APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

APOD Robot · Post by **APOD Robot** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:06 am

Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe

Explanation: How did we get here? We know that we live on a planet orbiting a star orbiting a galaxy, but how did all of this form? To understand details better, astrophysicists upgraded the famous Illustris Simulation into IllustrisTNG -- now the most sophisticated computer model of how galaxies evolved in our universe. Specifically, this featured video tracks magnetic fields from the early universe (redshift 5) until today (redshift 0). Here blue represents relatively weak magnetic fields, while white depicts strong. These B fields are closely matched with galaxies and galaxy clusters. As the simulation begins, a virtual camera circles the virtual IllustrisTNG universe showing a young region -- 30-million light years across -- to be quite filamentary. Gravity causes galaxies to form and merge as the universe expands and evolves. At the end, the simulated IllustrisTNG universe is a good statistical match to our present real universe, although some interesting differences arise -- for example a discrepancy involving the power in radio waves emitted by rapidly moving charged particles.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

bystander · Post by **bystander** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:56 am

viewtopic.php?t=37997

Boomer12k · Post by **Boomer12k** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:37 am

Magnets...attracting Magnets? Are they N, S, N,S,N,S, etc....along each filament??? I assume there is "some" polarity...

Dance of the Magnets?

Awesome Sim...
:---[===] *

heehaw · Post by **heehaw** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:57 am

All these simulations are wonderful; vastly better than the first ones of about 25 years ago. But at the end of one presentation, I asked the presenter, "so have you allowed your program to run PAST the present, to show us the FUTURE of the universe." He simply said "no."

DL MARTIN · Post by **DL MARTIN** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:07 pm

I'm always struck by the seeming similarity between galaxy formation illustrations and cerebral neural pathways. Might the Universe be a large thought process?

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:47 pm

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

DL MARTIN wrote:
I'm always struck by the seeming similarity between galaxy formation illustrations and cerebral neural pathways.
Might the Universe be a large thought process?

If so then the speed of light is sure going to slow down the thought process.

DL MARTIN · Post by **DL MARTIN** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:01 pm

Perhaps, that's why everything we see and contemplate is in the past.

bls0326 · Post by **bls0326** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:54 pm

bystander wrote: viewtopic.php?t=37997

bystander: thanks for the link.

Brian

heehaw · Post by **heehaw** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:22 pm

DL MARTIN wrote:I'm always struck by the seeming similarity between galaxy formation illustrations and cerebral neural pathways. Might the Universe be a large thought process?

Absolutely not! You really rang my bell on this one. Don't think I'm alien to the notion that the universe is mental; I understand it to be so. But the similarity that you point out, while vividly apparent, is clearly utterly superficial; hey, may as well talk about the cracks in the pavement!

Chris Peterson · Post by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:27 pm

neufer wrote:If so then the speed of light is sure going to slow down the thought process.

Only with respect to an outside observer. No doubt an electronic mind would be aware of the pathetic slowness of our own chemically transmitted brain signals, yet we seem to be thinking just fine from our own sense of awareness.

Chris Peterson · Post by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:30 pm

Boomer12k wrote:Magnets...attracting Magnets? Are they N, S, N,S,N,S, etc....along each filament??? I assume there is "some" polarity...

Indeed, no magnetic monopole has ever been observed in nature. We can envision the concept (it is analogous to an isolated electric charge), but it is not consistent with most of our best supported theory. So yeah, we're seeing field lines with north and south poles.

De58te · Post by **De58te** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:09 pm

If so then the speed of light is sure going to slow down the thought process.

That is if the neural network uses speed of light signals. There are strings and wormholes that overcome the C. limit. Just science fiction? There is what actual scientists are now working on called quantum entanglement over a distance. If a particle is changed here on Earth, then its twin particle on the other side of the universe is instantaneously changed as well. Perhaps the universal brain is using entanglement to process information?

Chris Peterson · Post by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:26 pm

De58te wrote:
If so then the speed of light is sure going to slow down the thought process.
That is if the neural network uses speed of light signals. There are strings and wormholes that overcome the C. limit. Just science fiction? There is what actual scientists are now working on called quantum entanglement over a distance. If a particle is changed here on Earth, then its twin particle on the other side of the universe is instantaneously changed as well. Perhaps the universal brain is using entanglement to process information?

Absolutely nothing appears to overcome the limitation of the speed of light for the rate information can be transferred. That includes strings, wormholes, and quantum entanglement. Even in their "instantaneous" aspects, they do not violate Special Relativity.

stevewiggins · Post by **stevewiggins** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:01 pm

Once again a scientific article asks "How did we get here?" They should know by now or maybe they're looking in the wrong direction. How the creation of a single hydrogen ion, being dependent on everything else to maintain constant E, is a good place to start.

Huh? · Post by **Huh?** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:10 pm

APOD Robot wrote:.....for example a discrepancy involving the power in radio waves emitted by rapidly moving charged particles.

What is the discrepancy and what does it indicate?

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:30 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
neufer wrote:
If so then the speed of light is sure going to slow down the thought process.
Only with respect to an outside observer. No doubt an electronic mind would be aware of the pathetic slowness of our own chemically transmitted brain signals, yet we seem to be thinking just fine from our own sense of awareness.

Our minds aren't exploding into little fragments that very soon won't be able to communicate with each other.

Ann · Post by **Ann** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:36 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
De58te wrote:
If so then the speed of light is sure going to slow down the thought process.
That is if the neural network uses speed of light signals. There are strings and wormholes that overcome the C. limit. Just science fiction? There is what actual scientists are now working on called quantum entanglement over a distance. If a particle is changed here on Earth, then its twin particle on the other side of the universe is instantaneously changed as well. Perhaps the universal brain is using entanglement to process information?
Absolutely nothing appears to overcome the limitation of the speed of light for the rate information can be transferred. That includes strings, wormholes, and quantum entanglement. Even in their "instantaneous" aspects, they do not violate Special Relativity.

: Click to view full size image

Sitting on a ledge on a steep cliff face.
Source: http://www.bluemountainsgazette.com.au/ ... iffhanger/

I once read a book on astronomy where the author speculated that the Universe might be in a state of "false vacuum". Think of it as if the Universe had become stuck on a ledge protruding from a steep cliff face. But what if that ledge suddenly gave way, and the Universe "came tumbling down"? The author of the book said, ominously, that we wouldn't know anything about it until catastrophe literally engulfed us. Because information about the oncoming catastrophe couldn't reach us any faster than the catastrophe itself.

Ann

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:49 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
De58te wrote:
If so then the speed of light is sure going to slow down the thought process.
That is if the neural network uses speed of light signals. There are strings and wormholes that overcome the C. limit. Just science fiction? There is what actual scientists are now working on called quantum entanglement over a distance. If a particle is changed here on Earth, then its twin particle on the other side of the universe is instantaneously changed as well. Perhaps the universal brain is using entanglement to process information?
Absolutely nothing appears to overcome the limitation of the speed of light for the rate information can be transferred. That includes strings, wormholes, and quantum entanglement. Even in their "instantaneous" aspects, they do not violate Special Relativity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose wrote:
[b][color=#0000FF]Microtubules are one of the cytoskeletal filament systems in eukaryotic cells[/color][/b]
<<Sir Roger Penrose (born 8 August 1931) has written books on the connection between fundamental physics and human (or animal) consciousness. In The Emperor's New Mind (1989), he argues that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness. Penrose responded to criticism of The Emperor's New Mind with his follow up 1994 book Shadows of the Mind, and in 1997 with The Large, the Small and the Human Mind.

In those works, he also combined his observations with that of anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff. Penrose and Hameroff have argued that consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects in microtubules, which they dubbed Orch-OR (orchestrated objective reduction). Max Tegmark, in a paper in Physical Review E, calculated that the time scale of neuron firing and excitations in microtubules is slower than the decoherence time by a factor of at least 10,000,000,000.>>

Chris Peterson · Post by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:35 pm

neufer wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose wrote: <<Sir Roger Penrose (born 8 August 1931) has written books on the connection between fundamental physics and human (or animal) consciousness. In The Emperor's New Mind (1989), he argues that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness. Penrose responded to criticism of The Emperor's New Mind with his follow up 1994 book Shadows of the Mind, and in 1997 with The Large, the Small and the Human Mind.

In those works, he also combined his observations with that of anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff. Penrose and Hameroff have argued that consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects in microtubules, which they dubbed Orch-OR (orchestrated objective reduction). Max Tegmark, in a paper in Physical Review E, calculated that the time scale of neuron firing and excitations in microtubules is slower than the decoherence time by a factor of at least 10,000,000,000.>>

Yeah. Penrose is one of those insane geniuses who doesn't know enough to shut up about that which he has no understanding of. Consciousness is something he should not be discussing. Indeed, anybody who invokes quantum mechanics in discussing consciousness is better off communing with Deepak Chopra than with the scientific community.

DL MARTIN · Post by **DL MARTIN** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:12 pm

Given the fact that perception is ultimately tethered by the speed of light, Marshall McLuhan's observation that, "We drive into the future using only our rear view mirror." aptly summarizes astronomy and relegates astrophysics to the past tense. A caution must therefor be included in describing objects as 'distance away' when, in fact, they are 'ago'.

Chris Peterson · Post by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:18 pm

DL MARTIN wrote:A caution must therefor be included in describing objects as 'distance away' when, in fact, they are 'ago'.

Which in fact is why we tend to use redshift as the important metric here.

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:30 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
neufer wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose wrote:
<<Sir Roger Penrose (born 8 August 1931) has written books on the connection between fundamental physics and human (or animal) consciousness. In The Emperor's New Mind (1989), he argues that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness. Penrose responded to criticism of The Emperor's New Mind with his follow up 1994 book Shadows of the Mind, and in 1997 with The Large, the Small and the Human Mind.

In those works, he also combined his observations with that of anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff. Penrose and Hameroff have argued that consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects in microtubules, which they dubbed Orch-OR (orchestrated objective reduction). Max Tegmark, in a paper in Physical Review E, calculated that the time scale of neuron firing and excitations in microtubules is slower than the decoherence time by a factor of at least 10,000,000,000.>>
Yeah. Penrose is one of those insane geniuses who doesn't know enough to shut up about that which he has no understanding of. Consciousness is something he should not be discussing. Indeed, anybody who invokes quantum mechanics in discussing consciousness is better off communing with Deepak Chopra than with the scientific community.

"If a man will begin with certainties, he will end in doubts;
but if he will be content to begin with doubts,
he will end in certainties."--Sir Francis Bacon

Chris Peterson · Post by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:34 pm

neufer wrote:
"If a man will begin with certainties, he will end in doubts;
but if he will be content to begin with doubts,
he will end in certainties."--Sir Francis Bacon

It requires more than beginning with doubts to end with certainties. Sir Francis seems to have overlooked a few key steps here in his attempt at brevity.

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:02 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
neufer wrote:
"If a man will begin with certainties, he will end in doubts;
but if he will be content to begin with doubts,
he will end in certainties."--Sir Francis Bacon

It requires more than beginning with doubts to end with certainties.
Sir Francis seems to have overlooked a few key steps here in his attempt at brevity.

Nevertheless... one must begin with doubts to get anywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon wrote:
[b][color=#0000FF]Baco crater named for Roger Bacon[/color][/b]
<<Roger Bacon (c. 1219/20 – c. 1292), also known by the scholastic accolade Doctor Mirabilis, was an English philosopher and Franciscan friar who placed considerable emphasis on the study of nature through empiricism. In the early modern era, he was regarded as a wizard and particularly famed for the story of his mechanical or necromantic brazen head. He is sometimes credited (mainly since the 19th century) as one of the earliest European advocates of the modern scientific method inspired by Aristotle and by Arab scientist Alhazen.

Medieval European philosophy often relied on appeals to the authority of Church Fathers such as St Augustine, and on works by Plato and Aristotle only known at second hand or through (sometimes highly inaccurate) Latin translations. By the 13th century, new works and better versions—in Arabic or in new Latin translations from the Arabic—began to trickle north from Muslim Spain. In Roger Bacon's writings, he upholds Aristotle's calls for the collection of facts before deducing scientific truths, against the practices of his contemporaries, arguing that "thence cometh quiet to the mind".>>

MarkBour · Post by **MarkBour** » Mon Feb 19, 2018 11:19 pm

Ann wrote:But what if that ledge suddenly gave way, and the Universe "came tumbling down"?
Ann

Or what if time stops tomorrow afternoon at precisely 3:15?
After all, it did in the simulation.

Starship Asterisk*

APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)

Re: APOD: Galaxy Formation in a Magnetic Universe (2018 Feb 19)