beecee

https://phys.org/news/2022-03-spiderweb-galaxy-field-feasting-black.html Spiderweb galaxy field: Feasting black holes caught in galactic spiderweb by Chandra X-ray Center: Often, a spiderweb conjures the idea of captured prey soon to be consumed by a waiting predator. In the case of the "Spiderweb" protocluster, however, objects that lie within a giant cosmic web are feasting and growing, according to data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory. The Spiderweb galaxy, officially known as J1140-2629, gets its nickname from its web-like appearance in some optical light images. This likeness can be seen in the inset box where data from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope shows galaxies in orange, white, and blue, and data from Chandra is in purple. Located about 10.6 billion light years from Earth, the Spiderweb galaxy is at the center of a protocluster, a growing collection of galaxies and gas that will eventually evolve into a galaxy cluster. To look for growing black holes in the Spiderweb protocluster a team of researchers observed it for over eight days with Chandra. In the main panel of this graphic, a composite image of the Spiderweb protocluster shows X-rays detected by Chandra (also in purple) that have been combined with optical data from the Subaru telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii (red, green, and white). The large image is 11.3 million light years across. more at link............ the paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.02208 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.02208.pdf The 700 ks Chandra Spiderweb Field I: evidence for widespread nuclear activity in the Protocluster: ABSTRACT: Aims. We present an analysis of the 700 ks Chandra ACIS-S observation of the field around the radio galaxy J1140-2629 (the Spiderweb Galaxy) at z = 2.156, focusing on the nuclear activity in the associated large-scale environment. Methods. We identify unresolved X-ray sources in the field down to flux limits of 1.3 × 10−16 and 3.9 × 10−16 erg/s/cm2 in the soft (0.5-2.0 keV) and hard (2-10 keV) band, respectively. We search for counterparts in the optical, NIR and submm catalogs available in the literature to identify X-ray sources belonging to the protocluster and derive their X-ray properties. Results. We detect 107 X-ray unresolved sources within 5 arcmin (corresponding to 2.5 Mpc) of J1140-2629, among which 13 have optical counterparts with spectroscopic redshift 2.11 < z < 2.20, and 1 source with photometric redshift consistent with this range. The X-ray emitting protocluster members are distributed approximately over a ∼ 3.2 × 1.3 Mpc2 rectangular region. An X-ray spectral analysis for all the sources within the protocluster, shows that their intrinsic spectral slope is consistent with an average hΓi ∼ 1.84 ± 0.04. Excluding the Spiderweb Galaxy, the best-fit intrinsic absorption for 5 protocluster X-ray members is NH > 1023 cm−2 , while other 6 have upper limits of the order of few×1022 cm−2 . Two sources can only be fitted with very flat Γ ≤ 1, and are therefore considered Compton-thick candidates. The 0.5-10 keV rest frame luminosities of the 11 Compton-thin protocluster members, corrected for intrinsic absorption, are greater than 2×1043 erg/s. These values are typical for the bright end of a Seyfert-like distribution and significantly greater than X-ray luminosities expected from star formation activity. The X-ray luminosity function of AGN in the volume associated to the Spiderweb protocluster in the range 1043 < LX < 1044.5 erg/s, is at least 10 times higher than that in the field at the same redshift and significantly flatter, implying an increasing excess at the bright end. The X-ray AGN fraction is measured to be 25.5 ± 4.5% of the spectroscopically confirmed members in the stellar mass range log(M∗/M) > 10.5. This value corresponds to an enhancement factor of 6.0 +9.0 −3.0 for the nuclear activity with L0.5−10keV > 4 × 1043 erg/s with respect to the COSMOS field at comparable redshifts and stellar mass range. Conclusions. We conclude that the galaxy population in the Spiderweb Protocluster is characterized by enhanced X-ray nuclear activity triggered by environmental effects on Mpc scales.

OK, OK I know that controlled nuclear fusion has always been 20 years away, but does this new approach make that estimate more real? Some constructive criticism or otherwise, along viability lines and comparisons to other methodologies etc would be appreciate. Afterall it will certainly be a history changing game breaker if successful.

I think that is according to relativity, that there is no "universal now" or each now in any individual FoR's are all equally real. (If that is wrong, then can someone correct/modifiy?) While I missed that particular problem, many thanks for picking it up and making it clear for us.

What punishment do you suggest? He made an emotional error of judgement...Rock was insensitive to the medical condition of Smith's wife. Both were in error. Like I said, I'm a sucker for good jokes, and probably even that one. And although not as insensitive as Rock's insensitivity, along the same lines, as swonsont said, I would not tell it in front of Robert Wagner. Would you? Again, Smith may have reacted emotionally and been out of line, but by the same token, and as per his apology, Rock should have been far more sensitive to Will's wife. And I hope the Academy takes all that into consideration. Irrespective, like this year's televised awards, and the televised awards of past years, I won't be watching next years awards, or the Bastas or any others.

I love a good joke, and don't mind them even at my expense, but I would certainly have not done what Rock did. I don't make jokes at other people's misfortunes and/or medical conditions. That is the height of insensitivity, and he was insensitive to say the least. By the same token, "I dips me lid" to him for his self control, in not retaliating and creating a donnybrook...Incredible self control!!! On the other side of the fence, like Smith, if someone would have made a joke about my Mrs, I'm not at all certain what I would have done, but I certainly would not have been happy. In summing, both parties were at fault and I can see wrong on both sides, but as Smith has apologised (as per the quote) I hope to hell that the Academy and Rock can now let bygones be bygones. Rock should not have been so insensitive and Smith should have controlled his emotions. ps: Will Smith played the part of Serena and Venus's Father impecably and deserved the award. Let's leave it at that. But as per the thread title, to contemplate that Smith's slap could have killed Rock, is laughable and the height of stupidity.

Most of what you have claimed and/or suggested in this thread, starting with an infinite universe. No, I have accused you and one or two others, of being "pretend philosophers" But perhaps I should have used the word, "poor". Philoosphy is the foundation stone of science, as I have said before, but it is also limited. (Science is what we know; Philsophy is what we don't know. some bloke named Russell) Critical thinking is part and parcel of what science is. If we didn't apply it, we still would be ignorant of the advancement of the perhelion of Mercury....or gravitational lensing, and Newton would still reign supreme.

We are unable to observe at those quantum/Planck levels, so string and its derivities all remain hypothetical, although, mathematically beautiful. No. The BB only applies to spacetime evolution at t+10-43 seconds. The rest is speculative. Important note!!! It's not the galaxies moving away at the larger scales, its the space expanding in between. That may seem confusing and perhaps picky, but it is essentially what the BB tells us. Which leads is to DE,( dark energy) our explantion for the acceleration in the expansion rate, and opposing gravity overall. It is termed dark, because we are as yet unaware of what force of spacetime, causes this accelerated expansion.

The gravity is only strong enough over smaller distances, like our solar system, our galaxy and even our galactic group. Over the larger distances to near the edge of the observable universe, expansion rules.

Wikipedia is generally OK, but still there can be circumstances where even more exactness may wish to be known. One of my favourite videos, that I have already posted once today to another will explain it far better then I....... 7.5 minutes long.... Oh and its Sir, or more appropriatley mate!!!!

Perhaps if I inform you that I aint no scientist either, just a poor old retired maintenance fitter/machinist/welder, who has had an interest in evidenced backed mainstream science, most of his life, but was too dumb, and having too much fun when young to do anything about it. Also many aspects of certain cosmological scenarios like the BB, are simply simplified for lay people. If you or they are still interested, then you have the web and reputable sites to learn and gain more knowledge. We once thought in the early fifities that Mercury was the smallest planet...we now no that to be Pluto...except of course now Pluto has been down graded to a dwarf planet. We once thought that the Milky Way galaxy was it...were we bloody wrong on that score also, thanks to Edwin Hubble. Here is a reasonable starting point if you are interested in learning..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang An important point! The BB is not a theory about the start of the universe; it is a theory of how it evolved from t+10-43 seconds or thereabouts.... In other words, there is no empirical evidence indicating any singularity of infinite density, but the CMBR, (cosmic microwave background radiation) is evidence that the universe expanded from a very hot, dense state. Further to the best of our knowledge, at that time there was no matter, just space and time, and the superforce, which started to decouple as expansion took hold, gravity being first. Such decoupling created false vacuums and phase transitions, (similar to water turning to ice) and the excesses of energy went into creating our very first fundamental particles, (quarks and electrons) As expansion continued, and temperatures and pressures dropped, quarks joined up, protons and neutrons were created, and our first atomic nuclei at the 3 minute mark. It took another 180,000 years before conditions were such that electrons were able to couple with atomic nuclei and our first light elements were formed. From there it was plain sailing.

https://newatlas.com/energy/hb11-laser-fusion-demonstration/ Australian company HB11 says it's well on the way to nuclear fusion energy generation without the radioactive fuels or super-high temperatures kuligssen/Depositphotos HB11 is approaching nuclear fusion from an entirely new angle, using high power, high precision lasers instead of hundred-million-degree temperatures to start the reaction. Its first demo has produced 10 times more fusion reactions than expected, and the company says it's now "the only commercial entity to achieve fusion so far," making it "the global frontrunner in the race to commercialize the holy grail of clean energy." We've covered Australian company HB11's hydrogen-boron laser fusion innovations before in detail, but it's worth briefly summarizing what makes this company so different from the rest of the field. In order to smash atoms together hard enough to make them fuse together and form a new element, you need to overcome the incredibly strong repulsive forces that push two positively-charged nuclei apart. It's like throwing powerful magnets at each other in space, hoping to smash two north poles together instead of having them just dance out of each other's way. The Sun accomplishes this by having a huge amount of hydrogen atoms packed into a plasma that's superheated to tens of millions of degrees at its core. Heat is a measure of kinetic energy – how fast a group of atoms or molecules are moving or vibrating. At these temperatures, the hydrogen atoms are moving so fast that they smack into each other and fuse, releasing the energy that warms our planet. Most fusion reactor designs aim to replicate these conditions, by magnetically confining hydrogen atoms in a plasma, and then using gyrotrons and other specialized equipment to create small pockets of insane temperatures – over 100 million °C (180 million °F) – in which they hope they'll get enough random collisions between nuclei to create a chain reaction. This is the basic idea underpinning the multi-billion dollar stellarator and tokamak projects that have dominated fusion research for decades. more at link........................ previous article.... https://newatlas.com/energy/hb11-hydrogen-boron-fusion-clean-energy/?itm_source=newatlas&itm_medium=article-body Radical hydrogen-boron reactor leapfrogs current nuclear fusion tech extract: It's just always been 20 years away from being 20 years away. A number of multi-billion dollar projects are pushing slowly forward, from the Max Planck Institute's insanely complex Wendelstein 7-X stellerator to the 35-nation ITER Tokamak project, and most rely on a deuterium-tritium thermonuclear fusion approach that requires the creation of ludicrously hot temperatures, much hotter than the surface of the Sun, at up to 15 million degrees Celsius (27 million degrees Fahrenheit). This is where HB11's tech takes a sharp left turn. This is big-time stuff. Should cheap, clean, safe fusion energy really be achieved, it would be an extraordinary leap forward for humanity and a huge part of the answer for our future energy needs. And should it be achieved without insanely hot temperatures being involved, people would be even more comfortable having it close to their homes. We'll be keeping an eye on these guys. Source: University of New South Wales An interesting video, 13 minutes long, that fully describes this process, its advantages such as *No radioactive waste: * No possibility of any meltdown: * Unlimited safe fuel: * Lower infrasctructure costs: * Smaller Plant footprint: https://hb11.energy/our-story/ FIRST MEASURED, CONTROLLED IGNITION OF A FUSION BURN VIA LASER In the experiment conducted at National Ignition Facility (NIF), laser beams targeting a capsule of hydrogen isotopes sparked a fusion explosion that produced 1.35 megajoules (MJ) of energy. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: OK, need some constructive criticism or otherwise, along viability lines and comparisons to other methodologies etc.

https://phys.org/news/2022-03-hubble-distant-star-distance-billion.html Closeup of the region on the sky, 1/250 of a degree across, where the gravity of a foreground cluster of galaxies magnifies the distant background star—nicknamed Earendil—thousands of times. Credit: NASA/ESA/Brian Welch (JHU)/Dan Coe (STScI)/Alyssa Pagan (STScI). With a fortuitous lineup of a massive cluster of galaxies, astronomers discovered a single star across most of the entire observable Universe. This is the farthest detection of a single star ever. The star may be up to 500 times more massive than the Sun. The discovery has been published today in the journal Nature. Gazing at the night sky, all the stars that you see lie within our own galaxy, the Milky Way. Even with the most powerful telescopes, under normal circumstances individual stars can only be resolved in our most nearby galactic neighbors. In general, distant galaxies are seen as the blended light from billions of stars. But with the marvelous natural phenomenon known as "gravitational lensing," astronomers from the Cosmic Dawn Center at the Niels Bohr Institute and DTU Space were nevertheless able to detect a distance where even detecting entire galaxies is challenging. A cosmic telescope predicted by Einstein: Among the wonders predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity is the ability of mass to "curve" space itself. As light passes close to massive objects, its path follows the curved space and changes direction. If a massive object happens to lie between us and a distant background source of light, the object may deflect and focus the light toward us as a lens, magnifying the intensity. Galaxies magnified several times are routinely discovered by way of this method. But in an astounding cosmic coincidence, the galaxies in a cluster named WHL0137-08 happened to line up in such a way as to focus the light of a single star toward us, magnifying its light thousands of times. more at link............................ the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04449-y A highly magnified star at redshift 6.2 Abstract: Galaxy clusters magnify background objects through strong gravitational lensing. Typical magnifications for lensed galaxies are factors of a few but can also be as high as tens or hundreds, stretching galaxies into giant arcs1,2. Individual stars can attain even higher magnifications given fortuitous alignment with the lensing cluster. Recently, several individual stars at redshifts between approximately 1 and 1.5 have been discovered, magnified by factors of thousands, temporarily boosted by microlensing3,4,5,6. Here we report observations of a more distant and persistent magnified star at a redshift of 6.2 ± 0.1, 900 million years after the Big Bang. This star is magnified by a factor of thousands by the foreground galaxy cluster lens WHL0137–08 (redshift 0.566), as estimated by four independent lens models. Unlike previous lensed stars, the magnification and observed brightness (AB magnitude, 27.2) have remained roughly constant over 3.5 years of imaging and follow-up. The delensed absolute UV magnitude, −10 ± 2, is consistent with a star of mass greater than 50 times the mass of the Sun. Confirmation and spectral classification are forthcoming from approved observations with the James Webb Space Telescope.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre ! They don't make actors like Humphery Bogart anymore....badges or no badges.🤤

I think that is what is said/claimed in the following....... "The rule is usually as follows: The denser a gas, the harder it is to compress. This is also the case with the plugged air pump—at first the piston can be pushed down very easily, but at some point it can hardly be moved any further, even when applying a lot of force. The Bonn experiments were initially similar: The more photons they put into the mirror box, the more difficult it became to compress the gas. However, the behavior changed abruptly at a certain point: As soon as the photon gas exceeded a specific density, it could suddenly be compressed with almost no resistance. "This effect results from the rules of quantum mechanics," explains Schmitt, who is also an associate member of the Cluster of Excellence "Matter and Light for Quantum Computing" and project leader in the Transregio Collaborative Research Center 185. The reason: The light particles exhibit a "fuzziness"—in simple terms, their location is somewhat blurred. As they come very close to each other at high densities, the photons begin to overlap. Physicists then also speak of a "quantum degeneracy" of the gas. And it becomes much easier to compress such a quantum degenerate gas".

Quite a large varience of opinions being expressed here...the mind boggles!😏

That's not admitting you were wrong. That is deliberate obfuscation on your part. Unlike you, he was a scientist, and understood what a scientific theory was/is. Plus more obfuscation in not being able to recognise he was simply speculating. Plenty of respect for him also...Hope you take the time to watch the 7.5 minute long video that follows and equally, that you are able to gain some knowledge from it. Critical thinking is part and parcel of the scientific methodology, and it helps if one is also proficient in the relative field, if he choses to be critical of a particular field. Your problem seems to be confusing "critical thinking" with obfuscation and being contrary for contrariness sake. And of course if you chose to be critical of any aspect of science, be sure to have some evidence on hand. "Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?" Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist.

I suggest your life is in far more danger playing any sport...or crossing a busy road...

Join the club! I'm actually oblivious to those now...like water off a Duck's back. Reminds me though when I was undergoing cataract surgery last June, just before the surgeon started the procedure, I asked her, "Why don't blind people bunjee jump?" She asked me why, with instruments in her hand. I replied "Because it scares fuck out of the Dog" ( I did though substitute the "F" word with hell) She near pissed herself laughing!!! BTW, the operation was a great success, so much so I can now drive without glasses and only now need them for reading.

Ahaaa, so in effect gravity does the "overcoming" thanks. (just a limit to what I thought I understood)

Thanks, I am aware of the "Pauli exclusion principle" but may have misunderstood it. I was sort of under the impression that the NDP did overcome the Pauli exclusion principle. So I am wrong on that count?

That just about sums up my view/s on what happened also. No, I didn't watch the Oscars, (the Mrs did) it bores me to tears. On the other side of the fence, I was once called an "old bastard" by this young punk....I simply replied, "I'm there mate, you have yet to get there!" I also often make fun of myself by referring to myself as an old fat bastard. But by the same token, if anyone would refer to my Mrs in the same thoughtless way that this bloke did to Will Smith's wife, I may react the same way. Out of interest we have a comedian in Australia called "Steady Eddie" Here is a clip of him in action..... It can and on rare occasions does happen. We have had two incidents in Sydney over a couple of years, where innocent people, (one was a young teenager of 18 years) being attacked for no reason, in the city, by some drunk yahoo. He fell, hit his head on the gutter and died a few days later. We call them one punch cowards. He ( the one punch coward) was charged with murder, got off with manslaughter and received a pretty stiff sentence...around 10 years from memory. Although it could be said that being a "stiff senetnce" is relative, since the victim payed with his life.

https://phys.org/news/2022-03-physicists-compressible-optical-quantum-gas.html Researchers at the University of Bonn have created a gas of light particles that can be extremely compressed. Their results confirm the predictions of central theories of quantum physics. The findings could also point the way to new types of sensors that can measure minute forces. The study is published in the journal Science. If you plug the outlet of an air pump with your finger, you can still push its piston down. The reason: Gases are fairly easy to compress—unlike liquids, for example. If the pump contained water instead of air, it would be essentially impossible to move the piston, even with the greatest effort. Gases usually consist of atoms or molecules that swirl more or less quickly through space. It is quite similar with light: Its smallest building blocks are photons, which in some respect behave like particles. And these photons can also be treated as a gas, however, one that behaves somewhat unusually: You can compress it under certain conditions with almost no effort. At least that is what theory predicts. extract: "The rule is usually as follows: The denser a gas, the harder it is to compress. This is also the case with the plugged air pump—at first the piston can be pushed down very easily, but at some point it can hardly be moved any further, even when applying a lot of force. The Bonn experiments were initially similar: The more photons they put into the mirror box, the more difficult it became to compress the gas. However, the behavior changed abruptly at a certain point: As soon as the photon gas exceeded a specific density, it could suddenly be compressed with almost no resistance. "This effect results from the rules of quantum mechanics," explains Schmitt, who is also an associate member of the Cluster of Excellence "Matter and Light for Quantum Computing" and project leader in the Transregio Collaborative Research Center 185. The reason: The light particles exhibit a "fuzziness"—in simple terms, their location is somewhat blurred. As they come very close to each other at high densities, the photons begin to overlap. Physicists then also speak of a "quantum degeneracy" of the gas. And it becomes much easier to compress such a quantum degenerate gas". more at link................................... the paper: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm2543 Compressibility and the equation of state of an optical quantum gas in a box: Abstract: The compressibility of a medium, quantifying its response to mechanical perturbations, is a fundamental property determined by the equation of state. For gases of material particles, studies of the mechanical response are well established, in fields from classical thermodynamics to cold atomic quantum gases. We demonstrate a measurement of the compressibility of a two-dimensional quantum gas of light in a box potential and obtain the equation of state for the optical medium. The experiment was carried out in a nanostructured dye-filled optical microcavity. We observed signatures of Bose-Einstein condensation at high phase-space densities in the finite-size system. Upon entering the quantum degenerate regime, the measured density response to an external force sharply increases, hinting at the peculiar prediction of an infinite compressibility of the deeply degenerate Bose gas. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: OK, can someone explain to me the full consequences of this? Particularly the "the photons begin to overlap" phrase in the abstract, and the "quantum degeneracy" reference. Is this analogous to the EDP, and NDP that precede a BH formation?

That certainly is an understatement! 😉 Carl Sagan, who I saw as the greatest educator of our time, often referred to that possibility, that because all life on Earth is carbon based, that we could extrapolate that to life in the whole universe. He termed it "carbon chauvinism" As the scientist he was though, he also admitted that carbon is far more chemically active and abundant in the universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#:~:text=On Earth%2C all known living,form all the necessary structures.

The hard Science's unlike philsophy, are exact disciplines. And again, you seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel, instead of being man enough to admit you were wrong.

What do you mean by documentation? It is a scientific theory, as previously described for you, and supported by lines of evidence as such..... (1) The observed redshift of galaxies and expansion if extrapolated backwards suggests a point of evolution. (2) The CMBR AT 2.73K or left over heat from the BB. (3) The abundance of the lighter elements and absence of heavy elements in the first stars. (4) The very slight variation in the CMBR as seeds for galactic structure. And to add more, the BB was not just some hairy fairy theory pulled out of someones rear end, it arose with the discovery of the universal expansion by Edwin Hubble in the mid/late 20's, but was still competing with two other theories re the origin of the universe. They were the Oscillating theory, and the Steady State theory. It rose to prominence in the 60's when serendiptiously, the CMBR was discovered by Penzias and Wilson. Here is a reasonable detailed account of the first moment of the BB until the preesnt time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe