4 ms·

How Raganwald Lost His Crown

137 points by braythwayt 9y ago

braythwayt 9y ago
Disclosure: A rare self-post. I'd be very grateful for any and all corrections to the story, as I am far from an expert is astrophysics, geology, or pretty-much anything else.
- angersock 9y ago
  Well, at least you recalled the story toothfully.
  - braythwayt 9y ago
    Writing is an exercise in literary mastication.
- pstuart 9y ago
  Small typo: "Neutron stars to not hang, fixed in space" I'm guessing that it should be "do not"
  - braythwayt 9y ago
    https://github.com/raganwald/braythwayt.com/commit/dc07b496dbffe03d3bcc3b14d3a9a4260fdb1362 https://github.com/raganwald/braythwayt.com/commit/dc07b496d...
  - pstuart 9y ago
    Another: "May tiny such creatures, when they died" Many?
  - szafranek 9y ago
    Probably another typo: "planet our side" -> "planet our size"? Also, this is a beautiful piece of writing! I love it.
    - braythwayt 9y ago
      https://github.com/raganwald/braythwayt.com/commit/981362fad28c8b664d2e07ca6d2bf58ab53dd374 https://github.com/raganwald/braythwayt.com/commit/981362fad... Thank you or sharing your appreciation. I will treasure that.
- davidw 9y ago
  Is that you racing cross on the book cover?
  - braythwayt 9y ago
    Yes it was, when the stars were younger than today :-)
- WaxProlix 9y ago
  > I would have found that while my scale tells me that I am about 86 kilograms on Earth, I would have weighed 8.6 trillion kilograms on this neutron star. Kilograms are a measure of mass, not weight. Pounds would be a more appropriate unit there.
  - bryanl 9y ago
    Most of the people world weigh themselves in kilograms.
    - braythwayt 9y ago
      True, but WaxProlix is correct. Ten kilograms is 22 pounds on Earth, but 2.2 trillion pounds on the given Neutron Star.
      - bloat 9y ago
        I was going to jump in and say that the pound is also a unit of mass. But it turns out its both. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass)
        braythwayt 9y ago
        And then there's the foot-pound, a unit of torque much prized by the owners of muscle cars until eclectric vehicles went from obscure to early-adopter status.
        platz 9y ago
        Also, assuming we're talking about rest mass, since without that distinction the word mass is ambiguous in accelerated contexts.
        uxp 9y ago
        Or just general torque in the United States. Electric vehicles still have tires that are joined to wheels which are fastened to an axle by the tightening of a nut on a threaded stud. For safety, we generally state that the nut should have X foot-pounds of torque applied to ensure it doesn't fall off. Unless Tesla et al. have suddenly decided to use a more universal standard in the states, I'd assume they still publish that value in ft/lbs, since 98% of tools designed to measure these things owned in the U.S.A. have this unit on them.
- gwking 9y ago
  > At some point, a satellite the size of Mars came crashing into the earth, so hard and so fast that about a third of the earth was blasted into space. It didn’t go far–the debris formed a ring around the earth, and gravity eventually compacted it into a single satellite, our moon, but a satellite much larger than our planet’s gravity would normally be able to capture. Something seems off about "a third": according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon, the Moon's radius is a bit less than a third of Earth's, but its volume is 2% and its mass is just 1%. I'm no expert, but "about a hundredth" seems more accurate. For what it's worth, I only looked it up because I've come across this discrepancy before, so perhaps I'm missing something!
  - braythwayt 9y ago
    I could be wrong about this, but note also that not all of the material ejected from the impact wound up in Earth's orbit.
pjdorrell 9y ago
Binaries almost never form from stars “wandering” and “encountering” other stars. Current scientific understanding is that almost all stars are formed as binaries in the first place.
- braythwayt 9y ago
  Thank you! https://github.com/raganwald/braythwayt.com/commit/113f94686d94d8ff1dc1978c7a6b20ded19397de https://github.com/raganwald/braythwayt.com/commit/113f94686... From Wikipedia: While it is not impossible that some binaries might be created through gravitational capture between two single stars, given the very low likelihood of such an event (three objects are actually required, as conservation of energy rules out a single gravitating body capturing another) and the high number of binaries, this cannot be the primary formation process. Also, the observation of binaries consisting of pre main-sequence stars, supports the theory that binaries are already formed during star formation. Fragmentation of the molecular cloud during the formation of protostars is an acceptable explanation for the formation of a binary or multiple star system.
saagarjha 9y ago
> I might have lifted my Apple Watch and said “Hey Siri, record a note.” If I was using the Apple Neutron Star Edition Apple WatchOS, it would have had to correct for time dilation between time at my waist and time at my shoulder. Would it, really? Using a back-of-the-envelope calculation using a formula pulled from Wikipedia[1], and assuming: 1. The Apple Watch needs to stay within 50 milliseconds as Apple advertises 2. The neutron star is around two solar masses and has a radius of 10 km, and isn't spinning faster than 1,000 times a second 3. The distance between your waist and shoulder is about a meter it should take a couple hundred seconds before Apple Watch drifts out of sync. Should be long enough for Siri to record your note :) [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation#Outside_a_non-rotating_sphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation#Ou...
- gumby 9y ago
  > should take a couple hundred seconds before Apple Watch drifts out of sync. Should be long enough for Siri to record your note :) I wouldn’t be so sure. First of all, siri is pretty slow already in the best of times. Second, the watch doesn’t do the recognition onboard; it sends the audio (or some processed version, I don’t know) to your phone. And a neutron Star, especially a spinning one with lots of junk around it, we be generation an ENORMOUS amount of RF interference. I can definitely see it getting out of sync. Then again it (and you) are not really rated for neutron sta4 conditions and the tidal forces would definitely tear you apart; just moving your arm would distort the watch, 7nless perhaps you purchased the extra expensive ceramic version.
dredmorbius 9y ago
Thought: Isaac Newton was an alchemist. He was looking for the secret, most especially, of transmuting base elements into gold. Instead, he discovered the law of gravity. Which, as expressed in neutron star formation and collisions, is what transmutes base elements into gold. Score one for the alchemists.
totallymike 9y ago
A proper shaggy dog story if I've ever read one! Entertaining and interesting along the way, and the ending snuck up on me. Thanks for a good read :)
crimsonalucard 9y ago
> Hark to the lesson of this story: Everything has an explanation. Great writing. But the lesson is wrong. It has been proven that certain things which are true can never have an explanation: Godels incompleteness theorem. https://www.wikiwand.com/simple/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems https://www.wikiwand.com/simple/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompletenes...
- braythwayt 9y ago
  I do not think Incompleteness speaks to the question of whether things that happen in our Universe have explanations. It speaks to formal mathematical systems that have a property of self-reference. If we are to debate whether the conclusion of my parable is true, I would tend more towards considering the possibility that many things in our Universe may simply be axiomatic, there is no explanation for them, they just are. Uncertainty may be one of those things. Another line of investigation would be to consider whether some things do have explanations, but we have missed the opportunity to gather the evidence to understand them, therefore we will never understand them. Likewise, the Universe is finite, it will die, and we may never discover all of the explanations. If something has an explanation, but there is no way for us to discover it, in what sense does it have an explanation?
  - crimsonalucard 9y ago
    The incompleteness theorem does not only apply to mathematical systems. It applies to all formal systems in the realm of logic. If we assume that all of reality can be reduced to a formal logical system then the incompleteness theorems apply. Thus even non-axiomatic concepts may be unexplainable. However, you bring up a good point. Explanations rely on evidence and evidence must be observed. Additionally, the tools which we employ to observe evidence are imperfect. What does this mean? It means in the world of logic only some things can't be proven, but in the world of science (aka reality as we know it): Nothing can be proven. Nothing can be fully explained because additional evidence can always be observed in a later point in time that disproves an explanation. As Einstein once said: "The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"—most theories, soon after conception." or Karl Popper who put the concept simply: "...no matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not explain the conclusion that all swans are white." In short, no amount of evidence or explanation can justify any statement. Interestingly though, it takes only one observed black swan to disprove a statement. Hence the role of falsifiability in the scientific method.
draw_down 9y ago
Reminded me of this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eE6QzDrT_x8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eE6QzDrT_x8
teh_klev 9y ago
What a thoroughly enjoyable yarn which took me on a journey from the periodic table, star formation, islands of stability and a good old Wikipedia vortex.

137 points by braythwayt 9y ago

Disclosure: A rare self-post. I'd be very grateful for any and all corrections to the story, as I am far from an expert is astrophysics, geology, or pretty-much anything else.

angersock 9y ago
Well, at least you recalled the story toothfully.
- braythwayt 9y ago
  Writing is an exercise in literary mastication.
pstuart 9y ago
Small typo: "Neutron stars to not hang, fixed in space" I'm guessing that it should be "do not"
- braythwayt 9y ago
  https://github.com/raganwald/braythwayt.com/commit/dc07b496dbffe03d3bcc3b14d3a9a4260fdb1362 https://github.com/raganwald/braythwayt.com/commit/dc07b496d...
- pstuart 9y ago
  Another: "May tiny such creatures, when they died" Many?
- szafranek 9y ago
  Probably another typo: "planet our side" -> "planet our size"? Also, this is a beautiful piece of writing! I love it.
  - braythwayt 9y ago
    https://github.com/raganwald/braythwayt.com/commit/981362fad28c8b664d2e07ca6d2bf58ab53dd374 https://github.com/raganwald/braythwayt.com/commit/981362fad... Thank you or sharing your appreciation. I will treasure that.
davidw 9y ago
Is that you racing cross on the book cover?
- braythwayt 9y ago
  Yes it was, when the stars were younger than today :-)
WaxProlix 9y ago
> I would have found that while my scale tells me that I am about 86 kilograms on Earth, I would have weighed 8.6 trillion kilograms on this neutron star. Kilograms are a measure of mass, not weight. Pounds would be a more appropriate unit there.
- bryanl 9y ago
  Most of the people world weigh themselves in kilograms.
  - braythwayt 9y ago
    True, but WaxProlix is correct. Ten kilograms is 22 pounds on Earth, but 2.2 trillion pounds on the given Neutron Star.
    - bloat 9y ago
      I was going to jump in and say that the pound is also a unit of mass. But it turns out its both. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(force) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass)
      - braythwayt 9y ago
        And then there's the foot-pound, a unit of torque much prized by the owners of muscle cars until eclectric vehicles went from obscure to early-adopter status.
        platz 9y ago
        Also, assuming we're talking about rest mass, since without that distinction the word mass is ambiguous in accelerated contexts.
        uxp 9y ago
        Or just general torque in the United States. Electric vehicles still have tires that are joined to wheels which are fastened to an axle by the tightening of a nut on a threaded stud. For safety, we generally state that the nut should have X foot-pounds of torque applied to ensure it doesn't fall off. Unless Tesla et al. have suddenly decided to use a more universal standard in the states, I'd assume they still publish that value in ft/lbs, since 98% of tools designed to measure these things owned in the U.S.A. have this unit on them.
gwking 9y ago
> At some point, a satellite the size of Mars came crashing into the earth, so hard and so fast that about a third of the earth was blasted into space. It didn’t go far–the debris formed a ring around the earth, and gravity eventually compacted it into a single satellite, our moon, but a satellite much larger than our planet’s gravity would normally be able to capture. Something seems off about "a third": according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon, the Moon's radius is a bit less than a third of Earth's, but its volume is 2% and its mass is just 1%. I'm no expert, but "about a hundredth" seems more accurate. For what it's worth, I only looked it up because I've come across this discrepancy before, so perhaps I'm missing something!
- braythwayt 9y ago
  I could be wrong about this, but note also that not all of the material ejected from the impact wound up in Earth's orbit.

pjdorrell 9y ago

Binaries almost never form from stars “wandering” and “encountering” other stars. Current scientific understanding is that almost all stars are formed as binaries in the first place.

braythwayt 9y ago
Thank you! https://github.com/raganwald/braythwayt.com/commit/113f94686d94d8ff1dc1978c7a6b20ded19397de https://github.com/raganwald/braythwayt.com/commit/113f94686... From Wikipedia: While it is not impossible that some binaries might be created through gravitational capture between two single stars, given the very low likelihood of such an event (three objects are actually required, as conservation of energy rules out a single gravitating body capturing another) and the high number of binaries, this cannot be the primary formation process. Also, the observation of binaries consisting of pre main-sequence stars, supports the theory that binaries are already formed during star formation. Fragmentation of the molecular cloud during the formation of protostars is an acceptable explanation for the formation of a binary or multiple star system.

saagarjha 9y ago

> I might have lifted my Apple Watch and said “Hey Siri, record a note.” If I was using the Apple Neutron Star Edition Apple WatchOS, it would have had to correct for time dilation between time at my waist and time at my shoulder. Would it, really? Using a back-of-the-envelope calculation using a formula pulled from Wikipedia[1], and assuming: 1. The Apple Watch needs to stay within 50 milliseconds as Apple advertises 2. The neutron star is around two solar masses and has a radius of 10 km, and isn't spinning faster than 1,000 times a second 3. The distance between your waist and shoulder is about a meter it should take a couple hundred seconds before Apple Watch drifts out of sync. Should be long enough for Siri to record your note :) [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation#Outside_a_non-rotating_sphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation#Ou...

gumby 9y ago
> should take a couple hundred seconds before Apple Watch drifts out of sync. Should be long enough for Siri to record your note :) I wouldn’t be so sure. First of all, siri is pretty slow already in the best of times. Second, the watch doesn’t do the recognition onboard; it sends the audio (or some processed version, I don’t know) to your phone. And a neutron Star, especially a spinning one with lots of junk around it, we be generation an ENORMOUS amount of RF interference. I can definitely see it getting out of sync. Then again it (and you) are not really rated for neutron sta4 conditions and the tidal forces would definitely tear you apart; just moving your arm would distort the watch, 7nless perhaps you purchased the extra expensive ceramic version.

dredmorbius 9y ago

Thought: Isaac Newton was an alchemist. He was looking for the secret, most especially, of transmuting base elements into gold. Instead, he discovered the law of gravity. Which, as expressed in neutron star formation and collisions, is what transmutes base elements into gold. Score one for the alchemists.

totallymike 9y ago

A proper shaggy dog story if I've ever read one! Entertaining and interesting along the way, and the ending snuck up on me. Thanks for a good read :)

crimsonalucard 9y ago

> Hark to the lesson of this story: Everything has an explanation. Great writing. But the lesson is wrong. It has been proven that certain things which are true can never have an explanation: Godels incompleteness theorem. https://www.wikiwand.com/simple/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems https://www.wikiwand.com/simple/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompletenes...

braythwayt 9y ago
I do not think Incompleteness speaks to the question of whether things that happen in our Universe have explanations. It speaks to formal mathematical systems that have a property of self-reference. If we are to debate whether the conclusion of my parable is true, I would tend more towards considering the possibility that many things in our Universe may simply be axiomatic, there is no explanation for them, they just are. Uncertainty may be one of those things. Another line of investigation would be to consider whether some things do have explanations, but we have missed the opportunity to gather the evidence to understand them, therefore we will never understand them. Likewise, the Universe is finite, it will die, and we may never discover all of the explanations. If something has an explanation, but there is no way for us to discover it, in what sense does it have an explanation?
- crimsonalucard 9y ago
  The incompleteness theorem does not only apply to mathematical systems. It applies to all formal systems in the realm of logic. If we assume that all of reality can be reduced to a formal logical system then the incompleteness theorems apply. Thus even non-axiomatic concepts may be unexplainable. However, you bring up a good point. Explanations rely on evidence and evidence must be observed. Additionally, the tools which we employ to observe evidence are imperfect. What does this mean? It means in the world of logic only some things can't be proven, but in the world of science (aka reality as we know it): Nothing can be proven. Nothing can be fully explained because additional evidence can always be observed in a later point in time that disproves an explanation. As Einstein once said: "The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"—most theories, soon after conception." or Karl Popper who put the concept simply: "...no matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not explain the conclusion that all swans are white." In short, no amount of evidence or explanation can justify any statement. Interestingly though, it takes only one observed black swan to disprove a statement. Hence the role of falsifiability in the scientific method.

draw_down 9y ago

Reminded me of this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eE6QzDrT_x8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eE6QzDrT_x8

teh_klev 9y ago

What a thoroughly enjoyable yarn which took me on a journey from the periodic table, star formation, islands of stability and a good old Wikipedia vortex.