The recent discovery of two lookalike galaxies has led physicists one step closer to finding the ultimate theory of everything.
Could two lookalike galaxies, barely a whisker apart in the night sky, herald a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics? Some physicists believe that the two galaxies are the same - its image has been split into two, they maintain, by a "cosmic string"; a San Andreas Fault in the very fabric of space and time.
If this interpretation is correct, then CSL-1 - the name of the curious double galaxy - is the first concrete evidence for "superstring theory": the best candidate for a "theory of everything", which attempts to encapsulate all the phenomena of nature in one neat set of equations.
I thought "cosmic strings" were entirely different things than "supersymmetric string theory as a replacement for the Standard Model which is based on the math of quatum field theory".
-- edit to add references
1994 Review Article on Comsic Strings
This article illustrates a wide variety of cosmic string theories from a review of over 300 papers. Cosmic Strings naturally arise from a variety of classes of Grand Unified Theories, not necessary equivalent to the "string theory" that the1physicist rallies against.
More recent and more readable article on Superconducting Cosmic Strings, one of the possibilites discused above
-- edit to add references
1994 Review Article on Comsic Strings
This article illustrates a wide variety of cosmic string theories from a review of over 300 papers. Cosmic Strings naturally arise from a variety of classes of Grand Unified Theories, not necessary equivalent to the "string theory" that the1physicist rallies against.
More recent and more readable article on Superconducting Cosmic Strings, one of the possibilites discused above
hmmmm... I thought the answer was 42... 
in which version? the english version or the uk... its a different number in each country... though i always forget the real question... : )
excuse me i dropped my towel, care for a peanut?
excuse me i dropped my towel, care for a peanut?
I am currently a student taking a geology 1 class on line. This theory sounds amazingly similar to the theory of plate tectonics in geology which is used, among other things, to explain the separation of continents, growth of mountain ranges, and earthquakes. I'd like to believe it makes sense that similar occurences would take place on a galactical level. But what do I know. I've only been in Geology 1 since last month. 
This lookalike can also back up my theory that galaxies aliase, and has somehow mirrored itself due to this illusion of aliasing.
the string in this case would not be like a geological rift or plate moving.. very very different... with plates (this is for others reading not the geology person) they either come together or they are separating..
the string would not be a crack in space.. it would not eject new matter.. though lik e a black hole would absorb matter...
i good way to imagine a string like this (and i am not saying this is what it is for there are other possiblities - and not galaxy aliasing - thats not possible)... though this will help you imagine it its not exactly what it is.. so this is just a mental tool to see the concept... and this does not argue for or against it..
think of a black hole
technically (depending on who you read) a black hole shrinks to a singularity.. a one dimensional object in three dimensional space.. if you could 'see' it it would not be a dot.. it would be like a point with no dimension with everything around it curving seriosly to that point where it all folds together without the appearance of an object at its point.... every axis being compressed in all directions
now what if your singularity would appear to be a two dimensional object in three dimensional space.. (again this is just to see it, not to say what it actually is, which is a lot more complex to explain their theories... you would need to know manifolds and branes and all kinds of weird things)
now instead of this "point" you would have a line..
a two dimensional object in three dimensional space. (a mobius strip is a two dimensional object in three dimensional space, and the existence of mobius strips and i think klien bottles implies a lot of this dimensionality and your ability to exist in different frames, but i digress, sorry)...
this object would be a line.. where in two axis things are being compressed.. but the line has no width.. just length.. so like the "point" above you would just see everything converge and deform but like a face on silly putty being stretched, only in two axis.. not three...
if it makes it easier to visualize it as a kind of cosmic subduction zone, then thats not a problem.. just make sure to qualify your "vision"... the major part being that there is area under a subduction zone.. and there is no "area" inside the crack.. its a subduction zone in two dimensions that does not feed another area but like a tightly rolled paper towel tube just keeps adding into something that seems like it isnt there with lots of effects to show it really is...
the issue with it would be is it possible for a two dimensional string not to collapse on its own pull to a point..
the impication of the structure would be as more matter falled into it, its length axis will glow...
I will surmize that this is not a string.. wny?... because there would be lots of matter falling into it like with galaxies.. even if there wasnt that much matter the lack of it would mean that what was their would be streaming in so fast it would emit xrays.. given virtual particles and what is affectionatly termed as hawking radiation would insure that there is always some matter to suck on...
what would make me believe that this is possible would be to find a galaxy that orbits round like normal, but is real fat.. looking like a cylinder... this would be the matter falling in... but i cant see how the matter falling in would preserve the length and not collapse to a disk ....
what you might find is that whats at the center of all galaxies and such are strings.. so the galaxy is a bead in the middle of a string.. i think thats more likely... so the black holes made by stars would be lengths so short they are dots, but as you add them together they get longer and longer... and why they wouldnt collapse would be that there is an energy density limit to space (so once that has been reached it has to go out from their.. and to be conservational it would have to only go in on direction (though it would look like it was lengthening)...
now this is all well and good and seems plausible... but what then breaks it and says no thats not it is that this effect they are describing would be at every galaxy core above and below the plane.. so look at a galaxy on edge and you should see that string effect eminating from the plane above and below it..
since we dont there are only two things you can say.. that this doesnt happen, or that the matter amount is much higher than a galaxy to make a black hole of any length.. which then would imply that a string as large as they are thinking they see would be internally MASSIVE.. and that word would not do it justice.. in fact we have no word that could express how much energy and power that would be in this place with no width..
hope this helps
the string would not be a crack in space.. it would not eject new matter.. though lik e a black hole would absorb matter...
i good way to imagine a string like this (and i am not saying this is what it is for there are other possiblities - and not galaxy aliasing - thats not possible)... though this will help you imagine it its not exactly what it is.. so this is just a mental tool to see the concept... and this does not argue for or against it..
think of a black hole
technically (depending on who you read) a black hole shrinks to a singularity.. a one dimensional object in three dimensional space.. if you could 'see' it it would not be a dot.. it would be like a point with no dimension with everything around it curving seriosly to that point where it all folds together without the appearance of an object at its point.... every axis being compressed in all directions
now what if your singularity would appear to be a two dimensional object in three dimensional space.. (again this is just to see it, not to say what it actually is, which is a lot more complex to explain their theories... you would need to know manifolds and branes and all kinds of weird things)
now instead of this "point" you would have a line..
a two dimensional object in three dimensional space. (a mobius strip is a two dimensional object in three dimensional space, and the existence of mobius strips and i think klien bottles implies a lot of this dimensionality and your ability to exist in different frames, but i digress, sorry)...
this object would be a line.. where in two axis things are being compressed.. but the line has no width.. just length.. so like the "point" above you would just see everything converge and deform but like a face on silly putty being stretched, only in two axis.. not three...
if it makes it easier to visualize it as a kind of cosmic subduction zone, then thats not a problem.. just make sure to qualify your "vision"... the major part being that there is area under a subduction zone.. and there is no "area" inside the crack.. its a subduction zone in two dimensions that does not feed another area but like a tightly rolled paper towel tube just keeps adding into something that seems like it isnt there with lots of effects to show it really is...
the issue with it would be is it possible for a two dimensional string not to collapse on its own pull to a point..
the impication of the structure would be as more matter falled into it, its length axis will glow...
I will surmize that this is not a string.. wny?... because there would be lots of matter falling into it like with galaxies.. even if there wasnt that much matter the lack of it would mean that what was their would be streaming in so fast it would emit xrays.. given virtual particles and what is affectionatly termed as hawking radiation would insure that there is always some matter to suck on...
what would make me believe that this is possible would be to find a galaxy that orbits round like normal, but is real fat.. looking like a cylinder... this would be the matter falling in... but i cant see how the matter falling in would preserve the length and not collapse to a disk ....
what you might find is that whats at the center of all galaxies and such are strings.. so the galaxy is a bead in the middle of a string.. i think thats more likely... so the black holes made by stars would be lengths so short they are dots, but as you add them together they get longer and longer... and why they wouldnt collapse would be that there is an energy density limit to space (so once that has been reached it has to go out from their.. and to be conservational it would have to only go in on direction (though it would look like it was lengthening)...
now this is all well and good and seems plausible... but what then breaks it and says no thats not it is that this effect they are describing would be at every galaxy core above and below the plane.. so look at a galaxy on edge and you should see that string effect eminating from the plane above and below it..
since we dont there are only two things you can say.. that this doesnt happen, or that the matter amount is much higher than a galaxy to make a black hole of any length.. which then would imply that a string as large as they are thinking they see would be internally MASSIVE.. and that word would not do it justice.. in fact we have no word that could express how much energy and power that would be in this place with no width..
hope this helps
Hello folks,
Does anyone know where I can find reference to the redshifts measured?
Just using redshifts I can calculate the distances to ascertain the claims.
Thanks,
Chip
Does anyone know where I can find reference to the redshifts measured?
Just using redshifts I can calculate the distances to ascertain the claims.
Thanks,
Chip
Try writing to the researchers politely...
i have often found the people in science to be quiet helpful to sincere requests.
dont be surprised if they point you to a place that is already public. a lot of the data for a lot of things is already out there. just not nice and neat like a cnn would have it.
given that the whole idea is confirmation and correlation and such... there is especially no reason to hide the data or anything.
sometimes you have to pay a reprint fee to get the whole thing...
just check it out.. keep is short, polite, and see where it gets ya
Artfldgr
i have often found the people in science to be quiet helpful to sincere requests.
dont be surprised if they point you to a place that is already public. a lot of the data for a lot of things is already out there. just not nice and neat like a cnn would have it.
given that the whole idea is confirmation and correlation and such... there is especially no reason to hide the data or anything.
sometimes you have to pay a reprint fee to get the whole thing...
just check it out.. keep is short, polite, and see where it gets ya
Artfldgr