# Son fuentes de radio y explosiones de rayos gamma Luminal Plumas?

Este artículo fue publicado en el International Journal of Modern Physics D (IJMP–D) en 2007. Pronto se convirtió en el Top Consultado el artículo de la revista por Ene 2008.

Aunque pueda parecer un artículo de la física núcleo duro, de hecho, es una aplicación de la idea filosófica que impregna este blog y mi libro.

Esta versión blog contiene el resumen, introducción y conclusiones. La versión completa del artículo está disponible como un archivo PDF.

Diario de Referencia: IJMP-D completa. 16, No. 6 (2007) pp. 983–1000.

.

Resumen

El reblandecimiento de la luminiscencia residual de GRB tiene similitudes notables con la evolución de frecuencia en un estampido sónico. En el extremo delantero del cono boom sónico, la frecuencia es infinito, muy similar a una explosión de rayos gamma (GRB). En el interior del cono, la frecuencia disminuye rápidamente a los rangos infrasónicas y la fuente de sonido aparece en dos lugares al mismo tiempo, imitando las fuentes de radio de doble lobulado. Aunque “luminal” auge viola la invariancia Lorentz y por lo tanto está prohibido, es tentador trabajar en los detalles y compararlos con los datos existentes. Esta tentación es aún mayor por la superluminality observada en los objetos celestes asociados con fuentes de radio y algunos GRBs. En este artículo, se calcula la variación temporal y espacial de las frecuencias observadas de un auge luminal hipotética y muestran notable similitud entre nuestros cálculos y observaciones actuales.

#### Introducción

Un boom sónico se crea cuando un objeto emisor de sonido pasa a través del medio más rápido que la velocidad del sonido en ese medio. Como el objeto atraviesa el medio, el sonido que emite crea un frente de onda cónica, como se muestra en la figura 1. La frecuencia de sonido en este frente de onda es infinita debido al cambio Doppler. La frecuencia detrás del frente de onda cónica cae dramáticamente y pronto alcanza el rango infrasonic. Esta evolución frecuencia es notablemente similar a persistencia luminosa evolución de un estallido de rayos gamma (GRB).

Explosiones de rayos gamma son muy breves, pero intensos destellos de $\gamma$ rayos en el cielo, que dura desde unos pocos milisegundos a varios minutos, y se consideran actualmente emanar de colapsos estelares cataclismos. Los cortos destellos (las prontas emisiones) van seguidos de un resplandor de energías progresivamente más suaves. Así, la inicial $\gamma$ rayos se sustituyen rápidamente por rayos X, la luz e incluso ondas de radio frecuencia. Este ablandamiento del espectro se ha conocido desde hace bastante tiempo, y fue descrito por primera vez usando una hipernova (bola de fuego) modelo. En este modelo, una bola de fuego en expansión relativista produce la $\gamma$ emisión, y el espectro se ablanda como la bola de fuego se enfría. El modelo calcula la energía liberada en la $\gamma$ región $10^ {53}$$10^ {54}$ ergs en unos segundos. Esta salida de energía es similar a alrededor 1000 veces la energía total liberada por el sol durante toda su vida útil.

Más recientemente, un decaimiento inversa de la energía pico con constante de tiempo variables se ha utilizado para ajustarse empíricamente la evolución en el tiempo observado de la energía de pico utilizando un modelo colapsar. Según este modelo, GRBs se producen cuando la energía de las corrientes altamente relativistas en colapsos estelares se disipa, con los chorros de radiación resultantes ángulo correctamente con respecto a nuestra línea de visión. El modelo colapsar estima una producción de energía más bajos porque la energía liberada no es isótropo, pero se concentró a lo largo de los chorros. Sin embargo, el ritmo de los acontecimientos Collapsar tiene que ser corregido para la fracción del ángulo sólido en el que los chorros de radiación pueden aparecer como GRBs. GRBs se observan aproximadamente a razón de una vez al día. Así, la tasa esperada de los eventos cataclísmicos que accionan los GRBs es del orden de $10^4$$10^6$ por día. Debido a esta relación inversa entre la tasa y la salida de energía estimada, la energía total liberada por observada PSG sigue siendo el mismo.

Si pensamos en un GRB como un efecto similar a la explosión sónica en movimiento supersónico, el requerimiento de energía catastrófica asumido vuelve superflua. Otra característica de nuestra percepción del objeto supersónico es que escuchamos a la fuente de sonido a las dos de ubicación diferente, como al mismo tiempo, como se ilustra en la figura 2. Este curioso efecto tiene lugar porque las ondas sonoras emitidas en dos puntos diferentes en la trayectoria del objeto supersónico alcanzan el observador en el mismo instante en el tiempo. El resultado final de este efecto es la percepción de un par simétricamente retroceso de fuentes de sonido, que, en el mundo luminal, es una buena descripción de las fuentes de radio simétricos (Doble fuente de radio asociada con Núcleo Galáctico o Dragn).

Fuentes de radio simétricos (galáctico o extragaláctico) y GRBs pueden parecer fenómenos completamente distintos. Sin embargo, sus núcleos muestran una evolución temporal similar en el pico de energía, pero con muy diferentes constantes de tiempo. Los espectros de GRBs evolucionar rápidamente de $\gamma$ región a un resplandor óptico o incluso RF, similar a la evolución espectral de los puntos de acceso de una fuente de radio a medida que avanzan desde el núcleo a los lóbulos. Otras similitudes han comenzado a atraer la atención en los últimos años.

Este artículo explora las similitudes entre una hipotética “luminal” auge y estos dos fenómenos astrofísicos, aunque tal auge luminal está prohibido por la invariancia Lorentz. El tratamiento de los PSG como una manifestación de un hipotético resultado de auge luminales en un modelo que unifica estos dos fenómenos y hace predicciones detalladas de sus cinemática.

#### Conclusiones

En este artículo, nos fijamos en la evolución espacio-temporal de un objeto supersónico (tanto en su posición y la frecuencia del sonido que escuchamos). Hemos demostrado que se parece mucho a los GRBs y DRAGNs si fuéramos a extender los cálculos a la luz, aunque un auge luminal requeriría movimiento superluminal y por lo tanto está prohibido.

A pesar de que no se ocupa de las cuestiones de la energética (el origen de superluminality), nuestro modelo presenta una opción interesante basado en cómo íbamos a percibir el movimiento superluminal hipotética. Presentamos un conjunto de predicciones y los comparó con los datos existentes de DRAGNs y GRBs. Las características tales como el azul del núcleo, la simetría de los lóbulos, el transitorio $\gamma$ y estallidos de rayos-X, medido la evolución de los espectros a lo largo de todo el chorro de encontrar explicaciones naturales y simples en este modelo como efectos perceptivos. Animado por este éxito inicial, podemos aceptar nuestro modelo basado en el auge luminal como modelo de trabajo para estos fenómenos astrofísicos.

Se ha de destacar que los efectos perceptuales pueden enmascararse como aparentes violaciónes de la física tradicional. Un ejemplo de tal efecto es el movimiento aparente superlumínico, que fue explicado y anticipado en el contexto de la teoría especial de la relatividad, incluso antes de que se observó de hecho. Aunque la observación de movimiento superlumínico fue el punto de partida detrás del trabajo presentado en este artículo, que no es en absoluto una indicación de la validez de nuestro modelo. La similitud entre un estampido sónico y un auge luminal hipotética en la evolución espacio-temporal y espectral se presenta aquí como una curiosa, aunque probablemente poco sólida, base de nuestro modelo.

Foto por Foto Goddard de la NASA y Video

# The Big Bang Theory

I am a physicist, but I don&#8217;t quite understand the Big Bang theory. Let me tell you why.

The Big Bang theory says that the whole universe started from a “singularity” — a single point. The first question then is, a single point where? It is not a single point “in space” because the whole space was a single point. The Discovery channel would put it fancifully that “the whole universe could fit in the palm of your hand,” which of course it could not. Your palm would also be a little palm inside the little universe in that single point.

The second question is, if the whole universe was inside one point, what about all the points around it? Physicists would advise you not to ask such stupid questions. No se sienta mal, they have asked me to shut up as well. Some of them may kindly explain that the other points may be parallel universes. Others may say that there are no “other” puntos. They may point out (as Steven Weinberg does in The Dreams of a Final Theory) that there is nothing more to the north of the North Pole. I consider this analogy more of a semantic argument than a scientific one, but let&#8217;s buy this argument for now.

The next hurdle is that the singularity is in space-time — not merely in space. So before the Big Bang, there was no time. Lo sentimos, there was no “antes!” This is a concept that my five year old son has problems with. De nuevo, the Big Bang cosmologist will point out that things do not necessarily have to continue backwards — you may think that whatever temperature something is at, you can always make it a little colder. But you cannot make it colder than absolute zero. Verdadero, verdadero; but is temperature the same as time? Temperature is a measure of hotness, which is an aggregate of molecular speeds. And speed is distance traveled in unit time. Time again. Hmmm….

I am sure it is my lack of imagination or incompleteness of training that is preventing me from understanding and accepting this Big Bang concept. But even after buying the space-time singularity concept, other difficulties persist.

Firstly, if the whole universe is at one point at one time, one would naively expect it to make a super-massive black hole from which not even light can escape. Clearly then, the whole universe couldn&#8217;t have banged out of that point. But I&#8217;m sure there is a perfectly logical explanation why it can, just that I don’t know it yet. May be some of my readers will point it out to me?

Segundo, what&#8217;s with dark matter and dark energy? The Big Bang cosmology has to stretch itself a bit with the notion of dark energy to account for the large scale dynamics of the observed universe. Our universe is expanding (or so it appears) at an accelerating rate, which can only be accounted for by assuming that there is an invisible energy pushing the galaxies apart. Within the galaxies themselves, stars are moving around as though there is more mass than we can see. This is the so called dark matter. Aunque “dark” signifies invisible, to me, it sounds as though we are in the dark about what these beasts are!

The third trouble I have is the fact that the Big Bang cosmology violates special relativity (SR). This little concern of mine has been answered in many different ways:

• One answer is that general relativity “trumps” SR — if there are conflicting predictions or directives from these two theories, I was advised to always trust GR.
• Además, SR applies only to local motion, like spaceships whizzing past each other. Non-local events do not have to obey SR. This makes me wonder how events know whether they are local or not. Bueno, that was bit tongue in cheek. I can kind of buy this argument (based on curvature of space-time perhaps becoming significant at large distances), although the non-scientific nature of local-ness makes me uneasy. (During the inflationary phase in the Big Bang theory, were things local or non-local?)
• Third answer: In the case of the Big Bang, the space itself is expanding, hence no violation of SR. SR applies to motion through space. (Wonder if I could&#8217;ve used that line when I got pulled over on I-81. “Officer, I wasn&#8217;t speeding. Just that the space in between was expanding a little too fast!”)

Speaking of space expanding, it is supposed to be expanding only in between galaxies, not within them, aparentemente. I&#8217;m sure there is a perfectly logical explanation why, probably related to the proximity of masses or whatnot, but I&#8217;m not well-versed enough to understand it. In physics, disagreement and skepticism are always due to ignorance. But it is true that I have no idea what they mean when they say the space itself is expanding. If I stood in a region where the space was expanding, would I become bigger and would galaxies look smaller to me?

Note that it is necessary for space to expand only between galaxies. If it expanded everywhere, from subatomic to galactic scales, it would look as though nothing changed. Hardly satisfying because the distant galaxies do look as though they are flying off at great speeds.

I guess the real question is, what exactly is the difference between space expanding between two galaxies and the two galaxies merely moving away from each other?

One concept that I find bizarre is that singularity doesn&#8217;t necessarily mean single point in space. It was pointed out to me that the Big Bang could have been a spread out affair — thinking otherwise was merely my misconception, because I got confused by the similarity between the words “singularity” and single.

People present the Big Bang theory in physics pretty much like Evolution in biology, implying the same level of infallibility. But I feel that it is disingenuous to do that. A mí, it looks as though the theory is so full of patchwork, such a mathematical collage to cook up something that is consistent with GR that it is hard to imagine that it corresponds to anything real (ignorando, for the moment, my favorite question — lo que es real?) But popular writers have embraced it. Por ejemplo, Ray Kurzweil and Richard Dawkins put it as a matter of fact in their books, lending it a credence that it perhaps doesn&#8217;t merit.

# Universe – Size and Age

He publicado esta pregunta que me estaba molestando cuando leí que encontraron una galaxia a unos 13 mil millones de años luz de distancia. Mi comprensión de esta afirmación es: A una distancia de 13 miles de millones de años luz, hubo una galaxia 13 Hace millones de años, de manera que podamos ver la luz desde ahora. ¿No sería eso quiere decir que el universo es al menos 26 miles de millones de años de edad? Debe de haber tomado la galaxia acerca 13 miles de millones de años para llegar a donde parece ser, y la luz de ella debe tomar otra 13 miles de millones de años en llegar hasta nosotros.

Al responder a mi pregunta, Martin y Swansont (que supongo que son phycisists académicos) señalar mis conceptos erróneos y esencialmente me pregunta para conocer más. Todo se responderán cuando estoy asimilando, parecería! 🙂

This debate is published as a prelude to my post on the Big Bang theory, coming up in a day or two.

 Mowgli 03-26-2007 10:14 PM

Universe – Size and Age
I was reading a post in http://www.space.com/ stating that they found a galaxy at about 13 mil millones de años luz de distancia. I am trying to figure out what that statement means. A mí, it means that 13 Hace millones de años, this galaxy was where we see it now. Isn’t that what 13b LY away means? Si es así, wouldn’t that mean that the universe has to be at least 26 miles de millones de años de edad? Quiero decir, the whole universe started from one singular point; how could this galaxy be where it was 13 billion years ago unless it had at least 13 billion years to get there? (Ignoring the inflationary phase for the moment…) I have heard people explain that the space itself is expanding. What the heck does that mean? Isn’t it just a fancier way of saying that the speed of light was smaller some time ago?
 swansont 03-27-2007 09:10 AM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mowgli (Post 329204) Quiero decir, the whole universe started from one singular point; how could this galaxy be where it was 13 billion years ago unless it had at least 13 billion years to get there? (Ignoring the inflationary phase for the moment…)

Ignoring all the rest, how would this mean the universe is 26 miles de millones de años de edad?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mowgli (Post 329204) I have heard people explain that the space itself is expanding. What the heck does that mean? Isn’t it just a fancier way of saying that the speed of light was smaller some time ago?

The speed of light is an inherent part of atomic structure, in the fine structure constant (alpha). If c was changing, then the patterns of atomic spectra would have to change. There hasn’t been any confirmed data that shows that alpha has changed (there has been the occasional paper claiming it, but you need someone to repeat the measurements), and the rest is all consistent with no change.

 Martin 03-27-2007 11:25 AM

To confirm or reinforce what swansont said, there are speculation and some fringe or nonstandard cosmologies that involve c changing over time (or alpha changing over time), but the changing constants thing just gets more and more ruled out.I’ve been watching for over 5 years and the more people look and study evidence the LESS likely it seems that there is any change. They rule it out more and more accurately with their data.So it is probably best to ignore the “varying speed of light” cosmologies until one is thoroughly familiar with standard mainstream cosmology.You have misconceptions Mowgli

• General Relativity (la 1915 theory) trumps Special Rel (1905)
• They don’t actually contradict if you understand them correctly, because SR has only a very limited local applicability, like to the spaceship passing by:-)
• Wherever GR and SR SEEM to contradict, believe GR. It is the more comprehensive theory.
• GR does not have a speed limit on the rate that very great distances can increase. the only speed limit is on LOCAL stuff (you can’t catch up with and pass a photon)
• So we can and DO observe stuff that is receding from us faster than c. (It’s far away, SR does not apply.)
• This was explained in a Sci Am article I think last year
• Google the author’s name Charles Lineweaver and Tamara Davis.
• We know about plenty of stuff that is presently more than 14 billion LY away.
• You need to learn some cosmology so you wont be confused by these things.
• Also a “singularity” does not mean a single point. that is a popular mistake because the words SOUND the same.
• A singularity can occur over an entire region, even an infinite region.

Also the “big bang” model doesn’t look like an explosion of matter whizzing away from some point. It shouldn’t be imagined like that. The best article explaining common mistakes people have is this Lineweaver and Davis thing in Sci Am. I think it was Jan or Feb 2005 but I could be a year off. Google it. Get it from your local library or find it online. Best advice I can give.

 Mowgli 03-28-2007 01:30 AM

To swansont on why I thought 13 b LY implied an age of 26 b years:When you say that there is a galaxy at 13 b LY away, I understand it to mean that 13 billion years ago my time, the galaxy was at the point where I see it now (que es 13 b LY away from me). Knowing that everything started from the same point, it must have taken the galaxy at least 13 b years to get where it was 13 b years ago. Así 13+13. I’m sure I must be wrong.To Martin: Tienes razón, I need to learn quite a bit more about cosmology. But a couple of things you mentioned surprise me — how do we observe stuff that is receding from as FTL? Quiero decir, wouldn’t the relativistic Doppler shift formula give imaginary 1 z? And the stuff beyond 14 b LY away – are they “outside” el universo?I will certainly look up and read the authors you mentioned. Gracias.
 swansont 03-28-2007 03:13 AM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mowgli (Post 329393) To swansont on why I thought 13 b LY implied an age of 26 b years:When you say that there is a galaxy at 13 b LY away, I understand it to mean that 13 billion years ago my time, the galaxy was at the point where I see it now (que es 13 b LY away from me). Knowing that everything started from the same point, it must have taken the galaxy at least 13 b years to get where it was 13 b years ago. Así 13+13. I’m sure I must be wrong.

That would depend on how you do your calibration. Looking only at a Doppler shift and ignoring all the other factors, if you know that speed correlates with distance, you get a certain redshift and you would probably calibrate that to mean 13b LY if that was the actual distance. That light would be 13b years old.

But as Martin has pointed out, space is expanding; the cosmological redshift is different from the Doppler shift. Because the intervening space has expanded, AFAIK the light that gets to us from a galaxy 13b LY away is not as old, because it was closer when the light was emitted. I would think that all of this is taken into account in the measurements, so that when a distance is given to the galaxy, it’s the actual distance.

 Martin 03-28-2007 08:54 AM

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Mowgli (Post 329393) I will certainly look up and read the authors you mentioned.

This post has 5 o 6 links to that Sci Am article by Lineweaver and Davis

http://scienceforums.net/forum/showt…965#post142965