Example of a New Definitive Prediction
Robert L. Oldershaw
definitive predictions even in the present era when the questions we
are asking are amazingly complex and strain the limits of
observational capacities.
Russia launched a very impressive radio telescope in July. It is
called Spektr-R, or RadioAstron, and it has been placed in a very high
orbit around the Earth. When coupled with ground-based radio
telescopes the combined systems will have a resolution capability in
the radio wave region of the spectrum that is advertised as being
10,000 times finer than anything preceding it.
Discrete Scale Relativity predicts in a formally definitive manner
that when the above-mentioned radio telescope system is trained on an
isolated neutron star or on a reasonably isolated pulsar, then the
structural radius of the neutron star will be between 0.4 km and 6
km. Please note that I am predicting the physical radius of the
matter composing the neutron star, and I am not referring to the
magnetic field surrounding the neutron star, far less any "wind
nebula" surrounding the neutron star.
Conventional astrophysics has always asserted that the canonical radii
for neutron stars will be in the 10-20 km range, and that the much
lower radii predicted by DSR are "impossible". We have a clear and
unambiguous test between the existing paradigm and DSR. The
prediction is prior, feaible, quantitative, non-adjustable and unique
to DSR.
I would expect that neutron stars might be selected as early targets
for the new radio telescope system, and so we might not have too long
to wait before this definitive prediction is tested.
Please copy this post and put it in your schedule/dates book at about
the Xmas page. With any luck, there should be some relevant results
by then. If DSR's prediction is wrong, so be it. If DSR's prediction
is right, then we will have a hint from nature that discrete conformal
invariance is the unique path to unification.
RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
[Mod. note: this rather depends on there being a mechanism by which
the neutron star's surface will radiate at detectable levels: I'm not
aware of any radio detections of isolated non-pulsing neutron stars
(and even then people are looking for pulses, i.e. for stuff related
to the magnetic field). That's the astrophysical reason why we
shouldn't get all excited. The practical reason is that the highest
resolution obtainable by this new instrument will be 7 microarcsec: to
resolve scales of 10 km, we'd need the neutron star to be within 0.01
pc, or 2000 AU -- I think we'd know. -- mjh]
eric gisse
22392-13...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
> I would like to demonstrate how a 'theory of principle' can make
> definitive predictions even in the present era when the questions we
> are asking are amazingly complex and strain the limits of
> observational capacities.
>
> Russia launched a very impressive radio telescope in July. It is
> called Spektr-R, or RadioAstron, and it has been placed in a very high
> orbit around the Earth. When coupled with ground-based radio
> telescopes the combined systems will have a resolution capability in
> the radio wave region of the spectrum that is advertised as being
> 10,000 times finer than anything preceding it.
Emphasis on 'advertised'. Its' better than what we currently have, just
not that good.
I can't wait to see what it starts kicking out.
>
> Discrete Scale Relativity predicts in a formally definitive manner
> that when the above-mentioned radio telescope system is trained on an
> isolated neutron star or on a reasonably isolated pulsar, then the
> structural radius of the neutron star will be between 0.4 km and 6
> km.
How is this a definitive prediction? Your prediction (noting the lack of
supporting literature) is a factor of 15 wide, with the lower bound
being well inside any neutron star's Schwarzschild radius.
Besides, previous measurements of netron star radii tend to be well
above your prediction.
Further, there is no consideration for the mass or equation of state for
the neutron star.
Even further still, what on Earth makes you think you'll get a
definitive size measurement of a neutron star with radio? One of the
pains in the ass in measuring the size of such objects is not just
because they are small, but also because the environment is a plasma
mess.
What scatters radio like a boss? Plasma!
The mod note covers more on this.
> Please note that I am predicting the physical radius of the
> matter composing the neutron star, and I am not referring to the
> magnetic field surrounding the neutron star, far less any "wind
> nebula" surrounding the neutron star.
Which if you think about for a minute, will be enough to make radio
measurements of the area meaningless except as a study of the
environment.
>
> Conventional astrophysics has always asserted that the canonical radii
> for neutron stars will be in the 10-20 km range, and that the much
> lower radii predicted by DSR are "impossible".
Mostly because that's what observation says. Lower radii are possible,
but that depends on the mass of the object and its' equation of state.
I've seen lower bounds of like 6km or so, so your grasp of what
'conventional astrophysics' thinks isn't as firm as you would like. It
also appears you haven't done a literature search on measurements
relating to neutron star radii.
> We have a clear and
> unambiguous test between the existing paradigm and DSR. The
> prediction is prior, feaible, quantitative, non-adjustable and unique
> to DSR.
And only a factor of 15 wide. You would be ranting and raving if
GR/QM/etc made a prediction that inaccurate.
>
> I would expect that neutron stars might be selected as early targets
> for the new radio telescope system, and so we might not have too long
> to wait before this definitive prediction is tested.
Consider the neutron star Aql X-1.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0204196
Its' been measured to be roughly 15.9 km, subject to the printed error
and a 20% uncertainty in distance. But still well outside the generous
predictive range you've assigned yourself.
>
> Please copy this post and put it in your schedule/dates book at about
> the Xmas page. With any luck, there should be some relevant results
> by then. If DSR's prediction is wrong, so be it. If DSR's prediction
> is right, then we will have a hint from nature that discrete conformal
> invariance is the unique path to unification.
There seems to be a lack of interest in the various MACHO surveys that
exclude your theory, so "so be it" seems to mean you'll continue on
whether or not observation agrees with you.
Robert L. Oldershaw
> "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-
> 22392-1313568...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
>
> How is this a definitive prediction? Your prediction (noting the lack of
> supporting literature) is a factor of 15 wide, with the lower bound
> being well inside any neutron star's Schwarzschild radius.
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's not obfuscate simple matters.
Discrete Scale Relativity predicts that the radii of neutron stars are
roughly an order of magnitude smaller than is assumed, not really
measured but rather assumed, by conventional astrophysics.
Let's see what nature's verdict on the prediction is, rather than
claiming to know what the right answer is before there is any solid
evidence.
No one can guarantee that Spektr-R will provide the crucial data for
testing this prediction. The crucial data could come from any of a
number of quite different observational research efforts.
Neither can anyone know whether the definitive results will be
published in 3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years or 3 decades.
A definitive prediction has been made. It will be tested within a
reasonable amount of time. I look forward to the answer.
eric gisse
> On Aug 17, 11:15 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote in news:mt2.0-
>> 22392-1313568...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
>>
>
>> How is this a definitive prediction? Your prediction (noting the lack
of
>> supporting literature) is a factor of 15 wide, with the lower bound
>> being well inside any neutron star's Schwarzschild radius.
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>
> Let's not obfuscate simple matters.
What have I written that can be classified as 'obsfucation' ?
>
> Discrete Scale Relativity predicts that the radii of neutron stars are
> roughly an order of magnitude smaller than is assumed, not really
> measured but rather assumed, by conventional astrophysics.
I gave you a reference to an actual observation, which you seem to have
ignored.
You also haven't actually shown how you obtained this prediction.
>
> Let's see what nature's verdict on the prediction is, rather than
> claiming to know what the right answer is before there is any solid
> evidence.
There is plenty of evidence. I posted one example. I saw several others
but picked that one because even accounting for systematics it its twice
as large as your predicted upper bound.
What research have you done that allows you to conclude "HUPR DURP, WE
HAVE NO IDEA!"
>
> No one can guarantee that Spektr-R will provide the crucial data for
> testing this prediction.
One can gurantee nearly the opposite, given the nature of the objects
and how radio waves are scattered by plasma.
That, and the direct resolving power of radio isn't enough for
astrophysically relevant distances. Which was explained to you in the
mod note in your original post.
> The crucial data could come from any of a
> number of quite different observational research efforts.
>
> Neither can anyone know whether the definitive results will be
> published in 3 weeks, 3 months, 3 years or 3 decades.
>
> A definitive prediction has been made. It will be tested within a
> reasonable amount of time. I look forward to the answer.
You have the answer already.
Have you done any research at all?
>
> RLO
> http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]
> Discrete Scale Relativity predicts in a formally definitive manner
> that when the above-mentioned radio telescope system is trained on an
> isolated neutron star or on a reasonably isolated pulsar, then the
> structural radius of the neutron star will be between 0.4 km and 6
> km. Please note that I am predicting the physical radius of the
> matter composing the neutron star, and I am not referring to the
> magnetic field surrounding the neutron star, far less any "wind
> nebula" surrounding the neutron star.
As others have noted, RadioAstron, while a very valuable instrument
for doing very-long-baseline [radio] interferometry (VLBI), won't be
able to resolve neutron stars located at any reasonable distance.
However, in ~2015 the advanced LIGO & advanced Virgo gravitational-wave
detectors should come online. If these work as expected, it seems
very likely that they will detect substantial numbers of binary
neutron star coalescences. Each such detection (at a reasonable
signal/noise ratio) will give us a measured gravitational-wave
waveform whose detailed shape is very sensitive to (among other
things) the neutron stars' diameters and equations of state, and
so should allow measuring both of these.
--
-- "Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]" <jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu>
Dept of Astronomy & IUCSS, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral."
-- quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
> However, in ~2015 the advanced LIGO & advanced Virgo gravitational-wave
> detectors should come online. If these work as expected, it seems
> very likely that they will detect substantial numbers of binary
> neutron star coalescences. Each such detection (at a reasonable
> signal/noise ratio) will give us a measured gravitational-wave
> waveform whose detailed shape is very sensitive to (among other
> things) the neutron stars' diameters and equations of state, and
> so should allow measuring both of these.
I hereby make prediction: when Ligo confirms the conventional diameters
for neutron stars, RLO will object on the grounds that it is not really
a direct measurement, but rather an inference based on the "paradigm" of
GR and not on DSR. :-)
eric gisse
wrote in news:mt2.0-30892...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
> In article <mt2.0-28941...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Jonathan
> Thornburg [remove -animal to reply]" <jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu>
> writes:
>
>> However, in ~2015 the advanced LIGO & advanced Virgo gravitational-
wave
>> detectors should come online. If these work as expected, it seems
>> very likely that they will detect substantial numbers of binary
>> neutron star coalescences. Each such detection (at a reasonable
>> signal/noise ratio) will give us a measured gravitational-wave
>> waveform whose detailed shape is very sensitive to (among other
>> things) the neutron stars' diameters and equations of state, and
>> so should allow measuring both of these.
>
> I hereby make prediction: when Ligo confirms the conventional
diameters
Unless we are lucky enough to upgrade LIGO to the point where it could
detect pulsar spindown via gravitational radiation emission, I highly
doubt that.
Actually LIGO has been really handy on that so far. We've recently
reached the theoretical spindown limit on gravitational radiation
emission, and from here on out it is all a test of how spherically
symmetric those damn things are.
> for neutron stars, RLO will object on the grounds that it is not
really
> a direct measurement, but rather an inference based on the "paradigm"
of
> GR and not on DSR. :-)
>
The thing is, we already have the measurements. I posted one, but it has
- curiously - generated absolutely zero discussion from RLO.
Robert L. Oldershaw
<hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote:
> In article <mt2.0-28941-1313653...@hydra.herts.ac.uk>, "Jonathan
Incorrect, and not very amusing!
Why would you assume the result before the fact? Perhaps you take the
modern approach to physics, in which experiments are superfluous and
we can be content with untested assumptions, especially if endorsed by
celebrity physicists.
PS: Rumor has it that the latest "Higgsy" sighting at LHC was nothing
more than wishful thinking. Truth will come out tonight or Monday.
One more in a seemingly endless series of false-positives? Is it
conceivable that nature is "trying to tell us something"?
RLO
Fractal Cosmology
eric gisse
news:mt2.0-7243...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
> modern approach to physics, in which experiments are superfluous and
> we can be content with untested assumptions, especially if endorsed by
> celebrity physicists.
Robert, I have a simple question: What research have you done on
observations regarding the size of neutron stars?
I've handed you one observation and the literature describing it, but you
don't seem to be that interested in it.
>
> PS: Rumor has it that the latest "Higgsy" sighting at LHC was nothing
> more than wishful thinking. Truth will come out tonight or Monday.
> One more in a seemingly endless series of false-positives? Is it
> conceivable that nature is "trying to tell us something"?
>
> RLO
> Fractal Cosmology
You mean a result that was leaked before publication turned out to be not
as groundbreaking as thought prior to all the work being done? NO!
Robert L. Oldershaw
wrote:
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 10/7/11 issue of Science has a paper on the discovery of very
energetic gamma-rays from the Crab Nebula pulsar.
The abstract contains the following statement:
"We report the detection of pulsed gamma rays from the Crab pulsar at
energies above 100 giga–electron volts (GeV) with the Very Energetic
Radiation Imaging Telescope Array System (VERITAS) array of
atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes. The detection cannot be explained on
the basis of current pulsar models."
The relevance to this thread is that new observational evidence
conflicts with the assumptions of older conventional models. It is
quite possible in this case that the old models will have to be
revised or replaced in order to give us a new and better understanding
of pulsars.
Bottom Line: Maybe conventional assumptions about neutron stars have
serious shortcomings. So much for the "case closed" set.
Science is an evolving entity, not a dead and fossilized entity.
RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
> The 10/7/11 issue of Science has a paper on the discovery of very
> energetic gamma-rays from the Crab Nebula pulsar.
> conflicts with the assumptions of older conventional models. It is
> quite possible in this case that the old models will have to be
> revised or replaced in order to give us a new and better understanding
> of pulsars.
to the one I am replying to within a few hours.
> Bottom Line: Maybe conventional assumptions about neutron stars have
> serious shortcomings. So much for the "case closed" set.
out that since neutrinos go faster than light, the old paradigm must be
wrong, and since the old paradigm was the basis for AGW, there is no
reason to worry about carbon-dioxide emissions. If you want to put
yourself into that camp (with regard to the logic, if not to the
conclusion), be my guest.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203388804576612620828387968.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
> Science is an evolving entity, not a dead and fossilized entity.
everyone else is wrong.
eric gisse
news:mt2.0-3018...@hydra.herts.ac.uk:
> On Aug 21, 3:36�pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw" <rlolders...@amherst.edu>
> wrote:
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> -------
>
> The 10/7/11 issue of Science has a paper on the discovery of very
> energetic gamma-rays from the Crab Nebula pulsar.
>
> The abstract contains the following statement:
>
> "We report the detection of pulsed gamma rays from the Crab pulsar at
> energies above 100 giga�electron volts (GeV) with the Very Energetic
> Radiation Imaging Telescope Array System (VERITAS) array of
> atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes. The detection cannot be explained on
> the basis of current pulsar models."
>
> The relevance to this thread is that new observational evidence
> conflicts with the assumptions of older conventional models. It is
> quite possible in this case that the old models will have to be
> revised or replaced in order to give us a new and better understanding
> of pulsars.
Wouldn't be the first time. Our modeling of the pulsar magnetosphere and
general environment has been a perpetual work in progress.
>
> Bottom Line: Maybe conventional assumptions about neutron stars have
> serious shortcomings. So much for the "case closed" set.
Does your numerology predict this? No.
Does your numerology correctly predict the sizes of neutron stars, as
you have opined earlier? No, and we've been over that to the tune of no
response from you.
Instead of posting things like this then not-at-all subtly transitioning
into saying "MAYBE SCIENCE IS WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING", why don't you
take the time to work on the technical challenges to your numerology?
The newsgroup is still waiting for you to explain, for example, why the
body of work regarding microlensing does not in fact falsify your
numerology outright.