Starship Asterisk*

Fred the Cat wrote:
I was listening to a “Theory of Everything” program describing how Paul Dirac proposed antimatter to be necessary to solve an issue where equations squared must have two solutions – one positive (1) and the other negative (-1). It made me look to see why the answer isn’t negative mass. Though overwhelmingly not the popular theory, some cosmologists appear not to rule it out.

Something fuels galaxy evolution and, if it isn’t electro-magnetism, could it push us to pursue negative mass to answer where anti-matter has gone and what would its function be in today's universe?

Chris Peterson wrote:

DavidLeodis wrote:PS. I am unable to open the image that I think should be brought up through the 'Featured here' link, though I do get some text. Could someone please let me know if the image that should be seen (and so its text) is the same, or not, as the APOD. Thanks.

Well, the image is a TIFF, which isn't natively displayable in a browser. It's possible that the gallery software only works with JPEG, or that some sort of converter isn't working. But you can click on the download link on that page and get the 55 MB TIFF onto your own machine for viewing (and use the text description from the site).

DavidLeodis wrote:PS. I am unable to open the image that I think should be brought up through the 'Featured here' link, though I do get some text. Could someone please let me know if the image that should be seen (and so its text) is the same, or not, as the APOD. Thanks.

Fred the Cat wrote:The answer to why an asymmetric universe is unsettling may one day be discovered to be as simple as a mirror universe. Its odd features may be stranger than we can imagine; even with the best Star Trek writers.

ygmarchi wrote:It was copied from a sci-fi movie, I just can't recall which.

gmPhil wrote:Yes, Fred, but in the mirror universe, do bananas bend the other way?

I wanna banana! (For scale - how big is this blasted thing?)

And, do mirrors there reverse only up and down and not left and right?

neufer wrote:

Harlow Shapley wrote:
'No one trusts a model except the man who wrote it;
everyone trusts an observation, except the man who made it.'

'Theories crumble, but good observations never fade.'

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/rea ... h-neutrino

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Types wrote:
<<There are three known types (flavors) of neutrinos: electron neutrino ν_e, muon neutrino ν_μ and tau neutrino ν_τ, named after their partner leptons in the Standard Model. The current best measurement of the number of neutrino types comes from observing the decay of the Z⁰ boson. This particle can decay into any light neutrino and its antineutrino, and the more types of light neutrinos available, the shorter the lifetime of the Z⁰ boson. Measurements of the Z⁰ lifetime have shown that the number of light neutrino types is 3. The correspondence between the six quarks in the Standard Model and the six leptons, among them the three neutrinos, suggests to physicists' intuition that there should be exactly three types of neutrino. However, actual proof that there are only three kinds of neutrinos remains an elusive goal of particle physics.

The possibility of sterile neutrinos—relatively light neutrinos which do not participate in the weak interaction but which could be created through flavor oscillation—is unaffected by these Z⁰-boson-based measurements, and the existence of such particles is in fact hinted by experimental data from the LSND experiment. However, the currently running MiniBooNE experiment suggested, until recently, that sterile neutrinos are not required to explain the experimental data, although the latest research into this area is on-going and anomalies in the MiniBooNE data may allow for exotic neutrino types, including sterile neutrinos. A recent re-analysis of reference electron spectra data from the Institut Laue-Langevin has also hinted at a fourth, sterile neutrino. Recently analyzed data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe of the cosmic background radiation is compatible with either three or four types of neutrinos. It is hoped that the addition of two more years of data from the probe will resolve this uncertainty.>>

sheriffofnothingham wrote:
it is said that neutrinos pass right through the earth unhindered. the major source of neutrinos being the sun. this calls for an experiment to determine exactly what is happening on any given moment on the side of the earth facing the sun and the side facing night. two neutrino detectors will be needed to measure neutrino flux supposedly entering the earth and neutrino flux leaving the earth. according to theory the neutrino flux entering and leaving the earth should be the same.

Harlow Shapley wrote:
'No one trusts a model except the man who wrote it;
everyone trusts an observation, except the man who made it.'

'Theories crumble, but good observations never fade.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlow_Shapley wrote:
<<In 1907, at the age of 22, Harlow Shapley (November 2, 1885 – October 20, 1972) went to study journalism at the University of Missouri. When he learned that the opening of the School of Journalism had been postponed for a year, he decided to study the first subject he came across in the course directory. Rejecting Archaeology, which Harlow later explained he couldn't pronounce, Harlow chose the next subject, Astronomy.

Shapley used RR Lyrae stars to correctly estimate the size of the Milky Way Galaxy and the sun's position within it. He participated in the (April 26, 1920) "Great Debate" with Heber D. Curtis on the nature of nebulae and galaxies and the size of the Universe. Shapley took the side that spiral nebulae (what are now called galaxies) are inside our Milky Way, while Curtis took the side that the spiral nebulae are 'island universes' far outside our own Milky Way and comparable in size and nature to our own Milky Way. In 1953 he proposed his "liquid water belt" theory, now known as the concept of a habitable zone.>>