How do we know the fundamental constants are constant? We don't.

"That's 28 numbers that completely determine all the physics of the known universe."

My note. Where did these constants in nature come from and how and when did the Big Bang create the constants seen in nature today? The Big Bang model has the universe we see today evolving from an area the size of an electron or smaller - in the beginning.

"But those theories do not fully explain themselves. Appearing within the equations are fundamental constants, which are numbers that we must measure independently and plug in by hand. Only with these numbers in place can we use the theories to make new predictions. General relativity depends on only two constants: the strength of gravity (commonly called G) and the cosmological constant (usually denoted by Λ, which measures the amount of energy in the vacuum of space-time)."

My note. What? How did the Big Bang create these two constants and avoid two fatal values that destroys the universe - in the beginning?
 
Dec 27, 2022
438
13
185
Visit site
The speed of light is not constant. It is VARIABLE, as posited by Newton's theory and proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 (prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor):

Wikipedia: "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887...The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)."

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c:

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92
 
Dec 27, 2022
17
2
15
Visit site
I can all but guarantee the big bang will be thrown out entirely in the next couple years.

Variable Mass theory is as robust as the standard model and it's shortcoming is one the standard model also has.

We already know that matter decays or strongly suspect that it does.

The theory explains so many of the "how can it be so big" "why so complex so early" and other proof alarms that should have been telling people for decades that they were just padding a theory that itself was MASSIVELY padded from the start with renormalization.
 
Dec 28, 2022
31
1
35
Visit site
Paul the Writer, Sir, you have left out modern society's most valuable constant, that which identifies and differentiates for us Magnetism! Let's band together and launch a new television network for all, the mw. The Moonwatchers' Network! Get tuned!
 
Dec 28, 2022
31
1
35
Visit site
Physicists have measured no changes in time or space for any of the fundamental constants of nature.

How do we know the fundamental constants are constant? We don't. : Read more
As for "why stars look spiky" in the JWST images, I am happy to report here that the unique phenom of JWST is not only about "brightness", but about identifying for image-viewers and astronomy-learners where H2 is most present within the frame; happy because it allows me to prove, with evidence, one utility of the Magnetism constant: the resonance of JWST's 18 Be-mirrors matches unequivocally the order of H2. To be within reach of image analysts and processors, even if in post, could someday offer a toggle control where image-viewers can allow the spikes to be pulled down and converted to real-image resolution for revealing areas such as H2O [perhaps with a Ne-filter algorithm, which also consequently transliterates to an output of O-matches, for H2O resolution]. In other words, with such a filter, the spikes may rearrange to further spatial perception; can JWST be calibrated to "think" this way, too?] I think the beautifully elegant and simple resolution (and spikes) of the Triton+Neptune image, where Triton is described as "icy", clearly relates this for astro-learners: where H2 is way up, so too is the possibility of H2O, thanks to the Be-design of the quantity and orientation of the mirrors.
 
"That's 28 numbers that completely determine all the physics of the known universe."

My note. Where did these constants in nature come from and how and when did the Big Bang create the constants seen in nature today? The Big Bang model has the universe we see today evolving from an area the size of an electron or smaller - in the beginning.

"But those theories do not fully explain themselves. Appearing within the equations are fundamental constants, which are numbers that we must measure independently and plug in by hand. Only with these numbers in place can we use the theories to make new predictions. General relativity depends on only two constants: the strength of gravity (commonly called G) and the cosmological constant (usually denoted by Λ, which measures the amount of energy in the vacuum of space-time)."

My note. What? How did the Big Bang create these two constants and avoid two fatal values that destroys the universe - in the beginning?
Yes. Your addressing the fine-tuning view of the universe, where all the 28, or more, dials were amazingly set just right at the birth of the Universe.

The rising alternative is the Multiverse. Mathematics shows a possible range of 10^600 other universes, hence a few could be found like ours. But math is not physics. Is this view testable objectively? Well, one author says there are 6 tests, but only mentions two — two predicted void sizes in the CMBR. But these voids may, IMO, have alternate explanations since they are harmonics of the size of the universe (monopole & dipole, IIRC).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Dec 28, 2022
31
1
35
Visit site
The image spikes are an unavoidable consequence of diffraction around the mirror edges. It is not possible for any algorithm to convert them into usable data. Basic optical theory.
Hi Billslugg, I have just provided a conversion scenario. Where did you learn basic optical theory [out of curiosity here]? If the diffraction is caused by the resonance of the Berrylium, where motion control is part of the image capture process, these spikes can be "directed" to where they should be, ie. resolving the natural mass and light at the focal length.
 
I studied optical theory, image processing and communications theory at Pennsylvania State University 1970-1974 while taking a Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering.

There is an iron clad, immutable, 100% true all of the time theorem in communications theory which applies to images, data sets, recordings: "No amount of processing can ever add information." You can alter an image and make it look better, you could even remove the spikes if you wanted to, but it does not add information.

Diffraction is not caused by "the resonance of the beryllium", it is caused by the shape of the mirrors. It is an unavoidable consequence of the passage of any wave function through any system. If the mirrors were round then the diffraction "spikes" would be concentric circles. This is what limits the performance of any optical system. There is no way around it except by making the mirrors larger or going to shorter wavelengths.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Post #5 jarred my old brain :) Google says, "The magnetic constant μ0 (also known as vacuum permeability or permeability of free space) is a universal physical constant, relating mechanical and electromagnetic units of measurement.Dec 19, 2010"

I looked over my copy of Allen's Astrophysical Quantities, Fourth Edition, 2000. This text has numerous constants used in science today. General Constants and Units, page 7. Is there a published, System of Record disclosing all? :) It seems the more constants used in science to describe nature and How the Universe Works, the more fine-tuning problems appear or as Helio indicates in post #8, the Mulitverse must be embraced to avoid fine-tuning problems (that could be used to point to special creation, not random acts of nature as the 1st cause).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
I studied optical theory, image processing and communications theory at Pennsylvania State University 1970-1974 while taking a Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering.

There is an iron clad, immutable, 100% true all of the time theorem in communications theory which applies to images, data sets, recordings: "No amount of processing can ever add information." You can alter an image and make it look better, you could even remove the spikes if you wanted to, but it does not add information.

Diffraction is not caused by "the resonance of the beryllium", it is caused by the shape of the mirrors. It is an unavoidable consequence of the passage of any wave function through any system. If the mirrors were round then the diffraction "spikes" would be concentric circles. This is what limits the performance of any optical system. There is no way around it except by making the mirrors larger or going to shorter wavelengths.
billslugg, this seems correct. I use my 10-inch Newtonian telescope, and well collimated, star images will show some spikes with a point of light. Defocused, the star image will be a circle if correctly aligned vs. a smeared-out star appearance or a football shape.

That is considered a well-tuned Newtonian telescope. I collimated the telescope using two different collimation tools and used for the Mars opposition in early December and enjoyed some excellent views of Mars at 214x. I believe JWST uses a primary mirror system and secondary mirror, similar to my Newtonian telescope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: billslugg
Dec 28, 2022
31
1
35
Visit site
I studied optical theory, image processing and communications theory at Pennsylvania State University 1970-1974 while taking a Bachelor's Degree in Electrical Engineering.

There is an iron clad, immutable, 100% true all of the time theorem in communications theory which applies to images, data sets, recordings: "No amount of processing can ever add information." You can alter an image and make it look better, you could even remove the spikes if you wanted to, but it does not add information.

Diffraction is not caused by "the resonance of the beryllium", it is caused by the shape of the mirrors. It is an unavoidable consequence of the passage of any wave function through any system. If the mirrors were round then the diffraction "spikes" would be concentric circles. This is what limits the performance of any optical system. There is no way around it except by making the mirrors larger or going to shorter wavelengths.
Congrats on the degrees--what did they do for you financially [again, out of curiosity here]? I have studied imaging for a long time; I am telling you, any camera can take an over-exposed picture, and camera operator can, too. If you get a flush of light that the processor knows not what do with, you can get all kinds of aberrations, burnouts, etc. While the "spikes" look cute, I don't think that is what U.S. or Euro Taxpayers give professional camera designers and operators on THAT scale the kind of money to do what they should be doing. The spikes appear because of the motion control <i>designers</i> at the layer of the mirror processing; there is a layer built-in for that purpose, resolution, and as you wrote, "going to shorter wavelengths" is one colloquial way of beating around the bush; you are insistent on the shape of the spikes; that's fine; that has already been published and written about. Who cares? The spikes are blocking the natural imagery. If you can agree, find a way to, that the spike, spectrometrically, are H2-caused, meaning JWST is overcompensating in areas of the frame where H2 is most present, then we should be able to share a "thumbs-up" like icon and perhaps attract an engineering-level scientist at JWST who can next configure JWST to compensate aerially for H2O (mitigating the over-compense of H2 areas). I think that is one of the primary directives of JWST anyway.
 
Congrats on the degrees--what did they do for you financially [again, out of curiosity here]? I have studied imaging for a long time; I am telling you, any camera can take an over-exposed picture, and camera operator can, too. If you get a flush of light that the processor knows not what do with, you can get all kinds of aberrations, burnouts, etc. While the "spikes" look cute, I don't think that is what U.S. or Euro Taxpayers give professional camera designers and operators on THAT scale the kind of money to do what they should be doing. The spikes appear because of the motion control <i>designers</i> at the layer of the mirror processing; there is a layer built-in for that purpose, resolution, and as you wrote, "going to shorter wavelengths" is one colloquial way of beating around the bush; you are insistent on the shape of the spikes; that's fine; that has already been published and written about. Who cares? The spikes are blocking the natural imagery. If you can agree, find a way to, that the spike, spectrometrically, are H2-caused, meaning JWST is overcompensating in areas of the frame where H2 is most present, then we should be able to share a "thumbs-up" like icon and perhaps attract an engineering-level scientist at JWST who can next configure JWST to compensate aerially for H2O (mitigating the over-compense of H2 areas). I think that is one of the primary directives of JWST anyway.
MikeCollinsJr, if what you say here is correct, that indicates some $10 billion or more for JWST was not well spent :) However, how does H2 explain the diffraction spikes I see around stars, especially bright stars when using my Orion XT10i - well collimated?
 
My degree allowed me to spend a career in industry and to retire.

If the US and Euro taxpayers gave money to make diffraction free telescopes then they threw their money away.

Diffraction spikes on JWST have nothing to do with image motion control or H2.

There are only two ways of improving the limiting angular resolution of an optical system, larger optics or shorter wavelengths.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Dec 28, 2022
31
1
35
Visit site
MikeCollinsJr, if what you say here is correct, that indicates some $10 billion or more for JWST was not well spent :) However, how does H2 explain the diffraction spikes I see around stars, especially bright stars when using my Orion XT10i - well collimated?
No, rod, it says we need better teachers, because you have totally missed the lesson here. I am not teaching "JWST is not well-spent money". I am being sequestered to a chat room.
 
Dec 28, 2022
31
1
35
Visit site
My degree allowed me to spend a career in industry and to retire.

If the US and Euro taxpayers gave money to make diffraction free telescopes then they threw their money away.

Diffraction spikes on JWST have nothing to do with image motion control or H2.

There are only two ways of improving the limiting angular resolution of an optical system, larger optics or shorter wavelengths.
I respectfully and totally disagree with you. The diffractions are H2 markers--very glitzy albeit, but it's a great, and unique, start to the next era in deep space spying.

As I mentioned to Rod, we need better teachers in this field; another exhibit: I am in a chat room sequestered with a RETIRED optics engineer!
 
Dec 28, 2022
31
1
35
Visit site
Lee Feinberg, Webb Optical Telescope Element Manager at NASA Goddard explains, "Aligning the primary mirror segments as though they are a single large mirror means each mirror is aligned to 1/10,000th the thickness of a human hair [emphasis added]. What's even more amazing is that the engineers and scientists working on the Webb telescope literally had to invent how to do this."

View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasawebbtelescope/13291045605/
 
Well folks, when I use my well collimated Orion XT10i and look at bright stars like Aldebaran or Sirius, I do see views that compare to what I saw published for JWST stars :) When I first read JWST reports and star images published, I could compare to my own telescope views (10-inch and 90-mm refractor, both use TeleVue eyepieces). I was impressed with JWST :) JWST will show far more of the universe than my two telescopes can, *but it sure looked like JWST was well tuned* for observations and astronomical studies. However, this is just my opinion, based upon frequent use of my telescopes standing on the ground here on Earth. With my Orion XT10i, I am confident there is no mechanical problem or likely H2 region(s) causing observation issues with the stars I look at and use to check collimation. So, is JWST worth the price? Yes :) I spent some thousands of dollars, JWST shows what looks like very sharp and clear views of a larger universe than what I see here at home :)
 
The main strength of JWST is the wavelengths that it is sensitive to. These are very long wavelengths as compared to optical ones. Deep in the infrared, the same wavelengths given off by a warm surface, thus the need for the sunshield and cooling systems. Longer wavelengths equals an earlier view into past history of the universe. Scientists accept the diffraction spikes as a necessary evil in order to get a mirror that big folded into a launch vehicle. They gladly live with them in exchange for mirror size and wavelength.
 
What causes spikes around stars in pictures, and how can I prevent them? | Astronomy.com

A simple answer to diffraction spikes observed around some bright stars when using Newtonian telescopes like I use. "A refracting telescope doesn’t have a secondary mirror, so it will not produce an image with spikes. Therefore, if you want to prevent them, a refractor is the way to go."

My 90-mm refractor telescope does not show diffraction spikes around a bright star.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeCollinsJr
Dec 28, 2022
31
1
35
Visit site
Well folks, when I use my well collimated Orion XT10i and look at bright stars like Aldebaran or Sirius, I do see views that compare to what I saw published for JWST stars :) When I first read JWST reports and star images published, I could compare to my own telescope views (10-inch and 90-mm refractor, both use TeleVue eyepieces). I was impressed with JWST :) JWST will show far more of the universe than my two telescopes can, *but it sure looked like JWST was well tuned* for observations and astronomical studies. However, this is just my opinion, based upon frequent use of my telescopes standing on the ground here on Earth. With my Orion XT10i, I am confident there is no mechanical problem or likely H2 region(s) causing observation issues with the stars I look at and use to check collimation. So, is JWST worth the price? Yes :) I spent some thousands of dollars, JWST shows what looks like very sharp and clear views of a larger universe than what I see here at home :)
Thanks, Rod! Are you and your Orion XT10i located anywhere near Maine? :) I was able to get a short video of Jupiter and four of her moons recently with a Celestron and an iPad--fun!
 
Dec 28, 2022
31
1
35
Visit site
The main strength of JWST is the wavelengths that it is sensitive to. These are very long wavelengths as compared to optical ones. Deep in the infrared, the same wavelengths given off by a warm surface, thus the need for the sunshield and cooling systems. Longer wavelengths equals an earlier view into past history of the universe. Scientists accept the diffraction spikes as a necessary evil in order to get a mirror that big folded into a launch vehicle. They gladly live with them in exchange for mirror size and wavelength.

I defer again, in your assertion, to my non-scientist status: not a "necessary evil", they are, my Jedi friend! Let's imagine the scenario, since we are referring to them here often, of the JWST engineers around the conference table: there, they elect to mechanically install arms around the mirrors so that brilliant, and randomly occurring, spikes of light will appear sometimes in the background and, at other times, right in the middle of the object of viewing at focal length. Since the risk (price, too) is relatively high with regard to our design project, we need to clearly inform of the high rewards, too.

One of the challenges cited by NASA with regard to JWST design is temperature wrangling. Let's look at the definition of H2: "Hydrogen, H2, is an elemental gas with an atomic mass of 1.00794. This diatomic molecule is the lightest and most abundant element in the universe. It is also colorless[!]".

This does not mean that, after they have reached a destination not previously reached, which is an accomplishment in itself, the challenges' results have to directly correlate with the challenges conceived. As we already know, JWST's placement is also in a novel pocket removed from the largely liquid region of its origin, the planet Earth, and, H2 is a novel molecule removed from a largely liquid region in molecular science we know of as H2O. So, rather than a necessary evil, these spikes are a reward, because it teaches us with precision a novel form of measure distinctive entirely from the design of JWST. I could not have designed such an instrument in a million years--it's not my profession--but its engineers have helped me understand a relationship that you can understand as well by going to ptable.com. There, if you enter the temperature ranges of the NIRcam on JSWT as provided on the JWST Tracker URL, you will see all of the elements on the table "dark", save for #1 and #2, and for Neon. This is because the confusion of light causing the spikes on the images is occurring in Maxwellian harmonics between Beryllium and H2, while Neon phases intermittently during these subtle temperature changes between -393 and low -400s, Farenheit.

A Neon filter, in procession with the setting of its 18 mirrors for each image capture, would allow H2O to appear more naturally, just as the most abundant molecular point, H2, does in and throughout our universe. This is what I want to see with the JWST and future astro-photographers, and I don't think I am the only one. That's why I love the blazing Triton pic with Neptune! Imagine that spikey star enveloping it transformed to pure Ansel Adams photography; we may taste with our eyes richer perceptions of "necessary evils". :)

Since Uranus is about half the distance, why not give it a whirl with that fancy planetary beast?

For the motion control actuator adjusters: stabilizing the movement of the mirrors with a fundamental Neon-resonant quantity of reduction isolates the H2-Be transaction to a 180-degree straight angle opportunity for O-balancing with the H2-saturation. While I am not "at arms length in good faith" with the JWST team for reasons not my own, I anticipate this as only possible, and nothing more than that. At the very least, all of JWST images ahead, at standard operating procedure, will have these wonderful Olivia Newton John glares for the scrapbooks of generations, and we have a very good stepping stone lesson for integrating basic and fundamental magnetism with our science lessons, perhaps to a degree of a planet Earth where we all live that has the same atmospheric and ground resonance of the world Sir Isaac Newton and his co-existent Earthlings lived in during his days of astronomy.
 

TRENDING THREADS