• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Today in science and space

Have you ever seen a paper written that assures us the colliding of two particles at such super high speeds won't cause a kind of explosion that would wipe out a huge part of the Earth?

Will the Large Hadron Collider Destroy Earth?​

News published October 26, 2012

large hadron collider, lhc
The LHC is not likely to create a black hole, a strangelet or destroy the earth. (Image credit: CERN)

The potential for the world's largest atom smasher to destroy Earth is one question weighing on the minds of some lay people as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) prepares to go online Wednesday.

Don't worry, say the experts, who are more concerned with whether the 17-mile-long particle accelerator underground at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research near Geneva, Switzerland, will work as planned and, perhaps, reveal the existence of the so-called God particle.
 

Will the Large Hadron Collider Destroy Earth?​

News published October 26, 2012

large hadron collider, lhc
The LHC is not likely to create a black hole, a strangelet or destroy the earth. (Image credit: CERN)

The potential for the world's largest atom smasher to destroy Earth is one question weighing on the minds of some lay people as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) prepares to go online Wednesday.

Don't worry, say the experts, who are more concerned with whether the 17-mile-long particle accelerator underground at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research near Geneva, Switzerland, will work as planned and, perhaps, reveal the existence of the so-called God particle.

Thank you.

I seem to be kicking some memory cells into an awake stage now and remember that one of those colliders some years ago (in France, maybe) had some sort of maintenance issues that kept it from being used for a long time.

And now I am remembering a recent article I ran into that indicated some sort of big surprise resulted when they did some of that colliding work.

Seriously complicated work those folks are into.
 
Thank you.

I seem to be kicking some memory cells into an awake stage now and remember that one of those colliders some years ago (in France, maybe) had some sort of maintenance issues that kept it from being used for a long time.

And now I am remembering a recent article I ran into that indicated some sort of big surprise resulted when they did some of that colliding work.

Seriously complicated work those folks are into.
Please note that the article I posted was from 2012...
A lot has happened since then and most concerns about blowing up the planet have subsided...
 
Have you ever seen a paper written that assures us the colliding of two particles at such super high speeds won't cause a kind of explosion that would wipe out a huge part of the Earth?
People said similar things about the LHC.
 
1711407635915.webp

03-24-2024

Study: Dark matter does not exist and the universe is 27 billion years old​

The fabric of the cosmos, as we currently understand it, comprises three primary components: ‘normal matter,’ ‘dark energy,’ and ‘dark matter.’ However, new research is turning this established model on its head.

A recent study conducted by the University of Ottawa presents compelling evidence that challenges the traditional model of the universe, suggesting that there may not be a place for dark matter within it.

Core of the new CCC+TL model​

Dark matter, a term used in cosmology, refers to the elusive substance that does not interact with light or electromagnetic fields and is only identifiable through its gravitational effects.

Despite its mysterious nature, dark matter has been a fundamental element in explaining the behavior of galaxies, stars, and planets.

At the heart of this research is Rajendra Gupta, a distinguished physics professor at the Faculty of Science. Gupta’s innovative approach involves the integration of two theoretical models: the covarying coupling constants (CCC) and “tired light” (TL), known together as the CCC+TL model.

This model explores the notion that the forces of nature diminish over cosmic time and that light loses energy over vast distances.

This theory has been rigorously tested and aligns with various astronomical observations, including the distribution of galaxies and the evolution of light from the early universe.

 
This loss of memory trouble is seriously frustrating, but I finally found which email account the JStage articles are sent to and found that it was, indeed, the LHC that I was remembering had early troubles and I have the JStage link for the pdf I received back then and checked and it can still be had, I think without a subscription:


But just in case, I also found this:

In September 2008, just 9 days after it first circulated particles, the LHC suffered a catastrophic breakdown when an interconnect between two magnets melted. That problem took 14 months to correct.

Now the other matter I made a reference to was not related to science arising from work done with colliders, but it seems it arose from data the telescopes have been collecting.

First, let me place something here:

Time.webp

So that is a rough standard used up to about this date or so.

And then this came to me from a journal, but trying to use the link caused all sorts of trouble and I went looking for another summary of that information and found nothing that was quite as good as that which was sent to me, so I will simply have to use the quote box without the link because I don't want to cause anyone any trouble like I just had with that link.

Here is what I am on about with regard to maybe we are not understanding the Universe quite as we thought we should be:

Astronomers have used the James Webb and Hubble space telescopes to confirm one of the most troubling conundrums in all of physics — that the universe appears to be expanding at bafflingly different speeds depending on where we look.

This problem, known as the Hubble Tension, has the potential to alter or even upend cosmology altogether. In 2019, measurements by the Hubble Space Telescope confirmed the puzzle was real; in 2023, even more precise measurements from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) cemented the discrepancy.

Now, a triple-check by both telescopes working together appears to have put the possibility of any measurement error to bed for good. The study, published February 6 in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, suggests that there may be something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe.

The link I have to that Feb, 6th study is not very good and I am not sure why. But the last sentence above is a good summary for just one sentence; maybe we are "seriously wrong" and that is hardcore vocabulary usage that fits.
 
This loss of memory trouble is seriously frustrating, but I finally found which email account the JStage articles are sent to and found that it was, indeed, the LHC that I was remembering had early troubles and I have the JStage link for the pdf I received back then and checked and it can still be had, I think without a subscription:


But just in case, I also found this:



Now the other matter I made a reference to was not related to science arising from work done with colliders, but it seems it arose from data the telescopes have been collecting.

First, let me place something here:

View attachment 67503113

So that is a rough standard used up to about this date or so.

And then this came to me from a journal, but trying to use the link caused all sorts of trouble and I went looking for another summary of that information and found nothing that was quite as good as that which was sent to me, so I will simply have to use the quote box without the link because I don't want to cause anyone any trouble like I just had with that link.

Here is what I am on about with regard to maybe we are not understanding the Universe quite as we thought we should be:



The link I have to that Feb, 6th study is not very good and I am not sure why. But the last sentence above is a good summary for just one sentence; maybe we are "seriously wrong" and that is hardcore vocabulary usage that fits.

JWST Observations Reject Unrecognized Crowding of Cepheid Photometry as an Explanation for the Hubble Tension at 8σ Confidence​

********************

Abstract​

We present high-definition observations with the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) of >1000 Cepheids in a geometric anchor of the distance ladder, NGC 4258, and in five hosts of eight Type Ia supernovae, a far greater sample than previous studies with JWST. These galaxies individually contain the largest samples of Cepheids, an average of >150 each, producing the strongest statistical comparison to those previously measured with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) in the near-infrared (NIR). They also span the distance range of those used to determine the Hubble constant with HST, allowing us to search for a distance-dependent bias in HST measurements. The superior resolution of JWST negates crowding noise, the largest source of variance in the NIR Cepheid period–luminosity relations (Leavitt laws) measured with HST. Together with the use of two epochs to constrain Cepheid phases and three filters to remove reddening, we reduce the dispersion in the Cepheid PL relations by a factor of 2.5. We find no significant difference in the mean distance measurements determined from HST and JWST, with a formal difference of −0.01 ± 0.03 mag. This result is independent of zero-points and analysis variants including metallicity dependence, local crowding, choice of filters, and slope of the relations. We can reject the hypothesis of unrecognized crowding of Cepheid photometry from HST that grows with distance as the cause of the "Hubble tension" at 8.2σ, i.e., greater confidence than that of the Hubble tension itself. We conclude that errors in photometric measurements of Cepheids across the distance ladder do not significantly contribute to the tension.

 

JWST Observations Reject Unrecognized Crowding of Cepheid Photometry as an Explanation for the Hubble Tension at 8σ Confidence​

********************

Abstract​

We present high-definition observations with the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) of >1000 Cepheids in a geometric anchor of the distance ladder, NGC 4258, and in five hosts of eight Type Ia supernovae, a far greater sample than previous studies with JWST. These galaxies individually contain the largest samples of Cepheids, an average of >150 each, producing the strongest statistical comparison to those previously measured with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) in the near-infrared (NIR). They also span the distance range of those used to determine the Hubble constant with HST, allowing us to search for a distance-dependent bias in HST measurements. The superior resolution of JWST negates crowding noise, the largest source of variance in the NIR Cepheid period–luminosity relations (Leavitt laws) measured with HST. Together with the use of two epochs to constrain Cepheid phases and three filters to remove reddening, we reduce the dispersion in the Cepheid PL relations by a factor of 2.5. We find no significant difference in the mean distance measurements determined from HST and JWST, with a formal difference of −0.01 ± 0.03 mag. This result is independent of zero-points and analysis variants including metallicity dependence, local crowding, choice of filters, and slope of the relations. We can reject the hypothesis of unrecognized crowding of Cepheid photometry from HST that grows with distance as the cause of the "Hubble tension" at 8.2σ, i.e., greater confidence than that of the Hubble tension itself. We conclude that errors in photometric measurements of Cepheids across the distance ladder do not significantly contribute to the tension.


I do appreciate feedback on this topic, HangLow, but it might be a day or two before I can study your input. So this is a simple thank you.
 
Attn: @MaryP

Why the ‘best meteor shower’​

of the year promises to be extra special​

1714883330789.png

The stars have aligned for one of 2024's best meteor showers. This year, the shower is expected to be extra special as it reaches peak as we have a new moon, NASA explains. That means the skies will be extra dark just before dawn.

For the best viewing, NASA recommends looking straight skyward while lying on the ground with your feet toward the east.

Researchers say this year’s Eta Aquariid meteor shower could be the best we see this entire century. You have until May 27 to take it in.

Earth will cross through the Halley’s Comet orbit again in October, giving us the chance to see the Orionid meteor shower.

 
Last edited:
moon_day_new.jpg

MAY 8 NEW MOON

On this day the Moon will be in a New Moon phase.

During this phase the Moon is too close to the sun in the sky to be visible.

The moon rises and sets with the sun and is not present in the night sky.

Because of this the night sky is darker and an excellent time to view other celestial objects.

Like the Full Moon, a New Moon happens at a very specific time when the sun and moon have the same ecliptic longitude and it can be measured down to the second it occurs.

1714883740500.webp

New Moon Moonrise And Moonset​

 
Attn: @MaryP

Why the ‘best meteor shower’​

of the year promises to be extra special​


The stars have aligned for one of 2024's best meteor showers. This year, the shower is expected to be extra special as it reaches peak as we have a new moon, NASA explains. That means the skies will be extra dark just before dawn.

For the best viewing, NASA recommends looking straight skyward while lying on the ground with your feet toward the east.

Researchers say this year’s Eta Aquariid meteor shower could be the best we see this entire century. You have until May 27 to take it in.

Earth will cross through the Halley’s Comet orbit again in October, giving us the chance to see the Orionid meteor shower.

Thank you, @HangLow !
 
Back
Top Bottom