Quasars, Pulsars, Novae, and Blinking Molecules…

What I am about to explain to you may be a bit confusing unless we begin with what the heck a ‘quasar’ is.

A quasar is defined as an extragalactic, super massive star-like object in that it is luminescent, but that it is the most luminescent object in the universe.

A pulsar, however (and yes, they have been found which is awesome!) is a quasar that acts sort of like a lighthouse: it blinks in a rotating fashion. However, scientists have not yet figured out exactly how this works.

But what they have found out is that some molecules actually do blink.

According to an article from August 12th, last week Neils Bohr’s prediction of molecules blinking was correct after all.

Neils Bohr had predicted this long ago, as a chemical physicist. Now physicists have found that molecules can blink due to a transition of electrons between discreet levels of energy within individual atoms at a time.

These have been coined ‘Quantum jumps’ by Neils Bohr and they have finally found how exactly this works. There are discreet interruptions when the electrons are being transferred, and so the molecules actually light up with energy when all the electrons are in it, then when the interruption is gone they all then go to the other molecule. The interruptions are caused by the emissions (of carbon and such) from the atom, blocking out the electrons.

What’s cool is that these are molecules that are blinking here. What it means is, different ways of imaging for cancer. Real time images of viruses such as HIV and soforth.

But not only for medical professionals: if blinking molecules could be controlled (which may be coming sooner than we know it), these could be used as an electricity-free way to use house-hold lights, brighter display screens on computers and gaming systems, TVs, and could change the way we see electronics as we know them.

As far as novae go, I wanted to explain why you can’t see quasars, pulsars, or supernovae (or novae) with the naked eye.

The problem is this: the closest stars to us besides the Sun take a loooooooong time to send their light to us.

If we were very close to the supernova or pulsar or quasar or whatever it is, we could see it in real time, or close to it.

But in the same way, you cannot see supernovae or quasars with the naked eye because they are so far away, that by the time the light gets here it would barely be noticeable. Any star that is massive enough to have a supernova (or a nova, which is a supernova that causes a white dwarf not a black hole), or any pulsar or quasar, is not even close to being seen with the naked eye. You even need a telescope to see all of the separate areas and craters on the moon, let alone a supernova that’s happening a thousand thousand thousand thousand thousand million light years away.

Next post: The ending of “The Time Machine” (contains spoilers!) and how probable the ideas really are about what the future will be like…

"Anyway, I was thinking more of a bio-social exploration with a neuro-chemical overlay"...

"Wait, are you asking me out?"

Yes, this was another quote from The Big Bang Theory. One of the best.
Although I won't get into just how the heck you get dating out of that remark, because it's more neuro-science related.
Anyways, I thought I'd comment on what I learned while reading "The Day Without a Yesterday" and tell you that I brought "A History of Zero" back to the library today for obvious reasons.

Anyway, in "The Day Without a Yesterday", it talks about how LeMaitre should have gotten more credit for some things that Einstein took most of the credit for. This was because, back when Einstein was around, there began the fight between quantum mechanics and Einstein's relativity. Quantum mechanics, at first, could not agree with Einstein's Relativity, until a Russian mathematician (I forget his name) mathematically figured out how they would go together. Then, Einstein found Special Relativity, a term he coined for the Russian mathematician's formula. So pretty much they worked together for a while on it.

Anyways, when they still didn't agree before the Russian mathematician stepped in, there were a number of debates of Einstein's relativity versus the newly-founded Quantum Theory. Einstein was troubled because it turned out his relativity wasn't so great after all. He was bummed, and he was trying to distract himself by being more outgoing with his friends, but the trouble of his relativity (only General at this point) removed all possibilities of truth without expanding it and changing it somehow. The Russian mathematician pointed out that in his General relativity formula, he needed the upside-down triangle-looking symbol (ummm I have no idea what it's called... That's delta, I think?) which made space-time curve matter, and matter curve space-time, but working with quantum theory just a little bit more.
Then came along Einstein's find of special relativity, which clashed once again with quantum theory just a bit longer.

The reason why I like this book is because it not just shows the achievements of Einstein, but it shows who helped him and who should get credit for what things, too. Einstein didn't do all the work, you know.

Also, more about "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene, I find it astounding how similar string theory and my theory are. Except for the garbage can theorem (I still can't type that with a straight face), the fact that I'm saying space-time can rip is intriguingly similar to that of string theory.
I'm curious as to how string theorists say that space-time can also repair itself, so hopefully I'll get to that part soon.
As for "A Brief History of Time", I stopped because I wanted a more one-focus book right now, not a general one (which is weird because usually I prefer those)... I guess it's because I know most of the stuff in that book so I need something more focused on stuff I don't know instead.
Ah well, I am definitely keeping up more with this.

P.S. After a long period of time, I'm planning on putting all the posts into a book-form, so stay tuned!

Finally, an Answer! Why the 'Not Allowed' Assumption...

So, I was emailing with my teacher, Mr. Levesque, and I asked him to read my blog.
After reading it, he emailed me a very good answer about why most or all scientists agree nothing can go faster than the speed of light.
The answer is *drum roll please*

Einstein!
Well, Einstein's equations.
Einstein's equations have indeed been experimentally proven, which means that if you could go faster than the speed of light, your mass would be infinite (a fraction with zero in the denominator = not real or infinite).
This means that if in the case they did find Tachyon particles (or something like them only photons or something) that go faster than the speed of light, Einstein's equations would have to be altered in such a way that they still expressed relativity in the same way it did before, only without this issue of the non-existent fraction.

What I want to ask is, if in the case black holes could be used as a tunnel for Tachyon particles (or photons or something) that go faster than the speed of light, (which I still believe rips space-time creating the black holes, but it has to be small but dense enough to do so), then couldn't these particles or photons or whatever end up even in another dimension?
Couldn't that explain why the mass wouldn't be comprehensible?
It's almost like the issue with perceiving the fourth dimension: Although we can somewhat perceive it and look at it, we cannot figure out what exactly it means because it is not in this dimension. Such as how we perceive four- dimensional objects made up of three dimensional objects put into one, instead of just a four- dimensional object, like other four-dimensional objects do.

Now, an interesting question came up while I was speaking to Sam about the dimensions. He pointed out that according to the pattern, the zero dimension would be able to perceive everything in the negative-one dimension.
Now, what the heck is the negative-one dimension?
Well, since everything is a square of what it was before, let us look at the pattern:
A hypercube is a cube, cubed.
A cube is a square, cubed.
A square is a line, squared.
A line is a point, extended ("lined" if you want to make it follow the pattern)
A point is what?

Maybe the zero dimension is the lowest it can go?
If the negative one dimension does exist, I'm assuming it is inverted from that of the first dimension.
But what is the inversion of a line?
Perhaps this line is the opposite of what it would be in the first dimension? (A line pointing the exact other direction relative to whatever is observing it)
And perhaps if we were to perceive not only the negative one dimension, but all others, instead of the ones we have now, perhaps if we thought we were moving one direction we would be moving in the exact opposite direction, making it difficult to move and do things.
Which maybe is why all of us are in this dimension instead of the negative third dimension (natural selection, I suppose?)
And I'm kind of weirding myself out speaking about natural selection on a universal scale. Has this been mentioned or thought of before?
I have no idea.
I guess that's another thing I'll have to answer!

The Actual Text from the Library that I Freaked Out Over...

 

The is the exact paragraph of the book that made me so excited when I read it at the library!
Because of something else, like another universe was filling up our universe by sending stuff into it through a white hole, the white hole would be like the hole of the balloon, and the person would be the other universe, sending stuff through the black hole... Only it may not be intentional. Maybe this black hole is so supermassive that it just eats everything!
This is what got me so excited: The fact that another universe sending in matter through a black hole into a white hole on our end would make SO much sense when you think about the Garbage Can Theorem.
(By the way, I'm going to have to come up with a more scientific name for that sooner or later...)
Or I could call it the Garbage Can Theorem and have hundreds of scientists laugh at me and say it's the dumbest thing they've ever heard...
In any case, have fun reading that paragraph, that's all I'll put online from the actual text, though I have some more diagrams to upload later once I read through some more of the book.
Thanks for reading!
And thanks for the add, Kyle!

Well, I Have Some Explaining To Do....

So, the thing with my computer, is that it wasn't a virus, it's that the stupid internet connection wouldn't make up its mind, whether "The Connection was Reset While the Page Was Loading" or it "Couldn't Find the Page"...
and so, after clicking "retry" numerous times, it finally loaded this page, thank God!
so I was at the library with my friend Sam on Thursday, and I figured I would get some reading done in "A Brief History of Time". One of the most wonderful things was in there...
Hawking was giving the analogy that the universe was like a balloon being blown up, but you couldn't tell where the air was coming from. Then I realized, if my Garbage Can... er, Excess Energy Theorem was correct, this would make absolute sense! Because the white hole dumping stuff into our universe was making ours expand, exactly like a balloon.
Therefore, our universe would not be filled with dark energy, as dark energy is defined: It would be filling up with energy (and possible matter) from another universe altogether.
This would explain why you cannot see dark energy: That it's stretching the universe apart instead of pulling it together (like gravity in certain cases) so it's interesting, because we do know in fact that the universe is expanding like a balloon, because the the colors on the spectrometer is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum, called a "red-shift", which means that all other galaxies are moving away from us, with their speed equal to their distance from us (so its speed would be x^2 as a variable, if x were distance), while none were a blue-shift (moving towards us) except for bodies in our own galaxy.
Which leads Hawking and others to the question: Are we at the center of the universe, assuming that it is finite? (which we technically have to, to say it's expanding)
-and the reason for this question is that all the other galaxies are moving away from us. period.
Does this mean that the universe is expanding but we're at the center? -Would be a more precise question.
Yes, the universe is definitely expanding, and we could be a the center based on this data.
I'll have to look into more recent studies about this to see if we are at the center or not...
As for diagrams, my internet is so bad that it won't even let me post pictures right now :(
But don't worry, I'm updating my operating system soon, and all should be well!

Questions on Black Holes and Light...

So, I read a bit more about the alternate dimensions last night, and it's funny, because Stephen Hawking says that it's impossible to visualize the fourth dimension, when Lisa Randall with other theoretical physicists have recently found out how.
Of course, "A Brief History of Time", again, was published in 1989 - 1990.
I am currently getting a TON of books, not only be Hawking, but by Feynmann and some of his lectures, too, to get some variety. Once I'm done with this book, I'm going to read into "The Day Without a Yesterday" (I can't remember the author right now) which was published in 2005. It has to do with Le-something(can't remember his name either)'s work, with all his papers stored in a university in Belgium.
Back to Hawking, what I found was possibly a way to disprove that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. When he was talking about special relativity, Hawking says that this was when Einstein came up with General Relativity, which works with Gravity... The only problem is, no one can really evaluate the formula without having all their own measurements, which is very faulty and not very sufficient.
This leads to a few questions...
Does gravity have a lot to do with what I'm doing?
Yes, it does.
Should I pay more attention to gravity?
Indubitably, yes.
And so, I'm going to study this further, because I feel that there has to be something greater out there than this formula that so many have failed to use, and it seems that there has to be something much more sufficient, accurate, and describes more than just gravity between planetary and solar bodies.
I feel that the formula needs to be tweaked somehow, and can be, but at the moment (for me, at least) there's too many unknowns. I'll have to narrow that down.
Before I can do that, I want to know what each of the symbols mean, because there's one that I'm not really sure what it is. I think it's absolute velocity, but I'm not sure. I'm going to check up on that later.
What I also think is, that there has to be a material out there that can withstand going at speeds faster than light, and that the "light cone" of an event (I just learned about this myself -- you know how everything you can see is because light reflects off of it? a light-cone is a drawing of a three-axis graph that I'll post tomorrow, that's shaped like a cone, and anything outside of the cone cannot exist, apparently.) Isn't a boundary of matter, but everything that we can see. I mean, if you think about it, air that we can't see is being touched by light obviously, but whether it's pitch black or blindingly white, you can't see the air in front of you.
That's why it brings me some questions:
Is everything really affected by light in some way?
I mean, black holes can carry light into their gravitational fields, so that means they must be even more powerful, right?
I am going to continue on this journey through A Brief History in Time, and I'll post some diagrams tomorrow, promise this time.

In an Infinite Universe, an Infinite Amount of Stars...

So, Hawking came to the conclusion that an infinite universe could not work because we'd have an infinite amount of stars, making the sky blindingly white, all the time, especially at night, because an infinite amount of stars = infinite amount of light. So, this idea was brought down by Einstein and, instead, we now think that the universe has a barrier of some sort, or something to contain it, but that our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate because of dark energy.
This really does make a whole lot of sense considering, even if you said that different stars' lights reached us at different times, the sky would still be bright-white all the time.
Tonight I'm going to read more of it so that I can FINALLY get to the good part about the Special Relativity Formula. I was just getting into it on sunday, when I reached my family reunion, and since then, I haven't had time.
I just got back from a Paw Sox game (unfortunately they lost) :( but it was funny because everyone thought it was a half moon, when it was a Waxing Gibbous tonight. The name origins from "Waxing" meaning "building up" or "growing, and "Gibbous" meaning "almost" as in "almost full" or "almost empty".
Unfortunately, the general population doesn't pay attention to details during seventh grade science class....
But anyways, I've learned a lot about Newton in this book so far (A Brief History of Time).. I've learned that he believed that all the universe and it's matter and materials were just an illusion. When another scientist was told of his opinion, he yelled "It, I refute!" and stubbed his toe on a rock he kicked.
I didn't know Newton's Laws had so many exceptions: This is generally not very well known, and Hawking explains them vividly. This includes his theory of how time worked: That everything was at an absolute rate, relative to absolute time, in an absolute universe. Einstein shot this down when he discovered that when you go near the speed of light, objects contract, and clocks slow down. This explained that time is not absolute: Thus getting rid of the Absolute Universe theory and creating Special Relativity Theory, that the faster matter moves through space, the more mass it gains. Actually, once it goes near the speed of light, the matter can have twice or even 2.5 times the amount of mass it had before. This is quite strange when you think about it.
But when I was thinking about it, wouldn't this explain other dimensions? Going near, at, or even past the speed of light to create a hypercube, then the hypercube comes out of a white hole into the past (which to us is the present, if it was at or past this speed), and the reason we can only view some planes of it is because it is flickering and traveling through our space?
It's an interesting theory... I'll have to give it more thought.
Once again, sleep continues to prevail me, so I will post more tomorrow about alternate dimensions, and possibly even the diagram!
Thanks for the follow, Marshall!
Also, everyone, feel free to 'like' this blog on Facebook!

Madeleine Michaud aime

The Modern Time Machine

Créer votre badge de fan

The Juiciest Part of "A Brief History of Time" So Far...

So, tonight, I wasn't going to post, because my throat is killing me, as well as my stomach... But besides feeling like crap, I did happen to read more of "A Brief History of Time", and it was amazing!
I'm at the part where Hawking begins to talk about Einstein and the French guy (Can't remember his name) making the Theory of Relativity, and I was just getting into the part that most applies here, about the Theory of Special Relativity, which is the formula I had used originally to show why I thought I could pull through with "This does not mean you can't go faster than the speed of light, this means it is inconceivable to us because we are moving into the future, but when you go faster than the speed of light, time flips over relative to you, and you begin going BACK in time!"
Now, I didn't really get to explain the whole theory, so I'll say some more about the diagrammed aspect of it. Yes, I have a diagram, but unfortunately I couldn't find the energy to draw up a good one for the website...
It consists of an hourglass-shaped drawing with a little square near the top left corner of the page, and an arrow showing the square (representing matter) spiraling into the black hole, going straight through an Einstein-Rosen bridge (wormhole) and spiraling out of a white hole near the bottom. On the side there are two markings, positive infinity (the black hole) and negative infinity (the white hole) representing the direction of time away from zero, where you'd be meeting the speed of light, as if represented by a number-line of some sort.
Now, my next goal is to come up with some sort of equation to represent time according to when it flips over, and such. I was thinking of playing with the d=rt formula, kind of, only mixed with E=MC^2, and possibly even more mixed with the Special Relativity formula (which is a bit confusing when put into typing), and making it something of my own.
The Garbage Can Theorem (haha) keeps coming to my mind, and I'm thinking of what Stephen Hawking said too, about how the Creator of our universe (if there was really one Creator, who knows?) didn't have time: That time is only a dimension of our universe, but that maybe time has always happened with the Creator, too, we just don't know. He said that the common sense-way of thinking about time not being connected to space somehow may have to be altered (I mean, it was in 1990 but still), this may solve some of our problems. For instance, time could be a thing of reality outside our universe, too. Or it could only be for this universe, in this dimension. I mean, time doesn't really exist for the second dimension, so why should it exist for the fourth, the fifth, the sixth?
It's interesting to think about what the fourth dimension looks like: according to Lisa Randall, we already know. You see, to the second dimension, you can see one side of something 3 dimensional at a time. So to us, we can see a three dimensional figure that's one side of a four-dimensional object at a time.
Let's look at the hypercube. It consists of two large cubes connected by six smaller cubes making a ring around the middle of the two. If this were to pass into our plane, we'd see one cube appear, and that one disappear, then another cube, then that one would disappear, and so on...
So you see, it's very hard to visualize (I mean, obviously it'd be pretty weird if some random cubes appeared in the night sky and disappeared one after the other...)
But it makes sense, if you think about how if you're only looking at one side of cone, and you make cuts through it (like the plane barrier does) then you can only see slices of the cone at a time. It's sort of like that. You can only see one part a time, because of the way the planes of the dimensions work, slicing the objects so you can only see one part at a time.
Anyways, for tonight, I'm done.. I was going to talk more but I still feel like crap. It was great posting though!
Also, thanks for the follow, nick!

A Brief History of Time. What a Wonderful Book...

Well, besides being caught up in that HUGE science session yesterday, I also happened to begin reading A Brief History of Time (by Stephen Hawking)...
To many of you this is probably a surprise that I haven't read it yet, as I am a huge fan of Hawking!
I was thinking about what he says a scientific theory is defined as.
He said it can't be proven, but it can be disproven.
Man, does that feel threatening.
But I also wanted to mention that I've had some second thoughts about this whole theory - thing. I mean, is it truly a theory?

And so, I've come to looking through each and every detail Hawking says defines a theory, and mine covers all of it, to my surprise. I was very happy with this definition!
If only there was someway to prove my theory, but of course, with technology now, and at the rate it is developing, it would probably be around at least 10,000 years before they can begin to prove the smallest of things within my theory.
Am I naming my theory?
Well, I suppose I could name it, but it's not really into the pop-culture yet... Nowadays, everything is about either Quantum Mechanics or String Theory or The Big Bang Theory... Or a Quantum Theory of Gravity, which would be all of them together, as the Ultimate Theory.
I'm naming mine 'MTM Theory', or 'Modern Theory', just for the sake of sticking with names, and the fact that it just sticks with me. 'Modern Time Machine Theory' just sounds way too long and doesn't quite ring when said out loud, too.

So, there's this guy, and for the sake of identity, I'll make up a name for him. I'll call him Brian, just for the heck of it.
So this Brian, he decided to date me for a month and a half, and tell me that I was "the only one for him" and that he "loved me more than any other" and all that BS, but I believed him. But then after we just had a date the night before, he calls me just to dump me, saying something stupid like "we don't have enough time for each other" and that "we have different needs" to which, I was just like "Hello, you don't have time for me, ever. I always have time for you." and to the Needs comment, I just said "Okay... Whatever that means, Brian."
Let's just say, being intelligent has it's advantages. I knew something was up because he had been very spacey and quiet the past few weeks, but he kept saying it was stuff at home: More BS. So, twenty minutes, later, it hits me: Duh, that girl (I'll change her name to Brittany) Brittany that he's been talking to. Wow, how did I miss that????
So, of course, I log into Facebook and get ready for a war to happen. All of a sudden, I get the cleverest few lines in my mind that he probably won't even understand but had just fleeted through my mind as if it was nothing:
That he's "Improbable just like M-Theory", that he's "As destructive as a supernova" and that he's "As intelligent as a corn-husker from Omaha, Nebraska" (reference to the Big Bang Theory show).
As you can imagine, I face-palmed and just began thinking to myself "What is wrong with me?????????????????"
Then of course, I switched those comments around to some much more primitive vocabulary that I'd rather not post in this blog...
Actually, the only reason I just thought of this moment now was that Brian just called and left a message on my answering machine. He's about as over-dramatic as Brian Greene when he wrote "The Elegant Universe". (If you don't get this one, borrow the book from the library or go and buy it, and just try reading past the first few pages without feeling over-emotional about the science involved.
....Well, I think that's all for tonight. I'll update more on the theory tomorrow, when primitive, under-evolved people aren't calling me and leaving dumb messages like those.
I do have a family reunion tomorrow, so I'll let you know if anything science or math-related goes on!