuff about your own theories out of your behind but now you are also pulling stuff about what other people do/think out ofyour behind?

Man...you are so far gone in your delusions it boggels the mind.
my2cts
3 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2016
You see: no gravitational lensing, no accretion of gas, no flares - the black hole models are about to change...

Huh??
You forget that SgrA* contains a lot of mass, so roll back.
Uncle Ira
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2016
Which is why antialias/others in mainstream now re-considering all prior BBang etc hypotheses/interpretations based on spacetime/photon expansion/stretching.

You're kidding, right?

Not only are you pulling stuff about your own theories out of your behind but now you are also pulling stuff about what other people do/think out ofyour behind?

Man...you are so far gone in your delusions it boggels the mind.


I wonder did he make the exact same mistake when he is saying about all the recent new observations and mainstream Skippys have been proving his own objectionable observations were correct after all?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2016
Hi antialias. :)
Which is why antialias/others in mainstream now re-considering all prior BBang etc hypotheses/interpretations based on spacetime/photon expansion/stretching
You're kidding, right? Not only are you pulling stuff about your own theories out of your behind but now you are also pulling stuff about what other people do/think out ofyour behind? Man...you are so far gone in your delusions it boggels the mind
Whoa there, matey! No need to get rude/personal. I was only going by YOUR statements/admissions of being unsure of what spacetime IS and what it can/cannot DO etc. Your initial assertions regarding spacetime was queried by BOTH me AND thefurlong. To our scientifically/logically argued queries/challenges (re your initial/following claims/assertions/speculations), you implied you were unsure of what spacetime actually was/did or not, and became equivocal/unable of giving a non-evasive/speculative 'theory' supporting your initial assertion(s).

cont...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2016
...cont @antialias:

Before disparaging MY objective/impartial scientific work/observations:

- I was first to caution re accepting BICEP2 'results' at face value, while you/others blindly 'believed' it all.

- I long explained that early mainstream assumptions/interpretations (re CMB, Galactic Rotation Curves, Hydrogen/Helium etc abundances/proportions and BBang/inflation/expansion) were based on FLAWED/INCOMPLETE data due to 'mixmaster' effect of received light transit through space replete with MANY processes/matter-states (jets/flows/clouds etc) which either 'hid' HUGE quantities of ORDINARY Baryonic matter and/or attenuated/changed the light before being 'seen' by us 'here'.

- I am also the ONLY scientist who HAS addressed/identified WHAT the fundamental universal 'substrate' IS; and what it can/cannot do to produce ALL the observed phenomena at ALL scales.

- and MUCH more you do not yet know about.

Now, what have YOU done for ORIGINAL cosmology theory lately? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
I wonder did he make the exact same mistake when he is saying about all the recent new observations and mainstream Skippys have been proving his own objectionable observations were correct after all?
Mate, you should know by now I do not lie/make stuff up.

Recent observations using new techniques/telescopic wavelengths etc discovering HUGE quantities of ORDINARY matter previously undetectable.

Also recent longer term observations of stellar motions/paths in galaxies have confirmed my longstanding observations that most spiral galaxy stars are NOT in stable orbits in an 'orderly disc' manner about the central BH; they are in fact either on INWARD/OUTWARD SPIRALING trajectories having TWO 'velocity vectors' NOT just the 'one averaged orbital vector' which previous measurements of 'orbital speed/velocities' of the 'disc stars' ASSUMED to produce 'averaged out' but INCORRECT galaxy rotation curves THEN 'requiring' NON-Baryonic DM for their 'explanation'.

Ok?
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2016
I wonder did he make the exact same mistake when he is saying about all the recent new observations and mainstream Skippys have been proving his own objectionable observations were correct after all?
Mate, you should know by now I do not lie/make stuff up.


I said mistake, not lie or make him up. I thought maybe you read one of the papers wrong when you said they were proving your objectionable observations. Choot, everybody makes mistakes sometimes. Especially when we are on this really confusing stuffs.

Ok?


Okayeei. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Jan 11, 2016
P.S. for you Really-Skippy.

I almost forget. I don't think the anti-Skippy was disparaging your objectionable observations or the inpart ones either. He was just saying that you make the mistake when you told me he changed his mind about the BB stuffs. That's what I thought and told you that. Non need to get all prickly again since we are trying to be nice now.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Jan 11, 2016
Hi Ira. :)

Sorry if my response implied you said I lied/made stuff up. I was just countering antialias's unnecessary disparagement of observations from MY 'theory' and the 'objective reality' it is based on 'from go to whoa'.

And as I showed in my previous, I also didn't make stuff about what antialias/mainstream are doing; I was going by the context/implications of antialias's own assertions/equivocations re 'spacetime'; and also mainstream/BB contradictions re what is or isn't and can/cannot do/influence etc. He said he was going to research some more; which is scientifically/logically advisable if one is unsure re something which they previously made so unequivocal assertions about but tacitly admit to not actually knowing 'which' (if any) mainstream speculations/theories are 'consistent' on the issue of BB/expanding spacetime actually 'coupling' with photons etc (or not) to produce what we 'see'.

Mainstream also reconsidering as we speak. So it's all good. Cheers. :)

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.