Glowing Blackholes

(Courtesy: NASA E/PO, Sonoma State University, Aurore Simonnet)

The birth of a black hole may be signalled by a characteristic cosmic flash, according to researchers in the US. It was previously thought that only the most massive of black holes would produce gamma-ray bursts – narrow beams of electromagnetic radiation that shoot out of the poles of the collapsing star – when they form. But other dying stars were thought to produce a black hole without any kind of flash – seemingly disappearing from the visible sky in an event known as an "unnova". The US researchers' work suggests that unnovae might also have their own characteristic flash, allowing astronomers to witness the birth of stellar- and intermediate-mass black holes. See:
Cosmic flashes could herald birth of black holes

The continuing difficulty of achieving a reliable explosion in simulations of core-collapse supernovae, especially for more massive stars, has led to speculation concerning the observable transients that might be produced if such a supernova fails. Even if a prompt outgoing shock fails to form in a collapsing presupernova star, one must still consider the hydrodynamic response of the star to the abrupt loss of mass via neutrinos as the core forms a protoneutron star. Following a suggestion by Nadezhin (1980), we calculate the hydrodynamical responses of typical supernova progenitor stars to the rapid loss of approximately 0.2 to 0.5 M_sun of gravitational mass from their centers. In a red supergiant star, a very weak supernova with total kinetic energy ~ 10^47 erg results. The binding energy of a large fraction of the hydrogen envelope before the explosion is of the same order and, depending upon assumptions regarding the neutrino loss rates, most of it is ejected. Ejection speeds are ~ 100 km/s and luminosities ~ 10^39 erg/s are maintained for about a year. A significant part of the energy comes from the recombination of hydrogen. The color of the explosion is extremely red and the events bear some similarity to "luminous red novae," but have much lower speeds. See: Very Low Energy Supernovae from Neutrino Mass Loss

See Also:

• The Blackhole Hunt is On

The Blackhole Hunt is On

Published on May 30, 2012

 See: NuSTAR to Hunt for Black Holes

NuSTAR

NASA contracted with Orbital Sciences Corporation to launch NuSTAR (mass 772 pounds (350 kg))^[11] on a Pegasus XL rocket for 21 March 2012.^[5] It had earlier been planned for 15 August 2011, 3 February 2012, 16 March 2012, and 14 March 2012.^[12] After a launch meeting on 15 March 2012, the launch was pushed further back to allow time to review flight software used by the launch vehicle's flight computer.^[13] The launch was conducted successfully at 16:00:37 UTC on 13 June 2012^[1] about 117 nautical miles south of Kwajalein Atoll.^[14] The Pegasus rocket was dropped from the L-1011 'Stargazer' aircraft.^[11][15]

On 22 June 2012 it was confirmed that the 10 m mast was fully deployed.^[16]

See Also:

• NuSTAR Home Page
  
• NuSTAR NASA Portal
• NuSTAR at HEASARC
• Xspec
  
• HEASoft
  

Black Hole Thoughts are Spoken: Complementarity vs Firewall

Black Holes: Complementarity vs Firewalls

• Subtitle: Strings 2012
• Speaker: Raphael Bousso
• Location: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
• Date: 27.07.2012 @ 16:04

Ahmed Almheiri, Donald Marolf, Joseph Polchinski, James Sully

We argue that the following three statements cannot all be true: (i) Hawking radiation is in a pure state, (ii) the information carried by the radiation is emitted from the region near the horizon, with low energy effective field theory valid beyond some microscopic distance from the horizon, and (iii) the infalling observer encounters nothing unusual at the horizon. Perhaps the most conservative resolution is that the infalling observer burns up at the horizon. Alternatives would seem to require novel dynamics that nevertheless cause notable violations of semiclassical physics at macroscopic distances from the horizon. Black Hole: Complementarity vs Firewall

This lecture presents some particular thoughts that rang a bell for me in terms of what reporting was done here earlier on the thought experiments by Susskind on how one may interpret information gained by the process of entanglement to an observer outside the black hole.

See:The elephant and the event horizon 26 October 2006 by Amanda Gefter at New Scientist.

 Also See: Where Susskind leaves off, Seth Lloyd begins

Various neutron interferometry experiments demonstrate the subtlety of the notions of duality and complementarity. By passing through the interferometer, the neutron appears to act as a wave. Yet upon passage, the neutron is subject to gravitation. As the neutron interferometer is rotated through Earth's gravitational field a phase change between the two arms of the interferometer can be observed, accompanied by a change in the constructive and destructive interference of the neutron waves on exit from the interferometer. Some interpretations claim that understanding the interference effect requires one to concede that a single neutron takes both paths through the interferometer at the same time; a single neutron would "be in two places at once", as it were. Since the two paths through a neutron interferometer can be as far as 5 cm to 15 cm apart, the effect is hardly microscopic. This is similar to traditional double-slit and mirror interferometer experiments where the slits (or mirrors) can be arbitrarily far apart. So, in interference and diffraction experiments, neutrons behave the same way as photons (or electrons) of corresponding wavelength. See: Complementarity (physics)

 

See Also:

• The Reference Frame: Are black holes surrounded by firewalls?
• Raphael Bousso is right about firewalls
• Guest Post: Joe Polchinski on Black Holes, Complementarity, and Firewalls

Illusions of Grandeur?

Illusions of Gravity

Three spatial dimensions are visible all around us--up/down, left/right, forward/backward. Add time to the mix, and the result is a four-dimensional blending of space and time known as spacetime. Thus, we live in a four-dimensional universe. Or do we?

Amazingly, some new theories of physics predict that one of the three dimensions of space could be a kind of an illusion--that in actuality all the particles and fields that make up reality are moving about in a two-dimensional realm like the Flatland of Edwin A. Abbott. Gravity, too, would be part of the illusion: a force that is not present in the two-dimensional world but that materializes along with the emergence of the illusory third dimension.

UC Berkeley's Raphael Bousso presents a friendly introduction to the ideas behind the holographic principle, which may be very important in the hunt for a theory of quantum gravity. Series: "Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Summer Lecture Series" [3/2006] [Science] [Show ID: 11140]

This is just a recoup of what had been transpiring since 2005. We have a pretty good picture of the ways such distinctions are held for perspective so that we may look inside the black hole? The labels of this blog entry help with this refreshing.

See Also:

• Graviton in a Can?  

• CFT and the Tomato Soup Can 

•  A Conformal Field Theory Approach?

Blackhole Wars

The Cosmic Landscape, Page 339, Para 2.

Blackhole Information Paradox

What good is a universe without somebody around to look at it?
Robert Dicke

John Archibald Wheeler (born July 9, 1911) is an eminent American theoretical physicist. One of the later collaborators of Albert Einstein, he tried to achieve Einstein's vision of a unified field theory. He is also known as the coiner of the popular name of the well known space phenomenon, the black hole.

There is always somebody who is the teacher and from them, their is a progeny. It would not be right not to mention John Archibald Wheeler. Or not to mention some of his students.

Notable students
Demetrios Christodoulou
Richard Feynman
Jacob Bekenstein
Robert Geroch
Bei-Lok Hu
John R. Klauder
Charles Misner
Milton Plesset
Kip Thorne
Arthur Wightman
Hugh Everett
Bill Unruh

COSMIC SEARCH: How did you come up with the name "black hole"?

John Archibald Wheeler:It was an act of desperation, to force people to believe in it. It was in 1968, at the time of the discussion of whether pulsars were related to neutron stars or to these completely collapsed objects. I wanted a way of emphasizing that these objects were real. Thus, the name "black hole".

The Russians used the term frozen star—their point of attention was how it looked from the outside, where the material moves much more slowly until it comes to a horizon.* (*Or critical distance. From inside this distance there is no escape.) But, from the point of view of someone who's on the material itself, falling in, there's nothing special about the horizon. He keeps on going in. There's nothing frozen about what happens to him. So, I felt that that aspect of it needed more emphasis.

It is important to me to understand some of the history of the Blackhole, and the students who went on to develop the very ideas around them. To see how they interconnect at one time or another, to provide for the very insights from such gatherings.




Stephen Hawking’s says:

“Roger Penrose and I worked together on the large scale structure of space and time, including singularities and black holes. We pretty much agree on the classical theory of theory of relativity but disagreements began to emerge when we got into quantum gravity. We now have different approaches to the world, physical and mental. Basically, he is a Platonist believing that’s there’s a unique world of ideas that describes a unique physical reality. I on the other hand, am a positivist who believes that physical theories are just mathematical models we construct, and it is meaningless to ask if they correspond to reality; just whether they predict observations.”
( Chapter Six-The Large, the Small and the Human Mind-Roger Penrose-Cambridge University Press-1997)

See: Phil Warnell's comment.

Black hole information paradox

Whereas Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne firmly believe that information swallowed by a black hole is forever hidden from the outside universe, and can never be revealed even as the black hole evaporates and completely disappears,

And whereas John Preskill firmly believes that a mechanism for the information to be released by the evaporating black hole must and will be found in the correct theory of quantum gravity,

Therefore Preskill offers, and Hawking/Thorne accept, a wager that:

When an initial pure quantum state undergoes gravitational collapse to form a black hole, the final state at the end of black hole evaporation will always be a pure quantum state.

The loser(s) will reward the winner(s) with an encyclopedia of the winner's choice, from which information can be recovered at will.

Stephen W. Hawking, Kip S. Thorne, John P. Preskill
Pasadena, California, 6 February 1997

Drawing Credit: XMM-Newton, ESA, NASA-Image sourced from: Pictured above is an artist's illustration of a black hole surrounded by an accretion disk.

The black hole Information Paradox results from the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity. It suggests that physical information could "disappear" in a black hole. It is a contentious subject since it violates a commonly assumed tenet of science—that information cannot be destroyed. If it is true, then cause and effect become unrelated, and nothing science knows, not even our memories, can be trusted.

Before the Big Bang

Professor Sir Roger Penrose, OM, FRS (born 8 August 1931) Before the Big Bang

Three Different Views of Quantum Weirdness
(and What It Means)

A: According to the orthodox view of quantum mechanics, called the Copenhagen interpretation, a system (represented here by a child’s block) does not occupy a definite state or location until it is measured. Before then it is just a blur of overlapping possibilities.

B: The many worlds interpretation insists that the system occupies all its possible states but that every one of them exists in its own alternate universe. Each universe sees one state only, which is why we never observe the block in two states at once.

C: In Penrose’s interpretation, gravity holds our reality together. In each potential state, the block generates a separate gravitational field. Over time, the energy required to maintain these multiple fields causes the block to settle into one state only—the one that we observe.

See:If an Electron Can Be in Two Places at Once, Why Can't You-by Tim Folger, Photograph by David Berry, Illustrations by Don Foley?

"In Penrose’s interpretation, gravity holds our reality together. In each potential state, the block generates a separate gravitational field.....," rings with a certain importance when one talks about what happens with the very nature of the blackhole. What happens to that information.

Phil Warnell:However, if the second is taken as truth and all is remembering, then what can the force of gravity do to a memory that is not in any, yet of all?

I tried to implement a method by which one could "gauge the significance of the emotive experience" as it may pertain to that "primitive part" of our nature. That we could see "remembering" had been assigned a "quantum reductionist state" within the confines of that methodology?

See:Quantum State reduction as a real phenomenon by Roger Penrose (Oxford)2 Sep 1999

"The block," while holding different gravitational defined consciousness states, had to settle to a strong emotive consolidating force from that experience. You repeatedly relive the experience, while current information saids that the memory can change. See Ledoux.

See:

Dennis William Sciama
Tipping LightCones and Escape Velocity of the Photon
What is Happening at the Singularity?
Science and the Mind: Sir Roger Penrose
Big Bang:One Man's Change of Heart

Stringy Geometry

fancier way of saying that is that in general, it's okay to model the space around us using the Euclidean metric. But the Euclidean model stops working when gravity becomes strong, as we'll see later. The Euclidean model for space

The magic square of "Albrect Durer" located in my index on the right is fascinating from the point of view that such a symmetry can be derived from the view of moving in an abstract space.

Trying to understand the implication of what is happening in a stronger gravitational field is an abstract journey for me as well, while I hold "thoughts of lensing" in my mind as a accumulative effect of something that is happening naturally out in space.

The move to Lagrangian points out in space is also an accumulative effect of thinking in this abstract way.

I not only think of the "magnetic field as as an associative value for that abstractness," it is a geometry that is the same for me, as I try to unravel the energy valuation of points(KK Tower) of any location in space. While the valuation of a circle on a 2 dimensional screen sees a string vibrating, I am moving this perception to valuations onto mathematical models.

I have nobody to help this way I have to push forward, knowing there will be mistakes, and that hopefully I am grasping the full scope of seeing in a abstract way.


Figure 2. Clebsch's Diagonal Surface: Wonderful.

We are told that "mathematics is that study which knows nothing of observation..." I think no statement could have been more opposite to the undoubted facts of the case; that mathematical analysis is constantly invoking the aid of new principles, new ideas and new methods, not capable of being defined by any form of words, but springing direct from the inherent powers and activity of the human mind, and from continually renewed introspection of that inner world of thought of which the phenomena are as varied and require as close attention to discern as those of the outer physical world, ...that it is unceasingly calling forth the faculties of observation and comparison, that one of its principal weapons is induction, that it has frequent recourse to experimental trial and verification, and that it affords a boundless scope for the exercise of the highest efforts of imagination and invention. ...Were it not unbecoming to dilate on one's personal experience, I could tell a story of almost romantic interest about my own latest researches in a field where Geometry, Algebra, and the Theory of Numbers melt in a surprising manner into one another.

Dr. Kip Thorne, Caltech 01-Relativity-The First 20th Century Revolution

It was the beginning of what might be called (and in fact is called) Stringy Geometry. The point is that strings are not points, and specifically, their extended nature means that in addition to being able to see the usual geometrical properties of a space that the theory like General Relativity can see, the strings can see other, intrinsically stringy, data. There is a quantity in the theory that is called the Kalb-Ramond field (or just the “B-field”) that can be used to measure how much the string can winds on or wraps a piece of the geometry, in essence. The parameter a that measures the size of a piece of the space that collapses when the geometry becomes singular, is essentially joined by another parameter, b, that sort of measures how much the strings have wound or smeared themselves on that piece of the space. The upshot is that a and b naturally combine themselves into a complex parameter that naturally describes the resolution process, solving the puzzle that the Mathematicians faced.

Beyond Einstein: Fixing Singularities in Spacetime

I am always trying to get the "visual models" of such proposals in terms of the B Field. Nigel Hitchin

Can you tell me, if the Dynkin diagrams and the points on a Sylvestor surface/ Cayley model have some value when looking at this subject?

Also, if it would be wrong to see "UV coordinates of a Gaussian arc" can be seen in this light as well?

I am recording this to help me understand how energy windings of the string may be seen as points on the Sylvester Surface?

See: What is Happening at the Singularity?

What is Happening at the Singularity?

WEll, some of the commentors like myself are not worth counting?:)Thanks for keeping it interesting Clifford of Asymptotia. I hope you won't mind the following quotes for consideration.( it was considered spam) so I reprint it here.

Quantum geometry differs in substantial ways from the classical geometry underlying general relativity. For instance, topology change (the "tearing" of space) is a sensible feature of quantum geometry even though, from a classical perspective, it involves singularities. As another example, two different classical spacetime geometries can give rise to identical physical implications, again at odds with conclusions based on classical general relativity. Brian Greene

Is there not some way presented by Susskind which can help one approach understanding of what is going on in the blackhole by incorporating his "thought experiment" in relation to the entanglement process?

So of course questions about "the horizon" are interesting.

Consider any physical system, made of anything at all- let us call it, The Thing. We require only that The Thing can be enclosed within a finite boundary, which we shall call the Screen(Figure39). We would like to know as much as possible about The Thing. But we cannot touch it directly-we are restricted to making measurements of it on The Screen. We may send any kind of radiation we like through The Screen, and record what ever changes result The Screen. The Bekenstein bound says that there is a general limit to how many yes/no questions we can answer about The Thing by making observations through The Screen that surrounds it. The number must be less then one quarter the area of The Screen, in Planck units. What if we ask more questions? The principle tells us that either of two things must happen. Either the area of the screen will increase, as a result of doing an experiment that ask questions beyond the limit; or the experiments we do that go beyond the limit will erase or invalidate, the answers to some of the previous questions. At no time can we know more about The thing than the limit, imposed by the area of the Screen. Page 171 and 172 0f, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, by Lee Smolin

TWO UNIVERSES of different dimension and obeying disparate physical laws are rendered completely equivalent by the holographic principle. Theorists have demonstrated this principle mathematically for a specific type of five-dimensional spacetime ("anti–de Sitter") and its four-dimensional boundary. In effect, the 5-D universe is recorded like a hologram on the 4-D surface at its periphery. Superstring theory rules in the 5-D spacetime, but a so-called conformal field theory of point particles operates on the 4-D hologram. A black hole in the 5-D spacetime is equivalent to hot radiation on the hologram--for example, the hole and the radiation have the same entropy even though the physical origin of the entropy is completely different for each case. Although these two descriptions of the universe seem utterly unalike, no experiment could distinguish between them, even in principle. by Jacob D. Bekenstein

The old version of string theory, pre-1995, had these first two features. It includes quantum mechanics and gravity, but the kinds of things we could calculate were pretty limited. All of a sudden in 1995, we learned how to calculate things when the interactions are strong. Suddenly we understood a lot about the theory. And so figuring out how to compute the entropy of black holes became a really obvious challenge. I, for one, felt it was incumbent upon the theory to give us a solution to the problem of computing the entropy, or it wasn't the right theory. Of course we were all gratified that it did. Black Holes and Beyond: Harvard's Andrew Strominger on String Theory

So we have these diagrams and thought processes developed from individuals like Jacob D. Bekenstein to help us visualize what is taking place. Gives us key indicators of the valuation needed, in order to determine what maths are going to be used? In this case the subject of Conformal Field Theory makes itself known, for the thought process?

Holography encodes the information in a region of space onto a surface one dimension lower. It sees to be the property of gravity, as is shown by the fact that the area of th event horizon measures the number of internal states of a blackhole, holography would be a one-to-one correspondence between states in our four dimensional world and states in higher dimensions. From a positivist viewpoint, one cannot distinguish which description is more fundamental.Pg 198, The Universe in Nutshell, by Stephen Hawking

So we are given the label in which to speak about the holographic notions of what is being talked about in the case of the blackhole's horizon.


Campbell's Soup Can by Andy Warhol Exhibited in New York (USA), Leo Castelli Gallery

Spacetime in String Theory-Dr. Gary Horowitz, UCSB-Apr 20, 2005

This year marks the hundredth anniversary of Einstein's "miraculous year", 1905, when he formulated special relativity, and explained the origin of the black body spectrum and Brownian motion. In honor of this occasion, I will describe the modern view of spacetime. After reviewing the properties of spacetime in general relativity, I will provide an overview of the nature of spacetime emerging from string theory. This is radically different from relativity. At a perturbative level, the spacetime metric appears as ``coupling constants" in a two-dimensional quantum field theory. Nonperturbatively (with certain boundary conditions), spacetime is not fundamental but must be reconstructed from a holographic, dual theory. I will conclude with some recent ideas about the big bang arising from string theory.

The purpose of this note is to provide a possible answer to this question. Rather than the radical modification of quantum mechanics required for pure states to evolve into mixed states, we adopt a more mild modification. We propose that at the black hole singularity one needs to impose a unique final state boundary condition. More precisely, we have a unique final wavefunction for the interior of the black hole. Modifications of quantum mechanics where one imposes final state boundary conditions were considered in [6,7,8,9]. Here we are putting a final state boundary condition on part of the system, the interior of the black hole. This final boundary condition makes sure that no information is “absorbed” by the singularity.Gary T. Horowitz and Juan Maldacena,

See: Stringy Geometry

Cascading Showers from the Cosmos

3) It is claimed that cosmic rays can energy exceeding that of colliders, and they have not caused trouble, suggesting that colliders will not cause trouble either. However, the analogy is not precise. It assumes two things that may not be true. First, cosmic ray center of mass energy exceeding that of colliders has never been measured directly. Measurements that seem to show this are based on showers of secondary particles. Second, the product of a collision between a cosmic ray and an earth particle will always be moving at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. If it has a small capture radius, it will always pass right through earth like a neutrino. The product of a collider collision can (sometimes) be moving at less than escape velocity from earth. If so, it will fall into earth where it will have forever to accrete other matter. Some calculations show rapid accretion.

See: Risk Evaluation Forum

Using this above as one basis of the argument, it was by these assumptions that I too was convinced things would be okay. There are a lot of things that go with this statement that currently is not expressed given current information in regards to Pierre Auger experiments. That when clearly seen in the light of current research into LHC, does not allow one to take in all that they should be.

Contact

Go back to John Ellis and current research if you must, and thinking in terms of the cosmos. It's infancy, and one does not disregard the "origins and beginnings" of this universe. Are there reasons that are less then desired that would govern any legal defence team based on some "religious affiliation" and driven from this religious context? I hope not.



We would not want some Woitian backlash, as done with string theory, from a intelligent design standpoint, as a recognized motived factor in that legal defense. It is far beyond me that I ask these associative questions, yet, these images come to mind when ever the establishment hosting the world's collective scientists, is confronted by the very issues that seem evasive in regards to safety?

Energies Used in Particle Creation



It would behove any person to take the time to travel to the links I am supplying, to help you absorb as much information as possible.With the full intention that what I am describing does have a distillation process that will become very simple in qualitative design.



Finding the energy range with which we are dealing within our colliders, has awakened the realization of the complexity dimensional attributes would have considering E8.

"I’m a Platonist — a follower of Plato — who believes that one didn’t invent these sorts of things, that one discovers them. In a sense, all these mathematical facts are right there waiting to be discovered."Donald (H. S. M.) Coxeter

The complexity of the blackhole would have allowed the possibilities of describing the source of "all dimensional attributes" knowing that the collapse of the blackhole would bring temperatures to the point of the quark Gluon plasma. What would be happening to allow such complexity?

This basis of thought on my part is, "the equivalence determined" and thought about in terms of Lagrangian considerations. This another topic. But does deal with the understanding of the potential microscopic blackholes that could be produced, determined by the energy levels

Thus RHIC is in a certain sense a string theory testing machine, analyzing the formation and decay of dual black holes, and giving information about the black hole interior.

See:Are Strangelets Natural?

LHC Safety?

I am writing this blog entry because of Walter's comments on the side.

It is very hard for me knowing that there is a train of thought developed through my research. This question of cascading showers, were with the understanding of "energy events" that allowed us to see a "greater plethora of mapping" that would direct us to the very essence of symmetry breaking, based on experimental processes herein this blog described.

"String theory and other possibilities can distort the relative numbers of 'down' and 'up' neutrinos," said Jonathan Feng, associate professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at UC Irvine. "For example, extra dimensions may cause neutrinos to create microscopic black holes, which instantly evaporate and create spectacular showers of particles in the Earth's atmosphere and in the Antarctic ice cap. This increases the number of 'down' neutrinos detected. At the same time, the creation of black holes causes 'up' neutrinos to be caught in the Earth's crust, reducing the number of 'up' neutrinos. The relative 'up' and 'down' rates provide evidence for distortions in neutrino properties that are predicted by new theories."

See: How Particles Came to Be

In doing my own research, I tried to follow the thinking of the literature presented on the topic of microscopic blackholes. Now there was to my understanding a theoretical position assumed, from what we understood when dealing with the topic, and the understanding of what Cern was to produce.

Fig. 2. Image showing how an 8 TeV black hole might look in the ATLAS detector (with the caveat that there are still uncertainties in the theoretical calculations).

Now to me the basis of settling the questions of safety, were answered by association of "what was natural" within the domains of these cascading particle showers in terms of these cosmic rays.

If we were after the origins and beginnings to our universe, we were in essence, describing and mapping the beginning times of these particle showers. Also, the dimensional attributes of the interior of the blackhole.

The Sun's Before Us

The Cosmic Ray of Creation

We are "shadows" of the Sun's creations.

Sometimes it good to go back to "the beginning" so that one can see the context of what exists in reality, has a much "greater story to tell" then what we of the real world live under.

Those of science, have been focused in their own worlds. We just had to understand why they were so absorbed.

"String theory and other possibilities can distort the relative numbers of 'down' and 'up' neutrinos," said Jonathan Feng, associate professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at UC Irvine. "For example, extra dimensions may cause neutrinos to create microscopic black holes, which instantly evaporate and create spectacular showers of particles in the Earth's atmosphere and in the Antarctic ice cap. This increases the number of 'down' neutrinos detected. At the same time, the creation of black holes causes 'up' neutrinos to be caught in the Earth's crust, reducing the number of 'up' neutrinos. The relative 'up' and 'down' rates provide evidence for distortions in neutrino properties that are predicted by new theories."

Who is to know of what is sent to earth, and not understand, that what happens above us, also happens within the LHC?


Jacque Distler:

Travis Stewart reports that the LHC’s ATLAS detector has seen cosmic ray events, an excellent sign that things are working as they should.

One does not have to think, or be insulted by "such stories" that have captured minds in our history. The "ideas of cultures" are pervaded by such religious practises and context, by the fascination of some greater being? Having worked with them long enough?

As a scientist, you know your place in the world. Yet, you dream of such "fantastical stories." About things travelling through the little towns in Europe, as if, seeing the "Overlords of Science." Like some futuristic God making it's way through the town of some primitive era on earth. "Shocked people" looking from windows, as this enormous object in the "war of the worlds," has finally come upon us.

The article traces in non-technical language the historical development of our understanding of nuclear fusion reactions as the source of stellar energy, beginning with the controversy over the age of the sun and earth between Darwin and Kelvin, and including the discovery of radioactivity, the experimental demonstration that four hydrogen nuclei are heavier than a helium nucleus, and the theoretical insights provided by Einstein, Gamow, and Bethe. The concluding sections concern solar neutrino experiments that were designed to test the theory of stellar evolution and which, in the process, apparently revealed new aspects of microscopic physics.

It is important that one understands that such a thing having been studied by our scientists, is still a "noble thing." Where we learn to understand what these things could represent symbolically? Enlightenment possibly? When all the understanding of the "Neutrino overlords" are understood in their place and time.



The winged sun was an ancient (3rd millennium BC) symbol of Horus, later identified with Ra.

A solar deity is a god or goddess who represents the sun, or an aspect of it. People have worshipped the sun and solar deities for all of recorded history; sun worship is also known as heliolatry. Hence, many beliefs and legends have been formed around this worship, most notably the various myths containing the "missing sun" motif from around the world. Although many sources contend that solar deities are generally male, and the brother, father, husband and/or enemy of the lunar deity (usually female), this is not cross-culturally upheld, as sun goddesses are found on every continent. Some mythologists, such as Brian Branston, therefore contend that sun goddesses are more common worldwide than their male counterparts. They also claim that the belief that solar deities are primarily male is linked to the fact that a few better known mythologies (such as those of ancient Greece and Egypt) sometimes break from this rule. The dualism of sun/male/light and moon/female/darkness is found in many (but not all) European traditions that derive from Orphic and Gnostic philosophies, with a notable exception being Germanic mythology, where the Sun is female and the Moon is male.

Sun worship is a possible origin of henotheism and ultimately monotheism. In ancient Egypt's Eighteenth Dynasty, Akhenaten's heretical Atenism used the old Aten solar deity as a symbol of a single god. The neolithic concept of a solar barge, the sun as traversing the sky in a boat, is found in ancient Egypt, with Ra and Horus. Proto-Indo-European religion has a solar chariot, the sun as traversing the sky in a chariot. At Roman Empire, a festival of the birth of the Unconquered Sun (or Dies Natalis Solis Invicti) was celebrated when the duration of daylight first begins to increase after the winter solstice, — the "rebirth" of the sun. In Germanic mythology this is Sol, in Vedic Surya and in Greek Helios and (sometimes) Apollo. Mesopotamian Shamash plays an important role during the Bronze Age, and "my Sun" is eventually used as an address to royalty. Similarly, South American cultures have emphatic Sun worship, see Inti. See also Sol Invictus.

The Geometrics Behind the Supernova and it's History

It is not always easy for people to see what lies behind the wonderful beauty of images that we take from the satellite measures of space, and it's dynamical events illustrated in Cassiopeia A. There before you is this majestic image of beauty, as we wonder about it's dynamics.


These Spitzer Space Telescope images, taken one year apart, show the supernova remnant Cassiopeia A (yellow ball) and surrounding clouds of dust (reddish orange). The pictures illustrate that a blast of light from Cassiopeia A is waltzing outward through the dusty skies. This dance, called an "infrared echo," began when the remnant erupted about 50 years ago. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Univ. of Ariz.

An enormous light echo etched in the sky by a fitful dead star was spotted by the infrared eyes of NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope.

The surprising finding indicates Cassiopeia A, the remnant of a star that died in a supernova explosion 325 years ago, is not resting peacefully. Instead, this dead star likely shot out at least one burst of energy as recently as 50 years ago.

How is it such information arrives to us, and we would have to consider the impulse's behind such geometrical explanations. Which we are lucky to see in other ways. So, of course we needed to see the impulse as dynamically driven by the geometrical inclinations of that collapse, and all it's information spread outward by the description in images painted.


Credit: Weiqun Zhang and Stan Woosley

This image is from a computer simulation of the beginning of a gamma-ray burst. Here we see the jet 9 seconds after its creation at the center of a Wolf Rayet star by the newly formed, accreting black hole within. The jet is now just erupting through the surface of the Wolf Rayet star, which has a radius comparable to that of the sun. Blue represents regions of low mass concentration, red is denser, and yellow denser still. Note the blue and red striations behind the head of the jet. These are bounded by internal shocks.

If I had approached you early on and suggested that you look at "bubble geometrodynamics" would it have seemed so real that I would have presented a experiment to you, that would help "by analogies" to see what is happening? Might I then be called the one spreading such information that it was not of value to scientists to consider, that I was seeing in ways that I can only now give to you as example? What science has done so far with using the physics with cosmological views?


Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/STScI/CXC/SAO

This stunning false-color picture shows off the many sides of the supernova remnant Cassiopeia A, which is made up of images taken by three of NASA's Great Observatories, using three different wavebands of light. Infrared data from the Spitzer Space Telescope are colored red; visible data from the Hubble Space Telescope are yellow; and X-ray data from the Chandra X-ray Observatory are green and blue.

Located 10,000 light-years away in the northern constellation Cassiopeia, Cassiopeia A is the remnant of a once massive star that died in a violent supernova explosion 325 years ago. It consists of a dead star, called a neutron star, and a surrounding shell of material that was blasted off as the star died. The neutron star can be seen in the Chandra data as a sharp turquoise dot in the center of the shimmering shell.

In this image above we learn of what manifests in "jet production lines," and such examples are beautiful examples to me of what the geometrics are doing. You needed some way to be able to explain this within context of the universe's incidences "as events." We say this action is one with which we may speak to this "corner of the universe." Yet it is very dynamical in it's expression as we see it multiplied from various perspectives.


The structure of Model J32 as the jet nears the surface 7820 seconds after core collapse.

So by experiment(?) I saw such relations, but what use such analogies if they are laid waste to speculation that what was initiated such ideas had been the inclination of geometrics detailed as underlying the basis of all expression as an example of some non euclidean views of Riemann perspectives leading shapes and dynamics of our universe by comparison within the local actions of stars and galaxies?

Gamma Rays?



So we get this information in one way or another and it was from such geometrical impulse that such examples are spread throughout the universe in ways that were not understood to well.


X-ray image of the gamma-ray burst GRB 060614 taken by the XRT instrument on Swift. The burst glowed in X-ray light for more than a week following the gamma-ray burst. This so-called "afterglow" gave an accurate position of the burst on the sky and enabled the deep optical observations made by ground-based observatories and the Hubble Space Telescope. Credit: NASA/Swift Team

A year ago scientists thought they had figured out the nature of gamma-ray bursts. They signal the birth of black holes and traditionally, fall into one of two categories: long or short. A newly discovered hybrid burst has properties of both known classes of gamma-ray bursts yet possesses features that remain unexplained.

The long bursts are those that last more than two seconds. It is believed that they are ejected by massive stars at the furthest edge of the universe as they collapse to form black holes.

So looking back to this timeline it is important to locate the ideas spread out before us. Have "some place" inclusive in the reality of that distance from the origins of the stars of our earliest times. 13.7 billions years imagine!


Fig. 1: Sketchy supernova classification scheme

A supernova is the most luminous event known. Its luminosity matches those of whole galaxies. The name derives from the works of Walter Baade and Fritz Zwicky who studied supernovae intensively in the early 1930s and used the term supernova therein.
Nowadays supernova is a collective term for different classes of objects, that exhibit a sudden rise in luminosity that drops again on a timescale of weeks.
Those objects are subdivided into two classes, supernovae of type I or II (SNe I and SNe II). The distinguishing feature is the absence or the presence of spectral lines of hydrogen. SNe I show no such lines as SNe II do. The class of SNe I is further subdivided in the classes a, b and c. This time the distinguishing feature are spectral features of helium and silicon. SN Ia show silicon features, SN Ib show helium but no silicon features and SN Ic show both no silicon and no helium spectral features.
The class of SN II is further subdivided in two classes. Those are distinguished by the decline of the lightcurve. Those SN II that show a linear decline are named SN II-L and those that pass through a plateau-phase are referred to as SN II-P.

So given the standard information one would have to postulate something different then what is currently classified?

A new Type III (what ever one shall attribute this to definition, versus Type I, Type IIa?


ssc2006-22b: Brief History of the Universe
Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/A. Kashlinsky (GSFC)

This artist's timeline chronicles the history of the universe, from its explosive beginning to its mature, present-day state.

Our universe began in a tremendous explosion known as the Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago (left side of strip). Observations by NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer and Wilkinson Anisotropy Microwave Probe revealed microwave light from this very early epoch, about 400,000 years after the Big Bang, providing strong evidence that our universe did blast into existence. Results from the Cosmic Background Explorer were honored with the 2006 Nobel Prize for Physics.

A period of darkness ensued, until about a few hundred million years later, when the first objects flooded the universe with light. This first light is believed to have been captured in data from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope. The light detected by Spitzer would have originated as visible and ultraviolet light, then stretched, or redshifted, to lower-energy infrared wavelengths during its long voyage to reach us across expanding space. The light detected by the Cosmic Background Explorer and the Wilkinson Anisotropy Microwave Probe from our very young universe traveled farther to reach us, and stretched to even lower-energy microwave wavelengths.

Astronomers do not know if the very first objects were either stars or quasars. The first stars, called Population III stars (our star is a Population I star), were much bigger and brighter than any in our nearby universe, with masses about 1,000 times that of our sun. These stars first grouped together into mini-galaxies. By about a few billion years after the Big Bang, the mini-galaxies had merged to form mature galaxies, including spiral galaxies like our own Milky Way. The first quasars ultimately became the centers of powerful galaxies that are more common in the distant universe.

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has captured stunning pictures of earlier galaxies, as far back as ten billion light-years away.

Would sort of set up the challenge?

Breakthrough Propulsion Physics?

Shuttle Main Engine Test Firing-1981-A remote camera captures a close-up view of a Space Shuttle Main Engine during a test firing at the John C. Stennis Space Center in Hancock County, Mississippi.

Spacecraft propulsion is used to change the velocity of spacecraft and artificial satellites, or in short, to provide delta-v. There are many different methods. Each method has drawbacks and advantages, and spacecraft propulsion is an active area of research. Most spacecraft today are propelled by heating the reaction mass and allowing it to flow out the back of the vehicle. This sort of engine is called a rocket engine.

While the topic here is about how travel is possible, it is the idea that "new physics" can some how propelled forward the mass in space to do the things of travel necessary.

In addition, a variety of hypothetical propulsion techniques have been considered that would require entirely new principles of physics to realize. To date, such methods are highly speculative and include

Within the definitions of the literature it is then possible to deduce what is required? So this saves me the time while speaking to the new physics, of having to explain the rudimentary understandings of how I can leaped forward. No less, the idea of the "thought experiment" that is put in front of us that we create the dialogue necessary, with or without impute, to advance one's thinking.


Credit: NASA CD-98-76634 by Les Bossinas. Artist's depiction of a hypothetical Wormhole Induction Propelled Spacecraft, based loosely on the 1994 "warp drive" paper of Miguel Alcubierre.

Introduction

The term breakthrough propulsion refers to concepts like space drives and faster-than-light travel, the kind of breakthroughs that would make interstellar travel practical.

For a general explanation of the challenges and approaches of interstellar flight, please visit the companion website: Warp Drive: When? The Warp-When site is written for the general public and uses icons of science fiction to help convey such notions. This website, on the other hand, is intended for scientists and engineers.

How is a Blackhole Determined?

PLato:Remember the "closed loop process?"

From the "blackhole horizon" what value would, "to e or not to e" speak too, if "one" was falling into the blackhole and "one" was out? Are they separated? What is our "state of the universe" then?

A black hole is an object so massive that even light cannot escape from it. This requires the idea of a gravitational mass for a photon, which then allows the calculation of an escape energy for an object of that mass. When the escape energy is equal to the photon energy, the implication is that the object is a "black hole".

IN the process of discovering the gravitational variances in space of "gravitational effects" how is it that a spaceship could become sensitive to the variations of that travel and slow down, if it did not have a way in which to calculate these fluctuations?

There’s a place from which nothing escapes, not even light, where time and space literally come to end. It’s at this point, inside this fantastic riddle, that black holes exert their sway over the cosmos … and our imaginations.

There’s a place from which nothing escapes, not even light? So I have to re-educate some people so that they understand the limtiations that have been applied to current thinking, by what is currently out there in terms of what we know about blackholes. So breaking from of those limitation on perspective is very important with what we know now. How we can determine a blackhole.

So here to then is a wider perspective about lagrangain perspective of space that is needed in the understanding of travel in space. Implications of ways and means to determine the needed velocities of the space craft to move forward within context of determinations of gravitational influences.

Special Lagrangian geometry in particular was seen to be related to another String Theory inspired phenomenon, "Mirror Symmetry". Strominger, Yau and Zaslow conjectured that mirror symmetry could be explained by studying moduli spaces arising from special Lagrangian geometry.

Dr. Mark Haskins

So while our imagination is being captured by this "gravitational concentration" in the cosmos what use to discern the nature of the "closed loop process" if we did not consider the "thought experiment" of Susskind as I have spoken to it in the last couple of posts?

Hawking radiation owes its existence to the weirdness of the quantum world, in which pairs of virtual particles pop up out of empty space, annihilate each other and disappear. Around a black hole, virtual particles and anti-particles can be separated by the event horizon. Unable to annihilate, they become real. The properties of each pair are linked, or entangled. What happens to one affects the other, even if one is inside the black hole.

The first order of business here is that we use methods based on the understanding of the "link of entanglement" around what is inside the blackhole as a measure? What that photon is telling us in relation to the gravitational considerations influencing the space craft? IN this way, "calibration technique" allows for variances in the determination of what we see in the perspective of the cosmos as a vital differential understanding of that pathways through space.

IN "weak field understanding" we know the loop process is symmetric? Also, if gravity is combined to electromagnetism, what value the photon for determination if we had not understood this relation to gravitation effects in the cosmos? So this process then is understood in terms of developing the means to travel in space that was before not so easily determined(escape velocities for mass in space), but has now been shattered by moving beyond the paradigms of previous thought processes?

This is the benefit of thinking "thought experiments" to progress any idea. Now what has been written here, is it right or wrong?

The Propulsion System?


AIRES Cosmic Ray Showers


Also no where have I revealed the propulsion system need in order for the space craft to exceed the gravitational variances within the cosmos

Gamma Ray production in particle creation?

The Pierre Auger Observatory in Malargue, Argentina, is a multinational collaboration of physicists trying to detect powerful cosmic rays from outer space. The energy of the particles here is above 10¹⁹eV, or over a million times more powerful than the most energetic particles in any human-made accelerator. No-one knows where these rays come from.

Such cosmic rays are very rare, hitting an area the size of a football field once every 10 000 years. This means you need an enormous 'net' to catch these mysterious ultra high energy particles. The Auger project will have, when completed, about 1600 detectors.

Understanding the collision process within context of our own planet, and what information is received from other events within the cosmos allows us "to rebuild" what happens no less then what "LIGO operations" and it's gathering techniques, allows us from the complexity of the information to a thing of beauty?


The H.E.S.S. telescope array represent a multi-year construction effort by an international team of more than 100 scientists and engineers

So how shall we identify such sources if we had not considered the "light house effect?"


Black Hole-Powered Jet of Electrons and Sub-Atomic Particles Streams From Center of Galaxy M87