whisper.cpp/tests/parakeet-expected-diffusion-output.txt

Hello and welcome to Diffusion. Sit back and relax while we stretch your brain with weird and wonderful science. I'm Ian Wolf. On this edition, Dr. Viv Robinson rewrites cosmology. But first up, here's news of two massive galaxies that might be older than the Big Bang. Galaxies too massive. Astronomers from the Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, using the James Webb Space Telescope, have observed six galaxies that formed in the universe's first 700 million years appear to be up to a hundred times more massive than our best theories say can possibly exist. Astronomer Ivo Labe and his colleagues wrote in his paper, adding up the stars in those galaxies, it would exceed the total amount of mass available in the universe at that time. There's too much mass and not enough time for it to get together. The galaxies must have had much longer than the 700 million years after the Big Bang that our standard model of the universe gives them, and the universe must have had more mass available, or galaxies must have formed differently than what we think. The Big Bang is currently thought to have started everything 13.77 billion years ago. And these galaxies, we're watching them at 0.77 billion years ago because they're so far away. Galaxies are thought to accumulate gas moved together by giant clumps of dark matter in their region. Generally, only about 10% of the gas in the galaxy ignites to make a star. For galaxies in the remotest parts of the universe where the gas is thin, it takes a long time to accumulate this much gas for this many stars. These six galaxies, however, have so many stars adding up to so much mass that all of the gas in each galaxy had to have become 100% converted into stars in the 700 million years since the universe started in the Big Bang. Under our current understanding, this is impossible. It suggests something in our understanding of the cosmos is wrong. Are we wrong about how to calculate astronomical masses, galaxy formation, dark matter, and the Big Bang and the age of the universe? An astronomer from the Cosmic Dawn Centre in Denmark used the James Webb telescope to look at closer galaxies, and then used the very high resolution of that telescope to calculate the mass more precisely with a different method, and found that these galaxies are three to ten times more massive than we previously thought. Applying this more accurate technique to the six galaxies that are 13 billion light years away would increase their mass, which makes it much worse than what we thought. The paper was titled A Population of Red Candidate Massive Galaxies, approximately 600 million years after the Big Bang, and was published in the journal Nature.com. We're brought to you across Australia on the Community Radio Network and podcast over the internet on www.diffusionradio.com Challenging Physics Newton said everything is either a particle or a wave. Faraday and Maxwell added fields. Einstein added space-time. Quantum physics says everything is made of quanta, which have the properties of both waves and particles, but is neither. Quantum mechanics has no explanation for gravity, and relativity doesn't account for the quantum world. There's a contradiction between our most basic explanations of the universe. Dr. Viv Robinson was the first person to create a physical explanation of Einstein's gravity in a paper published in the Journal of Physics Communications. He's made corrections to people's extensions of Einstein's mathematics and has a different way to interpret those mathematics that gives a different picture of the age of the universe and a different way of looking at how the physics works. From the standard model of quantum physics to Big Bang cosmology. Everything, including you and me, is made of light. It's a very big and very bold claim. I spoke to Dr. Viv Robinson via Zoom and began by asking him, what is the universe made of? The whole stuff of the universe, or entity. I won't call it items because one of them is absolutely nothing. The first thing to all the mass and all the energy is made up of photons. They're little packets of electromagnetic energy, postulated by Maxwell and Planck and proven by Einstein. They come in many different sizes, shapes, and which make that they make up all the mass and energy of the universe. The volume is made up by empty space, absolutely nothing. But it's the properties of the space that are important. And it does this through two of its properties, electric permittivity and magnetic permeability. And it's those properties which then transmit all of the fields. So that's really all it is. They're just the only two stars in a call because the photos are physical things, and space is just the absence of everything, but its property, its properties are what is important about it. And that's a little bit different to what you might hear from a quantum physics class where they talk about space being full of virtual particles coming into and out of existence so that it's not totally empty, or sometimes they say it's full of fields. The fields of every force is in there and things are coming up all the time. So if you go very fast, you'll interact with the fields, all the virtual particles, and you'll get radiation. Yes, well, uh the unfortunate part is that physics is doing exceedingly well under Newtonian mechanics and exceedingly well under Maxwell's mechanics. But as things get smaller and smaller, you get to a stage where things aren't continuous. I mean, Newton's work will anything that's continuous, but eventually you get to the stage where you know a droplet of water is fine, it has surface tension, evaporates, and you're left with one molecule of water. That doesn't behave the same as bulk water. Into that molecule you go hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms, they behave nothing like water. And then you get, well, they're made of protons, neutrons, electrons, and they have completely different properties from bulk water. So quantum mechanics, things get quantized, and you get the smallest quantity you can get, and that has very, very different properties from the bulk. And what has happened in the past is that uh the uh early on in quantum mechanics and met men like Dirac and Schrdinger, they didn't know what an the structure was an electron was. Also, all they had to know, they knew it was it had wave properties. And so all they did was they attributed it to a way a wave property to it. Now, waves have the advantage over particles, you can manipulate them almost forever with all sorts of different transforms until you get the answer you want. And that gave some confidence to quantum mechanics guys that yes, waves work, and they've been using that forever, and all I'm saying, no, no, no, no, no. Everything is particles, and the particles have specific properties, and you can't manipulate those properties, or you can to a certain extent, but they are what they are, and it's when you know what those properties are that the whole quantum mechanics becomes much simpler. You don't need any of that uh foamy sort of stuff to get to explain whatever you want to explain. I mentioned that there are many different forms of photons, and photons are electromagnetic radiation with an electric field, saying on a magnetic field perpendicular to it, and the whole lot travels in the speed of light in the third dimension. There are many, many variations of that. So that that's fine for energy radiation. But how about matter particles? Well, matter particles are nothing more than photons of the appropriate wavelength making uh appropriate energy making two revolutions per wavelength. And when they do that, what holds what allows them to do that is that they rotate around the magnetic field. And suddenly, instead of in a linear photon, magnetic fields are open. When they rotate around the magnetic field, then the magnetic field of a particle is closed. And a closed magnetic field is much more stable than an open magnetic field, and that's why most of the universe, for example, when uh less about, I think the best estimate I've seen, one percent is radiation, the other 99% is photons struggling in circles, making two revolutions per wavelength. And it's for that that gives particles all their properties. Now, I may say this is a bit hairy-fairy, but it's been known for a long, long time that you get a particle and an antiparticle, you put them together, bing, two photons. At the same time, you can get a photon and goes and hit the target, bang, a particle and an antiparticle. Now that shows a relationship between the two that somehow lots of people missed. But what's the simplest relationship you can have? The simplest relationship is that a particle is a photon making two revolutions in one direction, an antiparticle is the same particle making two revolutions in the other direction. Put them together, they unlock. Because they have mass, they have this thing called angular momentum, which is a great Newtonian property. But because mathematicians sort of didn't know what an electron was, they called it a point particle. You can't have angular momentum with a point particle, so they call it spin and they wave all sorts of different things to make it seem as if they know what they're talking about. It's really just angular momentum. And that's the relationship between mass and energy. Energy is the photon zipping along at the speed of light. Mass is the same photon making two revolutions per wavelength. That's how they can interchange so easily. And that property gives particles all of their properties, including mass. And one of the things that Einstein did work out in 1905, those little what they called uh packets of radio of electromagnetic energy, he did work out that they carried momentum or carried inertia, they had momentum, they had mass. I don't know why people want to prove Einstein wrong. Photons have mass. Now I think the reason for this is that they think oh, Einstein's special relativity corrections, anything traveling at the speed of light, will have an infinite mass. The special relativity corrections only apply to photons which are spiraling. And that's just as um the reason for that is about as complicated as uh post Thagoras' theorem. And what he was at 300 BC or something like that, not difficult. And so photons themselves always travel at the speed of light. And so the rotating photons, photons that are rotating, are rotating also at the same speed of light. Well, that's one old hell of a gyroscope. And that is what gives particles a spin, that's why E equals mc squared, and it's all straightforward. There you go. Really? Well. So if we go back a little bit there where you're saying there's no wave nature, what about the double-slit experiment and other sorts of experiments that seem to show wave properties of particles other than photons? Particles um De Royal worked out in 1925 that if if photons, if um photons behave like particles, and particles to behave like photons, I agree with him, it's completely it's completely true. The actual nature of the rotating photon generates the de Broilie wavelength, and it has all the right properties. For me, and to me, Einstein's special and general relativity theories are relatively simple, so it may I may be talking a little bit out of line here. But the deuil wavelength is automatically generated by the particle as it moves. So it's not something that they hypothesize and don't know what occurs. They they hypothesized it, they measured it, but they don't know how it occurs. Well, yeah, it's quite it's fairly straightforward, but not at uh not not not at this level. What are the implications for this difference in understanding? So are there predictions that you would make that are different to the ones that people following the standard model would make? Oh, not the numbers of them, yeah. So probably the electron tunneling. Where electrons hit a barrier. That's got a very simple mechanical analog. I mean, the electrons are held in uh what you call a very taut field. Now, if you've got something coming up, you've got everything in a tight situation, you come something up banging it at this end, you can do it with billiard balls that'll transport through, and another one will knock out. So, what they call tunneling under this model, but in reality, what they call tunneling is just really a momentum exchange. So that's a little bit like one of those Newton cradles. Where you've got the balls on all attached by a string or a chain to a fulcrum over the top, and one will hit the other one and transfer the momentum to the other one without actually transferring itself. Yeah, you don't get electrons, you know, they have they have wave properties, but yes, but you won't get an electron uh tunneling the wave, the wave is in a very fixed position with respect to the uh electron. It's equal on either side of it. If their tunneling theory were correct, then the lower the energy of the electron, the longer its wavelength, therefore the easier it would be to tunnel. However, in the energy transfer one, the higher the energy, the greater probability it'll knock another electron out the other side. Or it's a simple experiment to do. Just increase the energy of uh an electron coming up to a barrier and see which ones go come out the other end first. Is anyone set up to do that? Oh, anyone could set up to do it. Well, a lot of laboratories could do it. And the so-called tunneling effect is what they use in all of the microelectronics systems. And they wouldn't, it wouldn't, it'd be a very, very simple exercise to carry that out. They may well have done it, and the mathematicians have turned around and added another factor. Yeah, it's a standard thing they do when they don't get the right answer, just add another factor. I can't do that. It's physical reality is physical reality. End of story. I guess that's something to look up and see if someone's done those experiments and and what they did with the results. I think there is I think I'm sure it has been done, and the result is that the higher the energy of the electron, the greater the probability of it emerging on the other side of the barrier. And on the very much bigger scale, are there differences in the way the universe looks for astronomy? Yeah, not as far as astronomy is concerned. What the astronomers see is what there is. No question about it. They're great, they're brilliant, as the astronomers, and most of the experimentalists are they're doing an exceedingly good job. The problem becomes in interpreting what they've seen. And when it comes to the whole universe, for example, it's all based on Einstein's theory of gravity. Well, it should be, but it's more advanced than Newton's inverse square, but for most practical purposes, uh Newton's inverse square works quite well. The two situations where it doesn't work, when the mass is so large, like the mass of the sun or the mass of the center of uh Sagittarius A with the planet or star S2 going around it. That's one situation. The reason why a planet uh or Mercury's orbit precesses in its direction of travel is simply that gravity, when mass is strong enough, gravity actually becomes weaker than inverse square. And that's one of the things you get when you solve Einstein's gravity theory accurately. It becomes weaker than inverse square. Now, when it's weak, if it's weaker than inverse square, Mercury travels a little bit closer to the Sun and is attracted by a slightly stronger force. So it'll arrive back at its perihelion point a little later, and it it'll um process in its direction of travel. And Newton pointed that out in 1687. So I don't know why they didn't sort of work it out correctly. But gravity is weaker than inverse square, is the solution to Einstein's gravity. The other thing is that when gravity is an infinite steady state universe under Newton's theory of gravity, inverse square, will collapse. The reason being that the relative to the universe density mass increases as r cubed, gravity decreases as r squared, so eventually you get to the stage where gravity just uh dominates mass and it collapses. But if gravity is weaker than inverse square, and I just tried to show you that Mercury is precessing orbit because the sun's gravity is weaker than inverse square, well, that applies to all gravity. There's nothing special about our sun, except that it's keeping all us alive on this. When you have an infinite steady-state universe, if gravity is weaker than inverse squares, its effect gets relatively weaker over long distances. And I'm talking typically uh 10 billion light years or something like that, maybe more. But that means an infinite steady-state universe won't collapse. That's a huge, huge difference. That's the biggest thing, mind you, what difference does it make to us here on Earth if uh if Bang's web has seen galaxies, fully formed galaxies 20 billion light years away, doesn't make a scrap of difference to us. But as far as understanding how the universe works, that mistake, and the simple the simple mistake that they the um all mathematicians were uh made, Einstein introduced approximations. He couldn't solve the gravity exactly himself. I have no problem solving his uh his gravity exactly. But he he uh introduced the approximation that one over one plus x approximately equals one minus x. You know, when x is ten to the minus seven or which is or ten to the minus eight, that's a good approximation. I mean you you just read his paper, he says so. And you read the mathematics, you don't even you could read the German version, look at the mathematics, and he says so, and you just work it out, and that was the difference. So, all of their exact solutions to Einstein's gravity, they took where he used the approximation, he derived the figure from one plus one over x, the equivalent of that, and then he rather than do that, he equated it to one minus x, which is which is true. You know, one plus one millionth is nine hundred and ninety millionth. Why they did it, I have no idea. Mind you, it'd be interesting to try and find out why. Uh I think it's if a mathematician of repute says one thing, and I I I will agree that uh on my first readings of Einstein's relativity theories, you think, oh my god, really? Could he understand that then? Then you get in and you start. It's not that difficult. And I think most of them had a solution. You know, somebody came up with a solution to Einstein's group, and everybody just followed it. And nobody, and this is the big thing that I always stress to everybody, don't take somebody's word for it. Go back and check the original yourself. I've seen a few times where people have just made terrible, terrible mistakes. But this would probably be the biggest one in the whole field of cosmology, sorry. Astronomy? You guys, great. Thanks, Uncle Sam, for providing us with all this information. That was part one of my interview with Dr. Viv Robinson. You heard Viv say that matter is made of photons moving in circles. Physicists took Einstein's approximations as gospel instead of using the exact solutions available with lather mathematics. Gravity changes to be weaker over distances, and the universe isn't expanding. Listen next week for part two. If you have any questions for Dr. Robinson, he'd love to answer them on the show. So send your questions to science at diffusionradio.com. If you're in Darlinghurst this Wednesday night, the 5th of July, I will be part of the lineup of scientists speaking at Future Science Talks at the East Village. Go to www.futurescience talks.com.au to grab a ticket and come up and say hello. And if you can't make it Wednesday night, I'll keep you posted on some future talks I'll be giving. And that's all from us this week on Diffusion. Are you a scientist, artist, biohacker, or maker who'd like to be interviewed about your work? Would your company like to sponsor diffusion? Send your contributions, opinions, helpful suggestions and donations to science at diffusionradio.com. That's science at diffusionradio.com. Please subscribe to the Diffusion Science Radio channel on youtube.com slash C slash Diffusion Radio and rate the show on iTunes and tell your friends. Follow me on Twitter at IanWorf. The news music was Rhinos Theme by Kevin McLeod of Incompitech.com. I produce diffusion, which is broadcast around Australia, to 28 stations on the community radio network, including Radio Blue Mountains 89.1 FM in New South Wales, 8CCC in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, 2 MVR in Nambucker Valley, 3 MVR in the Malleigh Border Districts of Victoria and South Australia, City Park Radio 7LTN in Launcest and Tasmania, and 2XFM in Canberra. Diffusion is narrowcast on Indigo FM88 in Northeast Victoria. Diffusion is syndicated globally on astronomy.fm. Subscribe to the podcast on the diffusion website www.diffusionradio.com. That's www.diffusionradio.com and check the website for links, photos, and videos about this week's show. If you enjoyed the show, you can explore more than a thousand previous episodes archived on diffusionradio.com where the shows are labelled by keywords so you can focus in on the stories you want to hear. Make a donation through PayPal.me slash Ian Worf. Or join my patrons at patreon.com slash Diffusion Radio. I'm Ian Worf. Join us inside your audio device of choice for more science wondering next week on Diffusion Science Radio. Science is fun. It helps you to learn, to know, and to appreciate. When you study science, you make fun feel.