Hacker News Reader

Comment by nixtaken | Hacker News Reader

A vibrating star is a star that is literally moving back and forth relative to an observer. That doesn't sound like new-age mysticism to me.

With "vibrating in a mode which is out of synch with our own" it looks like she is translating physics jargon into more colloquial terms.

A physicist would instead say "oscillating in a mode which is out of phase with the motion of the detector".

A teacher would explain the concept in terms of a child being pushed on a swing. If you are pushing at exactly the wrong time during every swing, there will be no energy transfer. When there is no energy transfer, you are blind to each other.

The jargon of science is one of her bugbears and she is trying to demystify it.

View on HN

That doesn't sound like new-age mysticism to me.

It sure does. That's classic new-age mysticism. They love hand-wavy energy modes and vibrations. If it had the word "quantum" in it, it'd be ticking all the boxes. Maybe it's an unfortunate case of a non-native English speaker not realising that these terms are commonly hijacked by bullshit artists.

To suggest that some stars are invisible because they emit EM radiation that simply can't interact with anything on this earth is an incredible statement that requires a lot more than just "I can imagine".

Indeed: stars don't emit radiation per se, the trillions of atoms absorbing and emitting quantised photons do.

So,

a) they would have to be made of something other than the normal atomic matter normal stars, planets, and rocks, and people are made of

b) be normal Hydrogen, Helium, etc. but with completely different quantum mechanical behaviour. Just sitting their in isolated regions of space - right next to normal matter.

Grade-A bollocks.

I think the idea rests on the notion that the stars all obey the same physical laws and are made of the same types of atoms, but that the timing of the motion of atoms in distant stars is not synchronized with our own. I like to think of the physics of synchrotron light in this context. When a particle accelerates, as in an atomic clock, it emits light.

but that the timing of the motion of atoms in distant stars is not synchronized with our own

What is this "synchronised timing" of which you speak? Atoms in distant stars move in some way that is fundamentally different to movement of atoms in nearby stars, but that movement isn't different in space, but in time? This makes no sense.

On the face of it "synchronised in time" means "contemporary". If the argument is that I can only experience the present, and that I can't interact with the past or the future (although light emitted in the past that reaches me in the present is of course on the table), that seems true but not really very relevant.

> What is this "synchronised timing" of which you speak?

I think this text should help you understand:

https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Vibrations-H-P-Blavatsky/dp...

H. P. Blavatsky, 1926

Prior to her post-doctoral work, she wrote her thesis on the synchronization of particle beams with light, but it didn't have anything to do with mysticism. This contains a sample of some of that work: https://kirstenhacker.wordpress.com/posts-deleted-by-quora/

The atoms in the distant stars are the same as the atoms here, but they are being shaken around relative to where we are - that is an explanation in terms of space. It relies on the motion of the atoms in the distant star being faster than the speed of light relative to us.

The atoms in the distant stars are the same as the atoms here, but they are emitting light at a different time relative to where we are - that is an explanation in terms of time. It relies on destructive interference between the light we emit and the light the distant star emits.

The two explanations are geometrically equivalent.

They are consistent with the worldview of people like Maxwell, Bjerknes and Hertz. They looked up at the sky and saw stars in jiggling jello. It isn't a bad heuristic. It just went out of fashion.

> think the idea rests on the notion that the stars all obey the same physical laws and are made of the same types of atoms, but that the timing of the motion of atoms in distant stars is not synchronized with our own.

yes, we get that. The idea that this somehow causes "you won't see it" ... well it's an idea.

An idea found in new-age mysticism.

It's not science of any kind.

In the scientific community, we talk about how different foundational principles or axioms change the heuristics of physics and that is what this article was about. Convention A leads to Riemannian coordinates and the big bang. Convention B leads to Cartesian coordinates and tired light. There is nothing mystical about Cartesian logic. It was reborn during the enlightenment. When people try to think in Cartesian ways about Riemannian theories, as most people tend to do, trouble arises.

Could you please stop dodgeing, waffling, obfuscating and going on about "that's just one way of looking at it" and address the part where it causes "you won't see it" for stars etc?

This part is where the jargon serves only to hide the fact that this is nonsense.

He is askng for an explanation in terms of quantum mechanics and I gave one, but I prefer the first explanation I gave in term of the speed of light. What is nice about tired light or steady-state universes is that the two explanations are consistent. The big-bang universe is full of inconsistencies and paradoxes which are somehow not paradoxical if you do the math and don't think too hard about the heuristics. In short, it is a mess that can only be sorted out if you think outside of the box which defines it.

I think of supermassive black holes, SMBH, as the ultimate progression in the variety of ways matter convects together into denser and denser objects. So if we want to call a black hole or an SMBH a star, I am fine with that. And, since I think Planck plasma can emerge from the most dense matter-energy which is generally found inside the event horizon, we then need to talk about what Planck particles are. I model them as dipoles containing two charged particles - an electrino and a positrino, which can be combined in various ways to form all of the standard matter particles. So now, if a Planck level energy particle is one of these dipoles, well that is not a particle in the standard model. It may be the equivalent of a Gen III photon, but we don't have generations for photons yet. And the vibrational or oscillation frequency of a Planck particle is the Planck frequency, which we definitely can not detect. So all that said, the description of a "vibrating star" is ok with me.

You cannot just have an idea. You need to pitch up with either

a) statisical data to show evidence of said idea

b) a mechanism by which said phenomenon could occur.

Like genetics. We knew the 'idea' had merit from Mendel's experiments and Darwin's observations. Watson, Crick, and Franklin showed us how.

Yet, in this hypothesis, the evidence for the invisibility of some stars is how invisible they are?

The choice between the big-bang and tired-light is a choice between self-consistent theories which each explain the available data - the absence of distant stars in this case. Some say that the choice should be made based on politics, marketing, the amount of work already invested in the theory, etc. She made a case for tired-light based on heuristic and semantic grounds. She thinks that it is more consistent with existing word use and with other sub-specialties within physics. She believes it would reduce the fragmentation of physics as a discipline. Then again, perhaps this fragmentation was deliberate. It is like that Tool song, Schism, "I know the pieces fit. I watched them fall away." The question I'd like answered is: "Will the next generation be able to put the pieces back together?

The choice between the big-bang and tired-light is a choice between self-consistent theories which each explain the available data

... but tired-light then goes on to fail at explaining other data, and experimental tests.

By all means, come up with new hypotheses to explain existing phenomena. When those new hypotheses subsequently make predictions that disagree with experiment and new observations, the choices are to acknowledge this or to do what you appear to be doing. Please stop.

People who've been conditioned to imagine a big bang bubble that expanded at greater than the speed of light and then popped often find it difficult for to imagine Fred Hoyle's steady-state universe (which is what she is trying to describe). For people with a materials science background, it is easy to imagine, but for people steeped in modern pop-sci mythology, it is difficult.

Tell me more about the "popped" phase of the big bang?

Those who believe in the big bang say that there was an inflationary epoch during which particles traveled faster than light - just like the Standard Model virtual particles within collider experiments which temporarily violate conservation of energy. Then, all of a sudden, for no discernible reason, we are supposed to believe that the laws of physics suddenly changed and everything that happened since must travel at less than the speed of light. Wild story. I saw Andre Linde tell it in a SLAC conference room when I was just a child. I've since been amazed by how much sand castle empire building resulted from this lark. Some of those who founded the theory have since abandoned it. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-s... The man who stood by it won the 2019 Nobel Prize (James Peebles). Loyalty to the group pays off.

The steady state universe, or perhaps a slowly changing universe, is where I am placing my bet. I think scientists have really dropped the ball on supermassive black hole science. It seems logical that instead of a singularity, the core would reach Planck scale and that core could breach at the poles under sufficient conditions, thus generating those massive high energy jets. Isotropy in the universe would be explained by the same physics process governing all SMBH. Then there is no need for a big bang origin.

> A vibrating star is a star that is literally moving back and forth relative to an observer

What physical process would cause this? Have we ever observed it?

Large bodies of matter don't just "move back and forth" of their own accord. Try shaking any heavy object, it takes a lot of energy.

Do you mean ringing like a gong or a pond with ripples? Then "moving back and forth" is a confusing poor choice of words. Do you mean "orbiting a black hole in such a way that it comes nearer to us and then further again?" Then why not say so?

How would the mode be out of synch with our own, whatever that even means?

> The jargon of science is one of her bugbears and she is trying to demystify it.

By introducing new and incomprehensible jargon that is literally mystical?

> oscillating in a mode which is out of phase with the motion of the detector

Are you saying that undetectable EM radiation exists because of modes / phases? This is complete hand-wavy mysticism.

The physical process is gravity as Laplace described it back in the 1700s as a sort of breathing motion. Stars in our vicinity tend to breathe in synch and that is why they are easy to see. Jargon from the past only sounds mystical when present-day jargon loses contact with foundational principles.

Stars in our vicinity tend to breathe in synch and that is why they are easy to see.

Utter, utter rot. You're vanishing into your own new-age hand-wavy magic word bullshit, creating new nonsense to explain away huge flaws in a hypothesis.

They're easy to see because they're emitting photons that intersect with us.

If atoms in star A and star B are moving in opposition - away and towards one other in a steady-state oscillation - this would cause destructive interference between the emitted photons. No energy will be exchanged and they will be blind to one another.

If the atoms of stars A and C are moving back and forth synchronously in the same direction at the same time, the photons they emit will add constructively and they will see one another.

If you want to, you can make stars A and C stationary and just let star B vibrate. The result is the same.

> If atoms in star A and star B are moving in opposition - away and towards one other in a steady-state oscillation - this would cause destructive interference between the emitted photons. No energy will be exchanged and they will be blind to one another.

Poppycock.

He wanted a quantum explanation in terms of photons, so I gave him one. I liked the original explanation I gave in terms of the speed of light better: "If a vibrating star is always moving towards or away from the detector at greater than the speed of light, you won't see it."

What I like about tired-light is that it is consistent with both quantum and cosmic processes whereas the big-bang people insist that there is a mysterious incompatibility between the two realms (domains if you want to sound technical). I suppose that this isn't surprising because wherever there is a mystery, they can ask for money from politicians. Taxpayers like you and I pay for it.

> I suppose that this isn't surprising because wherever there is a mystery, they can ask for money from politicians. Taxpayers like you and I pay for it.

So it's a conspiracy?

Or a confederacy of dunces. Same difference. The dunsmen of Scotist thought were once famous for their brilliantly labyrinthine, obfuscating logic until the enlightenment started and people began making fun of their pointy hats. This is just how ideas evolve. I think tired-light would bring more clarity and unity to physics as a discipline.

Physicists already acknowledge that the quantum vacuum is not just geometrical space. They'll even write it about it roiling and bubbling. My guess is that it won't be too many years before they realize that there is a spacetime superfluid that is very lightly interacting. Then it is just a logical step to determine what kind of particles are in that superfluid. Maybe tired photons and tired neutrinos eventually lose enough energy that they begin a phase change into another state that doesn't zip around at high speeds. Maybe those low energy particles combine into some other low energy particle (a graviton?). Perhaps the spacetime superfluid temperature is 2.7K black body and is what we erroneously detect as the CMB from a big bang that didn't happen. If you follow this thought process, the idea that photons could very occasionally lose some energy harmonics to particles in the superfluid is entirely sensible. This would cause a very slow redshift. The observable universe would be limited by the distance a high energy photon could travel before losing so much energy it joined the superfluid. The fields of physics and cosmology need creativity and to start thinking on new ideas, like this or others, because it is very clear that they are on the incorrect track at the moment.

> Stars in our vicinity tend to breathe in synch and that is why they are easy to see.

I appreciate your effort, but this is not science in any way. Changing the jargon won't help that.

You're right that this language is not precise enough. Where you put the clocks matters a lot. What is synchronous to one person is asynchronous to another.

Precisely explaining this nonsense won't help.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com