Researchers spot black hole feeding at 40x its theoretical limit • Hacker News Board

Re: Researchers spot black hole feeding at 40x its theoretical limit

#51

Post by jdhwosnhw » Sun, Nov 24, 2024, 9:59 PM UTC

MrMcCall wrote: post #45

jdhwosnhw wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It also keeps the electrons flowing around the nucleus, but not into it. Asa cautionary note to other readers, this statement is not consistent with any theory of which I am aware, and it’s certainly not a concept accepted by mainstream physics

Eugene Parker and Ludwig Boltzmann are familiar with your argument, and I doubt you even have Lord Kelvin's credentials. As Prof. Parker said, "We'll see who falls flat." (That's a paraphrase from memory; I doubt it's an exact quote.)

Boltzmann had a whole lot of math backing up his assertions. Among the many issues with what you posited, I highly doubt you have bothered to actually check to see if the force necessary to keep electrons from colliding with the nucleus would also be commensurate with what’s needed to counteract gravity at cosmological scales. Your theory is analogous to saying that we don’t need to invoke gravity to explain why the earth doesn’t spiral into the sun, because it could just be explained with solar photon pressure.

Re: Researchers spot black hole feeding at 40x its theoretical limit

#52

Post by gus_massa » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 1:10 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #48

gus_massa wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> electrons shells Not going away. It's based too directly in quantum mechanics principles, and the same tools are used in too may other problems with good results. If you talk to a hard core physicist, they may explain some minor corrections, but the simple model is 99% accurate and the corrections quite technical. Perhaps there is a better theory in the future, but it will be very weird, you really don't want to kn…

> electrons shells Has almost nothing to do with actual orbitals. "Filling electron shells", "octets" are just idiotic old rule of thumb ideas only accidentally aligning with reality. > wave function collapse I think it's going away pretty fast as we exprimentally find quantum behaviors in increasingly macroscopic objects. At some point it will become clear that nothing collapses into particles and it's just that thr…

> electron shells -> octets

It's a good rule of thumb for hand waving chemistry. It's not good enough to predict protein folding, but it's good enough to understand how amino acids connect. I don't expect it to disappear.

> wave function collapse

I disagree because I expect a different solution to the problem.

> pseudo-vectors -> bivectors

I agree. We only have to convince the other 7999999998 persons :) .

> relativistic mass

Another good rule of thumb, but I'm not sure for whom. This days nobody has to make a DIY synchrotron at home. It can probably go away, but it will resurface from time to time like a clever trick in a YouTube video.

> xyz

I like covariant equations, so I agree. Anyway, at work we sometimes use some non-covariant approximations but we add a search to optimize the base to get the best one were we can apply to nasty coordinate tricks.

Anyway, I needed like 10 years to understand the difference between a matrix and a linear transformation. 20yo probably only can use coordinates until they grow up.

Re: Researchers spot black hole feeding at 40x its theoretical limit

#53

Post by MrMcCall » Sat, Nov 30, 2024, 12:00 PM UTC

jdhwosnhw wrote: post #51

MrMcCall wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eugene Parker and Ludwig Boltzmann are familiar with your argument, and I doubt you even have Lord Kelvin's credentials. As Prof. Parker said, "We'll see who falls flat." (That's a paraphrase from memory; I doubt it's an exact quote.)

Boltzmann had a whole lot of math backing up his assertions. Among the many issues with what you posited, I highly doubt you have bothered to actually check to see if the force necessary to keep electrons from colliding with the nucleus would also be commensurate with what’s needed to counteract gravity at cosmological scales. Your theory is analogous to saying that we don’t need to invoke gravity to explain why the…

Sorry to have confused you, but the force that keeps atoms from imploding is (IIUC) of a different nature than that which keeps the universe expanding. They are both "dark energy", but I do not think they are the same "force".

I apologize for not making that clear, but I only know of their very basic nature, not their mathematical-physics relationships and differences. That's not my area of expertise. I'm a general systems person, so I have some very basic knowledge of how such systems behave. This is due to my curiosity about the universe and my own self, which has given me access to persons much more deeply connected than myself.

Note that Eugene Parker, too, had a lot of maths to back his claims up, but that didn't help him convince his peers. Only when we sent a probe up that could measure the solar wind did his detractors begin to stand down. That is always the way new levels of understanding are treated by the status quo.

Re: Researchers spot black hole feeding at 40x its theoretical limit

#54

Post by MrMcCall » Sat, Nov 30, 2024, 12:07 PM UTC

gus_massa wrote: post #47

MrMcCall wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Movement, yes, but does it explain why they just keep moving about in that cloud? I don't think so, but I'm open to learning.

The Schoedinger equation is a partial diferential equation. When you solve it, you get the eigenvalues and eigenvectors. The eigenvalues are the energies. The differences if energies are easy to measure experimentaly looking at the light of discharge lamps. Most of the science of early 20th century is triying to find a theory that explains the colors in that light. The eigenvectors of the Schoedinger equations are th…

No, our current models (the basis for the calculations) do not incorporate dark energy.

Sure, the Schoedinger Equation describes the electron cloud, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't account for why it is moving, and not spiraling into the nucleus. It can't. Put a different way, describing something's movement does not explain why it's moving. Still the SE is as amazing achievement, but it is descriptive of effects, not causes.

Re: Researchers spot black hole feeding at 40x its theoretical limit

#55

Post by MrMcCall » Sat, Nov 30, 2024, 12:14 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #50

MrMcCall wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yeah, that's how it works. On Earth here, we're an oasis of warm thermodynamic blessedness in a sea of frigid brutality. Be thankful there's no humans on Uranus.

Any life in the universe that evolved on Uranus-style systems will similarly be grateful not to be here on Earth. Their religions might go on about the perfect conditions compared to those scorchingly hot ones closer to the Sun. Hell, penguins don’t even like the tropics on the same planet.

I don't think there is enough heat energy on Uranus to facilitate the kind of brain that facilitates human-level thinking and behaving. Earth has vigorous blooms of life around our deepsea volcanic vents, but those life forms are not going to reach any where near our level of evolution. Its environment is too limited.