Imagine yourself back in science class. No, not in a lecture on advanced physics theory in college. Think back a little further to your high school teachers explaining to you that dark holes were actually just very compressed bits of matter with so much gravitational energy that not even light can escape from them. The part about gravity is right. The part about what a dark hole actually is when we look beyond the even horizon is dead wrong. Even though dark holes can have the mass well over a billion times that of our sun, they’re actually completely devoid of matter. They’re literally extremely small, insanely massive spheres of raw gravitational energy.

How exactly does that work? Why would nothing have so much heft? Well, let’s think about what happens to a dying star big enough to collapse into a dark hole. As it runs out of fuel, the elements in its core get heavier and heavier until it contains almost 1.5 solar masses worth of iron. For the star, creating iron doesn’t give off any net gain in energy and it can no longer keep from collapsing in on itself and a supernova explosion is now imminent. Normally, as the stars outer layers fall back towards its core, they hit an inert mass supported only by the Pauli-exclusion principle which states that no two particles with the same spin and charge can be in the same place at the same exact time. In physics theory, this is known as degeneracy pressure. The star’s layers will be pushed out and we see’ll a spectacular burst. But the star we have in mind is not normal.

The interesting thing about physics theory is that with enough energy, any resistance can be overcome, even that of degenerate matter. Our hypothetical star implodes with such ferocity, all matter is ripped apart even at a sub- atomic level. Only the pure gravitational energy of the core is left behind and as excess material is thrown out to create a hypernova blast, the energetic ghost wraps itself in an event horizon and starts feeding on anything caught in its grasp, spewing out a duo of superheated jets during the chaotic process. Inside the dark hole is a maelstrom of energy held only by immense gravity. Outside, it has the same gravitational force as the parts of the star that formed it. Its mass is a function of Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence, summed up in what is probably the most famous equation in science.

What exactly goes on inside this hyper-energetic sphere and what bizarre things happen as streams of heat, light, radiation and warped space and time intersect are still the stuff of very creative mathematics. But what we do know is enough to leave us scratching our heads and wonder how even the most creative sci-fi novels and movies can’t hold a candle to the kind of stuff we find floating around the universe, and that’s probably the most interesting thing about natural randomness. What we can conceive is limited only by our imaginations, but nature has no such restriction since it doesn’t need to actually conceive anything. Over eons of countless collisions, explosions and collapses, anything can happen and as we can see, it usually does.

Earth’s magnetic field, long thought to be generated by molten metals swirling around its core, may instead be produced by ocean currents, according to controversial new research published this week.

It suggests that the movements of such volumes of salt water around the world have been seriously underestimated by scientists as a source of magnetism.

If proven, the research would revolutionise geophysics theory, the study of the Earth’s physical properties and behaviour, in which the idea that magnetism originates in a molten core is a central tenet.

Earth’s magnetic field is vital for life, extending tens of thousands of miles into space and protecting the planet against radiation that would otherwise burn away the atmosphere and oceans.

However, its origin was a mystery until early last century when Albert Einstein said understanding the phenomenon was one of science’s most important tasks. This provoked a debate which concluded with scientists agreeing that magnetism must originate in the Earth’s core.

“Everyone accepted this, but in reality there has never been any proof,” said Gregory Ryskin, associate professor of chemical and biological engineering at Northwestern University in Illinois. “It is just an idea we have accepted for a long time without questioning it enough.”

His research suggests that Earth’s magnetism is actually linked to ocean movements. The salt in seawater allows it to conduct electricity, meaning it generates electrical and magnetic fields as it moves.

The findings, published by Britain’s Institute of physics theory’s New Journal of physics theory, will cause a fierce scientific debate.

via Oceans charge up new theory of magnetism – Times Online.

400 years of discussion and we’re still not sure what creates the Earth’s magnetic field, and thus the magnetosphere, despite the importance of the latter as the only buffer between us and deadly solar wind of charged particles (made up of electrons and protons). New research raises question marks about the forces behind the magnetic field and the structure of Earth itself.

//

The controversial new paper published in New Journal of physics theory (co-owned by the Institute of physics theory and the German Physical Society), ‘Secular variation of the Earth’s magnetic field: induced by the ocean flow?’, will deflect geophysicists’ attention from postulated motion of conducting fluids in the Earth’s core, the twentieth century’s answer to the mysteries of geomagnetism and magnetosphere.

Professor Gregory Ryskin from the McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science at Northwestern University in Illinois, US, has defied the long-standing convention by applying equations from magnetohydrodynamics to our oceans’ salt water (which conducts electricity) and found that the long-term changes (the secular variation) in the Earth’s main magnetic field are possibly induced by our oceans’ circulation.

- via PhysOrg

RF linear accelerators
QC 787 L5 W36 2008

Ultracold quantum fields
QC 174.45 S76 2009

Superconductivity
QC 611.92 P66 2007

Theoretical optics: an introduction
QC 355.3 R65 2009

physics theory of solar cells: from basic principles to advanced concepts
TK 2960 W87 2009

Zero time space: how quantum tunneling broke the light speed barrier
QC 176.8 T8 N568 2008

The Kerr spacetime: rotating dark holes in general relativity
QB 843 B55 K47 2009

Quasicrystals
QC 173.4 Q36 Q295 2008

I have noted many visitors to this blog look at my entry on Jamiolkowski isomorphism.  It turns out that my analysis of this topic is limited.

Recently, I met Pablo Arrighi of Joseph Fourier University in Grenoble during my visit there.  I came to find out that Pablo (and Christophe Patricot) have written a very nice paper [arXiv] on this topic.  This paper contains all the details of Jamiolkowski isomorphism that you may want.  I think you may be better off reading this paper rather than my blog entry.

THERMODYNAMICS
The law of physics theory states that; “for every action, there is a counter reaction.” So this tells us that the action that caused the reaction of unseen reality had to be greater than the existing reality. Have you ever wondered when something is moving where does the power come from? If an automobile happens to come to mind you may say that the power is coming from the engine. Well, if so, were does the power from the engine come from?
physics theory that deal with the relation to mechanical action and heat is called Thermodynamics. The word “Thermo” means heat, and the word “Dynamics” relates to physical force or energy that’s seen or unseen. So basically with this word you get the idea of heat and power which mixed together is “Thermodynamics.”
The process or function of thermodynamics has two laws; The 1st law states that energy in a system, which may be anything from a simple object to a complex machine, cannot be created or destroyed. Instead energy is connected from one system to another. For example, a heat engine such as a gas turbine or a nuclear reactor changes energy from fuel into heat energy. It then converts the heat energy into mechanical energy that can be used to do work.
The 2nd law deals with the natural direction of energy processes. For example according to this law. Heat will, of its own accord, flow only from a hotter object to a colder object. The second law accounts for the fact that a heat engine can never be completely efficient; that is, it cannot convert all the heat energy from its fuel into mechanical energy. Instead the engine transfers some of its heat energy to colder objects in the surroundings. So this theory means that the source of all power and energy on earth had to originate somewhere else. It had to originate from a greater power source.
With understanding the theory of Thermodynamics coupled with the law of physics theory and its third phase—this world couldn’t have evolved out of nothing. Simple mathematics—nothing from nothing leaves nothing. Sense this is so, it would be logical to think that the world would go on to perfection if it evolved out of nothing. But it doesn’t. By the proof of decay and deterioration it is evident that it had to have a starting point. And if it had a starting point it had to be created. This instrumentality means that the physical material world had to originate out of an invisible reality. Invisible reality doesn’t mean that nothing is there. Reality means that you just can’t see it with the human eye—but it’s very real. This sounds silly to some people, but we will cover more details of this proof as the book continues.
Look at the tree for example. When observing a tree, we only can see with the human eye the trunk, branches, and leaves. But under the ground is the whole root system. The root system can’t be seen because it is hidden. This is where the tree gets all its nutrition and nourishment. Also if the tree didn’t have a root system, it would fall over on the ground. It would not have a support system—physical or nutritional—for stability.
So this is the whole truth about this world we live in. The things that are seen were not made from things, which do appear.4
Popular science has made discoveries that are amazing. There is a phenomenon that’s called a dark Hole. The dark Hole theory is the study of gravitation. The gravitational field of a dark hole, which is an extremely dense body, is so strong that, if the body is large enough, nothing, including, electromagnetic radiation can escape from its vicinity. The body is surrounded by a spherical boundary, called a horizon, through which light can enter but not escape; it therefore appears totally dark. To the man of common sense, this simply states that scientific theory has proved that if two solid objects collide at a certain speed, the sudden impact would cause a weakness in the atmosphere at the point of collision. The law of gravity would pull the weakness in the atmosphere toward the ground making the collision point look like the shape of a funnel for a few seconds. It takes special equipment to see this tear in the fabric of the atmosphere with the human eye, but if a light is shined into this hole it will not come out the other side. So what does all of this mean? Simply put, there is an invisible world behind the scene of this physical world. That world is the source of this material world in which we live.

Originally uploaded by mark.altskan

Are you studying?????

http://physics theory.hippocampus.org/

HippoCampus is another nice tutorial website that you can use for exam review. If you select the main unit at the top row and then select the sub-topic from the row beneath it, you can watch an animated tutorial for the topic you want. Remember, if you can identify your weaknesses, you can concentrate your studies on those topics and be most effective!

The Standard Model responsible for creating other Universes?

Louis Crane, K-State professor of mathematics, is studying new theories about why the universe is the way it is. He has a grant from the Foundational Questions Institute to study new approaches to the quantum theory of gravity, his primary research area as both a mathematician and a physicist. Crane hopes to uncover implications of these theories for the origin and the future of life.

He said that the standard model, which is the accepted theory of physics theory, has a large number of fundamental constants. Examples are the strengths of fundamental forces and the masses of fundamental particles.

What complicates things, Crane said, is that the theory does not explain the values of these constants. Rather, they are known by measurement and put into equations by hand.

“If they had just slightly different values, we would live in a different universe,” Crane said. “If they were a little different, we wouldn’t be here.”

…

“Life couldn’t exist if stars didn’t shine for billions of years,” Crane said. “Only a fine-tuning in the constants causes them to do so. Another fine-tuning in the constants causes carbon, the foundation of life, to be abundant.”

Crane suggests that if he is correct that artificial dark holes are possible, then successful industrial civilizations — maybe ours — will eventually produce them. That’s because at a certain size they would be a perfect energy source for interstellar travel.

“I started doing calculations and found that the right-sized dark hole to fuel a starship is just on the edge of what’s possible,” he said. “If you can build one, it has implications for the future of life because we would eventually spread life throughout the galaxy if we could build starships.”

dark holes are believed to produce a new universe on the other end of the singularity, but one that lies in our future and is always out of reach. Yet such universes, Crane said, also would be fine-tuned to produce life, civilizations and, eventually, more dark holes.

“If this is possible, then we will fill the universe with life,” he said. “I’m suggesting that life forms are part of a grand evolutionary cycle, which includes universes and dark holes.”

This is rife with Anthropic Principle (that in of itself is a misnomer) doctrine.

Now I’m not a physicist, but I’ve read enough over the past two years to conclude that yes, present observable evidence seems to indicate that the Universe might follow a biological nature, i.e., it is suitable for life because humans are here to observe it. I get that.

But so far there is only a sample size of one, us, to verify that hypothesis. There is simply not enough evidence to conclude that human beings, ergo, intelligent life (some would argue that) did not appear by pure chance and accident.

And the Standard Model is questioned not only by Electric Universe folks, but by others as well because of such concepts as dark energy/matter.

Stay tuned folks.

K-STATE MATH PROFESSOR LOOKING TO MATHEMATICAL THEORIES FOR CLUES ON ORIGINS AND FUTURE OF LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE; SUGGESTS ARTIFICIAL dark HOLES PLAY A BIG PART

Hat tip

…………………………………..

Sunday’s (6/14/09) Paracast features Dr. David M. Jacobs and Budd Hopkins in a “square table’ discussion of alien abductions, MIBs, possible alien/human hybrid programs, just what these ‘beings’ might be and other possible reasons for perceived abduction scenarios.

Interesting topic and conversation.

Jacobs and Hopkins Interview

Un libro celebraría el 70 cumpleaños de Einstein en 1949. Gödel decidió escribir un artículo en el que resolvería un problema planteado por Gamow en la revista Nature en 1946. Le costó casi 3 años de trabajo, pero valió la pena. Un modelo cosmológico para un universo en rotación consistente con la relatividad general en el que una persona puede viajar a su propio pasado. Un problema que sólo un genio podía resolver, el regalo ideal para su amigo Einstein, con quien gustaba pasear en Princeton. El artículo fue enviado por Gödel al editor del libro, Schilpp, justo en el último momento (tras varias cartas de disculpa por el retraso). La historia del modelo cosmológico de Gödel nos la cuenta magistralmente Wolfgang Rindler, quien ya la contó en una conferencia en 2006 celebrando el centenario del nacimiento del propio Gödel, en el artículo que recomiendo “Gödel, Einstein, Mach, Gamow, and Lanczos: Gödel’s remarkable excursion into cosmology,” American Journal of physics theory 77: 498–510, June 2009.

El universo sin materia se denomina substratum. Los modelos cosmológicos estándares cumplen el Principio Cosmológico, por el cual el substratum se asume perfectamente homogéneo e isótropo en todo momento. Un universo de este tipo es inestable y se expande. El modelo cosmológico de Gödel es homogéneo pero no es isótropo y logra evitar la expansión, es estacionario pero rota de forma rígida a un velocidad menor que la velocidad de la luz en el vacío. Un universo rotante que viola el principio de Mach, la materia que contiene puede rotar o no hacerlo, pero compatible con la relatividad general. Lo más sorprendente de este universo es que permite curvas espaciotemporales cerradas. Un observador que se mueva suficientemente rápido, más que la velocidad de rotación del universo (que es menor que la velocidad de la luz) puede retornar al pasado (en el tiempo de su reloj propio). Uno mismo puede volver a su propio pasado y suicidarse. Paradójico. Esta violación de la causalidad nos indica que este universo no es realizable físicamente. La gran crítica de Einstein al modelo de su amigo Gödel. Sin embargo, Gödel se defendió alegando que las curvas espaciotemporales tienen un radio mínimo y los cálculos indican que es enorme. Se requeriría un tiempo desmesurado para poder regresar al pasado. En la práctica nadie puede vivir lo suficiente para lograrlo.

Los físicos que no conozcan el modelo cosmológico de Gödel agradecerán (y entenderán) su métrica dada por

Como vemos, la velocidad (lineal) de rotación () es menor que la velocidad de la luz (), donde es el radio del universo. Este universo está caracterizado por una constante cosmológica negativa () y una curvatura () también negativa. Es un universo que rota en el mismo sentido que crece la variable . ¿Qué distribución de materia conduce a este universo? Un gas de “polvo” modelado por un fluido perfecto pero sin presión.

La contribución de Gödel a la Festschrift de Einstein (publicación que celebra el cumpleaños de algo o alguien) es un universo sin sentido pero compatible con la teoría de Einstein, que nos recuerda que una solución matemática de unas ecuaciones físicamente correctas no es necesariamente realizable físicamente. Un universo con un reloj absoluto, con un centro y un eje de rotación, un universo al fin y al cabo que no es más que un regalo de cumpleaños para hacer pensar a Einstein sobre su propia teoría. El regalo que solo un genio de la talla de Gödel podía ofrecer a Einstein. 

Sobre la vida de Kurt Gödel se ha dicho mucho (quizás La mente más maravillosa del siglo XX). Sobre sus dos teoremas de incompletitud se ha escrito, casi, demasiado (Carlos nos los explica muy bien aquí Gödel en una cáscara de nuez: Primer Teorema de Incompletitud y Gödel en una cáscara de nuez: Segundo Teorema de Incompletitud, y Teorema de Completitud). ¿Te resulta muy técnico el trabajo de Carlos? Un resumen breve. El teorema de incompletitud de Gödel, básicamente, es equivalente a la paradoja del mentiroso: “Esta frase es falsa.” Si es verdadera, es falsa. Si es falsa, es verdadera. La frase es simultáneamente verdadera y falsa. Gödel toma una teoría T consistente (todo lo que se puede demostrar a partir de ella es verdad) y completa (todo lo verdadero se puede demostrar a partir de ella) y un teorema en dicha teoría, G, autorreferencial que afirma que “G no se puede demostrar usando la teoría T.” Si G se pudiera demostrar con los axiomas y las reglas de inferencia de T, entonces G es un teorema demostrable en T, pero entonces se contradice a sí mismo y es falso, por lo que T no puede ser una teoría consistente. Si T es consistente, entonces G es verdad y no se puede demostrar en T, es decir, T no es completa. En este sentido G es verdad pero indemostrable. La teoría T debe ser incompleta, hay afirmaciones verdaderas que no son demostrables. En general, en toda teoría habrá afirmaciones verdaderas (nadie sabe si todas serán autorreferenciales) que no son demostrables. Más aún, habrá infinitas verdades no demostrables, ya que añadir cualquier verdad no demostrable a la teoría conducirá a una nueva teoría con nuevas verdades indemostrables. El poder de lo aurreferente.

As parts of the image below are used in the blog header i thought i could inform you about the origin of it…

This image shows a refractive sphere-flake, which was rendered with my homebrew raytracer “SimRay”, which i implemented in C++ a few years ago.

Features of SimRay:

• Path Tracing (with Importance Sampling)
• Photon Mapping (separate caustic & global photon map, Final Gathering)
• Scene scripting language (Objects, Lights, Cameras, Materials, Animation)
• 3DS meshes, WoW models, custom (smooth) polygonal meshes & quadrics
• Still-Image and video rendering

A few more shots:

I’m currently in summer school right now.  I’m currently taking an astronomy class in order to knock off a required class.  Now that I’ve been in the class for about three to four weeks, I’ve been kinda regretting signing up for the class.  It’s just that there are times where I don’t get the material.  But on the other hand, I find it kinda interesting.  Anyway, I kinda wish that I had signed up for physics theory instead.  I do have a slight background in it.  That’s only because I used to take karate and swimming lessons.  I could have applied what I learned in karate and swimming in the class.