Remove this Banner Ad

Astronomy General Space Discussion

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

CD Xbow said:
Another information based theory of space-time, the quantum memory matrix (QMM). This treats information – not matter, not energy, not even spacetime itself, as the most fundamental ingredient of reality. It is attractive for a number of reasons - the 4 fundamental forces can be derived from it, the black hole information paradox is solved, dark energy is explained and best of all, it removes the need to make up a particle for dark matter. I'm going to keep an eye on this one.

theconversation.com

Information could be a fundamental part of the universe – and may explain dark energy and dark matter

The true “informational age” of the cosmos may be 62 billion years, not just the 13.8 billion years of our current expansion.
theconversation.com theconversation.com
Click to expand...

It's interesting if this quantum memory theory better describes different observable phenomenon. But it's still only a model that might prove useful without necessarily getting to the root of our reality. It's a bit like Weiping Yu's Uon theory that emphasizes magnetism as foundational to things like light, gravity, mass, etc.

I'm surprised the article didn't mention that we might be in a simulated universe. Information would the most fundamental ingredient of reality.
 
Frank Bunn said:
It's interesting if this quantum memory theory better describes different observable phenomenon. But it's still only a model that might prove useful without necessarily getting to the root of our reality. It's a bit like Weiping Yu's Uon theory that emphasizes magnetism as foundational to things like light, gravity, mass, etc.

I'm surprised the article didn't mention that we might be in a simulated universe. Information would the most fundamental ingredient of reality.
Click to expand...
Yes, soon as raise the possibility of an 'information based universe' the simulation idea naturally follows. Pretty sure no one would bother to simulate a universe with a world as crappy as this one. On a different note, Starship had it's most successful flight. Numerous technical issues are being solved:

arstechnica.com

SpaceX finally got exactly what it needed from Starship V2

This was the last flight of SpaceX’s second-gen Starship design. Version 3 arrives next year.
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

CD Xbow said:
On a different note, Starship had it's most successful flight. Numerous technical issues are being solved:

arstechnica.com

SpaceX finally got exactly what it needed from Starship V2

This was the last flight of SpaceX’s second-gen Starship design. Version 3 arrives next year.
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com
Click to expand...

To some extent Space X are being quite conservative. Putting down rockets in the ocean when they could land them onshore. Deliberately removing heat-shield tiles to see what will happen. Dummy Starlink satellites in sub-orbital.

It sounds like there will be unmanned landings on the moon in 2026 then if all goes well humans will step foot on the moon again in 2027.
 
Frank Bunn said:
To some extent Space X are being quite conservative. Putting down rockets in the ocean when they could land them onshore. Deliberately removing heat-shield tiles to see what will happen. Dummy Starlink satellites in sub-orbital.

It sounds like there will be unmanned landings on the moon in 2026 then if all goes well humans will step foot on the moon again in 2027.
Click to expand...
I think 2026 is more aspirational than likely, they have to sort out landing on the moon business including refuelling in orbit. 2027 for getting folks there on the SLS is even more unlikely.
 
CD Xbow said:
I think 2026 is more aspirational than likely, they have to sort out landing on the moon business including refuelling in orbit. 2027 for getting folks there on the SLS is even more unlikely.
Click to expand...

In some ways there's no rush. The moon isn't going anywhere. But there's still an element of international competition like there was during the Apollo program. The Space X employees were chanting "USA USA" as Starship successfully completed its stages. Space X is definitely the leader so far, but it could be a bit like Telsa where Chinese and Indian companies can come along later and do the same thing cheaper.

Either way, it's an exciting time. We are only a few years away from mankind walking on the moon again, and perhaps just a decade away from moon tourism.
 
Frank Bunn said:
In some ways there's no rush. The moon isn't going anywhere. But there's still an element of international competition like there was during the Apollo program. The Space X employees were chanting "USA USA" as Starship successfully completed its stages. Space X is definitely the leader so far, but it could be a bit like Telsa where Chinese and Indian companies can come along later and do the same thing cheaper.

Either way, it's an exciting time. We are only a few years away from mankind walking on the moon again, and perhaps just a decade away from moon tourism.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is exciting times. National big dick contests are just the thing to get space exploration going, a rip roaring 'space race' is just the thing.
 
Only a few more hours and 3i atlas will appear from behind the sun and answer many questions. Will be interesting to see what has happened to it.
 
Rocks in WA are believed to be left over from when Theia hit the Earth and formed the moon. Theia is the name given to the hypothetical planet that collided with the early Earth about 4.5 billion years ago. The rocks share isotopic similarities with lunar rocks.

www.space.com

Ancient Australian rocks may shed new light on the birth of the moon

Ancient Australian rocks may shed new light on the birth of the moon
www.space.com www.space.com
 
I’m at the opening of a new observatory in our Dark sky conservation park in Swan Reach , sa

www.miragenews.com

Australia's Largest Private Telescope Opens Today

Key Facts:Australia's largest private telescope, a $1.3 million PlaneWave CDK700, opens at Swan Reach Observatory in South AustraliaLocated near the
www.miragenews.com www.miragenews.com
 
CD Xbow said:
New Glenn nailed a booster landing, which is great for commercial access to space and gives SpaceX a true competitor



theconversation.com

Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket landed its booster on a barge at sea – an achievement that will broaden the commercial spaceflight market

Jeff Bezos’s aerospace company Blue Origin is now the second, after SpaceX, to land a rocket booster for reuse.
theconversation.com theconversation.com
Click to expand...

Do they mention the same landing process - I think by NASA - that was done in the 90's?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

1763741995506.png ​
More organics from Enceladus, analysis of Cassini data from the spray the sub surface ocean puts in orbit has found a whole heap of biochemical molecules including esters, ethers, aromatics, and heteroatom-bearing organics. None prove life but they are the sort of biochemical building blocks you need to support life.

www.earth.com

Fresh ocean spray from Enceladus reveals its strongest signs of life to date

Ice grains from Enceladus reveal the richest mix of organics yet, offering the strongest clues that the moon’s hidden ocean may support life.
www.earth.com www.earth.com
 
Chief said:
Do they mention the same landing process - I think by NASA - that was done in the 90's?
Click to expand...
No. That's the Delta Clipper Experimental (DC-X) you are referring to, I think. It never went orbital, it was a just test vehicle for landing, mind you, the first ever rocket to land and be reused. Some of the engineers did go on and work at Space X.
 
This is an interesting one related to space-time and sees the end of a number of time related paradoxes. The problems occur when authors conflate events (things which happen) with objects (things which exist). This treating of events as if they exist has been the cause of much confusion. Note the article doesn't consider the nature of time as such, rather clarifies some of the concepts when talking about time.

theconversation.com

Physicists and philosophers have long struggled to understand the nature of time: Here’s why

How can time feel so obvious, so woven into the fabric of our experience and yet, for thousands of years, remain the bane of every thinker who has tried to explain it?
theconversation.com theconversation.com

"Time itself isn’t difficult to grasp: we all understand it, despite our persistent struggle to describe it. As Augustine sensed, the problem is one of articulation: a failure to precisely draw the right boundaries around the nature of time both conceptually and linguistically.

Specifically, physicists and philosophers tend to conflate what it means for something to exist and what it means for something to happen — treating occurrences as if they exist. Once that distinction is recognized, the fog clears and Augustine’s paradox dissolves......"

And regarding our universe and Space-time models

"An event is something that happens at a precise location and time. In Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity, space-time is a four-dimensional model describing all such occurrences: each point is a particular event, and the continuous sequence of events associated with an object forms its worldline — its path through space and time.

But events don’t exist; they happen. When physicists and philosophers speak of space-time as something that exists, they’re treating events as existent things — the same subtle fallacy at the root of 25 centuries of confusion.

Cosmology offers a clear resolution. It describes a three-dimensional universe filled with stars, planets and galaxies that exist. And in the course of that existence, the locations of every particle at every instance are individual space-time events. As the universe exists, the events that happen moment by moment trace out worldlines in four-dimensional space-time — a geometric representation of everything that happens during that course of existence; a useful model, though not an existent thing."

Now that the paradoxes of time have been sorted out, I'll follow up with one about the paradox of the observer in the universe. I can't get my head around this one yet so you will just have to dive in and read it.

www.quantamagazine.org

Cosmic Paradox Reveals the Awful Consequence of an Observer-Free Universe | Quanta Magazine

Encouraged by successes in understanding black holes, theoretical physicists are applying what they’ve learned to whole universes. What they’re finding has them questioning fundamental assumptions about how physics ought to be done.
www.quantamagazine.org www.quantamagazine.org
 
Last edited:
1764064676969.png ​
The development of life on Earth was really rapid, within 500 - 700 miliion years after the formation of the Earth, simple life got going. There seems to have been a few lucky events that scientists believe were necessary for life, probably the most important was the impact with Theia, believed to be a mars size planet. Not only did it form the moon (which may have it's own importance in the development of life) but may have bought most of our water and other necessary elements. The traditional explanation is cometary bombardment with ice bearing comets being the source of our water. Both may have happened, it was an unruly place the early solar system.

'The results of the study thus support the assumption that a later collision with another planet—Theia—brought the decisive turning point and made Earth a life-friendly planet. Theia probably formed further out in the solar system, where volatile substances such as water accumulated.

"Thanks to our results, we know that the proto-Earth was initially a dry rocky planet. It can therefore be assumed that it was only the collision with Theia that brought volatile elements to Earth and ultimately made life possible there,"'


It's a good story, however a more recent paper, using isotope data suggests Theia formed more sunward than the Earth.

https://phys.org/news/2025-11-theia-earth-neighbors.html

So how did Theia manage to maintain water if the Earth could not? One resolution to the contradiction may be if Theia had a very eccentric orbit, it could have formed in the inner solar system then because of its orbit travelled to the outer parts, accumulation water. We know Theia can't have had a nice elliptical orbit like a sensible planet, as it would have been very difficult for it to collide with Earth.

This is another, older article one that talks about Earth and our water
 
Last edited:

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

There's been a few interesting articles about Earth and terrestrial planet formation recently, this is yet another one. Being in the right place is not enough. A planet has got to have the right mix of elements to get a decent core, which can sustain a magnetic field and creates plate tectonics, both regraded as essential to development of Earth type life.


"The balance between pure iron and iron oxide (rust) is critical in the formation of an early planet's core. Pure iron will generally fall towards the core, creating a larger one, whereas iron oxide will end up in the mantle, decreasing the size of the core.

Core is one of the major factors of habitability as it controls one of the most important protective features of a planet—its magnetic field. A large core creates a strong magnetic field, protecting the elements, and potential life forms, on the planet's surface from solar radiation, whereas a small core might produce a weak field, allowing the solar wind to strip away many useful elements, and radiation to fry the planet's landscape.

The last two factors create a new type of Goldilocks Zone, which is that a planet must have a small enough amount of volatiles (particularly oxygen) to develop a large, metallic core, and thereby a geodynamo, but also enough volatiles to be able to develop life once the planet has stabilized."

If the articles posted earlier are correct about the early Earth being dry, Theia was needed to crash the party and bring the drinks, to produce a watery Earth (with core, magnetic field, plate tectonics) that life could evolve on. A lot of things have to happen to make an Earth, I don't think Earth like planets will be common, even though exoplanets are a dime a dozen.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Astronomy General Space Discussion

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top