Starship Asterisk*

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31893110/ns ... nce-space/ What, if anything, might this mean for the future of Dark Matter / energy?

BMAONE23 wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31893110/ns ... nce-space/ What, if anything, might this mean for the future of Dark Matter / energy?

Not much effect, I think. The dark matter annihilation theory was just one proposed explanation for the existence of a class of gamma particles of unknown origin. If this research holds up and does explain the source of the particles, it doesn't invalidate any key features expected of dark matter. (Dark energy isn't involved in any case.)

Chris Peterson wrote:

BMAONE23 wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31893110/ns ... nce-space/
What, if anything, might this mean for the future of Dark Matter / energy?

Not much effect, I think. The dark matter annihilation theory was just one proposed explanation for the existence of a class of gamma particles of unknown origin. If this research holds up and does explain the source of the particles, it doesn't invalidate any key features expected of dark matter. (Dark energy isn't involved in any case.)

If dark matter is NOT annihilating then "the future of Dark Matter" is assured!

Wait till they find the CMB is not 'echoes of a Big Bang' .. and, in fact, if, as some Big Bang fan posters here suggest, there was no Big Bang explosion, but a simultaneous coming into existance across a huge area, then why should the CMB be echoes of an explosion? The murk gets murkier if I try to clarify the murk by stirring in Big Bang.

Loco wrote:...then why should the CMB be echoes of an explosion?

It isn't. The Big Bang theory doesn't describe an explosion in the first place.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Loco said

Wait till they find the CMB is not 'echoes of a Big Bang' .. and, in fact, if, as some Big Bang fan posters here suggest, there was no Big Bang explosion, but a simultaneous coming into existance across a huge area, then why should the CMB be echoes of an explosion?

You have just agreed with the BBT.

How can something come together over billions of light years and producing over 100,000,000,000 galaxies in just 500 million years. Those galaxies are found 13.2 Gyrs away.

Or maybe I read your words out of context.

ooops

Qev wrote:

Loco wrote:...then why should the CMB be echoes of an explosion?

It isn't. The Big Bang theory doesn't describe an explosion in the first place.

The Big Bang Theory does not describe an explosion in its present incarnation; but the popular original presentation was and for decades continued to be an explosion from a singularity .. and that is the overwhelming presentation presented to the majority of earth's population.

harry wrote:G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Loco said

Wait till they find the CMB is not 'echoes of a Big Bang' .. and, in fact, if, as some Big Bang fan posters here suggest, there was no Big Bang explosion, but a simultaneous coming into existance across a huge area, then why should the CMB be echoes of an explosion?

You have just agreed with the BBT.

How can something come together over billions of light years and producing over 100,000,000,000 galaxies in just 500 million years. Those galaxies are found 13.2 Gyrs away.

Or maybe I read your words out of context.

ooops

Well Harry, it's often very confusing trying to fathom what people are saying, because first they say there was an explosion from a singluarity, then they say there was no single singularity and no explosion .. and round and round and round it goes. My current understanding is that the current Big Bang consensus agrees partly with MOG, in that the universe came into being across a vast area; MOG saying there were no singularities, while I think I have read that Big Bangers depict countless singularities giving rise to matter (?). However, if there was no explosion, why are the galaxies flying apart? And that's where the Dark Energy is, I think, theorized .. a repulsive energy. The major difference in my theory from MOG (which, I don't think, recognizes Dark Engergy) and therefore from the current Big Bang, is that the repulsive Dark Energy is really anti-gravity, growing within bubbles which are the voids, and pushing the galaxies apart. I realy don't know why my idea is so alien and repulsive (pun intended) to some here on the forum, when it merely identifies and collects the Dark Energy. Yes, I believe the universe came into existance across a vast area simultaneously, from no singularities, but from quantum fluctuations in nothing .. a demonstration of Non-Locality and the infinite Now .. although perhaps the creation was over a period of time, who knows (?) and I really don't care, it's not important to me .. what's important to me, and what I am confident of, are the expanding anti-gravity bubble voids pushing the stars and galaxies into their present and future shapes (webs and walls) and definitely NOT those shapes assumed from gravitational attraction, or they would all be gathered into spheres, as Spheres are demonstrated countless times (planets, moons, globular clusters) to be the shape of gravitationally attracted matter.

aristarchusinexile wrote:My current understanding is that the current Big Bang consensus agrees partly with MOG, in that the universe came into being across a vast area;

Not even close. I know of no BB variants that don't treat the Universe as beginning in a very tiny volume- either subatomic sized or possibly a singularity.

However, if there was no explosion, why are the galaxies flying apart? And that's where the Dark Energy is, I think, theorized .. a repulsive energy.

It's just a question of being careful when using fuzzy words like "explosion". The term generally implies some sort of release of energy resulting in material expanding outwards. That does not describe the BB. Galaxies are flying apart because the space that contains them is expanding, and dark energy may be responsible, or partly responsible for that expansion. However, theory suggests that other fundamental forces were present very early in the Universe as well.

Hello Loco,

Loco wrote: .. and, in fact, if,

And, in fact, if........???

Hi aristarchusinexile

excellent post...This bit was very interesting for me:

aristarchusinexile wrote:what's important to me, and what I am confident of, are the expanding anti-gravity bubble voids pushing the stars and galaxies into their present and future shapes

You may need to adjust the anti gravity bit... To, another dimension bubble,,, t=0 M/E =000000000.1 Who is to say it did not drag a bit of other dimension into our universe with its BB? Top scientists need to study them voids real hard... I am sure there maybe a key to the next level to be found ...

Mark

G'day Aris

Do not worry about the BBT before or after.

Try to understand the Formation of stars and galaxy evolution the rest will fall into place.

As for The BBT

Here are some links, although I do not agree with them, they are thoughts along the BBT.

Evidence for the Big Bang
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

THE BIG BANG:
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

WMAP Big Bang Concepts
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts.html

astrolabe wrote:Hello Loco,

Loco wrote: .. and, in fact, if,

And, in fact, if........???

I can't find the quote you are quoting, Astro .. generally though, if in fact, if, to continue generally, knowledge is really not of critical importance in most applications except a few including the military and commercial mind. Grace is far more an asset. But out of curiousity, specifically which, '.. and, in fact, if,' are you referring to?

mark swain wrote:Hi aristarchusinexile

excellent post...This bit was very interesting for me:

aristarchusinexile wrote:what's important to me, and what I am confident of, are the expanding anti-gravity bubble voids pushing the stars and galaxies into their present and future shapes

You may need to adjust the anti gravity bit... To, another dimension bubble,,, t=0 M/E =000000000.1 Who is to say it did not drag a bit of other dimension into our universe with its BB? Top scientists need to study them voids real hard... I am sure there maybe a key to the next level to be found ...

Mark

Yup, spirit beings suddenly appearing out of thin air, from another dimension .. 'angels' etc.

Chris Peterson wrote: It's just a question of being careful when using fuzzy words like "explosion". The term generally implies some sort of release of energy resulting in material expanding outwards. That does not describe the BB. Galaxies are flying apart because the space that contains them is expanding, and dark energy may be responsible, or partly responsible for that expansion. However, theory suggests that other fundamental forces were present very early in the Universe as well.

The popular picture is a typical explosion. If there was no explosion, there will be no echo. CMB is said to be the echo of that explosion .. and CMB's discovery was said to be the 'proof' which vaulted Big Bang ahead of the Plasma Universe, which up till then, was the frontrunner.

aristarchusinexile wrote:The popular picture is a typical explosion. If there was no explosion, there will be no echo. CMB is said to be the echo of that explosion .. and CMB's discovery was said to be the 'proof' which vaulted Big Bang ahead of the Plasma Universe, which up till then, was the frontrunner.

It doesn't matter what the "popular picture" is. This is a science forum, and presumably we can discuss things as they actually are, and not how they are simplified or analogized for popular consumption. "Explosion" is a poor word to describe the Big Bang, and there is certainly no need for an "explosion" in order to describe the CMB. It isn't really an "echo", either. It is simply radiation from very early in the Universe, redshifted into the microwave region. Its existence provides very strong support for the Big Bang models in general, and its structure provides clues about the details of the origin of the Universe that have allowed a specific set of BB theories to gain major support.

aristarchusinexile wrote:Plasma Universe ... up till then ... was the frontrunner.

Bull.

Only among quacks, trolls, people who make money selling plasma cosmology books, and those who lobby for them.

apodman wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Plasma Universe ... up till then ... was the frontrunner.

Bull.

Only among quacks, trolls, people who make money selling plasma cosmology books, and those who lobby for them.

Extract the energy from a one dollar bill,,. That would kill 200,000 people and flatten a city.. <<<This came from Einstein,s equations... Now take 18, billion suns and compact them into the size of the milky way.. But you can not explode because gravity will not let you...release the energy of the atom,,,,release the energy from a proton,electron,neutron... release the energy from a quark...? you must be releasing the creator. energy can not be destroyed there for its is stored ... stored stored until one day it is more powerful than gravity... Boom.... But as the program states matter takes on a form of in between matter/energy state ... a form of plasma... and the hole thing starts again... (This is my idea and does not represent current views on known theories)

Mark

G'day Mark

The idea is not to far from reality.

The cyclic effect is well documented.

This paper may be of interest. Sorry for posting links. It seems people do not like them.

Condensates in the Cosmos: Quantum Stabilization of the Collapse of Relativistic Degenerate Stars to Black Holes
May-07
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007FoPh...37..632S
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k372727p37867755/

According to prevailing theory, relativistic degenerate stars with masses beyond the Chandrasekhar and Oppenheimer–Volkoff (OV) limits cannot achieve hydrostatic equilibrium through either electron or neutron degeneracy pressure and must collapse to form stellar black holes. In such end states, all matter and energy within the Schwarzschild horizon descend into a central singularity. Avoidance of this fate is a hoped-for outcome of the quantization of gravity, an as-yet incomplete undertaking. Recent studies, however, suggest the possibility that known quantum processes may intervene to arrest complete collapse, thereby leading to equilibrium states of macroscopic size and finite density. I describe here one such process which entails pairing (or other even-numbered association) of neutrons (or constituent quarks in the event of nucleon disruption) to form a condensate of composite bosons in equilibrium with a core of degenerate fermions. This process is analogous to, but not identical with, the formation of hadron Cooper pairs that give rise to neutron superfluidity and proton superconductivity in neutron stars. Fermion condensation to composite bosons in a star otherwise destined to collapse to a black hole facilitates hydrostatic equilibrium in at least two ways: (1) removal of fermions results in a decrease in the Fermi level which stiffens the dependence of degeneracy pressure on fermion density, and (2) phase separation into a fermionic core surrounded by a self-gravitating condensate diminishes the weight which must be balanced by fermion degeneracy pressure. The outcome is neither a black hole nor a neutron star, but a novel end state, a “fermicon star,” with unusual physical properties.

Hi Harry,, From ozzz

I just saw a picture of ALL them voids,, on the other Apod Channel...And it pretty much Blew me away. My first thinking is how the universe looks like larva, makes them 8 sided shapes ... Why the same....?

Interesting to me, is it actually does look like something in those voids pushing everything apart. Edit... (Not apart)
But pushing to make them shapes and clusters....
Mark

mark swain wrote:Interesting to me, is it actually does look like something in those voids pushing everything apart.

All you need is ordinary gravity. Nothing is pushing things apart; it is the material in the walls that is consolidating under the force of gravity. This is very well modeled.

Hello aristarchusinexile,

Loco wrote:Wait till they find the CMB is not 'echoes of a Big Bang' .. and, in fact, if, as some Big Bang fan posters here suggest, there was no Big Bang explosion, but a simultaneous coming into existance across a huge area, then why should the CMB be echoes of an explosion? The murk gets murkier if I try to clarify the murk by stirring in Big Bang.

Chris Peterson wrote:All you need is ordinary gravity.

Many people who don't understand gravity want something else instead that they can hope to understand more easily. Same with relativity, BBT, and pretty much all of classical and modern physics. I don't completely understand gravity either. The basics are simple enough, but the devil is in the details. But I figure it's my own shortcoming and lack of study that makes my understanding deficient. I don't take the convenient way out and say current theories of gravitation are wrong because I would like to find something more convenient. I personally would want to learn more about the current understanding before proposing alternatives, lest my alternatives look lame.

Hello All,

Quick question. Is the production of Gamma Rays an indicator of the collapse rate of of an object? That is to say, generally, would the EM spectrum be a possible guide for the speed or rate that a body is collapsing?

astrolabe wrote:Quick question. Is the production of Gamma Rays an indicator of the collapse rate of of an object? That is to say, generally, would the EM spectrum be a possible guide for the speed or rate that a body is collapsing?

If I understand these new results correctly, the gamma rays are produced by matter-antimatter annihilation following the radioactive decay of supernova products, not from anything actually happening during supernovas themselves. So this should be unrelated to the rate of collapse of the progenitor star during a supernova.

I think the rate of collapse is considered constant for a star of a given mass. In order to measure it, you would probably need to actually record the supernova light curve from the beginning- something that hasn't been done yet, but is increasingly likely as more and more survey telescopes and fast response telescopes are aimed at the sky. This would be in the visible or IR regime, not gamma rays.