Comments on: When Stars Go Bang http://asymptotia.com/2006/08/30/when-stars-go-bang/ Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:50:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Plato http://asymptotia.com/2006/08/30/when-stars-go-bang/comment-page-1/#comment-742 Plato Fri, 01 Sep 2006 13:29:15 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/2006/08/30/when-stars-go-bang/#comment-742 While you understand(?) that I stand on the outside of the scholaristic system, it is with much internal motivation and drive I am ever the student. So while you had patience for your students, I have suffered under a classification? Anyway I am <a href="http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2006/08/now-here-is-supernova-for-real.html" rel="nofollow">trying to make sense here of this entry</a> and thought it well to post it here as a connection to your article, to see whether I am on the right track? If not, continue to blast away. :) I know your a busy man While you understand(?) that I stand on the outside of the scholaristic system, it is with much internal motivation and drive I am ever the student. So while you had patience for your students, I have suffered under a classification?

Anyway I am trying to make sense here of this entry and thought it well to post it here as a connection to your article, to see whether I am on the right track?

If not, continue to blast away. :) I know your a busy man

]]> By: astromcnaught http://asymptotia.com/2006/08/30/when-stars-go-bang/comment-page-1/#comment-721 astromcnaught Thu, 31 Aug 2006 20:00:36 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/2006/08/30/when-stars-go-bang/#comment-721 I can see it's reasonable that something communicated to us at lightspeed can be said to occur when the light reaches us. I think that way and hope it is correct. However, what about correlated particles at sublight speed? If we have an event which causes an electron and an anti-electron to zoom off in opposite directions, their description is a single wavefuntion and, in a sense, the electrons do not yet exist. If one of those electrons smacks into a detector and causes a bleep, then the other electron's spin direction, say, is now fixed, and it now exists, kindof. Is it fair to say that the event happens when the wavefunction collapses and we actually observe something? I had a mad dream you see, where correlated photons were arriving from a shell at the edge of the observable universe. As the photons interact with my detector(head), the other halfs come into existance. A continuous and expanding shell of infrared photons is coming into life beyond the edge of the universe! All that is probably completely wrong and please accept my apologies in advance. I can see it’s reasonable that something communicated to us at lightspeed can be said to occur when the light reaches us. I think that way and hope it is correct.

However, what about correlated particles at sublight speed?
If we have an event which causes an electron and an anti-electron to zoom off in opposite directions, their description is a single wavefuntion and, in a sense, the electrons do not yet exist. If one of those electrons smacks into a detector and causes a bleep, then the other electron’s spin direction, say, is now fixed, and it now exists, kindof.

Is it fair to say that the event happens when the wavefunction collapses and we actually observe something?

I had a mad dream you see, where correlated photons were arriving from a shell at the edge of the observable universe. As the photons interact with my detector(head), the other halfs come into existance. A continuous and expanding shell of infrared photons is coming into life beyond the edge of the universe!

All that is probably completely wrong and please accept my apologies in advance.

]]> By: John Branch http://asymptotia.com/2006/08/30/when-stars-go-bang/comment-page-1/#comment-714 John Branch Thu, 31 Aug 2006 16:00:35 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/2006/08/30/when-stars-go-bang/#comment-714 Glad you picked up on this and posted some links. I saw a reference to it on BBC World News early Wednesday evening and read the BBC story online. Glad you picked up on this and posted some links. I saw a reference to it on BBC World News early Wednesday evening and read the BBC story online.

]]> By: Supernova http://asymptotia.com/2006/08/30/when-stars-go-bang/comment-page-1/#comment-707 Supernova Thu, 31 Aug 2006 08:44:42 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/2006/08/30/when-stars-go-bang/#comment-707 It probably will if this kind of detection becomes more commonplace. One well-studied supernova doesn't tell you much about the expansion of the universe, but if you start being able to see lots more supernovae much earlier in their evolution, then you can start classifying them more reliably and reducing systematic errors in those distance calculations. It probably will if this kind of detection becomes more commonplace. One well-studied supernova doesn’t tell you much about the expansion of the universe, but if you start being able to see lots more supernovae much earlier in their evolution, then you can start classifying them more reliably and reducing systematic errors in those distance calculations.

]]> By: Matt B. http://asymptotia.com/2006/08/30/when-stars-go-bang/comment-page-1/#comment-699 Matt B. Thu, 31 Aug 2006 04:13:15 +0000 http://asymptotia.com/2006/08/30/when-stars-go-bang/#comment-699 Possibly off the wall question... I seem to remember that our primary evidence for just barely eternal expansion was due to supernova data. Will viewing a supernova from the beginning help us to fine tune our knowledge on the expansion rate of the universe? Possibly off the wall question…

I seem to remember that our primary evidence for just barely eternal expansion was due to supernova data. Will viewing a supernova from the beginning help us to fine tune our knowledge on the expansion rate of the universe?

]]>