In which Blowtorch Theory leaves behind its fun, early, handwaving era, and finally produces a detailed, testable galaxy formation model, with just a soupçon of actual math. Good times!
Hi, I have a bunch of questions: 1) how do you make globular clusters? They seem to be the oldest (stellar) objects around. Even a galaxy like ours has over 100 of these objects. Notoriously, they are dark-matter free, meaning we can simulate them well enough without assuming they have their own dark matter halo, while dwarf galaxies tend to be dark-matter dominated instead (all of this within the Lambda-CDM model, which I am not a fan of). 2) what about the scaling laws, most importantly the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation, but also the central black hole mass - bulge mass relation (Magorrian relation), will you picture justify those? The TF relation is particularly tricky for dark matter cosmologies to justify 3) where are the primordial SMBHs now? if they form huge jets at first but are quiescent now (presumably gas-starved), what happened, did they sweep away the gas themselves? At the very least is should be possible to reveal them via gravitational lensing 4) what does your theory predict in terms of astrochemistry, in terms of primordial gas enrichment?
Tom! Thanks, yeah, this one became all-consuming. I put aside a bunch of half-finished, less ambitious posts over the past year, to get this done. Not just the post, but working out the theory, the model. The pace of publication should be a lot more rapid over the next few months.
Yeah, pretty much! An actively sculpted galaxy, blown by a jet from a supermassive black hole. It takes a bit of psychological adjustment to get used to, after so many decades of being told spiral galaxy formation is just a long, slow process of many random, bottom-up, hierarchical mergers; but this rapid, coherent, dynamic process makes so much more sense than that old model, I feel. We shall see if it holds up! I’m so looking forward to the next wave of James Webb Space Telescope observations…
wow, its been a while since your last post hasnt it? this was a fun read!
i havent commented on any of your posts yet so ill say this: you were one of the main reasons i love emergence so much! ive honestly sculpted my entire identity and way of life around it, which has been a massive net positive. ive been meaning to try and spread the word on this theory for a while since i think it really has some potential. the overarching principle you laid out in the previous post is exceptional, and part of the reason im so interested in the blowtorch theory and your other ideas. even if cosmological evolution turns out to not be falsifiable, it seems to be generating loads of new ideas from a standpoint i really agree with. so, if you arent planning to work on the simulations you mentioned for a while, i'd love to try my hand in it!
ive already been looking at modelling emergent phenomena in my free time, and a model of a phase transition from a plasma cocoon to two qualititatively different discs which doesnt depend on fine-tuned initial conditions and naturally emerges from a bunch of fundamental local laws would be so cool! im nowhere near being an expert on anything specific, but i think this would be something i could try.
i do also have some questions for you about this post, if you dont mind. you did show how you derived some numbers used in the text, but im not sure how you came to the conclusion that 1% of the plasma falls into the core (the wording in footnote 6 seems to imply youve made a simulation, which contradicts your claim this hasnt been simulated near the end of the first paragraph of the math section. if you have, showing it off would be great. id love to review your work). is it a sharp 1% mandated by the theory or a fuzzier 1%?
you also didnt explain how you came to the conclusion that z=15 specifically is when the abrupt drop in star formation occurs. the post doesnt have the math behind it, so im curious whether that actually is predicted or if its in the 14-16 range, and a more specific value isnt specifically necessary. if you dont want to keep all the math in the main post, maybe some supplementary material of some behind-the-scenes calculations and stuff like that would be worth it? i also cant see how you came to the conclusion for the optimal mass of the smbh for spiral galaxies in that table. of course, some of this might be on me not reading closely enough (i was sort of scanning for stuff i could model, lol) or not waiting for the full post.
the final question i have would be: what do you think is the weakest link in the chain of logic? what, if simulations or satellites provide evidence against, could ruin a lot of the theory in the way that it is? it would provide some direction when making simulations, and making falsifiable claims is always good for science.
lastly, if i discover something interesting, what would be the best way to tell you about it?
(I need to extract the full set of empirical tests from my longer form manuscript. More relevantly - the whole thing had as it's origin the question: what would a relativistic, observer-invariant formulation of evo look like? Which made me focus on proper time - which in the evo context, become [Lineage] Life-Years. But as the full formalism distracted from LFT, I will be making it it's own paper)
Ooh, extremely interested in your treatment of time...hilariously, I don't have time right now to read through your post history and get a good sense but will be following.
It's a hilariously trivial lemma to show that proper time for a class of objects reduces to counting in the inertial limit...but I've left it as an appendix in my manuscript, as tensorial math is not something evo bio has any exposure to as a field (let alone the pseudo-remannian version used in relativity).
Hi, I have a bunch of questions: 1) how do you make globular clusters? They seem to be the oldest (stellar) objects around. Even a galaxy like ours has over 100 of these objects. Notoriously, they are dark-matter free, meaning we can simulate them well enough without assuming they have their own dark matter halo, while dwarf galaxies tend to be dark-matter dominated instead (all of this within the Lambda-CDM model, which I am not a fan of). 2) what about the scaling laws, most importantly the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation, but also the central black hole mass - bulge mass relation (Magorrian relation), will you picture justify those? The TF relation is particularly tricky for dark matter cosmologies to justify 3) where are the primordial SMBHs now? if they form huge jets at first but are quiescent now (presumably gas-starved), what happened, did they sweep away the gas themselves? At the very least is should be possible to reveal them via gravitational lensing 4) what does your theory predict in terms of astrochemistry, in terms of primordial gas enrichment?
Welcome back, I missed you
Tom! Thanks, yeah, this one became all-consuming. I put aside a bunch of half-finished, less ambitious posts over the past year, to get this done. Not just the post, but working out the theory, the model. The pace of publication should be a lot more rapid over the next few months.
I'm looking forward to spending some time getting fully immersed.
Of course the rate is less important than the outcome! Take your time, whatever that is ;-)
Wow. So we're living in a smoke ring blown by a black hole.
Yeah, pretty much! An actively sculpted galaxy, blown by a jet from a supermassive black hole. It takes a bit of psychological adjustment to get used to, after so many decades of being told spiral galaxy formation is just a long, slow process of many random, bottom-up, hierarchical mergers; but this rapid, coherent, dynamic process makes so much more sense than that old model, I feel. We shall see if it holds up! I’m so looking forward to the next wave of James Webb Space Telescope observations…
wow, its been a while since your last post hasnt it? this was a fun read!
i havent commented on any of your posts yet so ill say this: you were one of the main reasons i love emergence so much! ive honestly sculpted my entire identity and way of life around it, which has been a massive net positive. ive been meaning to try and spread the word on this theory for a while since i think it really has some potential. the overarching principle you laid out in the previous post is exceptional, and part of the reason im so interested in the blowtorch theory and your other ideas. even if cosmological evolution turns out to not be falsifiable, it seems to be generating loads of new ideas from a standpoint i really agree with. so, if you arent planning to work on the simulations you mentioned for a while, i'd love to try my hand in it!
ive already been looking at modelling emergent phenomena in my free time, and a model of a phase transition from a plasma cocoon to two qualititatively different discs which doesnt depend on fine-tuned initial conditions and naturally emerges from a bunch of fundamental local laws would be so cool! im nowhere near being an expert on anything specific, but i think this would be something i could try.
i do also have some questions for you about this post, if you dont mind. you did show how you derived some numbers used in the text, but im not sure how you came to the conclusion that 1% of the plasma falls into the core (the wording in footnote 6 seems to imply youve made a simulation, which contradicts your claim this hasnt been simulated near the end of the first paragraph of the math section. if you have, showing it off would be great. id love to review your work). is it a sharp 1% mandated by the theory or a fuzzier 1%?
you also didnt explain how you came to the conclusion that z=15 specifically is when the abrupt drop in star formation occurs. the post doesnt have the math behind it, so im curious whether that actually is predicted or if its in the 14-16 range, and a more specific value isnt specifically necessary. if you dont want to keep all the math in the main post, maybe some supplementary material of some behind-the-scenes calculations and stuff like that would be worth it? i also cant see how you came to the conclusion for the optimal mass of the smbh for spiral galaxies in that table. of course, some of this might be on me not reading closely enough (i was sort of scanning for stuff i could model, lol) or not waiting for the full post.
the final question i have would be: what do you think is the weakest link in the chain of logic? what, if simulations or satellites provide evidence against, could ruin a lot of the theory in the way that it is? it would provide some direction when making simulations, and making falsifiable claims is always good for science.
lastly, if i discover something interesting, what would be the best way to tell you about it?
im looking forward to your next post, stay safe!
Interesting. You appear to be doing something spiritually analogous to what I'm attempting for evo with my Lineage Filter Theory:
https://pragmaticfutures.substack.com/p/analyzing-the-anti-ruin-architectural
(I need to extract the full set of empirical tests from my longer form manuscript. More relevantly - the whole thing had as it's origin the question: what would a relativistic, observer-invariant formulation of evo look like? Which made me focus on proper time - which in the evo context, become [Lineage] Life-Years. But as the full formalism distracted from LFT, I will be making it it's own paper)
Ooh, extremely interested in your treatment of time...hilariously, I don't have time right now to read through your post history and get a good sense but will be following.
Thanks for the sub! The argument on the evo side is here:
https://pragmaticfutures.substack.com/p/lineage-life-years-llys-a-unique
It's a hilariously trivial lemma to show that proper time for a class of objects reduces to counting in the inertial limit...but I've left it as an appendix in my manuscript, as tensorial math is not something evo bio has any exposure to as a field (let alone the pseudo-remannian version used in relativity).