Pooua - Nov 30, 2016

I think the word, "prism," is wrong. All this time, I've been told repeatedly that light cannot be bent by a magnetic field (except as energy equivalency to mass bends spacetime). Light has never been detected as bent when passing through even the most powerful magnetic fields known in the Universe, magnetars.

shavera - Nov 30, 2016

It's not bent. It's polarized. There's a huge difference between the two.

katesisco - Nov 30, 2016

Mignani explains: "According to QED, a highly magnetised vacuum behaves as a prism for the propagation of light, an effect known as vacuum birefringence."

Perhaps this effect is responsible for what current science calls 'gravity lensing' or 'gravity waves' or even black holes. I understand magnetic waves are 'solitons' and perhaps these are responsible. Linear polarization can only just now be measured and hopefully magnetars births can be discovered.

Tuxford - Nov 30, 2016

In SQK, empty space is not empty. It is full to the brim and extremely dense. It is just that the diffusive ocean of sub quantum elementals are each too small to ever be directly detected. It is their propagating reactive interaction under proper diffusive conditions that we detect as a sub-atomic particle. So matter itself is a form a wave. Some particles pass right through the earth for example, neutrinos. As a wave, that effect is much more easy to logically explain.

And this property can also explain the double-slit experiment, as the diffusive concentration pattern surrounding the propagating particle precedes the particle itself, casting an interference pattern from between the slits until the particle actually passes through one slit or the other.

antialias_physorg - Nov 30, 2016

Perhaps this effect is responsible for what current science calls 'gravity lensing' or 'gravity waves' or even black holes. I understand magnetic waves are 'solitons' and perhaps these are responsible. Linear polarization can only just now be measured and hopefully magnetars births can be discovered.

Erm..whut?

Hint: Throwing together a bunch of scientific words in a sentence does not make you look smart. It only makes you look smart if the sentence makes sense (i.e. if it is clear that you know what those words mean - which you very definitely don't).

bschott - Nov 30, 2016

Erm..whut?


Hmmmm....

Mignani explains: "According to QED, a highly magnetised vacuum behaves as a prism for the propagation of light, an effect known as vacuum birefringence."

Perhaps this effect is responsible for what current science calls 'gravity lensing' or 'gravity waves' or even black holes.


The above speculation makes sense....unless it is something you just don't want to be possible...then you can respond with:
Throwing together a bunch of scientific words in a sentence does not make you look smart. It only makes you look smart if the sentence makes sense

So how does it make you look when what is said does make sense and you state that it doesn't?

shavera - Nov 30, 2016

Birefringence, polarization, is not the same thing as bending. Hence it is not the same thing as lensing. No, magnetic fields aren't 'gravitational lenses.' Magnetic effects don't explain the observations we see that support general relativity. This is a special case where some interesting quantum mechanics occur that causes a very very tiny effect in the presence of exceedingly huge fields.

bschott - Nov 30, 2016

Birefringence, polarization, is not the same thing as bending. Hence it is not the same thing as lensing. No, magnetic fields aren't 'gravitational lenses.' Magnetic effects don't explain the observations we see that support general relativity. This is a special case where some interesting quantum mechanics occur that causes a very very tiny effect in the presence of exceedingly huge fields.


A huge "prism" whose domains increase and decrease by the inverse square rule would DEFINITELY act to bend light so yes, magnetic fields are "gravitational lenses", gravitational lensing is a theory as to why we see what we see, gravity has NEVER been PROVEN as the force behind lensing....no matter what math has been applied. Every lensing example, every instance of a measured curvature in the path of light also happens in the presence of a magnetic field. Gravitational effects don't explain most of our observations...period.

Gigel - Nov 30, 2016

Probably Mignani refers to a Nicol Prism, a device that indeed polarises light.

https://en.wikipe...ol_prism

tesschris - Nov 30, 2016

How the polarization of light could be affected with frame drag around massive star? Wouldn't it polarize their light too? Also, isn't it the same effect like this one already observed? journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.024010

Solon - Nov 30, 2016

Still trying to flog the neutron star model, but replace it with a gamma-ray source and there is then an alternative way to produce the electric field needed to create the magnetic field, and it requires no gravity and thus no hypothesised neutron stars.

ursiny33 - Nov 30, 2016

Its there not so understanding, of the neutron stars magnetic field that the gravity of the star captures more electrons in orbit around the star than can be exchanged with the suface atoms electrons on the star at the speed of light in time, so it has two magnetic fields a surface magnetic field and an orbiting envelop magnetic field held by gravity.

SandyC816 - Nov 30, 2016

Can anyone explain the dark areas that surround these brightest stars in the photo? Are they some type of photographic artifact?

tesschris - Nov 30, 2016

It's the diffracted image of the interior of telescope, criss cross effect is caused by the canes holding the secondary mirror, dark area by its shadow wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_spike

SandyC816 - Nov 30, 2016

Many thanks, tesschris!

Phys1 - Dec 02, 2016

How the polarization of light could be affected with frame drag around massive star? Wouldn't it polarize their light too? Also, isn't it the same effect like this one already observed? journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.024010

Q1,Q2: from the abstract alone I don't know.
Q3: The paper is theoretical and also does not discuss the effect proposed above.

FineStructureConstant - Dec 03, 2016

@Tux

empty space is not empty. It is full to the brim and extremely dense
Exactly like the empty space in your head - extremely dense.

Phys1 - Dec 03, 2016


So how does it make you look when what is said does make sense and you state that it doesn't?


Fortunately for him he is right and, sadly for you, you are the one who is wrong.
So how does that make you look? Well, wrong.

Phys1 - Dec 03, 2016

@Tuxford
Let's find out how your concept works in practice.
When asked "Is the glass half full or half empty ?"
do you answer "Full to the brim" ?
Do you ever pay a round of beer, as in your pov glasses are always full ?
How do your mates respond ?

Font size

A

A

Select topic

Switch to?

ADD COMMENT

Sign in

Sign in

Sign out?

Yes