7 ms·

A vibrating star is a star that is literally moving back and forth relative to an observer. That doesn't sound like new-age mysticism to me. With "vibrating in

A vibrating star is a star that is literally moving back and forth relative to an observer. That doesn't sound like new-age mysticism to me. With "vibrating in a mode which is out of synch with our own" it looks like she is translating physics jargon into more colloquial terms. A physicist would instead say "oscillating in a mode which is out of phase with the motion of the detector". A teacher would explain the concept in terms of a child being pushed on a swing. If you are pushing at exactly the wrong time during every swing, there will be no energy transfer. When there is no energy transfer, you are blind to each other. The jargon of science is one of her bugbears and she is trying to demystify it.

EliRivers 7y ago
That doesn't sound like new-age mysticism to me. It sure does. That's classic new-age mysticism. They love hand-wavy energy modes and vibrations. If it had the word "quantum" in it, it'd be ticking all the boxes. Maybe it's an unfortunate case of a non-native English speaker not realising that these terms are commonly hijacked by bullshit artists. To suggest that some stars are invisible because they emit EM radiation that simply can't interact with anything on this earth is an incredible statement that requires a lot more than just "I can imagine".
- pinkfoot 7y ago
  Indeed: stars don't emit radiation per se, the trillions of atoms absorbing and emitting quantised photons do. So, a) they would have to be made of something other than the normal atomic matter normal stars, planets, and rocks, and people are made of b) be normal Hydrogen, Helium, etc. but with completely different quantum mechanical behaviour. Just sitting their in isolated regions of space - right next to normal matter. Grade-A bollocks.
  - nixtaken 7y ago
    I think the idea rests on the notion that the stars all obey the same physical laws and are made of the same types of atoms, but that the timing of the motion of atoms in distant stars is not synchronized with our own. I like to think of the physics of synchrotron light in this context. When a particle accelerates, as in an atomic clock, it emits light.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
      > think the idea rests on the notion that the stars all obey the same physical laws and are made of the same types of atoms, but that the timing of the motion of atoms in distant stars is not synchronized with our own. yes, we get that. The idea that this somehow causes "you won't see it" ... well it's an idea. An idea found in new-age mysticism. It's not science of any kind.
      - nixtaken 7y ago
        In the scientific community, we talk about how different foundational principles or axioms change the heuristics of physics and that is what this article was about. Convention A leads to Riemannian coordinates and the big bang. Convention B leads to Cartesian coordinates and tired light. There is nothing mystical about Cartesian logic. It was reborn during the enlightenment. When people try to think in Cartesian ways about Riemannian theories, as most people tend to do, trouble arises.
        SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
        Could you please stop dodgeing, waffling, obfuscating and going on about "that's just one way of looking at it" and address the part where it causes "you won't see it" for stars etc? This part is where the jargon serves only to hide the fact that this is nonsense.
        nixtaken 7y ago
        He is askng for an explanation in terms of quantum mechanics and I gave one, but I prefer the first explanation I gave in term of the speed of light. What is nice about tired light or steady-state universes is that the two explanations are consistent. The big-bang universe is full of inconsistencies and paradoxes which are somehow not paradoxical if you do the math and don't think too hard about the heuristics. In short, it is a mess that can only be sorted out if you think outside of the box which defines it.
        7y ago
- nixtaken 7y ago
  People who've been conditioned to imagine a big bang bubble that expanded at greater than the speed of light and then popped often find it difficult for to imagine Fred Hoyle's steady-state universe (which is what she is trying to describe). For people with a materials science background, it is easy to imagine, but for people steeped in modern pop-sci mythology, it is difficult.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
    Tell me more about the "popped" phase of the big bang?
    - nixtaken 7y ago
      Those who believe in the big bang say that there was an inflationary epoch during which particles traveled faster than light - just like the Standard Model virtual particles within collider experiments which temporarily violate conservation of energy. Then, all of a sudden, for no discernible reason, we are supposed to believe that the laws of physics suddenly changed and everything that happened since must travel at less than the speed of light. Wild story. I saw Andre Linde tell it in a SLAC conference room when I was just a child. I've since been amazed by how much sand castle empire building resulted from this lark. Some of those who founded the theory have since abandoned it. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-s... The man who stood by it won the 2019 Nobel Prize (James Peebles). Loyalty to the group pays off.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - JMarkMorris 7y ago
        The steady state universe, or perhaps a slowly changing universe, is where I am placing my bet. I think scientists have really dropped the ball on supermassive black hole science. It seems logical that instead of a singularity, the core would reach Planck scale and that core could breach at the poles under sufficient conditions, thus generating those massive high energy jets. Isotropy in the universe would be explained by the same physics process governing all SMBH. Then there is no need for a big bang origin.
SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
> A vibrating star is a star that is literally moving back and forth relative to an observer What physical process would cause this? Have we ever observed it? Large bodies of matter don't just "move back and forth" of their own accord. Try shaking any heavy object, it takes a lot of energy. Do you mean ringing like a gong or a pond with ripples? Then "moving back and forth" is a confusing poor choice of words. Do you mean "orbiting a black hole in such a way that it comes nearer to us and then further again?" Then why not say so? How would the mode be out of synch with our own, whatever that even means? > The jargon of science is one of her bugbears and she is trying to demystify it. By introducing new and incomprehensible jargon that is literally mystical? > oscillating in a mode which is out of phase with the motion of the detector Are you saying that undetectable EM radiation exists because of modes / phases? This is complete hand-wavy mysticism.
- nixtaken 7y ago
  The physical process is gravity as Laplace described it back in the 1700s as a sort of breathing motion. Stars in our vicinity tend to breathe in synch and that is why they are easy to see. Jargon from the past only sounds mystical when present-day jargon loses contact with foundational principles.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
    > Stars in our vicinity tend to breathe in synch and that is why they are easy to see. I appreciate your effort, but this is not science in any way. Changing the jargon won't help that.
    - nixtaken 7y ago
      You're right that this language is not precise enough. Where you put the clocks matters a lot. What is synchronous to one person is asynchronous to another.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago

EliRivers 7y ago

That doesn't sound like new-age mysticism to me. It sure does. That's classic new-age mysticism. They love hand-wavy energy modes and vibrations. If it had the word "quantum" in it, it'd be ticking all the boxes. Maybe it's an unfortunate case of a non-native English speaker not realising that these terms are commonly hijacked by bullshit artists. To suggest that some stars are invisible because they emit EM radiation that simply can't interact with anything on this earth is an incredible statement that requires a lot more than just "I can imagine".

pinkfoot 7y ago
Indeed: stars don't emit radiation per se, the trillions of atoms absorbing and emitting quantised photons do. So, a) they would have to be made of something other than the normal atomic matter normal stars, planets, and rocks, and people are made of b) be normal Hydrogen, Helium, etc. but with completely different quantum mechanical behaviour. Just sitting their in isolated regions of space - right next to normal matter. Grade-A bollocks.
- nixtaken 7y ago
  I think the idea rests on the notion that the stars all obey the same physical laws and are made of the same types of atoms, but that the timing of the motion of atoms in distant stars is not synchronized with our own. I like to think of the physics of synchrotron light in this context. When a particle accelerates, as in an atomic clock, it emits light.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
    > think the idea rests on the notion that the stars all obey the same physical laws and are made of the same types of atoms, but that the timing of the motion of atoms in distant stars is not synchronized with our own. yes, we get that. The idea that this somehow causes "you won't see it" ... well it's an idea. An idea found in new-age mysticism. It's not science of any kind.
    - nixtaken 7y ago
      In the scientific community, we talk about how different foundational principles or axioms change the heuristics of physics and that is what this article was about. Convention A leads to Riemannian coordinates and the big bang. Convention B leads to Cartesian coordinates and tired light. There is nothing mystical about Cartesian logic. It was reborn during the enlightenment. When people try to think in Cartesian ways about Riemannian theories, as most people tend to do, trouble arises.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
        Could you please stop dodgeing, waffling, obfuscating and going on about "that's just one way of looking at it" and address the part where it causes "you won't see it" for stars etc? This part is where the jargon serves only to hide the fact that this is nonsense.
        nixtaken 7y ago
        He is askng for an explanation in terms of quantum mechanics and I gave one, but I prefer the first explanation I gave in term of the speed of light. What is nice about tired light or steady-state universes is that the two explanations are consistent. The big-bang universe is full of inconsistencies and paradoxes which are somehow not paradoxical if you do the math and don't think too hard about the heuristics. In short, it is a mess that can only be sorted out if you think outside of the box which defines it.
        7y ago
nixtaken 7y ago
People who've been conditioned to imagine a big bang bubble that expanded at greater than the speed of light and then popped often find it difficult for to imagine Fred Hoyle's steady-state universe (which is what she is trying to describe). For people with a materials science background, it is easy to imagine, but for people steeped in modern pop-sci mythology, it is difficult.
- SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
  Tell me more about the "popped" phase of the big bang?
  - nixtaken 7y ago
    Those who believe in the big bang say that there was an inflationary epoch during which particles traveled faster than light - just like the Standard Model virtual particles within collider experiments which temporarily violate conservation of energy. Then, all of a sudden, for no discernible reason, we are supposed to believe that the laws of physics suddenly changed and everything that happened since must travel at less than the speed of light. Wild story. I saw Andre Linde tell it in a SLAC conference room when I was just a child. I've since been amazed by how much sand castle empire building resulted from this lark. Some of those who founded the theory have since abandoned it. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-s... The man who stood by it won the 2019 Nobel Prize (James Peebles). Loyalty to the group pays off.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - JMarkMorris 7y ago
      The steady state universe, or perhaps a slowly changing universe, is where I am placing my bet. I think scientists have really dropped the ball on supermassive black hole science. It seems logical that instead of a singularity, the core would reach Planck scale and that core could breach at the poles under sufficient conditions, thus generating those massive high energy jets. Isotropy in the universe would be explained by the same physics process governing all SMBH. Then there is no need for a big bang origin.

SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago

> A vibrating star is a star that is literally moving back and forth relative to an observer What physical process would cause this? Have we ever observed it? Large bodies of matter don't just "move back and forth" of their own accord. Try shaking any heavy object, it takes a lot of energy. Do you mean ringing like a gong or a pond with ripples? Then "moving back and forth" is a confusing poor choice of words. Do you mean "orbiting a black hole in such a way that it comes nearer to us and then further again?" Then why not say so? How would the mode be out of synch with our own, whatever that even means? > The jargon of science is one of her bugbears and she is trying to demystify it. By introducing new and incomprehensible jargon that is literally mystical? > oscillating in a mode which is out of phase with the motion of the detector Are you saying that undetectable EM radiation exists because of modes / phases? This is complete hand-wavy mysticism.

nixtaken 7y ago
The physical process is gravity as Laplace described it back in the 1700s as a sort of breathing motion. Stars in our vicinity tend to breathe in synch and that is why they are easy to see. Jargon from the past only sounds mystical when present-day jargon loses contact with foundational principles.
- SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago
  > Stars in our vicinity tend to breathe in synch and that is why they are easy to see. I appreciate your effort, but this is not science in any way. Changing the jargon won't help that.
  - nixtaken 7y ago
    You're right that this language is not precise enough. Where you put the clocks matters a lot. What is synchronous to one person is asynchronous to another.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago