
Note: I’m going to leave this as a sticky “top post” for a day or so. new stories appear below.
Nigel Calder asks us to republish this post for maximum exposure. He writes:
Today the Royal Astronomical Society in London publishes (online) Henrik Svensmark’s latest paper entitled “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth”. After years of effort Svensmark shows how the variable frequency of stellar explosions not far from our planet has ruled over the changing fortunes of living things throughout the past half billion years. Appearing in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, it’s a giant of a paper, with 22 figures, 30 equations and about 15,000 words. See the RAS press release at http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/219-news-2012/2117-did-exploding-stars-help-life-on-earth-to-thrive
By taking me back to when I reported the victory of the pioneers of plate tectonics in their battle against the most eminent geophysicists of the day, it makes me feel 40 years younger. Shredding the textbooks, Tuzo Wilson, Dan McKenzie and Jason Morgan merrily explained earthquakes, volcanoes, mountain-building, and even the varying depth of the ocean, simply by the drift of fragments of the lithosphere in various directions around the globe.
In Svensmark’s new paper an equally concise theory, that cosmic rays from exploded stars cool the world by increasing the cloud cover, leads to amazing explanations, not least for why evolution sometimes was rampant and sometimes faltered. In both senses of the word, this is a stellar revision of the story of life.
Here are the main results:
- The long-term diversity of life in the sea depends on the sea-level set by plate tectonics and the local supernova rate set by the astrophysics, and on virtually nothing else.
- The long-term primary productivity of life in the sea – the net growth of photosynthetic microbes – depends on the supernova rate, and on virtually nothing else.
- Exceptionally close supernovae account for short-lived falls in sea-level during the past 500 million years, long-known to geophysicists but never convincingly explained..
- As the geological and astronomical records converge, the match between climate and supernova rates gets better and better, with high rates bringing icy times.
Presented with due caution as well as with consideration for the feelings of experts in several fields of research, a story unfolds in which everything meshes like well-made clockwork. Anyone who wishes to pooh-pooh any piece of it by saying “correlation is not necessarily causality” should offer some other mega-theory that says why several mutually supportive coincidences arise between events in our galactic neighbourhood and living conditions on the Earth.
An amusing point is that Svensmark stands the currently popular carbon dioxide story on its head. Some geoscientists want to blame the drastic alternations of hot and icy conditions during the past 500 million years on increases and decreases in carbon dioxide, which they explain in intricate ways. For Svensmark, the changes driven by the stars govern the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Climate and life control CO2, not the other way around.
By implication, supernovae also determine the amount of oxygen available for animals like you and me to breathe. So the inherently simple cosmic-ray/cloud hypothesis now has far-reaching consequences, which I’ve tried to sum up in this diagram.

By way of explanation
The text of “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth” is available via ftp://ftp2.space.dtu.dk/pub/Svensmark/MNRAS_Svensmark2012.pdf The paper is highly technical, as befits a professional journal, so to non-expert eyes even the illustrations may be a little puzzling. So I’ve enlisted the aid of Liz Calder to explain the way one of the most striking graphs, Svensmark’s Figure 20, was put together. That graph shows how, over the past 440 million years, the changing rates of supernova explosions relatively close to the Earth have strongly influenced the biodiversity of marine invertebrate animals, from trilobites of ancient times to lobsters of today. Svensmark’s published caption ends: “Evidently marine biodiversity is largely explained by a combination of sea-level and astrophysical activity.” To follow his argument you need to see how Figure 20 draws on information in Figure 19. That tells of the total diversity of the sea creatures in the fossil record, fluctuating between times of rapid evolution and times of recession.
The count is by genera, which are groups of similar animals. Here it’s shown freehand by Liz in Sketch A. Sketch B is from another part of Figure 19, telling how the long-term global sea-level changed during the same period. The broad correspondence isn’t surprising because a high sea-level floods continental margins and gives the marine invertebrates more extensive and varied habitats. But it obviously isn’t the whole story. For a start, there’s a conspicuous spike in diversity about 270 million years ago that contradicts the declining sea-level. Svensmark knew that there was a strong peak in the supernova rate around that time. So he looked to see what would happen to the wiggles over the whole 440 million years if he “normalized” the biodiversity to remove the influence of sea-level. That simple operation is shown in Sketch C, where the 270-million-year spike becomes broader and taller. Sketch D shows Svensmark’s reckoning of the changing rates of nearby supernovae during the same period. Let me stress that these are all freehand sketches to explain the operations, not to convey the data. In the published paper, the graphs as in C and D are drawn precisely and superimposed for comparison.

There are many fascinating particulars that I might use to illustrate the significance of Svensmark’s findings. To choose the Gorgon’s story that follows is not entirely arbitrary, because this brings in another of those top results, about supernovae and bio-productivity.
The great dying at the end of the Permian
Out of breath, poor gorgon? Gasping for some supernovae? Named after scary creatures of Greek myth, the Gorgonopsia of the Late Permian Period included this fossil species Sauroctonus progressus, 3 metres long. Like many of its therapsid cousins, near relatives of our own ancestors, it died out during the Permo-Triassic Event. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgonopsia
Luckiest among our ancestors was a mammal-like reptile, or therapsid, that scraped through the Permo-Triassic Event, the worst catastrophe in the history of animal life. The climax was 251 million years ago at the end of the Permian Period. Nearly all animal species in the sea went extinct, along with most on land. The event ended the era of “old life”, the Palaeozoic, and ushered in the Mesozoic Era, when our ancestors would become small mammals trying to keep clear of the dinosaurs. So what put to death our previously flourishing Gorgon-faced cousins of the Late Permian? According to Henrik Svensmark, the Galaxy let the reptiles down.
Forget old suggestions (by myself included) that the impact of a comet or asteroid was to blame, like the one that did for the dinosaurs at the end of the Mesozoic. The greatest dying was less sudden than that. Similarly the impressive evidence for an eruption 250 million years ago – a flood basalt event that smothered Siberia with noxious volcanic rocks covering an area half the size of Australia – tells of only a belated regional coup de grâce. It’s more to the point that oxygen was in short supply – geologists speak of a “superanoxic ocean”. And there was far more carbon dioxide in the air than there is now.
“Well there you go,” some people will say. “We told you CO2 is bad for you.” That, of course, overlooks the fact that the notorious gas keeps us alive. The recenty increased CO2 shares with the plant breeders the credit for feeding the growing human population. Plants and photosynthetic microbes covet CO2 to grow. So in the late Permian its high concentration was a symptom of a big shortfall in life’s productivity, due to few supernovae, ice-free conditions, and a lack of weather to circulate the nutrients. And as photosynthesis is also badly needed to turn H2O into O2, the doomed animals were left gasping for oxygen, with little more than half of what we’re lucky to breathe today.
When Svensmark comments briefly on the Permo-Triassic Event in his new paper, “Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth,” he does so in the context of the finding that high rates of nearby supernovae promote life’s productivity by chilling the planet, and so improving the circulation of nutrients needed by the photosynthetic organisms.
Here’s a sketch (above) from Figure 22 in the paper, simplified to make it easier to read. Heavy carbon, 13C, is an indicator of how much photosynthesis was going on. Plumb in the middle is a downward pointing green dagger that marks the Permo-Triassic Event. And in the local supernova rate (black curve) Svensmark notes that the Late Permian saw the largest fall in the local supernova rate seen in the past 500 million years. This was when the Solar System had left the hyperactive Norma Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy behind it and entered the quiet space beyond. “Fatal consequences would ensue for marine life,” Svensmark writes, “if a rapid warming led to nutrient exhaustion … occurring too quickly for species to adapt.”
One size doesn’t fit all, and a fuller story of Late Permian biodiversity becomes subtler and even more persuasive. About 6 million years before the culminating mass extinction of 251 million years ago, a lesser one occurred at the end of the Guadalupian stage. This earlier extinction was linked with a brief resurgence in the supernova rate and a global cooling that interrupted the mid-Permian warming. In contrast with the end of the Permian, bio-productivity was high. The chief victims of this die-off were warm-water creatures including gigantic bivalves and rugose corals.
Why it’s tagged as “astrobiology”
So what, you may wonder, is the most life-enhancing supernova rate? Without wanting to sound like Voltaire’s Dr Pangloss, it’s probably not very far from the average rate for the past few hundred million years, nor very different from what we have now. Biodiversity and bio-productivity are both generous at present.
Svensmark has commented (not in the paper itself) on a closely related question – where’s the best place to live in the Galaxy?
“Too many supernovae can threaten life with extinction. Although they came before the time range of the present paper, very severe episodes called Snowball Earth have been blamed on bursts of rapid star formation. I’ve tagged the paper as ‘Astrobiology’ because we may be very lucky in our location in the Galaxy. Other regions may be inhospitable for advanced forms of life because of too many supernovae or too few.”
Astronomers searching for life elsewhere speak of a Goldilocks Zone in planetary systems. A planet fit for life should be neither too near to nor too far from the parent star. We’re there in the Solar System, sure enough. We may also be in a similar Goldilocks Zone of the Milky Way, and other galaxies with too many or too few supernovae may be unfit for life. Add to that the huge planetary collision that created the Earth’s disproportionately large Moon and provided the orbital stability and active geology on which life relies, and you may suspect that, astronomically at least, Dr Pangloss was right — “Everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.”
Don’t fret about the diehards
If this blog has sometimes seemed too cocky about the Svensmark hypothesis, it’s because I’ve known what was in the pipeline, from theories, observations and experiments, long before publication. Since 1996 the hypothesis has brought new successes year by year and has resisted umpteen attempts to falsify it.
New additions at the level of microphysics include a previously unknown reaction of sulphuric acid, as in a recent preprint. On a vastly different scale, Svensmark’s present supernova paper gives us better knowledge of the shape of the Milky Way Galaxy.
A mark of a good hypothesis is that it looks better and better as time passes. With the triumph of plate tectonics, diehard opponents were left redfaced and blustering. In 1960 you’d not get a job in an American geology department if you believed in continental drift, but by 1970 you’d not get the job if you didn’t. That’s what a paradigm shift means in practice and it will happen sometime soon with cosmic rays in climate physics.
Plate tectonics was never much of a political issue, except in the Communist bloc. There, the immobility of continents was doctrinally imposed by the Soviet Academy of Sciences. An analagous diehard doctrine in climate physics went global two decades ago, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was conceived to insist that natural causes of climate change are minor compared with human impacts.
Don’t fret about the diehards. The glory of empirical science is this: no matter how many years, decades, or sometimes centuries it may take, in the end the story will come out right.
===============================================================
For those who would doubt our cosmic connections, Svenmark’s work and Calder’s article reminds me to remind you of this well known quote:
The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff. – Carl Sagan



Leif Svalgaard says:
April 25, 2012 at 6:57 am
HenryP says:
April 25, 2012 at 6:45 am
clearly we don’t know what happened a century ago with climate
——————————————————————————————————
The longest temperature record in Central England goes back over 350 years to 1659. The long-term trend if you plot this data is an overall linear trend of 0.25 C per Century with warming and cooling periods within that record and a flat lining to a slight decrease from 1995 to 2010.
Leif you seem to be favouring the CO2 cause for warming, is that correct?. Can you explain the sudden warming of nearly 2 deg C from 1695 to 1736 when there was no essentially no industrial activity? (This incidentally is higher than the rise from 1963 through to 1995)
Also we often hear about the warmest year on record etc. In 2010 the temperature was the same as it was in 1659 according to this record.
Matthew R Marler says:
April 25, 2012 at 1:23 pm
Thanks, Matthew. You are correct that their is no absolute standard. But he is not claiming the kind of incremental change your examples cover (a few percent extension in lifespan). He is proposing something very different, which is that the 17% correlation rules the climate and is the main force behind changes in biodiversity and sea level … and for that kind of very strong effect, an R^2 of 17% is greatly inadequate.
w.
I assume Wilis does not like this paper.
Willis Eschenbach: and for that kind of very strong effect, an R^2 of 17% is greatly inadequate.
Just to remind everyone, that is 17% of the variance, not 17% of the standard deviation or the difference between the max and min. If the estimates are close enough to the true values, a 1 sd increase in the nupernova-related GCRs produced a 0.4 sd change in paleosal CO2 (if the estimated relationship is actually linear.) I restate my claim that such a relationship is too large to ignore.
“”””” Roger Carr says:
April 24, 2012 at 10:49 pm
Ian W: “…Pleiades is a very indistinct star cluster even on a dark clear night. Not particularly impressive. Yet the Pleiades seem to feature in almost every ‘ancient’ text and several ‘religions’ worldwide.”
Very interesting observation, Ian. I hope someone picks up on it and puzzles it further. “””””
You’ve obviously never seen a dark clear night. Even in downtown silicon valley, which has anything but dark skies, on a clear night at the right time of the year, the Pleiades is quite obvious even to the unaided eye.
In any ancient civilization; before TV, seeing the Pleiades; was a no brainer.
Steve from Rockwood says:
…
Shaviv’s paper is at
http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages
——————————————————–
Link is
brokenfixed.Crazy to say our climate is dependent on a trace gas reflecting the energy within and ignoring all the energy that our planet receives.
Matthew R Marler says:
April 25, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Thanks, Matthew. If there were a) no errors in the CO2 dataset and b) no errors in the supernova estimates, you might be correct in paying some attention to it … although saying that it rules longterm climate and the biodiversity of earth through that small correlation is a stretch. But if you include those errors in the calculations, the R2 is sure to change, and the uncertainty in the R^2 will assuredly increase. My calculation is just a first cut.
Take a look at the error bars on the CO2 in their Figure 20. Some have no error in one direction and a huge error in the other. Others have big errors in both directions. If you include that, things change.
In addition, Svensmark has not provided us with any error estimate for his supernova numbers. Assuredly, those will be significant.
If you include all of that, you’ll get a more accurate number. I’m off to work, might get to some of it this evening.
Next, you seem to be forgetting he only and solely gets the fit of an R2 = 0.17 by virtue of his selection of three free parameters—bin size, and the two variables “a” and “alpha” in the decay function.
But my main point is, I shouldn’t be the one either making some kind of error estimate for the supernova numbers, or making a sensitivity analysis of bin size and “a” and “alpha”, or completely calculating and justifying the R2 calculation for each of his graphs.
Those are Svensmark’s jobs … and until he does them, I would strongly suggest that you don’t place any credence in any of the claimed relationships. They may be true and valid … but he’s a long, long ways from demonstrating that.
My best to you,
w.
Willis: I would strongly suggest that you don’t place any credence in any of the claimed relationships. They may be true and valid … but he’s a long, long ways from demonstrating that.
There we agree. I called it a “hit”, not a “win”.
Until next time,
be of good cheer.
Willis, I thoroughly applaud your comment re the importance to test and check what you would like to be true, as much as to test and check what you do not believe is true. And I take Mosher’s point myself, in the process, and eat a little humble pie for extolling a little too much in comparison to the amount of investigation done by myself at that point. Am now more informed after reading comments. But still hopeful. And awed by the amount of good scientific process appearing here in the flow of comments. Takes time to clear the fog of naivety and misconceptions.
Now I would also like to see you apply this process to Nikolov and Zeller’s mathematical refutation of the current application of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation with regard to grey-body planets. After much head-banging and avoidance, I did finally crack the maths there myself and found the claims held up, and the Second Law too. I had a “chat” with Maxwell. If you’re interested in the “elevator pitch” I can now give (I said I needed time), please email me, I don’t want this wonderful thread derailed.
FrankK says:
April 25, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Leif you seem to be favouring the CO2 cause for warming, is that correct?.
No not at all, but Svensmark seems to accept that, see page 19 of his paper “if a cooling reduces the loss of CO2 to geochemical weathering, that could lead to a buildup of CO2 if other sinks and sources of CO2 remain constant, and so dampen or reverse the cooling”.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 25, 2012 at 7:16 am
It is not so much the difference in speed [the protons move close to light speed anyway], but the fact that the protons are charged and thus bump around in the tangled galactic magnetic fields for millions of years before arriving near us.
Kind of compares to the photons being produced inside a star as they are constantly being absorbed and emitted, it may be many thousands or maybe even millions of years before they reach the surface. See e.g. the link: http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11354.html
I want to indulge in some amateurish “creative thinking” if that is ok. A kind of thought-experiment, maybe it leads somewhere, maybe not. It is off-topic, but maybe acceptable as a spin-off?
If your mind starts playing with this phenomenon, say the intrinsic or “local” speed and the net speed or “migration” relative to the surrounding space, it makes you wonder about this phenomenon speed, maybe somehow there is always these different ways of travelling through a medium depending on the properties of the medium and the interactions of the particle with it. Maybe even travelling and speed is nothing but a constant interaction between a particle and the medium, inside a star not essentially different from outside a star – just a different interaction resulting in a different migration speed. I am not talking the old aether theory here, but I do know space is not really empty, all kind of things going on there, like the magnetic fields Leif talks about or other phenomena.
Thinking further on along these lines… unhindered by knowledge… particles may hit other dimensions, which act like different media, with again different speeds. Even exceeding the speed of light by many factors. Just like the migration speed of a photon inside and outside the sun differs by many factors … maybe “quantum entanglement” has to do with this possibility… Don’t they consider more dimensions in quantum mechanics, or was that only in mathematics?
Guess I should stop here. I am not into quantum mechanics. Guess I am saying nothing new to an insider. Maybe it is complete rubbish. Who can put me on the right track, say an article or website? Or just hit me on the head 😉
It takes 240,000,000 years for us to rotate around the center of our
galaxy. So? Do we stay in the mostly-the-same place, or do we move
outside this into “clusters”, as it says in the article? And then , how often.
I think the data is there in this 16-year study.
Jurgen says:
April 25, 2012 at 8:18 pm
it makes you wonder about this phenomenon speed, maybe somehow there is always these different ways of travelling through a medium depending on the properties of the medium and the interactions of the particle with it.
It is quite simple actually. Image you want to cross a very crowded room [‘cocktail party’]. As you make your way, bumping into people or deviating trying to avoid that, it takes a much longer time to cross than if the room was empty.
If I had wanted to forge a tale that made everyone here look like a drooling hypocritical idiot by latching onto crackpotted nonsense just because it satisfies their prejudices about global warming, I could not have done a better job.
Marcel Kincaid says:
April 26, 2012 at 12:13 am
If I had wanted to forge a tale that made everyone here look like a drooling hypocritical idiot by latching onto crackpotted nonsense just because it satisfies their prejudices about global warming, I could not have done a better job.
And the droolers don’t even read the tale: Svensmark seems to accept that, see page 19 of his paper “if a cooling reduces the loss of CO2 to geochemical weathering, that could lead to a buildup of CO2 if other sinks and sources of CO2 remain constant, and so dampen or reverse the cooling”.
Calder’s PR job is enough, it seems.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 25, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Jurgen says:
April 25, 2012 at 8:18 pm
it makes you wonder about this phenomenon speed, maybe somehow there is always these different ways of travelling through a medium depending on the properties of the medium and the interactions of the particle with it.
It is quite simple actually. Image you want to cross a very crowded room [‘cocktail party’]. As you make your way, bumping into people or deviating trying to avoid that, it takes a much longer time to cross than if the room was empty.
Hi Leif. How much does all that partygoing and bumping and grinding contribute to the cosmological background temperature of a few degrees above absolute zero?
Marcel Kincaid says:
April 26, 2012 at 12:13 am
If I had wanted to forge a tale that made everyone here look like a drooling hypocritical idiot by latching onto crackpotted nonsense just because it satisfies their prejudices about global warming,
Nice self introduction. Anyway, quick question: what ‘global warming are you referring to? The ‘global warming’ which hasn’t been warming the globe for a decade or so? Looks to me like the only drooling idiot here
is you.
Marcel Kincaid says:
April 26, 2012 at 12:13 am
If I had wanted to forge a tale that made everyone here look like a drooling hypocritical idiot by latching onto crackpotted nonsense just because it satisfies their prejudices about global warming, I could not have done a better job.
Yeah right – so if its about climate but does not headline CO2, then it was funded by the oil industry. This level of medieval, talebanic predjudiced extremism and dogmatism characterises the AGW group-think, not the skeptical side. In the 1300’s it was witches and demons behind every adverse climate event (poor harvests, etc.) Now its CO2. But the attitude and mind-set behind both (i.e. your “mind”set) – and the politics of good religion and heresy – are exactly the same.
Marcel Kincaid says
because it satisfies their prejudices about global warming,
Henry says
what global warming?where?
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
Lucy Skywalker says:
April 25, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Lucy, you never did understand the problems I exposed in Nikolov and Zeller’s work at “The Mystery of Equation 8“. In fact, in that thread you said:
… to which another poster replied about why some people, including Nikolov and Zeller, were no longer posting on that thread …
Indeed, the poster was right, you do harm …
In that post, you also spoke highly of Hans Jelbring and his cockamamie hypothesis that you can get ongoing energy from gravity, a hypothesis that I discussed in Perpetuum Mobile, and that Dr. Robert Brown totally blew out of the water with a formal proof in Refutation of Stable Thermal Equilibrium Lapse Rates. Jelbrings hypothesis was obviously and glaringly wrong. But you, you thought Jelbring’s hypothesis was good, solid science.
As a result, I fear that my opinion of your scientific abilities can go no lower. Sadly, I must tell you that I have no interest in your explanation of how perpetual motion machines work, or of how we can get energy from pressure as Nikolov and Zeller claim.
Heck, even Nikolov and Zeller wouldn’t answer my questions. They refused to reply, to defend their work, or to even discuss their work, they ran like vampires at sunrise from the huge problems I pointed out in their work … and now you want me to listen to you explain their brilliant science? Really?
Thanks, but I’ll pass …
w.
If this theory is correct, then I think it should be possible to relate the wet adiabatic lapse rate or the environmental lapse rate to the Galactic cosmic radiation level. The basic hypothesis is that cosmic radiation creates condensation nuclei that promote cloud formation. Cloud formation is also required to add the heat of condensation to a rising air column and enable it to rise much higher than it would if it were just dry air forced to cool at a rate of 9.8 deg C per km as it rises.
Wet air only cools at about 5 degrees C per km and so rising wet air becomes progressively warmer than the surrounding air when it begins to be heated by condensation. I believe that formula is based on the assumption that wet air begins to condense immediately when the water content saturates–no condensation nuclei required. If that is not true, then this concept needs to be revised. The more rapidly rising air cools as it rises, the higher surface temperatures must be to force complete convection.
I wonder what a plot of average cosmic radiation flux over the years would look like, if compared to the ‘official’ HadCrut3 global temperature plot.
Marcel Kincaid says:
April 26, 2012 at 12:13 am
First, “everyone here” has not latched on to this. A number of us have pointed out real problems.
Second, if you want to see people “latching onto crackpotted nonsense”, take a look at the reception given the endless stream of bogus alarmist-supporting “science” that comes out every week in the journals. I just discussed another piece here … and yet that study has received wide acclaim.
Heck, you want something wild, take a look at the poll done by Yale 360 last week (discussed here), where something like 16% of the US public said they had personally experienced a hurricane, and 21% said they had personally experienced a tornado, in the last year … riiiiight … at least here folks are just agreeing with weak science, not making up false memories …
Finally, here on the skeptical side of the aisle we discuss these issues … try that at realclimate some time, there they not only latch onto nonsense, they don’t allow anyone to speak out against it …
Regards,
w.
PS—Marcel, if you want to get some traction, you might try explaining and supporting and defending your objections to the Svensmark paper, rather than just sneering at those who may not be thinking critically about the paper.
Sneering is easy and cheap, and perhaps it makes you feel superior. But for those of us who are trying to encourage critical scientific thought, if you’re not out fighting ignorance but you are bitching about what fools people are, it makes you look just as misguided as those who blindly believe.
Speaking about the issues would also let us know that you actually understand them. You may understand them quite well, but we don’t know that, for all we know your objections to the paper may be just as trivial and unscientific as those of the people you are sneering at …
Willis Eschenbach says:
April 26, 2012 at 2:21 am
Replied here:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/nikolov-zeller-reply-eschenbach/#comment-24092
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 25, 2012 at 10:11 pm
in reply to my post at April 25, 2012 at 8:18 pm
It is quite simple actually. Image you want to cross a very crowded room [‘cocktail party’]. As you make your way, bumping into people or deviating trying to avoid that, it takes a much longer time to cross than if the room was empty.
Thanks for the reply Leif. Your analogy is clear. I was thinking along the lines there is always some kind of party and some kind of bumping going on anywhere, and there are in actual fact no empty rooms in nature. I think Tallbloke indicated this also in his follow-up at April 26, 2012 at 12:37 am
This line of thought is akin to the fact that particles behave like waves at the same time, and a wave could be seen upon as a propagation through a medium. Two options come to mind: absorption and emitting through the medium in a wave-like pattern, or moving through a medium kind of “surfing” on the medium waves. I have to learn more of this stuff. It is addictive.