andrew s

Fine image, although I prefer the more muted colour of the H alpha in the original. Regards Andrew

I suspect asking if maths is discovered or invented is a category error. I.e. the terms are not realy appropriate . What happens is we propose a set of axioms, say i^2 = -1 and see what happens. So we "invented" and axiom and then "discover" the consequences. This is what happened when Riemann discovered new curved geometry by assuming that parallel lines crossed unlike Euclid's axioms where they don't. His new geometry is the backbone of General Relativity. A brain tease for Sunday morning is what happens if you take as an axiom u^2 = 1 and u not equal to 1 Regards Andrew OK you get the hyperbolic numbers the backbone of Special Relativity

Mathematics alone does not make physics. The physics comes from relating its symbols to bits in the world . Ultimately bits we observe or rather interpret from our observations . The same physics can be described by very different mathematics eg wave and matrix mechanics. They were seen as rivals until proved to be equivalent It is unfortunate that pop science goes for the wow rather than genuine wonder. For me understanding how the classical world emerges from the quantum is much more fascinating than the endless repetition of is the cat dead or alive. The fact is cats are just too big to be in a quantum super position. Regards Andrew PS there would be no QM without the imaginary numbers and no SR without hyperbolic ones

Yes 10^500 is a good estimate Regards Andrew

However, they are not arbitrary. We add complexity to explain more detailed observations. We now have anti matter, the Higgs boson, gluons and more. These are no more mysterious than the protons, neutrons and electrons of your school years are. Ultimately, the test is how well our models, and their elements fit out observations and make predictions. Regards Andrew

That explains it. Thanks Regards Andrew

I am confused, as usual, are @rorymultistorey and @Lockie one of the same person? Regards Andrew

Do you mean you have a proof of this equivalence, if so that's truly impressive or perhaps you mean it has qualitatively has similar features? If you have a proof can you provide a reference as I would live to try to understand it. Regards Andrew

I agree progress has stalled with string theory just playing mathematics. I hope this new approach is testable as hinted at in the video. I think our big problem is that our current theories work very well in the size and energy ranges we can probe. We have very little or no new experimental data to push for new ideas. Yes our current theories are not perfect but they work very well. Doubts about Dark matter and energy are important but have reasonable possible explanations. Dark energy could just be small residual curvature of space time just as normal matter is a small residual after the creation of the CMB radiation. As an aside yes Vulcan was wrong but Neptune was right! Regards Andrew

Not sure how to comment on such a presentation. Clearly a lot of effort and thought has gone into it. Maybe just a few comments. 1) It's interesting how each era created models based on the "in" paradigm. We had the clock work universe of Newton and before that a magical mystical one. Now we have, information and its sister holograms as the basis. 2) I agree how we see the world is as an abstraction, a mental model. That does not however, mean that there is not a objective reality or that our mental model implies we are in a simulation. 3) If there is an objective reality or not is a philosophical question. Personally, I assume there is. 4) If the network approach is correct then it is no more reality than current physical models are. Spacetime as we know it conventionally is geometry! It is not some fabric. The new approach would also be a model that seek to explain and predict what we see. How could it be anything else? If we are a simulation, then what stops the processor it's running on from being a simulation of a processor running a simulation of a processor running a simulation and so on indefinitely? 4) I think it misrepresents modern views in many ways. As an example Penrose and others have done work in trying to build up spacetime via spin networks (spinors). The "cat" problem is solved to most physicists satisfaction by environmental dechoherence. In summary good pop science fun but somewhat misleading in my view. Regards Andrew

Just make sure there are no light leaks. I take mine in the dark. Regards Andrew

Your just trying to whip up a storm @JeremyS. Regards Andrew

"We are such stuff As dreams are made on, and our little life Is rounded with a sleep. " However, before the end we should all have a jolly good time. Look up and enjoy the stars. Regards Andrew

Carrying on the Howard Hill tradition, amazing. Regards Andrew

Thanks I am trying to follow best modern practice from zanumber of references. Will follow up on yours. Regards Andrew PS The paper is about measurement rather than filtering.

Yes, I take low resolution, high cadence spectra of flare stars. Maybe 1000 to 2000 a night. Once in a while I catch a flare when the stars output can more than double in a few 10s of seconds. The data is necessarily noise hence the need to filter it. Regards Andrew

Rain this morning so playing with "Algorithme a trous" still to implement a scientific approach to filtering the wavelet coefficients but making progress. You imaging boys and girls have it so easy! Regards Andrew

Try rotating the camera and take the same shot and see if it stays in same place on the camera or on the sky. That will help in it down possible causes. Regards Andrew

Never having never cut a worm wheel I have always wondered how you get them to correctly mesh as you make the cut. Combination of thread spacing and wheel diameter? Love to know hint hint @Peter Drew. Regards Andrew

More colloquially "I've never heard anyone complaining about being dead so it can't be so bad". Regards Andrew

Like the OP, it has bilpped into existance and will then disappear without trace. Regards Andrew

Yes sad news. I went to Puerto Rico several times with work but never managed to get to see the telescope as it was too remote. On the bright side a number of new radio telescopes have just or are about to come on line. ET will just have to wait a little longer for the call. Regards Andrew

Yes @vlaiv, I will try test spectra and I also know the instrumental resolution from high signal to noise spectra. I just happen to be using a real spectrum here as I had to program the various .fits related actions using astropy and get to grips with matplotlib. I am still researching various methods of estimating the optimal wavelet coefficients. I am primarily interested in changes in the continuum and the H alpha and H beta lines. All the details in the TiO2 bands are way below the low resolution R ~ 90 of this spectrograph. Regards Andrew

Just to prove I don't spend all my time in the SGL lounge here is some work I am doing on filtering spectra. Its using Python so I can batch process 10s of spectra. Currently I am comparing Wavelet an Gaussian filtering. Still very much a work in progress. Regards Andrew

Looks like a reflection from the bright (over exposed ?) central star. Regards Andrew