August 2, 2016 feature

# Physicists prepare to detect gravitational waves from neutron star collisions

In a new study published in *Physical Review Letters*, Aleksi Kurkela at CERN and the University of Stavanger in Norway and Aleksi Vuorinen at the University of Helsinki in Finland have developed an improved method of analyzing the ultradense matter called "quark matter" that is thought to exist in the cores of neutron stars. Their method makes theoretical predictions regarding the properties of neutron star matter that researchers working with the future data will hopefully be able to test.

So far, the best quantitative description of quark matter works only at a temperature of absolute zero. Although this zero-temperature approximation is adequate for describing dormant neutron stars, neutron star collisions would have such drastically higher temperatures that thermal corrections are essential.

In the new study, Kurkela and Vuorinen have accounted for high-temperature effects and incorporated them into the equation of state that describes quark matter, generalizing the equation to relatively small but non-zero temperatures. This modified framework provides a much more accurate description of quark matter that is valid in the hot conditions present in neutron star mergers.

**Quark matter**

As their name implies, neutron stars are made mostly of neutrons, and like all known matter, neutrons are made of quarks. Usually quarks are tightly bound together in groups of three, but the enormous density and pressure in the core of a neutron star is thought to break the structure of the neutrons, so that the quarks separate and form quark matter. Whereas atoms are the basic constituents of the atomic matter that we're familiar with, the basic constituents of quark matter are quarks (along with gluons that hold the quarks together).

Currently, quark matter is not very well understood, mainly because it does not exist naturally on Earth. Researchers can produce quark-gluon plasma at high-energy particle colliders, such as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), but it only exists for a fraction of a second before decaying because of the difficulty in maintaining the extreme conditions it requires.

**Gravitational waves from neutron stars**

An alternative to producing quark matter is to search for it in space. Using techniques similar to those that were recently used to detect gravitational waves from black hole collisions, researchers are currently searching for gravitational waves from neutron star collisions. Detecting the signal of such a collision would provide scientists with a wealth of new information on quark matter.

"The hope is that the gravitational wave signal from a merger of two neutron stars or a neutron star and a black hole would provide detailed information about the structure of neutron stars," Kurkela told *Phys.org*. "This in turn would enable researchers to infer the equation of state of the matter the stars are composed of, i.e., the thermodynamic properties of nuclear and quark matter."

If experimentally detecting quark matter is difficult, theoretically describing it is equally as challenging. This is because the description involves applying the strong force (which is mediated by the gluons) to the extremely high-energy matter of neutron stars.

"Our goal as particle/nuclear theorists is to predict the equation of state from first principles, i.e., starting from the basic properties of the theory of strong interactions, quantum chromodynamics (QCD)," Vuorinen said. "This is a long and very demanding challenge, but if we are successful, then one day when neutron star observations are accurate enough, our results can be used to interpret the observational data from neutron star mergers, and ultimately tell whether neutron stars have quark matter cores."

The results here also apply to the quark-gluon plasma produced in particle accelerators, which the scientists explain is somewhat different than the quark matter predicted to exist in neutron stars.

"The quark-gluon plasma that is produced in heavy ion collisions can be thought of as a hot but not very dense soup of quarks and gluons, while quark matter is a very dense and cold, essentially solid state, of matter," Kurkela said. "Our work in fact bridges the gap between these two systems, as our result is applicable at all temperatures, unlike any of the previous results."

In the future, the researchers plan to further refine their method to improve its predictions.

"Together with our collaborators both from Europe and the US, we are actively working towards improving the current state-of-the-art results for the zero-temperature equation of state of quark matter," Vuorinen said. "We hope to have the next orders of the so-called weak coupling expansion of the equation of state available still during this year, which will allow a refined prediction of the properties of cold quark matter."

Explore further

**More information:**Aleksi Kurkela and Aleksi Vuorinen. "Cool Quark Matter."

*Physical Review Letters*. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.042501

© 2016 Phys.org

**Citation**: Physicists prepare to detect gravitational waves from neutron star collisions (2016, August 2) retrieved 25 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-08-physicists-gravitational-neutron-star-collisions.html

## User comments

Chris_ReeveChris_ReeveChris_ReevejonesdavebaraknCaptain Stumpybecause they can't find any reputable scientific evidence

that is eu tactic #1 - when you can't find actual valid reputable science, simply link to their site or some pseudoscience "expert" who doesn't know their *ss from their face - they teach that one on their sites

any link to scott can be dismissed as irrelevant and worth the same as used toilet paper considering he is making claims without evidence

more to the point: scott was torn to shreds here

http://www.tim-th...sun.html

and that is supported all by the evidence with references, links and actual source material

not like scott's beliefs sans evidence

ENJOY that link...

Da SchneibHannesAlfvenIt's quite a detailed accounting of an object which remains purely hypothetical, and whose spin rates and observed glitches defy common sense for bodies of this size.

RealityCheckBy now, you will be aware that I am independent objective observer/researcher in the sciences/discussions. Yes? On that understanding, I make the following brief reminder/observation re NSs and their spin/internal states/forces applicable:

REMINDER: I've long reminded (latest only a few days ago) that all such extreme body phenomena and processes are HYBRID types; involving all emergent/fundamental fields/forces etc at various forms/interactions stages in the evolved feature under stud. So don't leave out the gravity effects which arise in NSs, and may interplay with other forces/effects at various stages, with one or other being transiently/persistently dominant depending on what aspect you are wanting to describe/explain. Ok? :)

OBSERVATION: As I've long cautioned, the NS polar beam 'pulse rate' is only a E-M/AXIAL WOBBLE rate; so NS 'whole body/equatorial mass' spin rate may be MUCH LESS than inferred from 'pulse rates'.

Cheers. :)

ursiny33Chris_Reevecantdrive85The theoretical approach is much preferred to the empirical approach by many here. Fanciful postulations by sci-fi cevants. BH, Neutron stars, DM, DE, and any number of other mathematical conjurings to plug the holes of the screen door that is the standard theory.

ShootistProtoplasmix* For example: The inverse problem for pulsating neutron stars: a 'fingerprint analysis' for the supranuclear equation of state

nikola_milovic_378nikola_milovic_378vidyunmayaAs the Divine knowledge spreads down, the base level ignorance tries to widen the wings-roots in a tree from Earth Planet.

Every human Being grows against gravity to catch-up with Cosmic divine function.True or false ?

Are we blocking future Cosmological digest under shade???.

baraknIt matters quite a bit more that they don't defy known laws of physics.

RealityCheckI am very busy; can't stay long or involve myself in potentially long discussions; so, briefly:

If you read your linked "gravitational wave" paper, you'll realize it is all based on assumptions and interpretations input to a mathematical model/technique which is therefore already 'primed' to give whatever 'expectation profiles' they have already 'predetermined' via those assumptions and interpretations. They cite/expand on their own previous "numerical experiments" (also maths simulations/treatments,themselves also based on assumptions and interpretations). It's all incestuous/circular from the start; hence maths-GIGO writ large. Reminds me of the way BB 'papers' based on incestuous/circular assumptions/interpretations and maths models got a toe-hold, with a combination of metaphysics and maths 'creating' a self-fulfilling series of 'cites' and 'bases' for later 'work' and their 'built in' assumptions and interpretations. It's flawed at root, mate. :)

RealityCheckStill very busy; can't stay and discuss at length with you; so please excuse the brevity and quick departure:

Re NSs and their 'spin' interpretations. I don't ask anyone to take my word for what I observed in my post. I only commented in order to get you/everyone to rethink it all. It's not as simple and straightforward as past assumptions/interpretations/models have made it out to be.

Hence all the problems with grav waves 'detections', and all the rest of it, which are not as high confidence as the touted 'sigma' values would have you believe if you are not truly skeptical and doing your own due diligence without just going along with the fictions built into all these 'exercises'.

Egs: bicep2 GWaves 'detection' fiasco; aLIGO 'detections' which I explained cannot be as 'modeled' because of all the other 'signals' they would be getting that would 'mimic' such 'ringdowns'; and recent LHC di-photon 'signal' artifact of maths/stats etc.

It'd all GIGO, mate. :)

cantdrive85And we know both NS's and BH's do so, doesn't seem to bother you.

BiteMeElectricBoobVersesChris_ReeveProtoplasmix*In one well known example, math was used to deduce the existence of antimatter, but it took actual observation to "make the case" for it.

Chris_ReevebaraknBetter tell that to the IEEE. They use imaginary numbers to, for example, represent the impedance along with a real number representing voltage or current in an AC current. They'll be happy to know that they've been using verboten math all this time. We'd better get rid of our scary, unknowable electrical system because Chris_Alfven is confused about imaginary numbers. http://ieeexplore...3D801890

ProtoplasmixYou wanna see a beautiful equation that has sqr(-1) in it, multiply sqr(-1) by pi (π = 3.1415926535897932384626433832795...) and take that result and raise the base of the natural logarithms (e = 2.7182818284590452353602874713527... ) to that power. Know what it equals? Minus one.

2.7182818284590452353602874713527...^(sqr(-1))(3.1415926535897932384626433832795...) = -1

Yup. Now *that's* an equation.

Euler's equation: e^iπ + 1 = 0

Chris_Reeveantialias_physorgIt is a neat equation but not at all astounding when you know how to represent trigonometric functions using complex exponential functions (which you do a lot in EE . Basically any time you're dealing with antennas/transmission of information)

https://en.wikipe...function

In the end the square root of -1 is just a trick to write a two dimensional matrix equation on one line. this can be taken ever further using hypercomplex numbers (e.g. for writing 3x3 matrix equations on one line)

...of course it doesn't stop there. There's no end to the 'complex' numbers you can come up with to collapse linear systems of any number on one line.

MaggnusAh, resorting to passive aggressive belligerence. Oh. just like Benni! This actually explains a lot - you are one of those engineers who thinks their being an engineer makes them immune to error. Honestly Chris, I think you are full of it, or you were overwhelmed by your own imagining of your own brilliance. Oh, like interpreting cave paintings?

Captain Stumpyquick question

considering your arguments and support for the eu:

(should it even be real as you've not produced evidence that can be validated) - what makes you think that your EE makes you more qualified to interpret astrophysics over an astrophysicists or the collective of astrophysicists (Astro's)?

more to the point:

why should anyone here take your opinion of said astrophysics over an astro's when we know by your own admission you've not been educated in the relevant topics or subjects required for the Astro degree?

if you're going to argue from self-perceived authority then there must be a way to validate your claims... any STEM grad should know that one

Astro's take the same plasma physics courses you do but you don't take the same courses Astro's do

Da SchneibThis is like a person claiming both to not believe DNA is real and has real physical implications, and to be a molecular biologist.

Reg MundyHere's a bit to consider:-

If a Black Hole is just a point in space (a singularity), then the chance of a BH merging with another BH is zero, they can only orbit around each other and grow continuously closer, NEVER merge!

The whole establishment concept of what a BH is cannot be correct......

However, if our universe is quantum (i.e. discontinuous) then below a certain separation two or more "points" or "locations" in our universe effectively become one as far as we can discern....

Da SchneibIn simple counting, one is assigned to groups that have only a single member, or to the first member of a group with more than one number. Because this is easy to visualize, it seems "meaningful" to the uneducated.

In electronics engineering, the square root of minus one is assigned to reactance, which is the frequency-dependent resistance of a circuit element to transmission of alternating current. Because this is hard to visualize, it seems "meaningless" to the uneducated.

[contd]

Da SchneibWhen the time comes to figure out the actual impedance of a particular circuit to a particular frequency of alternating current, however, you'd better have a square root of minus one, because otherwise you won't get the right answer and your circuit won't behave the way you expect.

In this way, then, as a signifier of the actual behavior of actual physical reality, the square root of minus one is as physically meaningful as one.

The measure of the "physical meaning" of a piece of mathematics is whether it accurately describes an actual behavior of an actual piece of physical reality, not whether you can use it to count apples.

The perils of home schooling.

Captain Stumpyhere is something to consider as well

if there is no gravity and it's all "expansion" that is mass dependent, then how do you get:

-tides

-orbits

-historical and modern pictures of similar sized objects of considerably different masses

-that you have no evidence but claim it's a logical argument of science

-that your book is a failure and not a peer reviewed study

there is much more you failed to actually validate, including being inept at linking a graphic of your own work

http://phys.org/n...pse.html

common sense says: you're lying and attempting a con

Captain StumpySee: http://phys.org/n...pse.html

in fact, the easiest way to debunk your own argument of "no gravity - it's expansion" is to simply look at the Earth-Moon system:

1- Earth hasn't merged with the moon: if both were expanding, and Earth is more massive, and it's mass-dependent, we would have merged by now

2- Considering the size of the Moon: it would be considerably smaller than historical measurements or observations being less dense and lower expansion per your mass-dependent rule

that means we also wouldn't be able to measure it's movement away from us as well

it would be getting closer to us as Earth expanded faster

3- Tides and circular orbits

there are far more arguments debunking your expansion from furlong et al on the link above

you still haven't answered any of them, and you've not brought any evidence either, which speaks volumes about common sense and your arguments...

MaggnusAnd we all know how that worked out!

Reg MundyOh? What's a "singularity" then?

Da SchneibUp to the limit of a black hole event horizon GRT is our most complete and accurate theory of physics. There is no other place in which it has ever been observed to be incorrect within the limits of our ability to measure it. And those places are manifold (pun intended) and include the most mundane and the most extreme.

A black hole is an event horizon; what's inside that offers nothing but the most evanescent of clues as to its nature. When our reach has expanded to orbital laboratories around event horizons then we will be in a position to talk about what's inside an event horizon. Until then this is nothing but speculation and that is well known among all the professionals who work in gravity physics.

HyperfuzzyDa SchneibSo, applying logic, your premises fail and there's no need to apply any more logic because we're done.

HyperfuzzyDude, look at your comment. Then say, "well I accept gravity as a separate force of nature before we even know that atoms exist. I also accept that glue-ons are necessary to hold the nucleus together, ' cause a neutron is a 3rd particle and is neutral." Logic? Reality? I see only stupidity.

HyperfuzzyWith the discovery of atoms one then has evidence what is inside a mass that creates gravity. So don't try to convince me that logic has anything to do with modern physics. Add the fact that if a wavelet is transmitted it varies very little as it travels through space. If you know the emitted wavelet, measure how fast it passes you, i.e. the period. The speed then is the emitted wavelength divided by the period. There is only one statement correct in Einstein's assumption, c is a constant, a scalar constant. It has nothing to do with the velocity of the wavelet. You can keep stating that particles exist;

HyperfuzzyThe field is updated at the speed of light relative to the center and also carries the same velocity vector at every updated point as the center. The amplitude of the e field is proportional to the inverse of the surface area of the measure point upon a sphere about the center, with all pending updates, i.e. light

These fields maybe superimposed with accountable updates of from each entity. However, they are always unique; thus allowing cut and paste. We interpret this with nonsense from somebody's head, i.e. dark matter. You need grey matter to be able to apply logic. juz say'n

HyperfuzzyWhat's your logic? Oh, by the way, these spheres may occupy the same point at the same time; albeit, if the same polarity it takes a hell of a lot of energy.

HyperfuzzyIt's pretty obvious that this is a description of space, our concept of space, i.e. a frame is equivalent to nothing. If space was ever nothing we would not exist, priori 1.

Captain Stumpythat is because you don't abide by or constrain your arguments using the scientific method and logic

(they're used in conjunction for a reason- it brought us computers, technology, etc)

HyperfuzzyYou are referring to made up $hit as unnecessary constraints, correct. I was there when we built computers and measured the field response for very fast memory. I don't recall using SM or GR. only Maxwell. I mean this with humor.

BenniStumpo........a degree in Astro-physics is a huge downgrade from a degree in Electrical Engineering, but you wouldn't know that because you've never seen a math problem with a trigonometric function it it that you solve.....I won't even bring up other vaunted equations.

Those with degrees in Astro-physics are standing in lines to get jobs, but such is not the case for Electrical Engineers.

My view of those with an Astro-physics degree is a person just 1 or 2 rungs on the ladder above Astrologers, just a bunch of clowns out begging for someone to keep them out of the soupline.

Benni......what methinks about you is that you could very well be one of the ones standing in that soupline. Well, I need to rethink that, even an Astro-physicist is required to pass 1st semester Physics with a credible grade & you mr 1st semester physics guy, you haven't done that yet.

BenniWhat I would just love to see for the very first time is for someone to come onto this Commentary with bragging rights to being an Astro-physicist. Get numerous engineers & other science professionals, but never ANYONE claiming to have a degree in Astro-physics. I guess when your profession is only a couple of rungs above the ladder of Astrologer it's simply smarter to simply keep your mouth shut.

Reg MundySo, "A black hole is an event horizon;" is it? No, an event horizon is an EVENT HORIZON, not necessarily a BH. It is the distance from the BH less than which light cannot escape. You are making an unwarranted assumption with no basis in theory nor observation, and stating it as a fact. You could almost be an establishment scientist, but let yourself down by allowing a few smidgeons of logical thought to creep into your postings.....

Benni@Reg, when you're conversing with Schneibo you must remember he claims to have seen pictures of BHs. With his special telescope & the camera setting on his cellphone he's done an Astro-physicist's prime duty, generate bragging rights to special data & only allowing Stumpo & Ira to view the material.

......also, I don't think he believes a BH actually has a SURFACE. He seems to believe once something enters the whirlpool of the EH that all mass/energy from that point on enter into an infinitesimally small point called a SINGULARITY. Right Schneibo? How'm I doin' so far, you have the pics so give us an Astrology lesson here.

Captain Stumpyare ya reporting her trolling comments, 24?

.

i didn't think so

,

@benji-TROLL

that is called opinion, and you wouldn't know becuase you're not even educated enough to comprehend references, research, basic internet anything or even simple math (the difference between a galactic year, milankovitch cycles & chandler wobbles

hell, you can't tell the difference between pseudoscience and reality, proven by your suggestion astrophysics is equivalent to astrology!

maybe that is why you can't do math? your astrologer died? well, considering i've proven you fail basic math, let alone the overwhelming evidence you can't do ODE's, PDE's etc, the fact that you've now started talking trig means you're just gonna look really stupid when we prove you can't do that too

i got links to prove it all, too

Captain Stumpystill no answers?

i've been over your posts for the hundredth time ( http://phys.org/n...ong.html ) and i have yet to see where you've actually answered the above points regarding your own pseudoscience beliefs

in fact, you kept referring everyone to your book, but there was no evidence in said book

that was proven when your book was ordered and read by actual astrophysicists and engineers

still waiting for answers

ChiefFartingDogtinitusReg MundyGRT is only a mathematical model and is not reality. OK, so it does approximately generate predictions which are close to actuality, but there are so many examples where it does not. If it was correct, it would be right 100% of the time. Its a bit like the "laws" of gravity, they mostly work, but scientists have to keep tweaking them to explain observed phenomena, and inventing stuff like Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity Waves, gravitinos, etc., etc., to sustain their veracity.

Captain Stumpyit has a far, far more accurate picture of gravity than your posted mathematical model of expansion ( http://phys.org/n...ong.html ), making it effective for describing reality, which is what the math does

where is your mathematical model?

Oh right... you don't have one you idiot: if you could "debunk" it, you would be more famous than Einstein

more to the point: it is a replacement for Newtonian gravity, which is even *less* accurate (it's how science works), yet we still use Newton's model to launch rockets and put sh*t into orbit around other planets, asteroids, etc

no one said it was the ultimate answer, only that it is more accurate than Newton no, they accept new evidence and add to the theory

you know, they use the Scientific Method

unlike you

Benni.........well then, where is the "mathematical model" from General relativity via which you claim Einstein predicted the existence of Black Holes? You're so good at Copy & Paste, then go to the section of GR & put it up since you claim to know so much about the contents of the actual thesis. And by the way, don't go to WikiPedia & quote some anonymous author, just go right to the original document of GR & post it right here for all of us to see & that would settle the argument, that is unless it's ONLY the argument you want, not the evidence that settles it.

Reg MundyI do wish you wouldn't quote Grumpy, it means I see his muck even though he is on my "ignore" list.

Besides being unpleasant, he is completely incapable of logical thought, and continually posts the same rubbish time after time, mainly denigrating my book (which he has never read, and wouldn't understand if he did). Why he persists in trying to engage with me in these posts is beyond the ken of mortal man. He once promised to put me on his ignore list, but his promises are as worthless as he is.

Captain StumpyNo, you are. and i proved that with links and evidence... because logical thought means your fairy-tale expansion bullsh*t doesn't exist simply because "tides, orbits, etc) i keep pointing out the same thing because you have YET to answer it in any way that is logical, factual, or has any evidence

i wouldn't have to repeat myself if you could actually answer with anything other than "buy my book cause i can't get peer reviewed"

ROTFLMFAO i never said i would ise the ignore function, only that i typically ignore your pseudoscience because you still can't provide evidence

and i don't post for you, but for anyone who would like to know why your arguments of expansion are stupid, pseudoscience and to prove to them you have no clue about science

... just like benji, bschitt, cd or any eu cult member posting

BenniTrust me Reg, I see your point. In fact this is the first time in many weeks I've even bothered to Comment on anything he posts, all of it is just so much Funny Farm drivel that has gotten old & tattered. It's all the same endless name calling stuff that has ceased even having entertainment value anymore.

i don't get here that much, except right now I'm on vacation, but tell me little bit of what your book is about.

imfromcanadaThey have to tweak the theory to explain new things... Isn't that the very perfect definition of the Scientific Method? You know, that thing we do to find all the sciencey stuff? To have a theory, test it, find new things and expand on that theory as required?

So why is it now wrong when it doesn't conform to your beliefs? Perhaps it's your beliefs need a change? Because the Scientific Method is pretty solid, mate.

BenniBut it hasn't kept neophytes like you from trying, when you claim an extreme form of INFINITE GRAVITY to create Black Holes was predicted from calculations in General Relativity. But you don't think that is "tweaking gravity"?

You have your fantasies about what you wished were in Einstein's General Relativity, but Science Professionals can do better at the math & reading of the text than you have ever demonstrated your ability in so doing. For example, I continue to coax you to Copy & Paste the section of GR in which you claim Einstein performed calculations for the existence of Black Holes, but you never come up with it, you just cough & gag all over the place that you can't understand my question.

HyperfuzzyWell, astrophysicist do give us pretty pictures; however, engineers build the cameras.

HyperfuzzyBenniBut the problem you have is that you don't even know what the present theory is. You believe the gravitational attraction of a body can be increased by orders of magnitude without adding mass. You imagine gravity can magically show up by simply reducing the volume of a given mass without adding additional mass no matter what the size of the volume the given mass occupies in space.

You apply Schwarzschild Radii to a given mass & claim that the smaller in size that mass can be reduced then more gravity just shows up out of nowhere after an inverse calculation of the Inverse Square Law to create a Black Hole ( and yeah, I did state "inverse calculation of the ISL, that wasn't a typo on my part).

You simply do not comprehend that gravity is MASS DEPENDENT not DENSITY DEPENDENT.

Reg MundyYes, it is. If you continually correct an equation to agree with actuality then the equation does improve in making predictions. However, that doesn't make it right, just better at making predictions. But in the end, when actuality disagrees with the equation altogether, you should perhaps rethink the equation....

BenniHey, your godfather did not derive EHT from ANYTHING Einstein did in GR, but you don't know that because you keep reading the slop trough of disinformation by anonymous authors on WikiPedia, probably something that Stumpo wrote.

Again, why don't you simply Copy & Paste the section of GR which you claim contains all this Black Hole math by Einstein? You don't do it because you don't have the vaguest clue as to what section of GR to go to begin your search, in short, you have a math problem due to your limited education that ceased with 1st semester physics when you didn't get a high enough grade to move on to the 2nd semester where you would actually learn something about SR & GR.

ProtoplasmixWelcome back, Zeph – whatever you're doing that keeps getting you banned, please give @LifeBasedLogic some pointers, and try something different yourself.

Reg MundyObviously you have been dwelling on a different planet for the last 101 years. Welcome back to Earth, but can I point out that gratuitous insults have gone out of fashion now, and your posting of contributes nothing to this thread. Come to think of it, that probably goes for all of your comments.......

HyperfuzzyCaptain Stumpyand you think sharing known pseudoscience blatantly without evidence or even a logical mathematical model published in a book without peer review is somehow contributing to this thread, let alone science in general?

wow

and i thought the loony religious fundie terorist davidW was a nutjob!

Obviously you have been dwelling on a different planet for the last 101 years. Welcome back to Earth, but can I point out that claims of "science" that don't actually comply to the scientific method have gone out of fashion now

they're called PSEUDOSCIENCE for a reason

https://en.wikipe...oscience

just like your false claims are false for a reason

http://www.auburn...ion.html

Hyperfuzzyhttps://drive.goo...5TTBQNjA

Not some poorly defined measure and poorly defined theory for an impossible conclusion.

Disprove the above and show me empirically where it will not fit. juz say'n

RealityCheckRe "square root of minus 1": Like every physics related term (including "c squared" etc) involved in the mathematics/equations expressions for physical theory, these are part of abstract algorithmic devices for calculating/representing the physical phenomenological behavior/consequences from any given circumstance to the next and even that prior to the one chosen to start the observation from. The symbols and treatments themselves are the result of Axioms and Conventions involved in expressing the mathematical relations, quantities, locations etc involved in the overall phenomena under study. The treatment of 'quantities/relativities' evolved along with the logics/conventions. Hence "square root of -1" has a physical meaning; only it is not readily understood given the cartesian co-ordinate system and the number line theory conventions because they necessarily incorporate "negative/imaginary" etc labels due to chosen 'origin' for co-ordinate system. :)

HyperfuzzyOK, whatever. Invalid argument. At least state one axiom, and one premise, and one empirical measure used to define your theory before the theory is conceived. Not some undetected, impossible to calibrate measurement of something that may have multiple real sources other than your fantasy. Not some theory to define an unmeasured measure, that is super dubois. i.e. just say anything. Totally rejectable by any sound physics. Unprovable nonsense looking for a prize. What, you think we are all fools?

RealityCheckMate, you missed the point. I only pointed out that historical labeling conventions are responsible for many of the negative/imaginary etc entities and notations applied to quantity/position/motion relativity notations and terms usages; following on maths axioms, co-ordinate graphing and analysis and number line theory conventions; which is why we see "square root of minus 1" and" c squared" etc terms in the maths algorithms for the relevant phenomena analysis they appear in. That's all I wanted to point out. OH, and that, just because these terms are "weird" because of the labeling conventions which led up to them, it doesn't take away from their actual physical meanings when all is said and done. In other words, such weird maths labels still ultimately refer to real physical phenomenological aspects, it's just that our maths/analysis co-ordinate system is confusing when these aspects crop up but are given these weird labels perforce of conventions etc. :)

Uncle IraThat square root of negative one thing I got figured out a long time ago, but I appreciate you trying to help us with it. Not that many peoples is going to understand him the way you explain him. You should try to do it in plain ol regular language instead of all the jazzy razzy dazzy way. That might impress the girls down at the roadhouse, but all it does here is get peoples to laughing.

Anyhoo, glad to see you are alright and they let you come home for two days in a row.

Oh yeah, I almost forget. I am still waiting for you to tell about the NON-Keplerian orbits that galaxies are doing and how they got that way.

RealityCheckI see you're captive to your bot-voting system as ever; so your "just fine" is somewhat over-optimistic self-assessment. But it's better than being overly-pessimistic, I guess (not that it could get much worse for you than you being captive to your own bot-voting program). Anyhow, since I'm here...

Yes, but your "understanding" is limited unless you understand in a consistent way how that, and "c squared" etc, all came about. Research it all for yourself if you don't like my explanations. :)

PS: Re NON-Keplerian: In case you didn't know, our Milky Way's BH is only about 2% of total galactic mass. Most of mass distributed throughout extensive disc; and that disc mass distribution/influence on the various stars along galaxy disc radials is NON-Keplerian as regards their orbital profiles relative to a central body (contrast that to our Solar System where most of the mass is in its central sun; hence has Keplerian distribution/orbital profiles therein). :)

Uncle IraNon, it is not so much limited. I am the A in the cyphering classes I took with square root of the negative one. It is pretty easy as long as you remember the rules. And I know how they came about. We do have schools down here you know.

I don't think that is right.

But you are not telling how NON-Keplerian is different. What makes it act different than the masses in Kepler-Skippy's stuffs?

Newton-Skippy has the shell theory-thingy that takes care of that.

But what do YOU mean with NON-Keplerian? Not the same as the real scientists, so what is different with your NON-Keplerian?

HyperfuzzyCan't rule out imaginary, it's just math, a conceptual isomorphism to reality. However, you are correct, on one note; it must be reconciled or ignored as not pertinent. But imaginary numbers got a mathematician kicked out of the mathematical society. I don't have the detail, just a funny story told by one of my instructors. Since one could not be removed from a seat within the society, the society disbanded and reassembled without him.

I get it. So, no, I do not deny imaginary numbers. But in my analysis, they are not reconciled, since I was simply doing an imaginary point to a field. Distance is always real, but it may also be a mirror image. Imaginary, well a loose cannon in my analysis. So keep pointing out all validity and invalidity. I'm with ya. I just thought everyone knew it was real, it's distance.

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