Two astronomers have created a model that for the first time explains the variation and frequency of galaxies in the universe
For the first time, two astronomers explain the variation in the shape of galaxies seen throughout the universe. The scientists, Dr. Andrew Benson from the California Institute of Technology, and Dr. Nick DeBreaux from Embry-Riddle University in Arizona, traced the evolution of galaxies.
Galaxies are the collection of stars, planets, gas and dust that make up most of the visible matter in the cosmos. The smallest galaxies consist of millions, and the largest galaxies of millions upon millions.
The American astronomer Edwin Hubble first developed the taxonomy of galaxies in the 30s, and hence the term "Hubble classification". There are 3 main forms: Spiral galaxies, where arms of material are sent out from a small, prominent central disk. Rod-like spiral galaxies, in which the arms are sent like two rods out from the center, and an elliptical galaxy, in which the stars are uniformly distributed, its shape is round and without arms or a disk. The Milky Way galaxy, for example, has between 200 and 400 billion stars and is classified as a bar-like spiral galaxy.
Explaining the classification of mourning is complicated. The different types result from different evolutionary paths, but so far scientists have not found a detailed explanation.
Benson and Debroux combined information from the Infrared Survey of the Sky (2MASS) with their sophisticated GALFORM computer model to create an evolutionary history of the universe as it unfolded over 13 billion years. To their surprise, these calculations produced not only the different shape of the galaxies, but also their relative number.
"We are completely amazed that the model also predicted the amount and frequency of the types of galaxies so accurately," says Debroux. "It definitely strengthens our confidence in the model," adds Benson.
Galaxies are supported by very large halos of dark matter, and Benson and Debreaux believe this is an important part of evolution. Their model suggests that the number of mergers between the haloes and the galaxies causes the final product - elliptical galaxies are formed by multiple mergers while disc galaxies result from a lack of mergers. Our Milky Way galaxy's elongated shape indicates a complex evolutionary history, with few collapses and at least one period in which the inner disk collapsed to form its central elongated structure.
"These new findings set new directions for future research. Our goal now is to compare the model's predictions to observations of more distant galaxies in images from the Hubble Space Telescope, as well as from the Webb James Space Telescope in the future," says Debroux.
80 תגובות
Ghost:
I'm already tired of it.
Here we are talking about a spiral that has a role in the mathematical calculation of the probability of light - particle trajectories are not mentioned there and I did not bother to check.
You start to change the problem every time and now you are talking about different interactions of several particles and not about a particle's trajectory.
If this trend continues - you will eventually reach the question "are there spirals in nature"
Well, to this question, as you know, the answer is yes.
By the way - the two links you mentioned in your last comment are actually the same link and I did not see in this link a reference to the Corono spiral, although it probably appears somewhere because the link deals with the refraction of light.
Anyway, I don't have the strength anymore.
A few more interesting links related to the same spiral
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/phyopt/fraunhofcon.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/phyopt/fresnelcon.html#c1
I did a Google search and several sites that were related to the same spiral talked about the T boson, among other things
About light (probably photons) about all kinds of particles and processes that were connected in the same spiral.
It is interesting to see how the spiral connects to the theme of the particles. (Although the articles are quite old from 2002 onwards something like that).
Michael
In my response 55 I tried to explain what I found later
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cornu_Spiral.svg
It is about a 'Cournot spiral' or something like that, which as I understand it is two spirals.
In any case, you must have noticed that there is a straight line between them, I talked about this type of situation in the comment.
What I tried to explain is that suppose there are two particles in two different places in space (but quite close to each other)
Is it possible for the particle(s) to pass in a trajectory like in that 'Corno spiral'? Or will they establish some kind of interaction between them in a meeting on the straight line after going through a spiral or a logarithmic loop line and the like?
Michael
You definitely know how to really explain in a somewhat clever way.
The shape of the spiral is very interesting to me because this shape has been described since thousands of years ago, even in caves such signs were found.
For some reason there is a kind of thought (even among the ancient people) that this particular form symbolizes the beginning of something such as formation and the like.
Personally, in recent years I have found such a pattern of operation in quite a few things related to "beginning".
And this makes me think that perhaps in the quantum structures there is also such a symmetry that may be related to some kind of "beginning".
Perhaps in certain interaction processes between particles.
Within the orbital, the principle of uncertainty that you mentioned comes into play and it is impossible to talk about an orbit.
In any case - even if it were possible to talk about a trajectory in this area - it could not be a logarithmic spiral for the reasons I said - one is that there is no force that can cause this kind of movement and the other is that it is a bounded area.
You can deal with the second reason and say that you are not talking about a whole spiral, but only about a section of it (after all, this is what you also do when you talk about spirals and galaxies, but I don't see how you can deal with the first one.
In any case, it's not really clear to me why you so want the trajectory to be a logarithmic spiral.
The world is full of functions and it seems to me that for some reason you decided to ignore them all and get addicted to a logarithmic line.
Michael
You are right about the field.
Sorry I can't explain myself in the clearest way because I lack quite a bit of knowledge on the subject.
My intention was that the path taken by the electron within the cloud (the orbital domain) is a logarithmic spiral path. (Which can begin its trajectory before reaching the nucleus and continue on the trajectory even after it is torn from the nucleus and perhaps also by changing its shape, before and after, perhaps into another particle such as an antiparticle?!)
If I have explained myself correctly and you understand what I am striving for, I would appreciate an answer.
Ghost:
I know what an atomic orbital is according to Wikipedia but what you asked doesn't fit that definition so I asked what you mean when you use the phrase.
According to the definition you quoted - an atomic orbital is a bounded region while a logarithmic line is a line that is not bounded.
There is a difference between a line and an area and there is a difference between a domain and a domain.
Michael
"An atomic orbital is a region in three-dimensional space surrounding the atomic nucleus, where the chance of finding electrons is maximum." - Wikipedia
Thanks again for the explanations.
http://www.ynet.co.il/PicServer2/02012008/1407438/IMG_4864_wa.jpg
Ghost:
I don't know what you call "orbitals".
We do not know of any force that can cause this type of motion and the state of this motion is exactly like the state of motion of an electron in a right-hand step.
Michael
First of all, thanks for the explanations, just one last question:
This means (hypothetically) that in other orbitals (those we don't yet know about provided they really exist) such a situation can exist?
Or surely such a situation cannot exist?
Ghost:
According to what we know - no.
The electromagnetic force moves bodies along straight lines, ellipses, parabolas and hyperbolas (like gravity) - those who know the material know exactly how these paths are chosen according to the initial position and speed of the particles.
Read here to see what forces are involved in determining the "path" of the opaque electrons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom#Electron_cloud
These forces - as well as the other known forces, individually and in any possible combination, will not produce movement on a logarithmic line.
Michael
Could it be that the same force that causes the electron to move around the nucleus is the force that also causes the acceleration of the particle?
Or is there a possibility that this force (perhaps electromagnetic) in some period of time (because of another force that affects the magnetic field) causes a minimal acceleration in the particle that moves it up and down on the level but through a logarithmic Lulin trajectory?
Ghost:
In order for something to move along a certain path, a force is needed to cause it to change direction (because changing direction is acceleration and creating acceleration requires force).
There is no known force that can cause an acceleration that will move a body on a logarithmic loline, therefore expecting a particle to move across a logarithmic loline is like expecting it to move across any other curve (for example a sine or R^15*2-31.5)
Michael I understand you. I thought maybe the particle (say an electron) makes the lap around the nucleus at a very high speed, but as soon as it rises or falls in level, it goes through a logarithmic Lollin trajectory and does so at a higher speed than in the state of the lap around the nucleus.
But apparently there isn't even a way to measure it, so I'll understand if you don't want to answer that.
Ghost:
There are no electrons in the atomic nucleus but only in its shell. The nucleus consists only of protons and neutrons.
Therefore, usually - no electron will be emitted from the nucleus.
Why only usually? Because in the decay of a cell of neutrons in a radioactive nucleus, electrons can be created.
I see no reason for these electrons to move on a logarithmic line.
In order for a body to move in a line that is not straight, a force must act on it to change its direction.
It does not seem to me that there would be any natural situation in which an electron moves along a logarithmic spiral.
In the atomic shell the electrons usually jump from level to level when energy is added to them and in these cases they stay in one of the usual "tracks" around the nucleus and therefore do not describe a logarithmic loop.
Even if the atom receives a blow of energy strong enough to knock an electron out of it completely - I don't see any reason for it to move across a logarithmic line.
Hezi
Mathematics formulates what is said in words and translates the sentence into numbers so that it is possible to measure and arrive at the most accurate solution. And not everything (but almost everything) can be solved with the help of mathematics.
This is my free translation. Michael is welcome to correct where I made a mistake in the wording.
Michael
In your opinion, is there a chance that the electron is "ejected" from the nucleus of the atom when it passes through a spiral orbit?
I know that today there is no way to know the exact position of the electron and certainly no way to know what I asked,
But you, as someone who understands this, might be able to give your opinion on the matter, is there such a chance?
Hezi,
Physics has several sides: observations, human perception, intuition,
Measurements, simulation of situations and laboratory experiments, calculations (mathematics),
Philosophy, predictions, luck, discoveries, theories and models.
Maybe you meant to say that the theory in physics costs a lot
On the face of our perceptions and feelings and is even getting further and further away, which is by the way
partly true. For example, explaining how a solar system is formed might be possible
But experience 4.5 billion years or travel a distance of 150 million
A kilometer or to distinguish an atom are far beyond our understanding.
And maybe that's why the math got more and more complicated
Over the years and as a result the distance between the human experience and the theory
continues to grow.
But that's still no reason to try to put math aside just for the sake of it
Don't try too hard.
Another and slightly more philosophical question is whether the universe is a complex
Is it fundamentally simple or is it the human translation that makes it so complicated?
No matter how you turn it, there are no shortcuts or not coping
With the effort to understand nature and certainly to separate mathematics from physics
will not advance us……
Chest:
So it turns out that you don't know history either.
Newton is the one who made physics more mathematical than any other person in history.
In fact he opened whole new parts of mathematics just for this.
Besides - of course your words are an empty slogan.
What do you think "physics that is physics and not mathematics"?
Actually - leave it - your opinion does not interest me.
Michael,
I suggest that mathematics remain mathematics and not become physics...
and suggests that physics will return to being physics,
As it was in Newton's day...
Good joke, bro.
What do you suggest?
The problem of physicists nowadays,
that they try to bend physics to mathematical formulas...
Look at string theory...
Michael
I tried to explain the question. Let me put it another way:
Is there a chance that the pattern in which the spiral operates is a pattern that characterizes some "creation" in nature?
I mean like a line from which you can create (or draw) anything that consists of a line or lines, also the spiral in the pattern
Does her act as something that characterizes a creation or a process that can be both complex and changing over time?
By the way, how is Benny Goren as a math teacher to begin with? I heard that there are quite a few mistakes in his books.
I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're trying to say and what you're asking.
In any case - the way to understand things in depth starts with studying mathematics seriously.
It's a gap I can't bridge in the comments here.
Michael, you are one who understands this, maybe you can tell me where I am wrong in the hypothesis (perhaps in the whole hypothesis):
If we assume that in the calculations the spiral grows and not shrinks, it would be possible to say that the spiral grows together with a (straight) line that extends to the right, left, up, down. This is how you can calculate the beginning and the end of the spiral because it has a beginning and an end on the surface of the line. In such a situation, the beginning of a spiral is 'pointed' and its end is also 'pointed', but along the way there is a process of a 'curving line'.
This means that the spiral is like a line only not straight but curving.
Because the spiral can only exist if it has a starting point then on the surface of the line there can be infinitely many such points. While the line lengthens and the spiral grows in relation to the line, more and more spirals can form on the line (from the starting points on the surface of the line). If this happens the spirals can 'interact' with each other across the line and in all directions.
Similar to the principle that a particle can also behave as a wave and vice versa, can there be such a thing that the spiral will also behave as a line, only that it goes from a straight line to a curved one and back again?
What I wrote in 53 is of course hypothetical
If we take for example a situation where the spiral has an end, then it reaches a final point where it stops its movement and begins a return movement in the same way it advanced to the final point, towards the starting point.
Only that on the way back it geometrically changes its shape to a line until it reaches the starting point and from there it continues on (not back) in a spiral structure but in the opposite direction to its previous movement.
Michael, you are right about the "definition of everything" with the help of such an "action pattern". (roughly speaking)
You are also right about a straight line - I thought about it, maybe the straight line can "behave" as the end/beginning of a spiral
When it reaches a certain point where it aligns and changes direction to the opposite side (where the end becomes a beginning and where there was a beginning becomes the end) and after that it begins the same pattern of action only on the opposite side.
questionnaire:
The spiral galaxies do not look like a full logarithmic spiral.
In fact - as you said - they have a number of parts, each of which looks similar (and at the level of accuracy of the image, which consists of many scattered points, the interpretation should not be exaggerated) to a section of a logarithmic spiral.
In general, any mass held by gravity is in equilibrium around the center of gravity so this fact is not surprising.
In principle, the galaxy is formed gradually as a result of gravitational interaction and energy is lost in collisions between its components and they know how to explain why it eventually takes the shape of a disk that rotates around the center.
The mechanisms that create the spiral structure are less clear today.
To enlarge the image, read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution
Ghost:
It is absolutely possible to define everything and calculate everything that involves (literally) a logarithmic spiral.
The problem only arises when you try to draw it physically.
By the way - even the ends of a straight line cannot be reached.
I noticed that many spiral galaxies start with a circle or
An ellipse in their center and not necessarily from a focal point. If indeed it is true then
Can this be described by a logarithmic spiral or should it be?
To develop from a certain focus?
Another thing is the symmetry between the "hands" of the galaxy. looks like
There is balance or at least a tendency to stabilize in that the hands appear
in a reversed way and on the opposite side of each other.
I will be happy to answer.
Thanks
Michael, it is true that everyone sees it, but I will tell you why it interests me, because as you said, there is a problem with the spiral that it is impossible to determine the "end" points of the two ends.
It seems to me that there is a certain "pattern of action" only that it is impossible to define the beginning and the end of it.
It seems that the spiral behaves as an organism in a sense like a cellular automaton.
Ghost:
Basically yes - if you decide that the "beginning" is in the center.
One of the problems with these spirals is that you can't really draw them from this "start".
Actually the spiral has one "edge" at the focus and another "edge" at infinity.
You can't get to Insenf for obvious reasons, but you also can't get to Moked with the drawing (because of the endless rounds I talked about).
On the other hand - I don't know why you find it so interesting - what you said is something that everyone who looks at the spiral sees
Michael, you mentioned something interesting here, as I understood you, as the spiral grows, it actually also makes a turn around the point (of the beginning) only at an increasing distance from the starting point.
I got you right?
A. Ben-Ner:
If you noticed, I mentioned that I researched the subject for every possible angle between the connection to the focus and the tangent.
This includes all angles obtained in polygons but also many other angles that are not obtained as an angle of a perfect polygon.
Therefore, obviously, the answer is that I have a complete solution for all the cases you described and also for others that are part of the broader generalization I made.
The answer is partially shown in the link I brought from Wikipedia.
If this does not satisfy you and you want to see the way (part of which is shown in one way or another in links from the Wikipedia entry) I will have to make more of an effort and build a file with drawings and formulas that I can show you, but I hope we won't have to get to that (what's more, I don't know what your background in mathematics is I can rely on the description of the solution)
Chest:
It's pretty funny.
If you don't agree with the theory of relativity then why are you asking people who do agree with you - and how is that different from checking on Wikipedia what other people who agree with you have written?
Of course you can decide that the theory of relativity is wrong but to convince others of this you have to point out a logical fallacy or an incorrect prediction.
All of this - even if it happens - will not, of course, make your theories correct and I have already pointed out to you the lack of logic in them (and the dishonesty in your presentation of them, for example, when you ask how it is that black people move around so quickly - as if yours has an explanation for the observed phenomenon that relativity does not explain when since we do not see black holes the only knowledge we have about the rotation of the holes comes from the theory of relativity and we have never observed it and even though you have not observed it either and all your belief about the rotation stems - without you noticing it - only from the conclusions of the theory of relativity - you defy the Torah The one who can't explain the turn that if she hadn't predicted it she and you wouldn't be talking about it).
Michael,
I can also search
But there is a problem:
I claim that Einstein's theories are not correct, at least in part.
Therefore, any explanation that relies on such theories is unacceptable to me.
Because of this,
I'm trying to find out here how the theories of relativity stack up with today's observations in space...
to Michael The problem can be extended to any elaborate polygon with N vertices
N is whole and greater than 1.
Without knowing how to solve the general problem (and it is possible that there is no analytical solution for N greater than 4) I assume that the solution is a function of
The radius R (radius of the bounding circle of the elaborate polygon) of N
and that "Fi" appears in the solution.
The angle at which each beetle goes every moment is = 2/(N/Pei*2 – Pei).
Do you have a solution? If so, I would appreciate it if you upload it later.
Are Moses and David one person or identical twins?
And maybe Siamese twins?
Just another word about logarithmic loops:
One of their fascinating features has something to do with the "paradoxes" of infinity that were expressed in a number of articles by Marius Cohen and the responses that followed them.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/toward-infinity-0703081/
I told the question with the four beetles following each other (https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers_explain_hubble_sequence-1701107/#comment-259619 )
The answer is that up to the meeting point they go through a path that is as long as the side of the starting square.
It wouldn't sound particularly interesting if they didn't have to do it while circling the center of the square an infinite (!) number of times.
Because of the self-similarity, each circle appears as a reduction of its predecessor by a constant ratio, therefore the sum of the lengths of the circles is a convergent geometric series. Of course, this is not how the problem is solved, but this is how the end of the road can be explained to those who do not feel like entering the differential equation (the simple ones - but only to those who know the subject).
Tell me, Chazi:
Do you find it difficult to search Wikipedia yourself?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Observational_evidence
Michael,
In response to 30
Was the phenomenon of "super-massive-black-hole-at-the-centers-of-galaxies" really predicted?
When and who predicted the phenomenon?
incidentally:
The fact that the planets are in the same plane and rotate around themselves for the most part (all of them except for Venus, which changed its direction because it was hit by a terrible zepta) in the same direction was established long before the formation of magnetic fields - back when the solar system was nothing more than a cloud of gases that began to collapse and rotate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System
This is a result of the conservation of angular momentum (at several levels - in the process of the formation of the system and later in the process of the formation of the planets)
questionnaire:
My answer on this matter remains as it was.
These are large distances - those where both the magnetic field is extremely weak and the effects of the two poles of the magnet completely cancel each other out.
Thanks Michael for the detailed explanation from response 28.
I asked about the orbit of the satellite with both magnetic poles (17, 18)
It comes from the understanding that two bodies with magnetic fields exert a force
mutually on each other and I don't know if this power is possible
may be of importance in solar systems or galaxies,
or is completely negligible.
For example in our solar system most of the planets' orbits are approximately
of several degrees to the Sun's equator (except Pluto), and polar
The planets point "north" (except Uranus) along with the North Pole
of the sun (with a deviation of up to 59 degrees) and as far as I know when
The "magnetic equators" of two permanent magnets (spherical for example)
are at the same height, they can be brought closer and further apart without gravitational forces
or a rejection between them, but when you raise or lower one of them and return
For the same action, repulsion or attraction are created.
That's why I'm interested in whether the orbits of the planets are in a type of
A magnetic comfort zone where they are not attracted or repelled by the field
The magnetism of the sun, or in other words is the reason that the planets orbit
Does the sun in their existing orbit give them a certain stability?
And the second question related to the same topic, is that if the Earth's poles
They would have reversed and the poles of the moon would have remained as they are, it would not have been created
Attraction between them? Or was there a chance for them to get close to each other because
whose poles are opposite?
Thanks.
I see that in the meantime some of the stupid discussion that took place here has been (rightly) deleted, but I think it may be that in the last few comments an understanding has actually started to emerge here.
Uncle Moshe:
A little more effort and I'll really stop being angry.
I am not humiliating anyone who has not earned it honestly.
In response 16, you accused me of a number of false accusations (deletion, failure to keep my word) and complained that I was responding at all.
This is the only reason for the deterioration of the discussion.
The insults I hurled at you did not stem from your mistakes (which there were) but from your neglect of me.
I never insult anyone who has not tried to insult me or shown dishonesty in any other way.
You can check it out.
And in relation to the urban legend about the golden ratio and the logimetric spirals - think about a process identical to the one you talked about only instead of taking a rectangle whose side ratio is the golden ratio - take a rectangle whose side ratio is 2.
What will you get?
Another logarithmic loop! But another!
Is this a reason to claim that all logarithmic lines are related by the number 2?
of course not.
Now - pay attention: if you take the root of two and square it you will get 2 (exactly! Not approximately with a difference of 0.1! Not "approximately" but exactly!) Is this a reason to claim that there is a relationship between all logarithmic loops and the root of 2?
And by the way - I hope you don't underestimate the importance of 2 or the root of 2! I also do not underestimate the golden ratio and e.
I'm just saying they don't belong where they don't belong.
I think you are doing something very important.
But honesty and moral purity need to be maintained, not just science.
Debate is meant to encourage curiosity and not discourage and humiliate.
Machal also does a very important thing, he invests his time and encourages debates.
An attitude of modesty and simplicity will not diminish it, on the contrary.
For those who have not been tired of the nonsense of a pretender, I find it appropriate to say that I discovered the logarithmic spirals myself when I was a high school student.
It was when someone asked me the following question:
Four beetles are placed on the vertices of a square and each of them starts chasing its neighbor clockwise. How long will the beetles travel until they meet if they are all going at the same speed?
I noticed the fact that the path of each beetle can be described by the fact that at every moment it walks at an angle of 45 degrees to the line connecting it to the center of the square.
After solving the question, I asked myself what happens when the angle is different from 45 degrees and thus I came up with all the properties of the logarithmic spirals.
Later on I also found a way to design a mechanical computer that uses the idea of the logarithmic spiral to multiply and find a logarithm but to explain this drawings are necessary so I will refrain from that at this stage.
Of course what Hezi says is not true.
Since this is a phenomenon that was also predicted from theoretical considerations, we are certainly talking about predictions based on whatאנחנו (not chest) have been understanding for a long time.
Observations made confirm the predictions.
Response to 25 questionnaire,
What you wrote is true.
The very fact that the predicted phenomenon was new,
They didn't know how to give her a new name,
Instead they called it "supermassive black hole".
This name is very misleading.
Because immediately you start thinking about a black hole that was known before.
The truth is that we still don't know what the properties of the "supermassive" are and we don't know if it has anything in common with a "black hole".
It is important to take into account our ignorance on this subject...
Uncle:
I had a problem with the internet so I didn't reply until now.
Did you not read what I wrote?
There are many logarithmic loops and only one of them is related (albeit in a forced relationship) to the golden ratio.
In other words - there is no connection between the structure of the galaxies and the golden ratio.
You describe a "method" for constructing a logarithmic loop: perhaps you could explain to us how you will make it so that every time you run the exact same method a different loop will be obtained?
It seems to me that you simply have no idea what you are talking about.
Those who want to get an idea are welcome to read, for example, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_spiral
Look for the word golden
It appears in the text only once.
Also look for the chapter on logarithm loops in nature.
Of course, David, you have the right not to believe me, nor Leukipedia, nor Mario Livio who wrote the book The Golden Cutting.
Moshe:
I think you are uncle in disguise.
The texts are just too similar and I find it hard to believe that two people would come up with exactly the same nonsense.
Moshe (=David)
I didn't promise to stop responding and in the end I gave in to the request of the sane of you.
Do you mind me responding?
I'm happy!
As I explained - my whole motivation in participating in these discussions is to prevent the phenomena that you demonstrate so well of stupidity combined with ignorance, arrogance and brazenness (and impersonation).
questionnaire:
Every star like the sun produces a "sun wind".
Close to the center of the galaxy there are many of these, but this is not something the galaxy produces.
Black holes that exist both in the center of the galaxy and elsewhere (although in the center of the galaxy they are usually larger) do not emit radiation or matter.
There are, however, several phenomena in their environment that cause different "spirits".
The absorption disk that rotates around them radiates very strongly (black guys who have an absorption disk - that is, those who have material in their environment that is in the process of falling into them).
Another radiation already mentioned is Hawking-Beckenstein radiation.
This is a radiation that has not yet been observed in nature, but its existence is assumed from theoretical considerations.
This is also not radiation created in the black hole itself. It is created as a result of a combination of the gravitational force of the black hole with the properties of the vacuum around it that arise from the principles of quantum theory. It turns out that the "empty" is never completely empty.
It is teeming with the formation of particles and anti-particles that immediately after they are formed meet and ionize.
It is hypothesized that the enormous gravitational force at the edge of the black hole creates such strong tidal forces that they are able to separate the particles from the anti-particles that were created with them before they meet again and ionize and cause one of them to be sucked into the black hole (carrying with it the negative energy "account") and the other to be ejected towards space.
Jacob Bekenstein, who is one of the scientists the radiation is named after, is an Israeli scientist who currently works at the Hebrew University.
In relation to the magnet, I don't think there will be a noticeable effect on the track.
Ghost:
You believe Moses (=David) because you want to.
Obviously you don't understand his words because he doesn't understand them either.
It is impossible to understand his words because they are not true.
Of course you can also choose whether to believe a mathematician or an arrogant idiot.
Misha I am not saying that this number will answer all the answers or that the mathematicians can predict that this number will appear.
I say that this number may also be discovered in some formula that describes the structure of the galaxy (doesn't have to be the Milky Way), in the future. Of course the prophecy was given to fools, but even so there are no wise people, we are all fools, there are more and there are less. Besides, when mathematics stops at a dead end, then metaphysics begins in my opinion and hence my questions. By the way, how do you explain that combinations of 0 and 1 can make windows work? I do not know how. But in the same way you can explain anything, just not everyone can explain it.
Spirit of Rephaim - the revelations of these connections between symmetries and geometrical properties and the physical world is seemingly completely random. The patterns of the galaxies mean nothing about anything. It is random in the sense that no scientist has any way of predicting in advance that a certain type of definite mathematical constants or relations may be found within physical phenomena.
No one knows how to explain why physical phenomena can be described using trigonometric functions, complex numbers, the natural logarithm e and much more. Exactly for the same reason that no one knows how to explain the connections between different theorems in geometry. I mean that it is possible to prove that there is a connection between all these sentences, but no one can explain the essence of the connection in such a way that he can predict which other sentences exist according to some kind of constitutive reason. Therefore, all mathematics is also a random science in the sense that the ability to prove connections does not give any ability to predict All the other connections we haven't seen yet.
In exactly the same way that throughout history the discovery of each and every mathematical relationship was created by chance and led to further understanding, but none of the proofs opened all the way forward at once.
Let's say you start studying geometry from scratch. You learn from the first few sentences. There is no one in the world who can tell you now I will give you a method by which you can predict all the other judgments at once.
You will have to learn them all in order to acquire complete skill and knowledge.
his lawyer,
A black hole is not a rock that you can put in a lab and test
its physical properties, but a phenomenon predicted mathematically and only
After that, its surroundings were observed, which should indicate the existence of the hole.
Only a few years ago, they put forward the hypothesis that is at the center of all
A galaxy contains a massive black hole. So we probably still have a long way to go
To understand what exactly happens in the center of galaxies and more seems a lot
Various explanations for this.
There are other shapes of galaxies besides the three and why did they focus on these galaxies? I wonder what this means about the formation of life, does the galaxy also need to be in a certain structure for the possibility to arise?
son of Canaan
I'm not sure I understand the quotation marks around a black hole, and all that.
To the best of my knowledge, a black hole is considered an existing fact, and even "observed" - where the quotation marks here are due to the fact that the observation is not direct since it is a black hole, but the effects that were expected to be created as a result of a black hole, to the best of my knowledge, were indeed observed around areas where the black holes are estimated to exist.
In addition, I don't know if for you Hawking radiation is the "spirit of the black hole", but the theory does predict radiation that is emitted from the black hole, and in this case, there is indeed still no observational evidence for the existence of the radiation, for all kinds of technical reasons that are not sure to be resolved soon. But although in a simplistic way the hole "vomits nothing", the theory is that it is supposed to vomit this radiation.
For the questionnaire, response 17, the first question
That's a good question
As at the center of the solar system is the sun, so at the center of the Milky Way is an active massive body. Today it is estimated that this body is a "black hole" and it is attributed properties, some of which have not yet been confirmed. One of these unproven qualities is that he swallows everything and vomits nothing. The existence of the "black hole spirit", if and when it is discovered, will probably contradict this assumption.
Moshe I believe you even though I still don't understand what you are saying.
So what are you actually saying? Is there a possibility of finding the golden ratio also in some formula that calculates the spiral structure of the galaxy?
When I open the plug in the bathtub and the water starts to swirl inward into the drain hole, even then such arms are formed. Come and find out, maybe every time you empty a bathtub you create a galaxy.
: )
ghost moon:
The line is called logarithmic because the ratio in polar coordinates between the radius and the angle is exponential.
It is related to the creation of the self-image that arises from the recursive symmetry.
Google images logarithmic spiral and you will see the lollin formed on a pentagonal star or nested golden rectangles. The pentagram is built on the golden ratio between its sides.
Regarding the second question, the orbit of the satellite is diagonal to the line
The equation, and to sharpen the question it also revolves around itself when
Its poles are directed to the DC poles at different angles (and this on
In order to take the system out of magnetic equilibrium, in order to see
would its trajectory be different without its magnetic poles).
Thanks.
Thanks.
If so, is there a parallel phenomenon in the galaxies to the solar wind?
And another question that is indirectly related to the revolving mechanism and tracks:
If we launch a satellite around the Earth (say 500 km above the line
the equator) and the shape of the satellite is spherical with two magnetic poles
Extremely strong (say 3 - 2 Tesla). Will this satellite perform the same
The orbit when we "turn off" the magnetic field? or the interaction between them
and the Earth's poles may create a different path?
I am trying to understand if there are any effects of magnetic fields on orbits
As an additional factor for gravity and mass?
The commenter from 6 10 11 13 who seems to have stopped responding but does not keep his word and continues to respond and also deletes anyone whose opinion disagrees with the opinion of the non-responder.
What are you Sarah's friend?
The loulin built on a cross section of nested golden rectangles or nested golden triangles is a logarithmic loulin.
Logarithmic rolls are born from the golden ratio.
In phyllotaxy, such as the distribution of seeds on a sunflower or the bumps on a pineapple, etc., the lines are also logarithmic.
and tend to converge to the golden angle 137.5 (360-360/1.618)
In many physical systems spiral curves tend to converge to this angle.
Yes, in the shells and in the logarithmic heluline galaxy structure, it originates from an internal symmetry that represents the golden ratio.
Michael Rothschild:
Logarithmic rolls are born from the golden ratio.
The loulin built on a cross section of nested golden rectangles or nested golden triangles is a logarithmic loulin.
In phyllotaxy, such as the distribution of seeds on a sunflower or the bumps on a pineapple, etc., the lines are also logarithmic.
and tend to converge to the golden angle 137.5 (360-360/1.618)
In many physical systems spiral curves tend to converge to this angle.
Yes, in the shells and in the logarithmic heluline galaxy structure, it originates from an internal symmetry that represents the golden ratio.
questionnaire:
Surely there is a connection.
Both the solar system and the galaxies are rotated by the force of gravity.
It has nothing to do with the solar spirits or other spirits.
I wonder if there is a connection between the mechanism that rotates solar systems
And the one that rotates galaxies?
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/site/parker_spiral.png
As far as I know, no dynamic power is attributed to the solar wind
which affects the orbit of the planets, but there is a certain resemblance to the structure
The spiral galaxies, that's why I raised the question.
By the way, Mario Livio answered me in the meantime and confirmed my words.
I saw no point in telling him that if this is the way things are, then the inclusion of the example of galaxies in his book "The Golden Ratio" may promote a false urban legend, but at least you will know that there is no connection between the golden ratio and the structure of the galaxies, and in fact there is probably no connection between most of the spiral structures that appear in nature and the golden ratio.
Ghost:
My words were not directed at you because you did not express a position and I treated your words more as a joke.
The one who expressed a position on this issue is anonymous commenter number 2.
By the way, I remembered who you look like:
http://www.ynet.co.il/PicServer2/02012008/1407438/IMG_4864_wa.jpg
Michael
As you said, there is an algorithmic spiral (I understand that it is something related to mathematical formulas) called the golden spiral. And the structure of the galaxy is spiral. So I thought that maybe the number gold would multiply somewhere in the calculations of one of the galaxies that might be tested and discovered in the future, not necessarily in our galaxy.
But it can also very well be as you say, meaning that it exists only in the mind of a person as if it were a 'wishful thinking' like this.
c
In my opinion, the link that people make between the golden ratio and the structure of galaxies is a flower crow.
Galaxies have a logarithmic spiral structure.
One of the logarithmic spirals is called the golden spiral because it increases by the golden ratio for every 90 degrees of rotation, but the spirals of the galaxies are not like that.
A logarithmic spiral is characterized by a constant angle between the line connecting the point to the focus and the tangent at that point.
The complement of this angle to 90 degrees is called pitch (I don't know if it has a Hebrew name).
In the golden spiral the pitch is slightly more than 17 degrees.
For the milk it is 12 degrees.
In galaxies in general it varies between 10 and 40 degrees.
In short - another urban legend that seems to me that Mario Livio, in this case, contributed something to its spread.
I sent him an email on the subject and if he replies I will share the content of his response with you.
In any case - it is clearly not true that "the spiral structure of the galaxies results from the golden ratio" and this is not only because the structure of the galaxies does not result from a number but because nothing in the galaxies is related to the number called the golden ratio.
Are there effects for galaxy collisions or will the convergence process always be similar to the model?
Right, thanks Avi Luz.
"In the Milky Way galaxy, for example, there are between 2 and 4 billion stars"
The various publications point to a number of stars on the order of one hundred to two hundred billion stars!
Avi Luz
You are right the helical structure is due to the golden ratio
They will probably find some golden ratio in the structure of the galaxies as well.