Ask Me Anything Ask Dr. Joe - Now WEEKLY!

[DrJoePesce]

Dr Joe, I believe that many of us might like some direction as to when to use "space" and when to use "spacetime". Also, in string theory, is there a similar unity/difference between stringspace (11 dimensions) and "string time"?

In a similar vein, starting from matter in spacetime, due to expansion, (inflation) there comes a 'point' when ST expansion exceeds c, and presumably leaves the matter behind. Have I got this right? If ST later slows down again below c (after inflation?) how (if) does it reconnect with matter?

Cat

Hi Cat, good to hear from you! The main difference between space and spacetime is….time! “Space” is where everything is located. You can define positions with coordinates. There are three dimensions, x, y, and z (or left/right, forward/back, up/down). “Spacetime” consists of the three spatial dimensions, plus time, so four dimensions in total.

I am not a string-theory expert, so go easy on me! String theory describes space/spacetime and how the universe works. I think it is not analogous, then, to space and spacetime. I would say that one does not have string space and string time.

Our intuition, experience, and language all make analogizing and understanding universal expansion extremely difficult. (I’ve been teaching this for almost 30 years in general education/introductory astronomy courses and it is one of the most difficult concepts for the instructor to describe and for students to understand!) Part of the problem is that universal expansion was discovered by noting that galaxies appeared to be all moving away from us, with those at larger distances moving faster than those more nearby galaxies. We want to think It’s the galaxies themselves rushing into the distances. Instead, and it’s a subtle distinction, it’s not the galaxies moving away from us, it's the space in between expanding. Moreover, the expansion velocity is not the same everywhere: Nearby space expands slowly, and more distant space expands more rapidly.

There can indeed be a situation where two very distant galaxies are “moving apart” at velocities greater than the speed of light. This is not a violation of the cosmic speed limit because the galaxies themselves are not moving (which is what Einstein is concerned with: Individual objects moving through space from one point to another).

Dr. Joe

 

[DrJoePesce]

Can your post be followed, since your last date.

Welcome billiejean!

 

[Catastrophe]

Dr Joe, thank you very much for your kind, and lengthy, reply. I do apologise for the multipart question, but they seem to have some elements in common.

With regard to spacetime, I appreciate what you say, but my difficulty is in understanding why (indeed how) they can be combined. Space and time are very different. I mean (as you obviously know ) space has (at least) three dimensions that can be travelled in any direction. We can say that the Battle of Hastings took place near the present town of Hastings, and we can make a good stab at providing a 'time' - this being quite different in nature. We do not define an event by Lat Long Date and Time (of day) together. Sounds like mixing three apples and one pear, and trying to describe THE taste of fruit. Perhaps there is some scientific reason which demands such a terminological inexactitude? (Note for US viewers. Terminological inexactitude is a polite term in English English for a lie. I don't know whether you have the same? I do not intend to imply lie here, but simply inexact terminology). I find this particularly interesting in relation to the above.

Is this whole area, perhaps, verging on the metaphysical? In relation to the third part, is not matter 'tied to' the space it occupies? Can they be congruent below c, separate at c, and then rejoin on slowing below c again? Does matter exist in space below c, holiday above c, but join space again on decreasing velocity? Sounds like my old mentor, Korzybski, could have a field day here? "The map is not the territory".

Please do not think I am trying to be difficult. These are honestly matters of interest to me, as, rightly or wrongly, I am looking at these questions as perhaps being borderline science/metaphysics, and can they be settled (separately, if necessary) as one or the other?

Cat

 

[DrJoePesce]

Dear Cat, I love the questions (even if sometimes I'm unable to fully answer!).

And I think you might not be satisfied with this: Our universe is just that way - space and time are combined. We have Einstein to thank for this. I can't provide a response to WHY, but that is just my ignorance. Others may be able to do so.

In our everyday, human, existence, we don't tend to give all four dimensional coordinates to an event, BUT we could: Everything in the universe is happening at a location and at a specific time. This is very real; I don't think we need to get in the metaphysical realm for this particular discussion.

And before we get into the metaphysical, we need to get into quantum mechanics, which I'm avoiding , but which is where the true descriptors/explanations lie.

As for stuff in the universe: We must remember that in a expanding universe, the universe is doing the expanding, not the stuff (matter) within it. The universe is not stuff, so can expand at the speed of light (or above). (As someone else noted, Einstein (and the universal speed limit) only cares above moving matter and in universal expansion no matter is moving.)

Regarding whether these questions are settled, it allows me to delve a bit into how science is done. Nothing is ever settled in science. It can get darn close to being settled, but there's always a possibility of a new observation that changes things (minutely or fundamentally).

So, are the topics we've discussed here, settled? Absolutely not. But what underpins them helps us explain what we observe in the universe (on the micro and macro scales, from fusion reactions in the centers of stars to the universal expansion) REALLY well. If they are wrong, my expectation is that they only need to be tweaked (rather than a wholesale rejection and the need to start from scratch). These hypotheses, laws of nature, theories, are subject to constant testing through experimentation on Earth (in labs, in particle accelerators, etc.) and in space (studies of strong gravity regions, all other astronomical observations, etc.).

Dr. Joe

 

[Catastrophe]

Dear Dr Joe,
Many thanks for your long reply. Just a little about Minkowski please. Did he not arrive at spacetime (no pun intended), this then being found useful to relativity? That is, rather than being derived from relativity?
Vide

Our universe is just that way - space and time are combined. We have Einstein to thank for this.

In 1907 the mathematician Hermann Minkowski explored a way of visualizing these processes that proved to be especially well suited to disentangling relativistic effects.

Spacetime

Items 1 and 7.

These figures have a venerable history in relativity theory. Here is how they appeared in Minkowski's original publications.

. . . . . . . . .

Hypebolas are the analogs in Minkowski geometry of circles in Euclidean geometry.

Spelling sic.

What does concern me (Please pardon my ignorance), is where two totally different dimensions are treated as equivalent and fused viz. 3 space dimensions and one time dimension.

How to Think About Relativity’s Concept of Space-Time | Quanta Magazine

Our universe is just that way - space and time are combined. We have Einstein to thank for this.

You state that space and time are combined. On what authority? We can combine apples and pears, designating them fruit. And then say they must be fruit-shaped. Which does not follow. All fruit does not have the same shape. What is the difference here. Oh how I wish that Korzybski were still around.

With best wishes and my grateful thanks for your time in responding.

Cat

This might help some non-scientific people:

space time explained - Google Suche

Cat

 

[Jzz]

Many thanks for your long reply. Just a little about Minkowski please. Did he not arrive at spacetime (no pun intended), this then being found useful to relativity? That is, rather than being derived from relativity?
Vide

I think it was Poincare, who far before Minkowski even thought about it, who introduced the idea that different geometries might exist.

 

[Catastrophe]

Jzz,
Poincare was certainly a mathematician (inter alia), and may be better known for his interactions with the 3-body problem. [Pun maybe intended].

Generalized Poincaré conjecture - Wikipedia

Different geometries, including 4 (space) dimensions, maybe, but spacetime? I need convincing on that one!

Were you, perhaps, thinking of this?

The Poincaré group is the group of Minkowski spacetime isometries. It is a ten-dimensional noncompact Lie group. The abelian group of translations is a normal subgroup, while the Lorentz group is also a subgroup, the stabilizer of the origin.

Cat

On further reflection, my Korzybski background [the map is not the territory = the words are not the reality] has led me to ask

Dimension Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

Is time actually a dimension anyway? Are we verbally deluding ourselves?
Are we arguing with non-words?

Cat

 

[Marcd2k]

Happy Monday dear astronomy enthusiasts!

Given the great turnout on my previous AMA appearances, it looks like now you will have me here on a more regular basis!

I look forward to your questions and our continued discussions. And, as always, I will try to answer as many as I can (though there might be some I can't answer!).

In the meantime, keep looking up!

Dr Joe

Hello, Dr. Joe,
I just read today's Space Dot Com article about the planet Smertrios and it's suprisingly heavy elements in its atmosphere, according to the JWST.

I am wondering why there are two descriptors for this planet:
1. It is called a "hot Jupiter" in more than one point of the article.
2. It is also said to be the "mass of Saturn" in another point in the article.

If the planet (Smertrios) is the mass of Saturn, then why is it being called a "hot Jupiter"?

Thank you,
Marc

 

[Catastrophe]

Please excuse me if I see this before Dr. Joe, but it may be helpful to you meanwhile:
You might also Google "hot jupiters" for more similar explanation.

Hot Jupiters (sometimes called hot Saturns) are a class of gas giant exoplanets that are inferred to be physically similar to Jupiter but that have very short orbital periods (P < 10 days). The close proximity to their stars and high surface-atmosphere temperatures resulted in their informal name "hot Jupiters".

Hot Jupiter - Wikipedia


Cat

 

[Think twice]

Hi Joe. Maybe not exactly on topic but related. I’m trying to find out what nm difference there is between the zeeman effect lines on a hydrogen spectral line, sometimes seen in astronomical observations of stellar spectra. . There is a zeeman page on wiki obviously aimed only at top genius quantum mathematicians working at the max planck institute and no one else. Which has tons of basically unfathomable maths, formulas and Byzantine algorithms describing how to calculate what nm the zeeman split lines are...and yet no actual simple answer as to a specific sample line (for instance h-alpha Balmer 656.3 ) and what nm the 3 split lines would be.

(Why does wiki physics pages only address its data to a select few top doctorate holders in maths? Wiki is for the masses interested in *physics* not maths. And those amateur researchers of us looking for basic empirically observed data. Not maths. After all the original data comes as spectral lines that are measured for nm values. Not as complex Formulas echoing across the cosmos. )

My best try from trying to understand the nonsense maths gobbledygook on various wiki pages about line splitting etc is that the zeeman split lines are very close to the original line on the order of only 1/1000 th of a nm or so.
So H-alpha 656.3 might be split into maybe 2 lines 656.3 +-.0005 nm on either side of an original central line?
Unfortunately for my home research I need to be sure exactly what the nm values are. But can’t find any.
Do you know any specific nm values for any of the split lines from a specific H Balmer spectral line split by zeeman effect ? Let’s say H -alpha 656.3 for example.

 

[StarmanG10]

Hello! What is more likely: Heat death of the universe or a vast, cold, infiite expansion of the universe?

 

[Helio]

Hello! What is more likely: Heat death of the universe or a vast, cold, infiite expansion of the universe?

Perhaps Dr. Joe will bounce in here, but he hasn't been here in a while. I do expect he will visit and give you a great answer.

Your question is a good one because there has been a lot of claims of a "heat death", as well as, a cold one. The "heat death" view, these days, notes how sytems (e.g. engines) produce heat. Heat at low temperatures cannot be used to produce useful energy, but all systems, due to entropy (think friction), will produce useless heat. This waste heat gets dumped outside, including into space.

But the universe, as was determined in the late 90s, was found to be expanding, and that it has an accelerating expansion rate. So for the universe to not die a cold death, due to further expansion, then it would have to stop accelerating, then slow down, then contract. Contraction is what is required to die of a heat death. Of course, this is the unlikely scenario.

Dark Energy is the term invented to put a label on whatever it is that is causing this accelerated expansion. There are dozens of theories of what is behind it, but for now, all we can argue is that the universe is being pushed outward in all directions, and at a slightly accelerated pace. This strongly suggests a cold demise in a few trillion years, perhaps.

 

[joshuawestman]

Many thanks, Dr. Joe. May I repost my question from the previous week?

>DrJoePesce said:
>Thanks for the follow-up XinhangShen. My understanding (maybe incorrect) is that the
>GPS satellites' clocks are synchronized. I don't think they are synchronized with the
>ground clocks. I'll see if I can get someone better versed in this subject to weigh in.

I think that all the clocks including the ground clocks should be synchronized so that they all have the same time that can be used to determine the position. Some people argue that the clock on a satellite and the clock on the ground are synchronized only relative to the ground reference frame and not synchronized relative to the satellite reference frame. If it was true, then the difference between the clocks observed from the satellite would monotonically grow but can't be corrected because the clocks are still synchronized observed from the ground frame, which is obviously not the case on the clocks of the GPS.

I think, Lorentz Transformation is a redefinition of space and time (called relativistic time in the following) which is no longer the clock time, but a fake time without physical meaning.

In fact, Lorentz Transformation is mathematically equivalent to the following definitions:

t' = (1/γ)T' - (γv/c^2)X'
x' = γX'
y' = Y'
z' = Z'

where γ = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), (X', Y', Z', T') is the Galilean spacetime of the inertial reference frame moving at speed v in the X-direction relative to aether, (x', y', z', t') is the relativistic spacetime of the same inertial reference frame. When v = 0, relativistic spacetime (x, y, z, t) becomes the same as Galilean spacetime (X, Y, Z, T).

Galilean spacetime follows Galilean Transformation:

T' = T
X' = X - vT
Y' = Y
Z' = Z

We can verify that the speed of light defined by Galilean spacetime follows Newton's velocity addition law, while the speed of light defined by relativistic spacetime is constant relative to all inertial reference frames:

C = X/T

C' = X'/T' = (X - vT)/T = X/T - v = C - v

c = x/t = X/T = C

c' = x'/t'
= (γX')/[(1/γ)T' - (γv/c^2)X']
= (X'/T')/[(1/γ^2) - (v/c^2)(X'/T')]
= C'/[(1 - v^2/c^2) - (v/c^2)C']
= (C - v)/[1 - v^2/c^2 - (v/c^2)C + v^2/c^2]
= (c - v)/(1 - v/c)
= c

That means, all what Lorentz Transformation does is to redefine spacetime.

Since the clock time Tc is defined by the number N of cycles of a physical periodical process:

Tc = N/k

where k is a calibration constant and equals 9,192,631,770 for a cesium atomic clock.

The clock times Tc and Tc' of two clocks attached to the inertial reference frames defined by Galilean spacetime (X, Y, Z, T) and (X', Y', Z', T') are

Tc' = N'/k = (T'/Τ' )/k = (T/Τ)/k = N/k = Tc

where the Galilean periods Τ and Τ' of the two clocks are the same because Galilean time is absolute.

This equation tells us that clock time is also absolute same as Galilean time.

In special relativity, the clock times Tc and Tc' of two clocks attached to the inertial reference frames defined by relativistic spacetime (x, y, z, t) and (x', y', z', t') can be calculated by:

N' = t'/𝜏'
N = t/𝜏
t' = t/γ
𝜏' = 𝜏/γ

Tc' = N'/k = (t'/𝜏')/k = (t/𝜏)/k = N/k = Tc

where N', t' and 𝜏' are the number of cycles, elapsed relativistic time and the relativistic period of the moving clock, respectively, N, t and 𝜏 are the number of cycles, elapsed relativistic time and the relativistic period of the stationary clock respectively.

This equation tells us that clock time is Lorentz invariant and thus is still absolute and independent of the reference frame, which confirms that the property of the clock time (i.e. the absoluteness of the clock time) won't change with the change of the definition of time. Thus, the relativistic time is no longer the clock time but a meaningless mathematical variable.

Therefore, based on such a fake time, special relativity is wrong and so are all relativistic spacetime based theories including the Big Bang theory.

This reply is not directly correlated but has the possibility to have some ties. Is it possible that gravity "knows" so much about quantum states because gravity, space time, and size are intertwined? Could time not only be affected by speed and gravity but size as well? Studies show that smaller organisms with higher metabolic rates experience time more slowly, however I see no notes of time dilation or relativity anywhere in these studies. Is it possible that another cause of this is a relationship between ambient mass vs. body mass? Could an object experience Earth’s (or any other celestial body’s) gravity well differently based on the size of the object and the micro-gravity well that it creates? If this could be indeed an explanation could a formula be dirived and extrapolated down to the quantum level explananing the stragness observed in the quantum realm and possibly be a bridge from relativity to quantum mechanics?

 

[StarmanG10]

Perhaps Dr. Joe will bounce in here, but he hasn't been here in a while. I do expect he will visit and give you a great answer.

Your question is a good one because there has been a lot of claims of a "heat death", as well as, a cold one. The "heat death" view, these days, notes how sytems (e.g. engines) produce heat. Heat at low temperatures cannot be used to produce useful energy, but all systems, due to entropy (think friction), will produce useless heat. This waste heat gets dumped outside, including into space.

But the universe, as was determined in the late 90s, was found to be expanding, and that it has an accelerating expansion rate. So for the universe to not die a cold death, due to further expansion, then it would have to stop accelerating, then slow down, then contract. Contraction is what is required to die of a heat death. Of course, this is the unlikely scenario.

Dark Energy is the term invented to put a label on whatever it is that is causing this accelerated expansion. There are dozens of theories of what is behind it, but for now, all we can argue is that the universe is being pushed outward in all directions, and at a slightly accelerated pace. This strongly suggests a cold demise in a few trillion years, perhaps.

Thank you!

 

[DrJoePesce]

Hmmm. I'm sorry for my absence. But.... I've checked the site periodically and it didn't show anything after my reponses in March. Don't know what happened.

Let me review the more recent entries and get back to you ASAP!

 

[Adoni Yannop]

Dear Dr Joe):

Is It True That Dark Matter Can Never Be Explained By The Three Million Physicists Of Today Because The Physicists Do Not Know How Gravitational Force Is Generated By Matter??

And Is It True That Gravitational Force Is The Direct Function Of Mass And The Rate At Which The Matter Particles Of The Mass Heat Up As Evidenced By The History Of Our Sun And Its Projected Future??

1): Take Our Own Sun As An Example Of Gravity Generation As Our Sun’s Matter Heats Up!!):
A): We Are Given That Our Sun Formed From The Collapse Of A Molecular Hydrogen-Helium Cloud At 10 Degrees Kelvin!!
B): We Are Given That For The Past 5 Billion Years That Our Sun Has Been Heating Up And Generating Gravity!!
C): We Are Given That Our Sun Will Heat Up By 6% Per Billion Years For The Next 5 Billion Years While Generating Gravity!!
D): In 5 Billion Years); We Are Given That Our Sun Will Start Cooling From 7777 Kelvin To 3000 Kelvin While Net Emitting The Stored Anti-Gravity/Dark Energy Stored Inside The Nucleon, Electron And Neutrino Indestructible Mass-Energy Vessel Permeable Hovering Sacs In The Form Of Compressed GP1 Aether Particles That Were Stored During The 10 Billion Years That Our Sun Heated Up And Generated Gravity Blowing Off Half Its Mass Leaving A White Dwarf Remnant About The Size Of Earth At 200,000 Times Earth Density!!
E): One Proof That As Matter Cools And Net Expels GP1 Aether Particles); Dark Energy Is Released Is The Red Giant Phase Of Our Sun’s Life Cycle And All Red Giant Stars!!

2): From Observations Of Bullet Clusters We Know That Gravity And Dark Matter Gravity Stays With The Star Matter And Dark Neutrino Matter Heating Up From The Radiant Energy Of Stars And Not With An Equal Amount Of Cooling Hot Gaseous Matter Left Behind As The Two Galactic Clusters Separate!!

Have I Convinced You Yet That Gravitational Force Is The Direct Function Of Mass And The Rate At Which The Matter Particles Of The Mass Heat Up And That In A Broad Conservation Of Energy Mechanism Potential Dark Energy Is Stored In The Matter Particles Of Our Sun As They Heat Up For Ten Billion Years And Generate Gravity??

Does The Given Indisputed Future Of Our Sun That Once The Matter In Our Sun Starts Cooling After 10 Billion Years Of Heating Up); The Dark Potential Energy Stored In Our Sun's Matter Particles Comes Out And Blows Half Its Mass Away During Its Red Giant Phase Convince You??
Thanks Adoni

 

[Jzz]

Is It True That Dark Matter Can Never Be Explained By The Three Million Physicists Of Today Because The Physicists Do Not Know How Gravitational Force Is Generated By Matter??

Let me answer your question with another question: “Is it true that the vast majority of physicists dismissed the idea of a medium through which light can propagate, because they could not explain or detect it.?”

Dark matter occupies 85% of all the matter in the Universe. Unlike Dark energy, whose existence is merely hypothesised, there is plenty of proof that Dark Matter does indeed exist. In fact without the existence of Dark matter the Galaxies themselves would have expanded out of shape, it is the presence of Dark Matter and the gravitational force that it exerts that accounts for the shape of Galaxies. It is estimated that visible, detectable matter, accounts for only 1% of the gravitational force that would be needed to keep Galaxies together.

The other extremely intriguing factor about Dark Matter is that has very low to no interaction with electromagnetic radiation. Frequencies of all wave lengths from radio-waves to gamma rays can pass through the vast swathes of Dark matter that permeate every part of the Universe, without experiencing the slightest interaction. If this had not been so, we would not have been able to explore the Universe as we have done. So even though the presence of Dark Matter is all pervasive, occupying 85% of all matter in the Universe, it is astonishing that all types of electromagnetic radiation can pass through it without experiencing the slightest interaction.

Lastly it is very apparent that Dark matter possesses all of the properties that the aether was once thought to possess: it is invisible, it is odourless, it is all pervasive and most important of all it offers a medium through which light can travel. When one realises that Dark matter accounts for 85% of all matter in the Universe, what are the odds that our solar system also falls within that 85% and that what we took to be the aether was in fact Dark matter.

Having, examined some of the facts with regard to Dark matter, it is as well to examine some of the properties of Dark matter and try to determine why it is so difficult to detect. At the head of the list is Dark matters very low interaction with ordinary matter. This means that if in the unlikely event you were able to collect some Dark matter, you would be unable to weight it, or measure it or quantify it in any way. If you tried to weigh Dark matter it would sink through the vessel in which it was contained and through the weighing machine too! It is very difficult to detect.

One of the only possible explanations for what Dark matter is, can be found in my paper: The Electromagnetic Universe.

Your statement that the sun has been heating up and thereby producing gravity is quite cryoptic, there is no evidence for such a reaction taking place whatsoever.

Ten billion years is a very long time, almost equal to the age of the Universe itself, so why worry?

 

[Adoni Yannop]

Dear Jzz,
When You Said): "Unlike Dark energy, whose existence is merely hypothesized, there is plenty of proof that Dark Matter does indeed exist."); I thought we might agree that the Big Bang "Singularity" perpetual energy accelerating expanding universe given as the maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible was and is absurd and impossible BUTTE, Then, You Said): "Ten billion years is a very long time, almost equal to the age of the universe itself, so why worry??" Which means that you believe In The Big Bang "Singularity" Theory Starting "Time"!!
I am not worried about our Sun's given demise In five billion years during its Red Giant Phase!!

Consider): Is Matter Gravity And Dark Matter Neutrino Gravity Given As If Each Particle Of Mass Is A Perpetual Gravitational Force Energy Machine Proportional To Its Mass??
Are nucleon, electron and neutrino particles more likely to be each a perpetual gravitational force energy machine Or indesructible permeable mass-energy vessel sacs that store both mass and energy in the form of compressible-decompressible GP1 Aether Particles??

 

[Jzz]

Dear Adoni Yannop,
It was with great pleasure that I read your enthusiastic and well informed post. Yes, I believe in the Big Bang, because everything, the age of our planet, the age of our sun, the solar system and the Galaxies all point to a finite Universe. Of course that does not preclude a cyclic Universe, but then again how would we know anything about such a process because the old Universe would have to be rung out before the new Universe was rung in? However, your hypothesis of perpetual energy accelerating and expanding the Universe seems to go against the observed properties of the Universe. The conservation of energy is so finely balanced that in Newton's words 'every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction '. What does this imply ? It implies that the Universe always maintains equilibrium. So things might get older according to the third law of the conservation of energy and entropy must increase over time BUT energy is conserved. The amount of energy is finite and was fixed at the time of the Big Bng. If this wasn't so, nothing would make sense.

With respect to my own theory of the Universe, "The Electromagnetic Universe" it is the electron in which this property of the Universe is most manifest. The electron is extremely sensitive to changes in energy but it always returns to its equilibrium state with a charge of 1.60217663 × 10-19 coulombs. Imagine the electron is oscillating at th incredible rate of hundreds of trillions of times per second and emitting or absorbing photons at that rate, but througout these amazing interactions it always maintains it fundamental charge: 1.60217663 × 10-19 coulombs. (if you don't believe the electron oscillates at these rates look up atomic clocks!)

Lastly, your contention that all matter contains gravity is interesting. I have gone into this subject in some detail in my paper entitled "Is gravity innate or intrinsic to matter." Personally, I think your view of the Universe is far too complicated. If you think about the theories I have outlined in these two papers, you will see that not do these two ideas simplify matters but they provide a far more intricate well knit woking model than the disjointed and broken path that the current theories (and yourself ha! ha! )would have us believe.

 

[Adoni Yannop]

Dear Adoni Yannop,
It was with great pleasure that I read your enthusiastic and well informed post. Yes, I believe in the Big Bang, because everything, the age of our planet, the age of our sun, the solar system and the Galaxies all point to a finite Universe. Of course that does not preclude a cyclic Universe, but then again how would we know anything about such a process because the old Universe would have to be rung out before the new Universe was rung in? However, your hypothesis of perpetual energy accelerating and expanding the Universe seems to go against the observed properties of the Universe. The conservation of energy is so finely balanced that in Newton's words 'every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction '. What does this imply ? It implies that the Universe always maintains equilibrium. So things might get older according to the third law of the conservation of energy and entropy must increase over time BUT energy is conserved. The amount of energy is finite and was fixed at the time of the Big Bng. If this wasn't so, nothing would make sense.

With respect to my own theory of the Universe, "The Electromagnetic Universe" it is the electron in which this property of the Universe is most manifest. The electron is extremely sensitive to changes in energy but it always returns to its equilibrium state with a charge of 1.60217663 × 10-19 coulombs. Imagine the electron is oscillating at th incredible rate of hundreds of trillions of times per second and emitting or absorbing photons at that rate, but througout these amazing interactions it always maintains it fundamental charge: 1.60217663 × 10-19 coulombs. (if you don't believe the electron oscillates at these rates look up atomic clocks!)

Lastly, your contention that all matter contains gravity is interesting. I have gone into this subject in some detail in my paper entitled "Is gravity innate or intrinsic to matter." Personally, I think your view of the Universe is far too complicated. If you think about the theories I have outlined in these two papers, you will see that not do these two ideas simplify matters but they provide a far more intricate well knit woking model than the disjointed and broken path that the current theories (and yourself ha! ha! )would have us believe.

Dear Jzz):
Why is 95 percent of the universe given as stuff that we can’t see and sooooo dark that we’ll never be able to understand it??
An extraordinarily vast portion of the cosmos will remain unknown in perpetuity because of the following misassumptions of modern physicists):
Misassumption#1): Electromagnetic waves propagate in the vacuum of empty space magically without a gaseous GP1 Aether Particle Medium!!
Misassumption#2): The individual particles of a mass and the mass as a whole is/are given as perpetual gravitational force energy machines in direct proportional to their mass!!
Misassumption#3): Modern Astrophysicists assume that perpetual expansion energy particle, star, galaxy and supercluster machines exist and function “Miraculously In Dark Mode In Perpetuity!!” and that our ageless finite in volume Universe is, just, a mere 13.77 billion years old!!
As a result of the facts 1, 2 and 3 given above, modern physicists will remain as novices playing with toy absurd theoretical models seeking to understand neutron indestructible permeable sac, star, galaxy, supercluster, black hole and cosmic web evolution in perpetuity while relegating 95 percent of the universe to the dark unknown, also, in perpetuity!!
Jzz/Newton says): “The conservation of energy is so finely balanced that in Newton's words 'every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction '. What does this imply?? It implies that the Universe always maintains equilibrium!!”
Jzz, Take another look at my postulate that gravity/low GP1 Aether Particle Pressure is a direct function of mass and the rate at which the matter particles of the mass heat up!!
As an expert in physics); I’m sure you’ll agree that if there was a natural continuous flow of GP1 gaseous aether particles of tiny tiny mass from high GP1 aether particle pressure in our solar system to lower GP1 aether particle pressure at the center of Earth, then, the transfer of momentum from those tiny tiny GP1 gaseous particles to our interlocking atomic nuclei could push us towards the center of Earth, thus, explaining the exact mechanics by which gravitational force manifests itself!!
BUTTE Then, you would expect proof that explains “The Paradox” of how the center of our Sun and the center of our Earth can have low GP1 Aether Particle pressure in the center of Earth when gravitational force matter pressure is highest in the center of Earth!!
In order to solve this apparent paradox to your satisfaction): we’ll have to interrelate the Second Law Of Thermodynamics with what is given with the inverse relationship between density and entropy-temperature and The Siemens Refrigeration Cycle Process and the given 26 second pulsations of Earth’s crust up and down and the given observed 5 minute 34 second pulsations of our Sun!! And the formation of compact objects inside stars over the life of the progenitor star!!
From the second low of thermodynamics, we know that the natural flow of heat is from hot matter to cold matter BUTTE through compression-heat exchanger-decompression “work input” cycles): heat can flow from colder to hotter, for example): How hydrogen gas at 68 degrees Fahrenheit is transformed to liquid hydrogen at 20 degrees Kelvin Through the Siemens Refrigeration Cycle Process!!
Short Version Explanation/Solution Of The Apparent Paradox of how the center of our Sun and the center of our Earth can have low GP1 Aether Particle pressure in the center of Earth when gravitational force matter pressure is highest in the center of Earth!!):
The Earth’s Given 26 second seismic pulsations/”work inputs” extract heat from the Earth’s innermost core to the next outer solid core that eventually warms up the Earth’s mantle as the Earth shrinks in volume overall!!
The Earth’s Given 26 second seismic pulsations make the Earth’s innermost core the densest of all of the Earth’s inner cores and the “coldest” due to lower entropy which is directly related to lower temperature at the Earth’s innermost densest core!!
More Explanations will be given with respect to the fact that the heat extracted from the innermost core heats up more matter/adds more GP1 Aether Compressed Particles to the matter particle permeable sacs of the Earth’s outer cores, than, was extracted from the Earth’s innermost core at highest matter pressure and lowest GP1 Aether Particle Pressure!!
Suffice for now that I {MAY} have the complete solution to Earth's Lowest GP1 Aether Particle Pressure In The Earth's Innermost Densest, Lowest Entropy And Coldest Inner Most Core!!

 

[DrJoePesce]

Hello, Dr. Joe,
I just read today's Space Dot Com article about the planet Smertrios and it's suprisingly heavy elements in its atmosphere, according to the JWST.

I am wondering why there are two descriptors for this planet:
1. It is called a "hot Jupiter" in more than one point of the article.
2. It is also said to be the "mass of Saturn" in another point in the article.

If the planet (Smertrios) is the mass of Saturn, then why is it being called a "hot Jupiter"?

Thank you,
Marc

Hi Marc,

I see that Cat replied to you. Does that response answer your questions?

The thing that is neat here is that the universe is making an array of planets, in formations we didn't think possible. This just means our understanding is not complete. But now that we see things are possible (we previously thought impossible), we just improve our models and do better next time!

 

[DrJoePesce]

Hi Joe. Maybe not exactly on topic but related. I’m trying to find out what nm difference there is between the zeeman effect lines on a hydrogen spectral line, sometimes seen in astronomical observations of stellar spectra. . There is a zeeman page on wiki obviously aimed only at top genius quantum mathematicians working at the max planck institute and no one else. Which has tons of basically unfathomable maths, formulas and Byzantine algorithms describing how to calculate what nm the zeeman split lines are...and yet no actual simple answer as to a specific sample line (for instance h-alpha Balmer 656.3 ) and what nm the 3 split lines would be.

(Why does wiki physics pages only address its data to a select few top doctorate holders in maths? Wiki is for the masses interested in *physics* not maths. And those amateur researchers of us looking for basic empirically observed data. Not maths. After all the original data comes as spectral lines that are measured for nm values. Not as complex Formulas echoing across the cosmos. )

My best try from trying to understand the nonsense maths gobbledygook on various wiki pages about line splitting etc is that the zeeman split lines are very close to the original line on the order of only 1/1000 th of a nm or so.
So H-alpha 656.3 might be split into maybe 2 lines 656.3 +-.0005 nm on either side of an original central line?
Unfortunately for my home research I need to be sure exactly what the nm values are. But can’t find any.
Do you know any specific nm values for any of the split lines from a specific H Balmer spectral line split by zeeman effect ? Let’s say H -alpha 656.3 for example.

Hi Think twice!

Great question. Let's give a bit of background (without going too deep): so-called "emission lines" in a spectrum come about because an electron in an atom drops from a high orbit to a lower orbit. Electrons can be thought of in orbit around the proton(s) and neutron(s) in an atomic nucleus. (It's not really like this, but the analogy works pretty well.) In order for an electron to go from a higher orbit to a lower one it has to lose energy, and it does this by emitting a photon with exactly that specific amount of energy (hence an "emission" line in the spectrum).

In the presence of a strong magnetic field, the electron's orbits are affected slightly, and we get the so-called "zeeman effect" whereby the wavelength (energy) of the emitted photon is slightly different than if there were no magnetic field. Obviously, this is useful because it allows us to measure the strength of the magnetic field.

The complication, and what makes this a bit difficult to understand, is that the splitting due to the magnetic field is dependent on quantum-mechanical effects, the element (atom), and, of course, the strength of the magnetic field.

This is why the explanations you are finding are not straight-forward.

For a hydrogen atom, in a 1 Tesla magnetic field, the energy difference ("split") is ~5.8x10^-5 eV (electron volts, a measure of energy), at least for the n=2 to n=3 orbitals. I will leave it as an exercise to calculate the wavelength shift, but it's small!

Dr Joe

 

[DrJoePesce]

Hello! What is more likely: Heat death of the universe or a vast, cold, infiite expansion of the universe?

Hi StarmanG10,

At this point, with dark energy causing the acceleration of the universal expansion, I would say the vast, cold, infinite expanding universe is the most likely. In the far distant future, the universal expansion will cause atomic nuclei to split apart and that's it for the universe.

(By the way, up until dark energy was discovered, it was an open question whether we were in a universe that expanded forever or one that recollapsed. The indications were that the universe was expanding forever, but at an ever decreasing rate. This has all changed now with dark energy.)

Dr Joe

 

[Adoni Yannop]

Hi StarmanG10,

At this point, with dark energy causing the acceleration of the universal expansion, I would say the vast, cold, infinite expanding universe is the most likely. In the far distant future, the universal expansion will cause atomic nuclei to split apart and that's it for the universe.

(By the way, up until dark energy was discovered, it was an open question whether we were in a universe that expanded forever or one that recollapsed. The indications were that the universe was expanding forever, but at an ever decreasing rate. This has all changed now with dark energy.)

Dr Joe

Once, you guys come to understand that Edwin Hubble was correct for the entirety of his life quote):
"If you are believing that my redshift discovery is doppler redshift, then, you are reading too much into my redshift discovery!!"
The better you'll come to understand the infinite past age of the universe and its infinite coming future ages!!
Refined modern average estimates of the Hubble Flow Redshift Constant tend to cluster around 73 (km/s)/Mpc!!
Modern Cosmologists give the galaxies to be physically standing still while the space between the galaxies is given to expand at the Hubble Flow Redshift Constant of about 73 (km/s)/Mpc from us and from every other observer in the universe!!
Forcing us and everyone else in the universe to imagine that all of us are at center of the universe!!
The thing is that if every observer in the universe thinks that he is at the center of the universe, then, nobody is "actually" at the center of the universe!!
Confused!! You should be because the The Big Bang "Singularity" Given As The Maker Of Heaven And Earth and of Everything Visible and Invisible Is Absurd And Impossible!!
Finally, If you come to understand that the Hubble Flow Redshift Constant is not doppler redshift, then, you eliminate the given 75% of the mass-energy of the universe given as "Dark Energy" instantly!! Great!! Good Job, People!!

 

[alexzuber750]

Is there life on Mars?