SN Refsdale

Like I said, an irrespective of your maths, my argument is the event as detailed is not as common or every day occurrence that you would like to present.
from the link by Trippy.....
" Great efforts have been made to find such an example of such a valuable case. Dr Patrick Kelly of the University of California"

"It’s perfectly set up, you couldn’t have designed a better experiment. You can test some of the biggest questions about Einstein’s theory of relativity all at once"

"The 20-30 times magnification provided by the intervening galaxy provides a rare opportunity to such a distant supernova"

Geodesics in curved space and time sure...agreed

So?? Light still does and always will travel in geodesic paths in curved spacetime....

A S/N is a high energy event, again, So?

That's what gravitational lensing is all about.

That depends on symmetry or asymmetry.

Wrong unsupported assumption. Please refer to link.

That's certainly what has happened in this relatively rare and amazing event.

As per your point 6.....Please read the link, give some respect to the professionals that have given their view, drop your overly pretentious complication of what has happened, and appreciate the great amazing serendipitious discovery this was, and the knowledge and further precision testing of GR it presents, as well as greater precision in type 1a S/N standard candles.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Recall what James R Said, something meant like this " Suppose even if Paddoboy has done some mischief in professor Hamilton's mail, how does it matter ? The point should be decided on the merit. and the Physics behind is not going to change. " I fully agreed with James and dropped the plan of sending an email to Prof Hamilton to find out the real truth, which you know, and I can infer...

So participate on the merit of the issue, stop this drama, its not going to take you anywhere, and since you admit and you are an amateur to the core...better stay away from making such comments, because these points require certain understanding beyond amateur approach. Its fine if you wish to raise the bar of your learning, then that would be great, till then please do not be a nuisance value.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So your problem is only Sr # 6 assumption ?? Thats fair enough. May be some expert who knows about probability theory and also about abundance of stars/galaxies/other objects will throw some light on this. I will also do some more work on this. Great at least you agree to the point subject Sr#6.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you understand that the events being discussed can only be observed using some of our best telescopes.., and even then the telescope has to be pointed at the right place at the right time.., and no matter how many events may be statistically possible......, statistically there are far more objects out there that do not fit the objects of the discussion.

My sister asked a question about why something could not be tracked with spy satellites, mentioning that she had seen some picture where they could read a licence plate on a car. It took a lot of explaining before she realized that that spy satellite could not watch the whole city at the same time and see a licence plate.

Looking out at the distant universe has the same problem in spades. No matter how many lensing effects you may believe are occurring at any specific time, we wind up being very lucky to pint a telescope at one while it is occurring... And even more lucky to point one at an event that involves a type 1a super nova.

This thread seems, as many of those you have jumped into in the past, to be rapidly devolving into personal insults.

 

deleted stuff up

 

As with all of your claims, what you say has zero credibility, no evidence, and is the sign of a desperate man.

I have done that since day one, while you since day one, have rejected all that has been told to you re BH cosmology and cosmology in general.
I'm not going to repeat myself again, as it will again be willfully and dishonestly ignored.
The article and findings were ground breaking stuff and amazing in its serendipity.
These type of things are difficult to detect, rare in occurrence and when we are lucky enough to be witness to one, have the opportunity to further validate many aspects of GR and cosmology, as well as far more precise readings etc as in the present case re type 1a S/N standard candles.

Now as others have commented on. I suggest you step back, rethink what you are trying to do, try not to be sidetracked by your agenda, take onboard what the professional people are telling you and what the reputable links say, and stick to the subject at hand.

Your other rather naive claim re how we can tell a lensing artifact from a real direct image was answered also.
Since you have failed to comment on that, I presume you have accepted it?
Glad to be of assistance again.

 

All points up to 6 was pretty well known basic stuff, and it was a relief that at least you were correct in that regard. The 12 months perusal of cosmology did do some good...nice.
Your wrong assumption should never have been. Afterall the article itself, with the quotes from the astronomers/cosmologists had already confirmed what I already knew, based on many aspects of gravitational lensing, the types of lensing, what is being lensed, the instruments being used, the relative short time a S/N will last, and probably even more that I'm not aware of, and certainly you are not aware of.

 

http://www.iflscience.com/space/gravitational-lens-allows-us-witness-supernova-repeat

 

So as per you its the question of our observational capability or lack of it ?

Irrelevant, but even otherwise tracking vehicles is no issue...for any numbers.

The question is should there be many more lensing....not that we cannot observe or we are not equipped to observe.

 

Looking at the vastness of universe....This assumption appears fairly probable, you are just making a statement that assumption is wrong.

 

No the question was as per the article and the lensing of type 1a S/N and observational chances thereof.

 

No, I'm making the assumption based on the article and you questioned the same.....Lensing of type 1a S/N in particular, plus all the other variables that have been mentioned by the experts and which you ignore.

 

For those Interested....The general effects we call gravitational lensing are visible obviously when everything lines up properly to produce the effect, and even then are only visible by the best telescopes that we have.
With the advent of the HST and its high resolution and advantagious position, more gravitational lensing events can and are being detected, that would not normally be viewable by ground based 'scopes.
Still though we have the dust lane variables that exist in our galaxy and others, which adds one more variable.
Then of course in relation to Trippy's excellent article, observing a particular type of lensing of a particular S/N [type 1a] which acts as standard candles for measuring distances cuts that number down even further.
Another variable is also the mass of the galaxy or object doing the lensing and how much the S/N is lensed.
Then of course we have the time frames of S/N which are within the order of a few days or couple of weeks.
Taking all that into consideration, it becomes obvious why those at the coal face of this amazing discovery, were so in awe and excited at its finding.
Much has been learnt, and much more I suggest will be learnt reinforcing present accepted cosmology, Universal expansion, refinement of the standard candle measuring aspect and probably more data on the DM component of these lensing events.

 

The question was in general..

.................around any asymmetrical lensing object can we not find a point (or a path) which will focus on the Earth (Observer), suggesting that we should see many more lenses as a matter of routine especially of background High Energy Objects. The sky beyond MilkyWay should contain substantial numbers of lensed images..........


Paddoboy, you can hide your disability whichever way you like......neither you understand the question nor you understand the link which you provide....but still you will continue to troll...you are a nuisance....

 

Nuisance??? You mean you don't like me keeping you honest?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The article was about the reasonably rare gravitational lensing of a type 1a S/N.
The article was praised as awesome, noteworthy and another further exercise in confirming GR and standard cosmology.

You made the comment thus.....

along with your other irrelevant post about lensing in general, when it specifically stated type 1a S/N.
I have pointed out that irrelevancy to you and the many variables that apply and validate the article [which you chose to gloss over] more than once.
As usual you refuse to acknowledge or accept that. :shrug:

I may be a nuisance, but you are really a strange one.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Good !
Acknowledging the problem is like covering half the distance towards solution...

 

I would really acknowledge your own problems, disabilities and shortcomings first......Try with pretentious delusions of grandeur first and having the courage to admit when you are wrong, instead of as you have always done, just glossing over, and ignoring then switching tact.
I 'll stick to my nuisance tag and my mainstream science cheer leader tag no problems!

 

Another take on this rare discovery:

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/R..._Hopkins_astronomer_in_the_spotlight_999.html

A Johns Hopkins astronomer played a key role in the recent discovery of a distant exploding star whose light split into four distinct images in a display seen for the first time by scientists using the Hubble Space Telescope.

Famed physicist Albert Einstein first predicted this effect, but it had never been observed before in the light of a supernova until late last year. The discovery was reported March 5 by a group of 31 researchers writing in a special issue of the journal Science that paid tribute to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

The four time-delayed images of this supernova would have already made Supernova Refsdal an unprecedented discovery. But in this case the universe has more in store because the supernova is expected to make a return appearance within the next five years.

"My team," Rodney said, "will continue to monitor this galaxy cluster with Hubble, watching for the appearance of that fifth and final image. We're hoping this time we can catch it early, as it first arrives, to get an even better measurement of this unique explosion."


more at.......
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/R..._Hopkins_astronomer_in_the_spotlight_999.html

 

An awesome set of observations no doubt much less seldom repeated than almost any astronomical phenomenon that comes to mind. I was under the impression that an interferometer setup would be necessary to detect gravitational lensing. Not so, apparently. Also, a very nice setup for double checking cosmological range calculations for the objects without using red shifts or the Hubble constant. Just like simple radar, but at cosmological distances.

I wonder if such extended supernova observations ever happen in neutrino astronomy? Might be worth looking back at some of the data, if it's available.

 

Just found this paper that relates to this old thread started by Trippy with regards to gravitational lensing and a prediction made as a result of the maths and GR.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.04654v1.pdf

ABSTRACT
In Hubble Space Telescope (HST) imaging taken on 10 November 2014, four images of supernova (SN) ‘Refsdal’ (z = 1.49) appeared in an Einstein-cross–like configuration (images S1–S4) around an early-type galaxy in the cluster MACS J1149.5+2223 (z = 0.54). The gravitational potential of the cluster creates three full images of the star-forming host galaxy of the SN. Almost all lens models of the cluster have predicted that the SN should reappear within approximately one year in a second host galaxy image, offset by ∼8 00 from the previous images. In HST observations taken on 11 December 2015, we find a new source that we interpret as a new image of SN Refsdal. This marks the first time the appearance of a SN at a particular time and location in the sky was successfully predicted in advance! We use these data and the light curve from the first four observed images of SN Refsdal to place constraints on the relative time delay and magnification of the new image (SX), compared to images S1–S4. This enables us, for the first time, to test lens model predictions of both magnifications and time delays for a lensed SN. We find that the timing and brightness of the new image are consistent with the blind predictions of a fraction of the models. The reappearance illustrates the discriminatory power of this blind test and its utility to uncover sources of systematic uncertainty in the lens models. From planned HST photometry, we expect to reach a precision of 1–2% on the relative time delay between S1–S4 and SX


5. CONCLUSIONS
We have detected the reappearance of SN Refsdal in a different multiple image of its host galaxy from the one where the event was originally discovered in 2014. Keeping in mind the caveats given in the previous section, we can reach two major conclusions. First, SN Refsdal indeed reappeared approximately as predicted, implying that the unknown systematic uncertainties are not substantially larger than the random uncertainties, at least for some models. This is a remarkable and powerful validation of the model predictions specifically and of general relativity indirectly. The second conclusion is that already this first detection provides some discriminatory power: not all models fare equally well. Grillo-g, Oguri-g, Oguri-a, and Sharon-a appear to be the ones that match the observations most closely. In general most models seem to predict a slightly higher magnification ratio than observed, or shorter delays. A detailed statistical analysis of the agreement between the model predictions and the observations will have to wait for the actual measurement of the magnification and time delays, which will require analysis of the full light curve past its peak during 2016.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Amazing stuff! Amazing Cosmology! Amazing GR! Amazing Einstein!
Enjoy!