vickster339 Posted August 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2014 Bah decided to make a website... http://www.simulationism.net/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vickster339 Posted August 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2014 The Objectivist forum is actually very cool btw... As an autodidact, I get censored on Cosmoquest, Cloudynights, and a number of other not so "free thinking" web sites... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vickster339 Posted August 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 I am not sure if this can be pulled off with our current equipment... but I need spectral analysis of star light passing through the radio source in SN1006 at RA 15 02 36 DEC -41 53 01, the Zeeman Effect is what I am after... Also, a uniform weak Zeeman effect should be present in all star light emanating from elliptical galaxies, globular clusters, and the recently discovered globular galaxies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted August 26, 2014 Report Share Posted August 26, 2014 I wrote my original paper last May and this was released to the public in late July: http://news.sciencemag.org/space/2013/07/swirls-afterglow-big-bang-could-set-stage-major-discovery That finding was later attacked. http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-blunder-bursts-the-multiverse-bubble-1.15346 This Paul Steinhardt guy, who is able to get articles published in Nature, does not like the Big Bang theory at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) From Next Big Future: By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton has mathematically proven black holes can never come into being in the first place. Black holes are thought to be the densist matter in the universe. Mersini-Houghton's theory combine Hawking's radiation theory with a fundamental law of quantum theory that states no information from the universe can ever disappear. Mersini-Houghton agrees with Hawking in that a star's collapse gives off radiation; but by giving off radiation, she said the star also sheds mass to the point that it no longer has the density to become a black hole. direct link to source paper: Arxiv - Back-reaction of the Hawking radiation flux on a gravitationally collapsing star II: Fireworks instead of firewalls first 2 paragraphs of the papers introduction: The backreaction of Hawking radiation on the evolu- tion of the collapsing star is the most important problem in the quantum physics of black holes. This problem provides an arena for the interplay of quantum and grav- itational eects on black holes and their respective im- plications for the singularity theorem. A key feature of Hawking radiation, which was well established in seminal works by [3, 4, 9, 11, 17{20], is that the radiation is pro- duced during the collapse stage of the star prior to black hole formation. The very last photon making it to future innity and thus contributing to Hawking radiation, is produced just before an horizon forms. However its eect on the collapse evolution of the star was considered for the rst time only recently [1]. As was shown in [1] once the backreaction of Hawking radiation is included in the interior dynamics of the star, then the collapse stops and the star bounces. Solving analytically for the combined system of a collapsing star with the Hawking radiation included, is quite a challenge. The system studied in [1] was idealized in order to obtain an approximate analyti- cal solution: there the star was taken to be homogeneous; the star's fluid considered was dust; the star was placed in a thermal bath of Hawking radiation which arises from the time-symmetric Hartle-Hawking initial conditions on the quantum eld in the far past. Within these approx- imations, the main finding of [1] was that a singularity and an horizon do not form after the star's collapse be- cause the star reverses its collapse and bounces at a nite radius due to the balancing pressure of the negative en- ergy Hawking radiation in its interior. Yet, the evolution of the star could not be followed beyond the bounce with the approximate analytic methods of [1]. Given the fundamental importance of this problem and the intriguing results of [1], we here aim to study the backreaction of Hawking radiation on the collapsing star by considering a more realistic setting, namely: we allow the star to be inhomogeneous and consider an Hawking radiation flux of negative energy which propagates in the interior of the star, with its counterpart of positive energy flux travelling outwards to innity. Hawking radiation flux arises when the initial conditions imposed on the quantum field on the background of the star, are chosen to be in the Unruh vacuum state in the far past [9, 18]. In contrast to the Hartle-Hawking initial state which leads to an idealized time symmetric thermal bath of radia- tion present before and after the collapse, the choice of the Unruh vacuum describes a flux of thermal radiation which is zero before the collapse and switches on after the collapse. We solve numerically the full 4 dimensional set of Einstein and of total energy conservation equations leading to a complete set of hydrodynamic equations for this model. Numerical solutions allows us to follow the evolution of the collapsing star beyond its bounce. Edited October 1, 2014 by Grames Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.