# Thread: Creation of new galaxies ?

1. Established Member
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
386
Originally Posted by TooMany
All that paper attempts to show is that luminosity is consistent with a Euclidean static universe and no evolution.
The last part is the bit that I find most incredible about the paper. Lerner is presenting himself as an astronomer and yet he ignores the physics that stars and galaxies evolve!
Reading the Sandage and Lubin fourth paper shows that the data matches an expanding universe even with just the passive evolution by main sequence burn-down in the HR diagram as a function of time. Using more sophisticated models of galaxy evolution makes the match better.

2. Originally Posted by Reality Check
Unfortunately this "paper" fails some of the criteria that a skeptical person would apply:
1. It is not a paper! It is a conference presentation as is the 2005 "paper".
2. The author's area of expertise is plasma physics and here he is analysing astronomical data. This makes it more likely that his analysis is wrong.
3. It is a single author presentation. Today, major breakthroughs in science are rarely single author efforts.
I'd definitely take issue with your last bullet (though I am certainly fond of large collaborations), and some issue with your second.

Though you are correct that "major breakthroughs ... are rarely single author efforts", your citations of Allan Sandage's work shows that single author papers can be very thorough. A long author list doesn't guarantee quality work either: Arp's group has produced a few papers in the past decade(ish) with a half a dozen authors or so. That doesn't mean they're any good.

Whether someone is an "expert" in a subject can also sometimes be hard to immediately judge. In Lerner's case, it's obvious to those who are experts that he lacks a lot of relevant knowledge. But that doesn't mean that someone trained in plasma physics can't do good cosmology.

Your first point is certainly robust, if there are no related peer-reviewed publications. Plenty of conference proceedings contain useful information, but they usually refer to, or are followed by, papers submitted for review.

3. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,125
Originally Posted by Reality Check
The last part is the bit that I find most incredible about the paper. Lerner is presenting himself as an astronomer and yet he ignores the physics that stars and galaxies evolve!
Not sure but i think Lerner is rather saying that Stars and Galaxies evolve even in a non expanding universe model.

4. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Dec 2004
Posts
11,218
Originally Posted by Tensor
Originally Posted by Jeff Root
I was very surprised when I read this, too.
It isn't what you meant, is it? The z value is not at
all model-specific. It is the interpretation of why the
z value is whatever it is that is model specific.
use a scale factor to get the z value, as there is
nothing to compare (unless you want to note that
the z value is 1). Conversely, in the current
mainstream model, a straight doppler z value is
incorrect out past ~ z = 1.5. Model specific.
The only things to compare that I know of are spectral
lines in light from the distant object and spectral lines
in the lab. I don't see where any model is involved.

Originally Posted by Tensor
Originally Posted by Jeff Root
I can't imagine how that would matter.
Well, he uses the z values, without mentioning
what model those values were taken from.
Why would they come from a model rather than
from measurements?

Originally Posted by Tensor
Originally Posted by Jeff Root
That makes no sense to me. Can't they identify any
spectral lines? Are they depending on something other
than identified spectral lines to determine z?
Again, he never mentions the spectra, he talks about
z values he used and the different BANDS that were
compared. But there are no specifics about how the
z values were found.
I may be misunderstanding, but it seems to say in
the quote in post #35 above that the z values were
taken from the GALEX and UDF catalogs. They would
be where to get specifics on how the spectra were
taken and lines measured.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

5. Established Member
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
386
Originally Posted by parejkoj
I'd definitely take issue with your last bullet (though I am certainly fond of large collaborations), and some issue with your second.
Actually only the last paper is only by Allan Sandage, the rest are coauthored by Lubin. But you are right - the presence of a single author is just an indication that a paper should be looked at more skeptically.

6. Established Member
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
386
Originally Posted by Don J
Not sure but i think Lerner is rather saying that Stars and Galaxies evolve even in a non expanding universe model.
Fairly sure that Lener's ENE model assumes that galaxies do not evolve (as TooMany stated) and so is wrong.

ETA: He also ignores galaxy evolution for the LCDM model (he mentions "galaxy size evolution"). This invalidates the fits he makes to that model and thus the presentation.

7. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,125
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Fairly sure that Lener's ENE model assumes that galaxies do not evolve (as TooMany stated) and so is wrong.
In the 2005 paper page 12 in the Discussion chapter Lerner say:"...plasma cosmology which assume an evolving universe without an origin in time ..."

Originally Posted by Reality Check
ETA: He also ignores galaxy evolution for the LCDM model (he mentions "galaxy size evolution"). This invalidates the fits he makes to that model and thus the presentation.
You mean probably the chapter 3.1 in page 8 - Test of the evolution hypothesis -

Well ...I think that his objection in regard to the way ie(the assumption) the LCDM model have made their basis on , merits attention.

8. Established Member
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
386
Originally Posted by Don J
In the 2005 paper page 12 in the Discussion chapter Lerner say:"...plasma cosmology which assume an evolving universe without an origin in time ..."
Nothing to do with what I am talking about.
Nowhere in either paper does Lerner state anything like "this is the model of evolving galaxies that I am using".
Thus he is ignoring the astronomy that stars evolve, galaxies evolve and so the surface brightness of galaxies changes with time. Ignoring this invalidates the Tolman surface brightness test (something the wikipedia article does not mention).

You need to read the the Sandage and Lubin fourth paper to see the real astronomy. They get a good match with just the passive evolution by main sequence burn-down in the HR diagram as a function of time. Using more sophisticated models of galaxy evolution makes the match better.

Originally Posted by Don J
You mean probably the chapter 3.1 in page 8 - Test of the evolution hypothesis
Well ...I think that his objection in regard to the way ie(the assumption) the LCDM model have made their basis on , merits attention.
The only objection is the rather ignorant statement "They have consistently explained this discrepancy as a consequence of galaxy evolution.".
Sandage and Lubin know that the surface brightness of galaxies changes with time and include this in their model. It is not used to explain any discrepancy. It is a physical fact that needs to be included in the model. The only issue is how to include this. With the passive evolution by main sequence burn-down in the HR diagram as a function of time they get a good match. Using more sophisticated models of galaxy evolution makes the match better.

9. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,125
Originally Posted by Reality Check
In the 2005 paper page 12 in the Discussion chapter Lerner say:"...plasma cosmology which assume an evolving universe without an origin in time ..."
Nothing to do with what I am talking about.
Nowhere in either paper does Lerner state anything like "this is the model of evolving galaxies that I am using".(#)
Are you saying that Lerner is not a Plasma Universe proponent ?

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Thus he is ignoring the astronomy that stars evolve, galaxies evolve and so the surface brightness of galaxies changes with time.
Ignoring this invalidates the Tolman surface brightness test (something the wikipedia article does not mention).

The only objection is the rather ignorant statement "They have consistently explained this discrepancy as a consequence of galaxy evolution.".
Sandage and Lubin know that the surface brightness of galaxies changes with time and include this in their model. It is not used to explain any discrepancy. It is a physical fact that needs to be included in the model. The only issue is how to include this. With the passive evolution by main sequence burn-down in the HR diagram as a function of time they get a good match. Using more sophisticated models of galaxy evolution makes the match better.
The objection made by Lerner is that a test at UV wavelengths is the real deal to test galaxies evolution. = ( This is the model he use )

chapter 3.1 page 8 in the 2005 paper.
http://search.arxiv.org:8081/details...o-ph/0509611v2
Last edited by Don J; 2012-May-14 at 06:31 AM.

10. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2011
Posts
1,384
Originally Posted by parejkoj
I'm telling you to make the plot yourself. My "telling you" anything isn't going to help you learn what's going on here; you figuring it out on your own is.

As I said, Lerner is pretty much always wrong about cosmology. Looking at his plot isn't going to provide you with anything useful. Make the plot, then we'll talk. If you don't know how, ask and we'll help you.
No way! You are the one who declared that Figure 1 is absolutely wrong ("laughable"). It's your burden to explain why. If you cannot, I can only assume that you're blowing smoke. (I'd rather not reach that conclusion.)

11. Originally Posted by TooMany
No way! You are the one who declared that Figure 1 is absolutely wrong ("laughable"). It's your burden to explain why. If you cannot, I can only assume that you're blowing smoke. (I'd rather not reach that conclusion.)
I didn't claim the figure itself was laughable:

Originally Posted by parejkoj
Certainly, his claim that a z vs. mu plot for supernova would match a line with mu~cz/H_0 is laughable.
I suppose I shouldn't have said "laughable," but rather "completely and utterly pants-on-fire false," which would be wildly obvious to you if you made said plot. I'm asking you to make your own version of the plot as a learning exercise (I already made it to confirm what it looks like).

In addition, the BAUT forum rules say that proponents of against-the-mainstream (ATM) ideas have to defend them. This has become a thread supporting an ATM idea (plasma cosmology was actually declared off limits on BAUT several years ago!), so it's up to you (and Don J) to defend it. One way to "defend" it would be to make the plot I described. Though that wouldn't actually help your case, as you'd see if you just made the dang plot.

[edit to add]: My suggestion to make the plot goes to anyone reading this thread. It's a nice example of the predictive power of the standard cosmology: take cosmological parameters derived from WMAP, compute the redshift vs. distance modulus curve, overplot supernova points. One can also then plot the z vs. mu curve for other cosmologies for comparison. The calculations involved are not that difficult (you have to do a numeric integral for LCDM), and the data is all publicly available. As I said, if you want help doing this, start a BAUT thread.

12. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2011
Posts
1,384
Originally Posted by parejkoj
Certainly, his claim that a z vs. mu plot for supernova would match a line with mu~cz/H_0 is laughable.
If by mu~cz/H_0 you mean that mu is directly proportion to z, then I don't see where he said that. What he actually hypothesized was this relationship:

mu = = 5-5Log(cz/H0)

which he derived from this assumption:

d = cz/H0

Originally Posted by parejkoj
In addition, the BAUT forum rules say that proponents of against-the-mainstream (ATM) ideas have to defend them. This has become a thread supporting an ATM idea (plasma cosmology was actually declared off limits on BAUT several years ago!), so it's up to you (and Don J) to defend it. One way to "defend" it would be to make the plot I described. Though that wouldn't actually help your case, as you'd see if you just made the dang plot.
If this plot is so important why don't you simply give us a link to it and then you can show us what's amiss in the paper?

Hold your horses on the ATM stoning. This paper was cited in a discussion. Nobody claimed that they could back it up or that they were prepared to defend it's hypothetical assumptions. You trashed it. It is your problem to show where the paper is incorrect. It's your job to defend your own accusations.

Bear in mind that the paper only makes a claim about a fit of observations to a relationship. If you want to say it's wrong then you have to demonstrate the specific errors in the paper. His assumptions are just assumptions. Attacking those is meaningless because the paper does not even attempt to support those assumptions. It only claims to show that, under those assumptions, observations of surface brightness closely follow the relationship derived from those assumptions.

13. This thread has become long and involved enough that it is no longer appropriate for Q&A, so I have moved it from there to Astronomy.

I will also remind various members that if they use this thread to sneak in ATM ideas, even if they can reference them to published papers, that they will be severely infracted. Just because someone in a published article agrees with your non-mainstream idea, doesn't relieve you of the ATM requirements. Consider that an official warning.

14. Originally Posted by parejkoj
In addition, the BAUT forum rules say that proponents of against-the-mainstream (ATM) ideas have to defend them. This has become a thread supporting an ATM idea (plasma cosmology was actually declared off limits on BAUT several years ago!), so it's up to you (and Don J) to defend it. One way to "defend" it would be to make the plot I described. Though that wouldn't actually help your case, as you'd see if you just made the dang plot.
Originally Posted by TooMany
Hold your horses on the ATM stoning. This paper was cited in a discussion. Nobody claimed that they could back it up or that they were prepared to defend it's hypothetical assumptions. You trashed it. It is your problem to show where the paper is incorrect. It's your job to defend your own accusations.
I will also remind everyone not to play moderator. If you believe someone is posting something inappropriate, then report it and let the moderators take care of it. Next person who does this again will get an infraction.

15. Originally Posted by TooMany
If by mu~cz/H_0 you mean that mu is directly proportion to z, then I don't see where he said that. What he actually hypothesized was this relationship:

mu = = 5-5Log(cz/H0)

which he derived from this assumption:

d = cz/H0
I'm aware of what he wrote. Sorry if my shorthand confused you. The plots (which you seem unable or unwilling to attempt to make yourself) I made in this post used mu=5log(cz/H0)-5 and mu=5log(D_L)-5, where D_L is the luminosity distance at each redshift given Omega_Lambda=0.73 and Omega_M=0.27, both taking H0=100km/s/Mpc.

Again, you keep poking at things I say without bothering to look at the data yourself. Why is that? As I said above, I'm just some random schmoe on the internet. You don't have any particular reason to listen to what I say. You should be listening to the data, and I've shown you where to get it, and suggested how to do the relevant calculations. If you do that, it should become amply clear why I've said Lerner gets this completely wrong. You'll learn a lot more that way than if I just try to explain it to you as I did when making those two plots.

16. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2011
Posts
1,384
Originally Posted by parejkoj
I'm aware of what he wrote. Sorry if my shorthand confused you. The plots (which you seem unable or unwilling to attempt to make yourself) I made in this post used mu=5log(cz/H0)-5 and mu=5log(D_L)-5, where D_L is the luminosity distance at each redshift given Omega_Lambda=0.73 and Omega_M=0.27, both taking H0=100km/s/Mpc.

Again, you keep poking at things I say without bothering to look at the data yourself. Why is that? As I said above, I'm just some random schmoe on the internet. You don't have any particular reason to listen to what I say. You should be listening to the data, and I've shown you where to get it, and suggested how to do the relevant calculations. If you do that, it should become amply clear why I've said Lerner gets this completely wrong. You'll learn a lot more that way than if I just try to explain it to you as I did when making those two plots.
So you are taking issue with his representation of the theoretical LCDM magnitude/red-shift relationship? Your first plot shows how LCDM theory is different from what he is claiming in his Figure 1 where he states "obtained from the concordance cosmology with Omega_M=0.26 and Omega =0.76 (dashed line)". If that's the plot you want me to make, I don't know how, but I can try to find out.

You have no issue with his claim that mu=5log(cz/H0)-5 closely matches the SN data. Correct?

17. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2011
Posts
1,384
Originally Posted by parejkoj
Again, you keep poking at things I say without bothering to look at the data yourself..
OK, I've went on a hunt for LCDM graphs and I think I have verified that his graph for the LCDM curve is not quite correct. If you look at the highest point that he plots (around log(z) = 0.25), mu should be about 45, not 44.5 as he shows. Also this statement:

It is remarkable that this relation gives very similar values (see Figure 1) to those computed using the concordance cosmology. The agreement is better than 0.3 mag over the whole range of redshift up to z =5 and for most of the range, including nearly the entire range covered by supernova observations, it is better than 0.1 mag.
looks to be incorrect. The agreement with LCDM could not be that good to z=5 and, over the range in his figure, the difference is more like 0.5 than 0.1. So yes this appears to be a mistake. However, I would also point out it has very little to do with the rest of the paper. It appears that he was trying to show that the models are quite similar at low z (which they are, but not as similar as he suggests) so that high z measurements are needed to resolve the surface brightness issue.

He goes on to show in figure 2 what he claims to be the surface brightness prediction from LCDM for a constant intrinsic surface brightness. Do you also take issue with that graph? Then he plots some points from his sample to show the difference between the LCDM prediction (for a constant intrinsic surface brightness) and observations. Finally he shows the same differences with his assumptions, apparently showing a better match. What do you take issue with here?

18. Established Member
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
386
Originally Posted by Don J
Are you saying that Lerner is not a Plasma Universe proponent ?
No I am not. Read what I wrote - no assertion that Lener is a proponent of anything.

Originally Posted by Don J
The objection made by Lerner is that a test at UV wavelengths is the real deal to test galaxies evolution. = ( This is the model he use )
This is not his objection.
Read what he asserts in chapter 3.1 page 8 in the 2005 paper: http://search.arxiv.org:8081/details...o-ph/0509611v2
His unsupported assertion (note the lack of citations) is there is an upper limit on the UV surface brightness in galaxies and thus the UV band is better for the test. This actually sounds reasonable until you realize that he has a "population of N hot bright stars" where N is a constant.

What he ignores is that galaxies evolve. Thus even the UV surface brightness varies with time.

This is not the worst part of the presentation. The really dumb part is that he compares a scientific model of the universe (the LCDM model) with a toy model that has no relationship with reality (his ENE model).
The first break with reality is that he throws away Special Relativity with the Euclidean part of his Euclidean non-expanding universe.
Then there is the non-expanding part means that somehow his galaxies have been accelerated to values of z that just happen to mimic an expanding universe.
The non-expanding part is ridiculous given the existence and properties of the CMB.
What happens if we run his toy model backwards? All 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe end up packed into the Milky Way. We call that a supermassive black hole!
This also makes the Milky Way (or maybe the Earth) a privileged location in the universe.
A non-expanding universe has been around forever so we run against Olbers' paradox.
The galaxies in a non-expanding universe have always existed. and so there should be no neutral hydrogen in the universe (light ionizes it). But we observe that neutral H exists and that it increases as we look back in time (Lyman-alpha forest that turns into the Gunn–Peterson trough at z > ~6). This is evidence that galaxies have not always existed.

ETA:
Don't you find it strange that there is no sign that this non-peer reviewed presentation at a conference in 2005 has been published in a scientific journal?
Don't you find it strange that there is no sign that Lener's next non-peer reviewed presentation at the next conference in 2008 has been published in a scientific journal?
If a conference presentation is not published then the implications are
• The author has found flaws in the science and decided not to publish or
• The author has no confidence in the science and decided not to publish or
• The presentation was submitted to journals but rejected by the editors as obviously flawed or
• The presentation was submitted to journals but the reviews pointed out enough flaws for the editors to reject it.
Last edited by Reality Check; 2012-May-14 at 11:50 PM.

19. Originally Posted by TooMany
...

Who has examined this paper? Originally published in 2005 I can find no citation. Nothing that denies the claim for example.
This kind of question/statement always makes me chuckle. Who honestly expects hard working people to publish papers to specifically disprove an idea that isn't even accepted? It is one thing to cite papers in support or cite papers and refute conclusions if your conclusion conflict with the current accepted models but to go out and write a paper to explicitly refute a fringe idea is practical most of the time.

The power of a paper is most easily gauged by the number of people that use that work in theirs. Kind of there is a "Like" in face book but no "Dislike". It isn't like slash dot ratings

20. Originally Posted by TooMany
He is not claiming that cz/H_0 is concordance cosmology, it's an assumption that he is making for comparison and is specifically not the concordance model.

OK, just to be sure I understand correctly, his plot for LCDM is entirely wrong and he must be using the wrong mathematics. It's too bad that everybody is too busy to tell him that. Consider this, that such things can mislead the public, so maybe it is worth someone actually writing a paragraph to respond to it publicly. After all, the people on this forum are constantly correcting people on their misconceptions.

...
If he ever tried to get that paper into a normal journal he probably has. I'll also bet he's also ignored the reviewers.

21. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,125
Originally Posted by Reality Check
This is not the worst part of the presentation. The really dumb part is that he compares a scientific model of the universe (the LCDM model) with a toy model that has no relationship with reality (his ENE model).
Lets talk about some strange concept the current scientific model propose :

Dark Matter annihilations in Pop III stars

'Frozen' stars could shed light on dark matter
NewScientist article
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14197
The universe's first stars were the rock stars of the stellar world: they lived fast and died young, burning out in only a few hundred thousand years.

But new research suggests some of them might still be around as a result of interactions with dark matter, which halted their growth and curbed their blazing excess.

"These stars can be frozen for timescales longer than the age of the universe," said Gianfranco Bertone of the Paris Institute of Astrophysics in France.
Gianfranco Bertone paper on which is based the article.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2681

Excerpt from the abstrac:
these stars exceeds the age of the Universe,
..."We determine the observational properties of these frozen objects and show that they can be searched for in the local Universe thanks to their anomalous mass-radius relation, which should allow unambiguous discrimination from normal stars."

22. Originally Posted by TooMany
So you are taking issue with his representation of the theoretical LCDM magnitude/red-shift relationship? Your first plot shows how LCDM theory is different from what he is claiming in his Figure 1 where he states "obtained from the concordance cosmology with Omega_M=0.26 and Omega =0.76 (dashed line)". If that's the plot you want me to make, I don't know how, but I can try to find out.
No, I want you to make the plot that I described in the text:

Originally Posted by parejkoj
...download the data from the Union2 team, plot z vs. mu, and then overplot z vs. mu for LCDM, cz/H_0, and whatever other cosmology you prefer.
Please tell me what's confusing about what I've written there? What part of that do you not understand, or find confusing?

Originally Posted by TooMany
You have no issue with his claim that mu=5log(cz/H0)-5 closely matches the SN data. Correct?
Let's look back at what I said earlier, as I thought I was being pretty explicit about this:

Originally Posted by parejkoj
This is not "[an] agreement ... better than 0.3 mag over the whole range of redshift up to z =5..." In fact, here's how different they are across the redshift range:

delta-mu LCDM vs. Lerner.png
Originally Posted by parejkoj
Certainly, his claim that a z vs. mu plot for supernova would match a line with mu~cz/H_0 is laughable. If you don't believe me, you can download the supernova data and try it yourself.

In fact, his non-expanding cosmology is ruled out quite nicely by the supernova data. Seriously: download the data from the Union2 team, plot z vs. mu, and then overplot z vs. mu for LCDM, cz/H_0, and whatever other cosmology you prefer. You've done a lot of accusing of astronomers of not doing their homework on these threads, but I haven't seen you do any actual calculations yourself.
Originally Posted by parejkoj
I suppose I shouldn't have said "laughable," but rather "completely and utterly pants-on-fire false," which would be wildly obvious to you if you made said plot.
How can I make my point more clear? Seriously, I thought I was being crystal clear about the situation, but apparently I wasn't.

Originally Posted by TooMany
OK, I've went on a hunt for LCDM graphs and I think I have verified that his graph for the LCDM curve is not quite correct. If you look at the highest point that he plots (around log(z) = 0.25), mu should be about 45, not 44.5 as he shows.
You're going looking for plots instead of making your own. I don't know and don't care where you've gone "on a hunt for LCDM graphs", but you aren't going to learn what's going on here until you do the calculations. There's no point in talking about the rest of Lerner's plots until you work through this one.

23. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
3,040
Lets talk about some strange concept the current scientific model propose
How are speculative extensions that are valid within a model given a range of unproven assumptions even vaguely related to the topic?

The paper does state that it is highly dependent on the DM/baryon cross section for interaction. Which is an unknown quantity but constrained to be very low. It is also dependent on very high DM concentrations (which is related to the first assumption). Finally it is heavily dependent on DM-DM interactions (annihilation events). Which again we don't know anything about because we have not characterised DM that well.

24. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,125
Originally Posted by Shaula
How are speculative extensions that are valid within a model given a range of unproven assumptions even vaguely related to the topic?

The paper does state that it is highly dependent on the DM/baryon cross section for interaction. Which is an unknown quantity but constrained to be very low. It is also dependent on very high DM concentrations (which is related to the first assumption). Finally it is heavily dependent on DM-DM interactions (annihilation events). Which again we don't know anything about because we have not characterised DM that well.
I want to verify if this is a peer reviewed paper accepted for publication in the mainstream scientific community ?

25. Originally Posted by Don J
Excerpt from the abstrac:
these stars exceeds the age of the Universe,
What do you think that means, the part you quoted (badly)?

26. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,125
Originally Posted by slang
What do you think that means, the part you quoted (badly)?
Can you tell me which part I have quoted (badly) ?

27. Originally Posted by Don J
Can you tell me which part I have quoted (badly) ?
Sure. You left something essential out at the start of the sentence. Now please tell me what you thought it meant?

28. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,125
Originally Posted by slang
Sure. You left something essential out at the start of the sentence. Now please tell me what you thought it meant?
Here the full quote preciding the (snippet)
We study the impact of the capture and annihilation of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs) on the evolution of Pop III stars. With a suitable modification of the Geneva stellar evolution code, we study the evolution of 20 and 200 M$_\odot$ stars in Dark Matter Haloes with densities between 10$^{8}$ and $10^{11}$ GeV/cm$^3$ during the core H-burning phase, and, for selected cases, until the end of the core He-burning phase. We find that for WIMP densities higher than 5.3 $10^{10}(\sigma^{SD}_p/10^{-38} {cm}^2)^{-1}$ GeV cm$^{-3}$ the core H-burning lifetime of $20 M_{\odot}$ and $200 M_{\odot}$stars exceeds the age of the Universe,
and the sentence following it "and stars are sustained only by WIMP annihilations."

29. Originally Posted by Don J
Here the full quote preciding the (snippet)
I know. You already linked to it. I've read it. That's not what I asked, is it? What do you think that sentence means?

30. Established Member
Join Date
Oct 2009
Posts
1,125
Originally Posted by slang
I know. You already linked to it. I've read it. That's not what I asked, is it? What do you think that sentence means?
Excerpt from the abstrac:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2681
[these] stars exceeds the age of the Universe,and [these] stars are sustained only by WIMP annihilations.
You mean what I think that sentence means in the context it is presented in rapport with the actual LCDM mainstream model ?

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•