Moron here. So what are the ramifications of this? Does it inhibit our ability to observe the universe? Dare I ask, does this offer any protection from anything nasty the universe might send our way?
NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space
31–40 of 40 posts
Re: NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space
#32It's amazing how much they look like electron orbitals. . . . Sometimes its seems like the reason we see nature reuse the same patterns is not from any physical mechanism but simply because math only has so many "shapes." I am perpetually in awe at this mysterious order to our universe. Also: if these belts block high-energy electrons, can they teach us to build a force field that does the same? And can that solve th…
I wonder if I'll be attacked for saying this. Here goes. We always find these kinds of shapes because they are the shapes that appear through fluid mechanics. Space is a fluid, too. In a fluid, we have vortices (in the form of whirlpools, tornados, etc) because they allow material and energy to be moved much more efficiently than any of the other structures we don't tend to see in stable systems.
> In a fluid, we have vortices... because they allow material and energy to be moved much more efficiently than any of the other structures we don't tend to see in stable systems.
As a Physicist, I am wary of making such statements since they put the cart before the horse ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology ). I'd be more comfortable saying "In a fluid, we have vortices... as a consequence of the movement of material and energy."
In your case I'm assuming it's just a turn of phrase, but there are some hypotheses which actually attribute abstract "goals" to nature, without providing any explanation in terms of mechanical processes; for example http://www.lawofmaximumentropyproduction.com
In constrast, Darwin explained the theory of evolution using the mechanical process of natural selection. The principle of least action can be explained either physically, using quantum interference (eg. in optics), or mathematically, due to the mixture of inductive steps with deductive ones.
In constrast, the existence of vortices in fluids because of their efficiency would be like claiming crater lakes can't exist because water flows downhill.
Re: NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space
#33It's amazing how much they look like electron orbitals. . . . Sometimes its seems like the reason we see nature reuse the same patterns is not from any physical mechanism but simply because math only has so many "shapes." I am perpetually in awe at this mysterious order to our universe. Also: if these belts block high-energy electrons, can they teach us to build a force field that does the same? And can that solve th…
An electron is just a miniature plaque with Carl Sagan's signature on it.
Re: NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space
#34It's amazing how much they look like electron orbitals. . . . Sometimes its seems like the reason we see nature reuse the same patterns is not from any physical mechanism but simply because math only has so many "shapes." I am perpetually in awe at this mysterious order to our universe. Also: if these belts block high-energy electrons, can they teach us to build a force field that does the same? And can that solve th…
Well there is actually a very electrical and magnetic basis for many of the features and configurations we see in space and in star systems. There is a whole memmetic category heading known as Electric Universe, which although unfortunately contributed to by many crackpots, a very interesting and rational framework for understanding on at least a very basic level the 'why' and 'how' of what we observe in space. (why…
I'd urge anyone to read the wikipedia page [1] before seriously engaging with the "electric universe", the proposals of which, such as cosmic electrical currents being more important than gravity in galaxy structure (~35 mins into that video, just from scanning through), are not consistent with modern observations and are less effective than mainstream theories in explaining them.
The statement "Well there is actually a very electrical and magnetic basis for many of the features and configurations we see in space and in star systems" is highly controversial and pretty unsupported, beyond things like jets and planetary magnetic fields.
Re: NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
And we're back to the stories of Liu Cixin again: http://www.pornokitsch.com/2012/07/underground-reading-the-w...
Hmm, that sounds very similar to this 2006 sci-fi novel: http://www.amazon.com/Cusp-Robert-A-Metzger/dp/0441013015 It reads like William Gibson reimagined by Michael Bay but I ended being entertained despite myself.
Oh wow, yes, definitely some overlap there! Judging purely from the blurb on Amazon, i'd say that the stories at least have rather different styles - Clarke-Baxter-style grand-scale hard SF vs Walter Jon Williams-style cyberpunk-tinged space opera.
Re: NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if I'll be attacked for saying this. Here goes. We always find these kinds of shapes because they are the shapes that appear through fluid mechanics. Space is a fluid, too. In a fluid, we have vortices (in the form of whirlpools, tornados, etc) because they allow material and energy to be moved much more efficiently than any of the other structures we don't tend to see in stable systems.
> In a fluid, we have vortices... because they allow material and energy to be moved much more efficiently than any of the other structures we don't tend to see in stable systems. As a Physicist, I am wary of making such statements since they put the cart before the horse ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology ). I'd be more comfortable saying "In a fluid, we have vortices... as a consequence of the movement of mat…
Electrostatic forces keep the surface of a liquid as taut as they can. Undisturbed, and notwithstanding internal vibrations, a spherical droplet of liquid will tend to stay in a sphere because not to do so would require an additional expenditure of energy, that is, in order to counteract those electrostatic forces. So the way I used the term efficient before is in the same way as how it's less costly in energy expenditure, i.e. more efficient, for a droplet to stay spherical. It's the same reasoning behind a number of other things we find in physics. So I'm not convinced that my statement about efficiency leading to appearance of natural structures is incorrect -- maybe more so a difference in how such an observation is commonly phrased.
Re: NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space
#37Here is a related article that discusses removing the Van Allen belts:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/astrophysics/hacking-the-...
Re: NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space
#38Electromagnetic aspects of the "Gaia" hypothesis?
Re: NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may already know this, but in your observation about "math having only so many shapes" has been explored in some depth. There is a wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature but I first learned about it from the book, "Patterns in Nature", by Peter S. Stevens ( http://www.amazon.com/Patterns-Nature-Peter-S-Stevens/dp/031... ), which was recommended to me by a noted poet.
I'm glad that page linked to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanesco_broccoli The first time I saw it in a store here in Italy I got all excited and started staring at it up close.
My daughter loves that stuff. I was pleased.
Re: NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In a fluid, we have vortices... because they allow material and energy to be moved much more efficiently than any of the other structures we don't tend to see in stable systems. As a Physicist, I am wary of making such statements since they put the cart before the horse ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology ). I'd be more comfortable saying "In a fluid, we have vortices... as a consequence of the movement of mat…
Electrostatic forces keep the surface of a liquid as taut as they can. Undisturbed, and notwithstanding internal vibrations, a spherical droplet of liquid will tend to stay in a sphere because not to do so would require an additional expenditure of energy, that is, in order to counteract those electrostatic forces. So the way I used the term efficient before is in the same way as how it's less costly in energy expend…
I was only commenting on the goal-attributing phrasing you'd used, not the Physics.
Compare your electrostatic sphere example to my crater-lake example: lakes at a high gravitational potential are inefficient, it's less costly for the water to flow up the sides of a crater and down into the ocean. The reason that doesn't happen is because there is no mechanism for it to do so. If we look at liquid helium, there is a mechanism which allows it (the Onnes Effect) so it does happen.
> Electrostatic forces keep the surface of a liquid as taut as they can
Yes, but the interesting part of the sentence is "as they can"; we can't just assume that a liquid's surface will be at minimal energy, since that would allow us to solve NP-complete problems with soap bubbles ( www.scottaaronson.com/papers/npcomplete.pdf ) :)