Translate this blog

Thursday, May 2, 2019

Post #98 Observer and existence of reality

An observer is not needed for reality to exist. An observer is just another possibility in the reality defined by space and time. An observer doesn't exist means reality with infinite possibility is existing with just another possibility or reality with observer in another state. If that observer is dead, then still reality exist as observer is present there in another state of energy giving another possibility of reality defined by a different spacetime. Only that observer as a full blown system cease to exist. But still the atoms of the observer's dead body is still conscious in its own rights and capabilities. Reality always exist, only possibilities ceast to exist inside it or differ as it has infinite permutations and combinations. This is my version.

Post #97 Version of realities

What if there is another superior life form on earth above humans with a better and advanced conciousness gives better version of reality ? Then the version of reality given by humans will be not be seen as an ultimate version of reality. Then why particles dont have conciousness in their own rights and capabilities and have their on version of reality ?

Tuesday, April 30, 2019

Post #96 Expansion rate and Age of the Universe under dispute due to latest developments

The universe is expanding faster than it used to, meaning it’s about a billion years younger than we thought, a new study by a Nobel Prize winner says. And that’s sending a shudder through the world of physics, making astronomers re-think some of their most basic concepts.

At issue is a number called the Hubble constant, a calculation for how fast the universe is expanding. Some scientists call it the most important number in cosmology, the study of the origin and development of the universe.
Using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope, Johns Hopkins University astronomer Adam Riess concluded in this week’s Astrophysical Journal that the figure is 9% higher than the previous calculation, which was based on studying leftovers from the Big Bang.
The trouble is, Riess and others think both calculations are correct.
Confused? That’s OK, so are the experts.
They find the conflict so confounding that they are talking about coming up with “new physics,” incorporating perhaps some yet-to-be-discovered particle or other cosmic “fudge factors” like dark energy or dark matter.
“It’s looking more and more like we’re going to need something new to explain this,” said Riess, who won the2011 Nobel in physics.
NASA astrophysicist John Mather, another Nobel winner, said this leaves two obvious options: “1. We’re making mistakes we can’t find yet. 2. Nature has something we can’t find yet.”
Even with the discovery, life continues on Earth the way it always has. But to astrophysicists trying to get a handle on our place in this expanding universe, this is a cosmic concern.
To come up with his measurement of the Hubble constant, Riess looked to some not-so-distant stars.
Riess observed 70 Cepheid stars — stars that pulse at a well-observed rate — calculated their distance and rate, and then compared them with a certain type of supernovae that are used as measuring sticks. It took about two years for the Hubble telescope to make these measurements, but eventually Riess calculated an expansion rate of 74.
Using that 74 figure means the universe is somewhere between 12.5 billion and 13 billion years old. That’s much younger than the established estimates of 13.6 billion to 13.8 billion.
“Hey, it’s good news. Everybody likes to look younger,” Riess said.
In 2013, the European Planck satellite helped scientists come up with a much slower expansion rate of about 67, but that was done in an entirely different, more complicated and less direct way and by looking at a much earlier time, when the universe was just a toddler.
The Planck team studied background radiation from a time just 370,000 years after the Big Bang. By examining cold and hot spots in that radiation, scientists figured out how big the spots were, which helped them determine how far away they were looking.
That team then fed those calculations into the standard model that astronomers use for the universe — based on Einstein’s general relativity, among other things — factored in the known acceleration of the universe and came up with the smaller expansion rate. The end result: a 13.8-billion-year-old universe.
Riess calculated the odds that the disparity between the two calculations was an accident at 1 in 100,000.
While there is a chance either the Riess team or the Planck team is off, astronomers are talking about both being right.
Both calculations make sense and “nobody can find anything wrong at this point,” said distinguished University of Chicago astrophysicist Wendy Freedman. Other outside experts praised both teams’ research.
If that’s the case, astrophysicists need to make adjustments in Einstein’s general relativity theory.
“You need to add something into the universe that we don’t know about,” said Chris Burns, an astrophysicist at the Carnegie Institution for Science. “That always makes you kind of uneasy.′
In the past, astronomers added hard-to-fathom dark energy and dark matter to explain why calculations didn’t add up, borrowing from a once-discarded Einstein theory. Now they’re saying they need to do something similar again.
It could be there’s an extra “turbocharge” from a past odd pulse of dark energy — an unseen expansion force that fits well in Einstein’s theories — that caused the speeded-up expansion, Riess said.
Or there could be a new particle of matter that hasn’t been discovered, Burns said.
“We have this dark sector that already has two ingredients, and maybe we’re discovering a third,” said Planck team member Lloyd Knox of the University of California, Davis. “That’s a scary prospect. Are we just going to always be introducing fudge factors?”
Astronomers at the University of Chicago, led by Freedman, spent five years looking at different stars than Riess to come up with a third calculation of the expansion rate. They just submitted their work to the same journal. Freedman wouldn’t reveal her number but said it is between the two other figures.
Twenty years ago, Freedman was part of similar debate about the Hubble constant, when there were few measurements to work with.
“It’s an exciting journey to try to understand what the origin of the universe is,” she said.

Thursday, April 25, 2019

Post #95 Curving of Space

Space can curve ? Does that mean space is an emergent property ? Isn't the energy contained inside space which is curving ? Yes, space and energy are inseparable. Does that mean two things have same properties ? If space can be portrayed by the property of energy, why space and energy are seen as diffeent aspects ?

Friday, April 12, 2019

Post #94 What is TIME ?

What is TIME ?
TIME is the ageing of ENERGY in relation to surroundings or surrounding ENERGY or an OBSERVER or OBSERVER'S surrounding.

Wednesday, March 20, 2019

Post #93 Gravity according to Theory of Relativity.

Will the spacetime curvature due to gravity of 578568 Kg mass of cotton ball and 578568 Kg mass of Iron ball the same according to Theory Of Relativity ?

Post #92 Information transfer rates and delays in happening of events to the observer.

 Its not that two events cant happen at two different places at the same time, be it in our lives or outer space. It is the delay in the information about the happening of the event reaches the other point bit late. I feel we will have different rates for this delay depending on the methods we adopt to grasp this information. This different rates can be seen across many things in the Universe, ranging from normal incidents in our lives in which we use various messenger things to inform like postal mail, email, radio, internet to galactic events which gives us information through light travelled from the event, heat, radio waves to events that can give us information where faster than light travelling of things happen which can act as messengers about the details of those events.