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.
It's not bent. It's polarized. There's a huge difference between the two.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Probably Mignani refers to a Nicol Prism, a device that indeed polarises light.https://en.wikipe...ol_prism
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
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.
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.
Can anyone explain the dark areas that surround these brightest stars in the photo? Are they some type of photographic artifact?
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
Many thanks, tesschris!
Switch to http://phys.org/
Lofi version of phys.org