Sat, 11 Aug 2007
While investigating planet formation (to justify support complement a PhD proposal on
ocean planets),
I found this discussion over at
physicsforums
following a
blog entry
by Dr Steinn Sigursson.
(He uses Planet X in his posts but that is too frequently linked with the dwarf planet Xena Eris, and
besides, Pluto has been demoted, so its Planet 9 we're looking for
).
The question is, how was our solar system created ?
"Looks like the outer solar system, with late heavy bombardment, would have come together nicely if there was another Neptune out there to begin with."
Basically, it appears as though there is a planet or substellar companion star out in the Oort cloud. This is not likely to be the Nemesis object of Hut's/Muller's theory, but would have been responsible for the Kuiper belt. Most of the discussion is about brown dwarfs, but following links leads to a paper by Gomes et al., simulating the possibility of outer Neptunes or Jupiters at 4000 AU or 5000 AU. The thread is all about the dynamics of such bodies, but what would they look like?
- How bright would they be? Not very. Grabbing some used envelopes and the usual definition, we get magnitude 27 for a Jupiter at 5000 AU, or 29 for Neptune at 4000 AU. The limiting magnitude for Hubble is about 30; finding one would be hard at those brightnesses. This is from reflected (visible) light from the Sun (solar irradiance at 5000 AU is down to 5 uW / m2 !); perhaps it might radiate a bit more from internal heat in the infrared.
- Whats the temperature? At the surface, this depends on how much sunlight it absorbs and how much it reflects: its albedo. Using albedos of 0.3 ( typical for an asteroid, "dirty snowball; see eg. Delbo et al.) , 0.39 for Earth, or 0.8 for clean ice, we get effective temperatures of 2.5 to 3.5 Kelvin ( -270 ° C)
Now, Hydrogen freezes solid at 14K, Helium is liquid at 4K. So we're talking about a liquid helium ocean on top, with no atmosphere worth speaking of.
But Could it sustain life?
Not as impossible as it seems. Ehrenreich and Cassan point out that an Ice Giant could host a liquid layer underneath an ice shell surface, heated by radiogenic energy, that could last for billions of years before freezing.
So where would it be? This is the time to submit a grant proposal for more envelopes ...
SRT doesn't have a gravity field. If there is no gravity
field , the space will be flat ( Pseudo- Euclid’s space),
but usually this space is called “Minkowski space “
(negative 4-D united space/time continuum).
======.
Is the “ Minkowski space “abstract continuum, as everybody says?
I think this space is a real one.
I think this space is Vacuum.
Why?
1. “ Minkowski space “has no gravity field, but negative parameter.
2. Only Vacuum space has negative parameter : T= - 273.
3. And this negative parameter is united with space/ time ,
which are joined together absolutely .
4. And the second SRT postulate tells about moving
light quanta in Vacuum.
5. It is impossible SRT to be the right theory
and space around SRT to be an abstract theory.
6. If in our brain abstract and real ideas are mixed together
then the interpretation of physics must be paradoxical.
============
P.S.
a) SRT is a right theory .
The bombs of Nagasaki and Hiroshima proved it.
But " Minkowski space " is an abstract theory.
There isn't any proof of it existence.
b) Our planet Earth is home for us.
We live and act in this planet.
And " Minkowski space " is home for SRT.
All SRT particles live and act in this
" 4-D negative continuum - Minkowski space " .
But nobody knows what " Minkowski space " is.
c) These two ideas are mixed together and therefore
the interpretation of physics is paradoxical.
========= ===========
SRT has only one space - “Minkowski space “.
But in 1915 Einstein put a “ MASS “ in the
“Minkowski space “ and it curved.
In 1921 A. Freedman put “ TIME “ in the
“Minkowski space “ and it also curved.
And Einstein had to agree with Freedman’s idea.
What is the reason of “Minkowski space “ change?
==========
If mathematician makes a small mistake in the
beginning of his calculations then after some
operations it grows into a big one.
And if in the beginning of sciences birth (Newton )
the abstract ideas were put into its fundament ,
then now we are surprised with its paradoxes………
……and we can create new and new theories for 1000 years
but the result will be the same - paradoxical.
===========================..
It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT,
(theory of photon/electron’s behaviour).
Minkowski, tried to understand SRT using 4D space.
Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation,
said, that now he couldn’t understand his own theory.
“ Einstein, you are right, it is difficult to understand SRT
using 4D space. But it is possible using my 5D space"
- said Kaluza in 1921.
This theory was tested and found insufficient.
"Well", said another mathematicians, - "maybe 6D, 7D,
8D, 9D spaces will explain it". And they had done it.
But the doubts still remain.
"OK", they say, "we have only one way to solve this problem.
We must create more complex D spaces".
And they do it, they use all their power, all their super intellects
to solve this problem.
Glory to these mathematicians !!!!
But……….
But there is one problem.
To create new D space, mathematicians must add a new parameter.
It is impossible to create new D space without a new parameter.
And the mathematicians take this parameter arbitrarily
(it fixed according to his opinion, not by objective rules).
The physicist, R. Lipin explained this situation in such way:
"Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant.
With four I can make him wiggle his trunk…"
To this Lipin’s opinion it is possible to add:
"with one more parameter the elephant will fly."
The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
Where are our brains?
Please remember, many D spaces were born as a wish
to understand SRT (theory of photon/electron’s behaviour).
But if someone wants to understand, for example, a bird
(photon/electron)itself and for this he studies only
its surroundings, will he be successful?
If I were a king, I would publish a law:
every mathematician who takes part in the creation
of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal
"To the winner over common sense".
Why?
Because they have won us over using the
absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza.
==============..
http://www.socratus.com
Posted by socratus at Mon Aug 27 10:41:40 2007