*** The Official Astronomy & Universe Thread ***

[Tibbz2]

Got the scope sorted in the end!

 

[physichull]

Yep, at Uni of Birmingham - excellent course, excellent uni in my opinion!

Do you mean Prof. Paul Newman? He lectured our Thermal Physics course this past semester, haven't encountered Prof. Freer yet but I've been taught by Prof. Gunn (once for a cover mathematics for physicists lecture) and Prof. Jones lectured that course this semester - he's retiring this year however, it's unfortunate, he was/is a great lecturer!

retiring?!?! He is a young man! He cant have made that much money as an academic surely? Paul Norman still takes the PTNR MSc and his office was on the top floor of the physics building not far from the lift and Jones and Freers office.

The only thing I will say about the course was that we were forever in room g17 for all our lectures, used to get cabin fever.

 

[PhysicsMan94]

retiring?!?! He is a young man! He cant have made that much money as an academic surely? Paul Norman still takes the PTNR MSc and his office was on the top floor of the physics building not far from the lift and Jones and Freers office.

The only thing I will say about the course was that we were forever in room g17 for all our lectures, used to get cabin fever.

Prof. Jones isn't a young man - he must be fairly old as he became a lecturer at Birmingham Uni in the 1970s I think, so he's been here for around 40 years!

I guess Paul Norman is another lecturer then, I know of Paul Newman but not Norman.

 

[Cosimo]

 

[elmarko]

At the University of Birmingham?

I did the PTNR MSc there a few years ago. I take it Paul Norman is still kicking around?

If so does Prof Freer still lecture? He was brilliant. Prof Gunn and Peter Jones were also good.

Yep, at Uni of Birmingham - excellent course, excellent uni in my opinion!

Do you mean Prof. Paul Newman? He lectured our Thermal Physics course this past semester, haven't encountered Prof. Freer yet but I've been taught by Prof. Gunn (once for a cover mathematics for physicists lecture) and Prof. Jones lectured that course this semester - he's retiring this year however, it's unfortunate, he was/is a great lecturer!

Random question but...

Did you know a Joe Fenton? (did Physics at Birmingham University a few ago - did a degree then PHD).

 

[Cosimo]

 

[Rebel Angel]

 

[physichull]

Random question but...

Did you know a Joe Fenton? (did Physics at Birmingham University a few ago - did a degree then PHD).

Sorry, no I don't know Joe Fenton. I finished in 2009.

Prof. Jones isn't a young man - he must be fairly old as he became a lecturer at Birmingham Uni in the 1970s I think, so he's been here for around 40 years!

I guess Paul Norman is another lecturer then, I know of Paul Newman but not Norman.

http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/staff/profiles/physics/jones-peter.aspx

That Peter Jones.

 

[Cosimo]

 

[Cosimo]

 

[Tibbz2]

So light all night now especially with the full moon

Will only get worse over the next month so i can't see myself getting out at all in the yard due to exams as well :/

 

[PhysicsMan94]

Random question but...

Did you know a Joe Fenton? (did Physics at Birmingham University a few ago - did a degree then PHD).

Nope, sorry.

http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/staff/profiles/physics/jones-peter.aspx

That Peter Jones.

Doh, I'm such an idiot sometimes - I thought you said Prof. Ray Jones at first, never mind then, no I have not been lectured by Peter Jones as of yet. However, given that (from that link) he specialises in nuclear physics then he may be lecturing us next year.

Sorry for the confusion

 

[Spook187]

http://www.ustream.tv/nasajpl2

 

[PhysicsMan94]

Cheers for that, I'll watch that tomorrow (well, today) if I remember.

 

[mrk]

Reading this earlier today which puts the whole black hole understanding in new light.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...ity-takes-singularity-out-of-black-holes.html

So if in the future this turns out to be correct it could well be that we could travel around the Universe (or between universes) through black holes with the removal of the singularity.

Still trying to take that in for a moment...

 

[PhysicsMan94]

I'd take such articles with a pinch of salt, New-Scientist aren't the greatest science news website as they quite often post highly exaggerated and fairly inaccurate stuff nowadays; not saying all their articles are, just some.

Anyway, the article is essentially describing an Einstein-Rosen bridge - a concept which has several problems associated with it and is virtually impossible to verify experimentally. Furthermore, the article mentions Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) theory a fair amount - one should note that LQG is one of the contenders for a theory of everything and could contribute to a GUT (grand unified theory), however it is currently one of the "least favourites" in the field as theories such as string theory, Supersymmetry, m-theory and the like are still the most hopeful.

That being said, LQG has been "mixed", if you will, with these other theories and so they are not mutually exclusive - however, again as is the problem with all contenders for GUTs, the means we have to verify any of these theories experimentally are virtually non-existent. The energy requirements predicted at which all four fundamental forces become unified is 10^21 GeV IIRC, the LHC has "only" reached energies of the order of TeV (i.e. the former is larger than the latter by a factor of 10^18), in order to properly test the likes of LQG, String theory etc we would need to build an experiment which can reach these energies in a collision - basically impossible with current technological understanding, and will be for quite some time.

And then we get to the stage of trying to understand what happens past the event horizon of a black hole from observations - and, unfortunately, we will probably never know due to the very nature of the event horizon; nothing can be transmitted past the horizon if our theories of special and general relativity are correct (and they seem to be given that they've survived every experimental attempt to break them).

Anyway, I'm rambling now... Sorry. But I love this topic!

 

[Cosimo]

 

[Cosimo]

 

[Tibbz2]

I'd take such articles with a pinch of salt, New-Scientist aren't the greatest science news website as they quite often post highly exaggerated and fairly inaccurate stuff nowadays; not saying all their articles are, just some.

Anyway, the article is essentially describing an Einstein-Rosen bridge - a concept which has several problems associated with it and is virtually impossible to verify experimentally. Furthermore, the article mentions Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) theory a fair amount - one should note that LQG is one of the contenders for a theory of everything and could contribute to a GUT (grand unified theory), however it is currently one of the "least favourites" in the field as theories such as string theory, Supersymmetry, m-theory and the like are still the most hopeful.

That being said, LQG has been "mixed", if you will, with these other theories and so they are not mutually exclusive - however, again as is the problem with all contenders for GUTs, the means we have to verify any of these theories experimentally are virtually non-existent. The energy requirements predicted at which all four fundamental forces become unified is 10^21 GeV IIRC, the LHC has "only" reached energies of the order of TeV (i.e. the former is larger than the latter by a factor of 10^18), in order to properly test the likes of LQG, String theory etc we would need to build an experiment which can reach these energies in a collision - basically impossible with current technological understanding, and will be for quite some time.

And then we get to the stage of trying to understand what happens past the event horizon of a black hole from observations - and, unfortunately, we will probably never know due to the very nature of the event horizon; nothing can be transmitted past the horizon if our theories of special and general relativity are correct (and they seem to be given that they've survived every experimental attempt to break them).

Anyway, I'm rambling now... Sorry. But I love this topic!

Ramble as much as you want, gives me something interesting to read!

I love speculation about black holes even if it is unrealistic, I just hope one day we do have a slightly better understanding of what may happen inside them, they're interesting things!

 

[mrk]

I'd take such articles with a pinch of salt, New-Scientist aren't the greatest science news website as they quite often post highly exaggerated and fairly inaccurate stuff nowadays; not saying all their articles are, just some.

Anyway, the article is essentially describing an Einstein-Rosen bridge - a concept which has several problems associated with it and is virtually impossible to verify experimentally. Furthermore, the article mentions Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) theory a fair amount - one should note that LQG is one of the contenders for a theory of everything and could contribute to a GUT (grand unified theory), however it is currently one of the "least favourites" in the field as theories such as string theory, Supersymmetry, m-theory and the like are still the most hopeful.

That being said, LQG has been "mixed", if you will, with these other theories and so they are not mutually exclusive - however, again as is the problem with all contenders for GUTs, the means we have to verify any of these theories experimentally are virtually non-existent. The energy requirements predicted at which all four fundamental forces become unified is 10^21 GeV IIRC, the LHC has "only" reached energies of the order of TeV (i.e. the former is larger than the latter by a factor of 10^18), in order to properly test the likes of LQG, String theory etc we would need to build an experiment which can reach these energies in a collision - basically impossible with current technological understanding, and will be for quite some time.

And then we get to the stage of trying to understand what happens past the event horizon of a black hole from observations - and, unfortunately, we will probably never know due to the very nature of the event horizon; nothing can be transmitted past the horizon if our theories of special and general relativity are correct (and they seem to be given that they've survived every experimental attempt to break them).

Anyway, I'm rambling now... Sorry. But I love this topic!

A lot more detail than what i quickly skimmed before calling it a night last night but that is really fascinating thanks!