Evidence for More Universes.

[renormalised (Carl)]

....even if those presenters with big excited eyes and arms flying everywhere in their explanations tell me otherwise with their insistent statements

Well Suzy, there's an answer to that. I'm into genealogy and I know where this behaviour comes from. You see, they all have some Italian blood in them

Knowing that Italians are big on the wide eyed, very vocal, arm waving type of explanations and/or remonstrations, it's quite easy to see where they get this trait from

[renormalised (Carl)]

I've been stuck on something the last few days so will start a thread in this forum if I'm unable find out myself. It has to do with pulsars in white dwarf stars.

What's the problem, Suzy??

[Suzy]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Well Suzy, there's an answer to that. I'm into genealogy and I know where this behaviour comes from. You see, they all have some Italian blood in them

Knowing that Italians are big on the wide eyed, very vocal, arm waving type of explanations and/or remonstrations, it's quite easy to see where they get this trait from

Alex Filippenko might fit this bill.
I've been watching his very interesting Berkley lectures on YouTube. Oh boy there's so many, I think about 80. Slowly working my way thru. When I've finished watching them, I will tell you all my theory.

[Suzy]

Carl, I've just got a bit more reading regarding those pulsars that I'm trying to muddle through. But basically, I was surprised to hear that there are pulsars in 47Tuc.
I thought that globular clusters were only made of white dwarfs.
So for a pulsar to be found there, doesn't there have to be a super giant star which goes supernova for it to go on to be a pulsar. Or can this happen with a binary system of low mass stars where one feeds off the other and Kapow supernova 1a. But supernova 1a don't leave behind pulsars do they?

In short, how do those pulsars get there? Some 22 alone in 47 Tuc it seems.

[Suzy]

Oh and by the way...
Take a listen to this (LesD sent it to me on fb). No doubt Carl you've probably heard this already, but others should enjoy.
Have a panadol ready tho.

It is the sound file of the 16 millisecond pulsars in the globular cluster 47 Tuc. One by one at first, until they all play together.
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pulsar/Education/Sounds/47tuc1-8000.wav

[Suzy]

Okay, have just finished reading that article and am now even more surprised and confused than ever.

Wow, I didn't know that there was an ancient planet (13 billion yrs old) discovered in 2003, orbiting a pulsar/binary system in 47 Tuc.

Gets more and more interesting...

http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/b1620-26.htm

Thanks to Ron for sending me this link- he was trying to help me out in my quest to better understand globular clusters.

[renormalised (Carl)]

13 billion years, Suzy

[Suzy]

lol Carl, I just edited then saw your post.
I meant billion, just came out wrong.

I think I'm getting on top of it now Carl.

Discovered by Philippe Loys de Chéseaux (1718-51) in 1746, M4 (NGC 6121) is one of the Milky Way's smallest but closest known globular star clusters. Unfortunately, it is obscured by dark interstellar clouds from the perspective of the Solar System. Located only around 5,600 ly (1,720 parsecs) away in the northwestern part (16:23:35.4-26:31:31.9, J2000) of Constellation Scorpius (lined photo), the Scorpion, it is also one of the most open, or loose, globulars with some 100,000 stars spread over more than 50 ly. As it contains mostly stars around 13 (12.7 +/- 0.35) billion years old (Sigurdsson et al, 2003), most of its higher-mass stars (i.e., Sol-sized and larger) have already evolved out of the main sequence to become white dwarfs, neutron stars, or black holes. (See a photo of some of M4's white dwarfs). Moreover, since most of M4's stars were formed within a billion years of the Big Bang, they are only around five percent as enriched in elements heavier than hydrogen and helium as Sol (Sigurdsson et al, 2003).

So they seem to be a big soup of everything. Interesting. But then that poses more questions for me. If there are black holes in them that just opens up a whole other can of worms of questions within me. Yikes.

[astroron (Ron)]

Hi Suzy, see this passage to see how the pulsers ect where formed

Discovered by Philippe Loys de Chéseaux (1718-51) in 1746, M4 (NGC 6121) is one of the Milky Way's smallest but closest known globular star clusters. Unfortunately, it is obscured by dark interstellar clouds from the perspective of the Solar System. Located only around 5,600 ly (1,720 parsecs) away in the northwestern part (16:23:35.4-26:31:31.9, J2000) of Constellation Scorpius (lined photo), the Scorpion, it is also one of the most open, or loose, globulars with some 100,000 stars spread over more than 50 ly. As it contains mostly stars around 13 (12.7 +/- 0.35) billion years old (Sigurdsson et al, 2003), most of its higher-mass stars (i.e., Sol-sized and larger) have already evolved out of the main sequence to become white dwarfs, neutron stars, or black holes. (See a photo of some of M4's white dwarfs). Moreover, since most of M4's stars were formed within a billion years of the Big Bang, they are only around five percent as enriched in elements heavier than hydrogen and helium as Sol (Sigurdsson et al, 2003).
I hope this helps
Cheers

[madbadgalaxyman (Robert)]

Suzy,

I can quite understand your perplexed response when scientists, and especially cosmologists, seem to lecture about things that sound outlandish or nearly impossible, and yet they give the lecture in that characteristic tone of absolute certainty.
(cosmologists have a habit of "believing in six nearly impossible things..... and that's before breakfast")

Unfortunately, many popular science presentations give the incorrect impression that all of the ideas put forward are facts,
so they fail to distinguish between :

• those theories that are secure (the old idea of a "law" ; such as Newton's laws of motion

• those ideas that are more likely to be true than not true (that is, ideas that are not one hundred percent secure, such as dark matter)
• those ideas which are essentially informed speculation (e.g. the multiverse).

More about this later, as I have deadline to meet ("just for fun, I work with a soil scientist studying soil invertebrates, and he wants some data soon)

cheers, Robert

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by madbadgalaxyman

...cosmologists, seem to lecture about things that sound outlandish or nearly impossible, and yet they give the lecture in that characteristic tone of absolute certainty.

Unfortunately, many popular science presentations give the incorrect impression that all of the ideas put forward are facts,

Yep....all done to promote their work. Makes it look sexy. Plus, the scientist want to look like they know what they're talking about and that they are the ones with all the answers. It's the old "teacher/student" thing.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by madbadgalaxyman

Suzy,

I can quite understand your perplexed response when scientists, and especially cosmologists, seem to lecture about things that sound outlandish or nearly impossible, and yet they give the lecture in that characteristic tone of absolute certainty.
(cosmologists have a habit of "believing in six nearly impossible things..... and that's before breakfast")

Unfortunately, many popular science presentations give the incorrect impression that all of the ideas put forward are facts,
so they fail to distinguish between :

• those theories that are secure (the old idea of a "law" ; such as Newton's laws of motion

• those ideas that are more likely to be true than not true (that is, ideas that are not one hundred percent secure, such as dark matter)
• those ideas which are essentially informed speculation (e.g. the multiverse).

More about this later, as I have deadline to meet ("just for fun, I work with a soil scientist studying soil invertebrates, and he wants some data soon)

So, given that these presentations actually serve a productive purpose by introducing more folk to astronomy, astrophysics and the 'science' of it all, does not the outcome of the above observations listed by Robert, say more about our own individual unfulfilled expectations, than it says about science?

There seems to be much time spent on criticising these presentations (I'm also 'guilty' of this … to a certain extent .. I'll admit that), and seemingly, less time spent on strengthening our abilities to see through the smoke ..?..

Cheers