is 26 GeV the magic number then, and is it by collision with the copper target nucleus that it is made? or is it near misses? glancing blows?Originally Posted by Grey
-MT
Banned
is 26 GeV the magic number then, and is it by collision with the copper target nucleus that it is made? or is it near misses? glancing blows?
-MT
Order of Kilopi
The mass of a proton is a little less than 1 GeV, so the bare minimum to produce a proton-antiproton pair is about 2 GeV. Increasing the energy never hurts, though, since it's also possible that other, less energetic reactions will occur. It is by direct collision, more or less. The most important part is that you want to stop the proton very suddenly. Then all that kinetic energy has to go somewhere, and it's released as high energy radiation and various particles.
Established Member
The bare minimum to produce proton-antiproton pair is 2 GeV, real minimum is 7 GeV , so 26 GeV is just enough I think.
It is interesting how to separate protons from antiprotons. They have made it in CERN and Fermilab. Is it possible in Quasar systems as well ?
Order of Kilopi
In principle, I expect so. Protons and anti-protons have opposite charge, so if you put them in a magnetic or electric field, they'd behave in exactly opposite manners, and would naturally separate. Keeping them isolated and confined, like they're doing at CERN and Fermilab, by some natural means instead would be a trickier matter, though.
Established Member
There could be an anti-universe far away ejected ?
Established Member
Now that is interesting. It's possible I suppose, if one of the other dimensions of string theory is macroscopic instead of micro, then, in theory: yes... As far as how to go about providing evidence for it... I have no clue.
Banned
8) Grey, thank you, and are you an evolved dinosaur?
Also, i would gather that it is your suggestion that what the world needs.... is quark processing technology.
Facinating, and i feel inspired once again to work towards new avenues of thought regarding the perfection of a technology fundamentally grounded in what i call dimensional scales.
going back to field theory, let suppose for a momment that matter did begin as one massive super mass of whatever.. quarks.. whatever.
and further let us suppose, that the first bang.. gave off large chunks.
gave them up from the center of space.
and these chunks.. then exploded into clouds of smaller chunks.. the mass of galaxies..
13 billion yrs ago..
these chunks.. exploded into clouds of star mass chunks..
and these star mass chunks exploded into clouds of nucleons.. clouds 4.6 billions yrs ago, which became the dust and nebulas of the galaxies...
in our case.. into a solar system..
and the reason stars explode and leave behind a dwarf, is because the dwarf was there when all these stars were born...
you allude to the quantities of the elements, well, that could simply be represetative of a universal constant in decay of pre solar system masses
Honestly, if you think about it, draw it out on paper, and use all the data you have for your big bang model, you will find that with few variations this model can fit as well, and give reasoning and logic conserning details that have been with big bang, mysterious.
and if this redicualous proposal is accurate then it proposes things which you cannot even imagine when you believe in curved space, big bang, and fusion as the basis of your reality.
and of course if it all began with one big mass, then that means there are no black holes.
-MT
Established Member
A white dwarf is simply too massive and would accrete matter until it surpassed electron degeneracy pressure and further still right on through neutron degeneracy pressure into a black hole.
Using white dwarfs or neutron stars as anchors for star birth just won't work.
Edit to further add:
In the earliest moments of the universe, according to the standard model of cosmology (I still love charlie in dayton's astro cosmotology), there was very little space and a single force that we really don't understand. If the theory is correct, and piles of data point that way, gravity would behaive differently than we expect it to...
Banned
8) Your supposing that matter can and will implode into higher levels of density..
what if the reverse is true..
what if matter wont implode because of pressure?
what if it is resistant?
how would we know? it can go both ways.. and still the heavens would look the same.
-MT
Moderator
How about observation?
Rules For Posting To This Board
All Moderation in Purple
Established Member
I have read there is almost impossible to create the star over 15 sun masses because of the radiation pressure. How then were the Black Holes with millions suns masses created ?
Established Member
150 sun masses, not 15. From Wikipedia:
On the other hand, to create a black hole, you need only 3 solar masses. Again from Wikipedia:One of the most massive stars known is η Carinae, with 100–150 times as much mass as the Sun. Recent work by Donald Figer, an astronomer at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Maryland, suggests that 150 solar masses is the upper limit of stars in the current era of the universe
The black holes you refer to are a special category,A quantitative analysis of this idea led to the prediction that a star remaining about three times the mass of the Sun at the end of its evolution (usually as a neutron star), will almost inevitably shrink to the critical size needed to undergo a gravitational collapse. Once it starts, the collapse cannot be stopped by any physical force, and a black hole is created.
I know that Wikipedia is not a scientific source, but the basic info in these articles represents some of our current knowledge of stars and balck holes, and there is no real problem as far a I can see with the creation of these black holes (normal ones or supermassive).Supermassive black holes containing millions to billions of solar masses could also form wherever a large number of stars are packed in a relatively small region of space, or by large amounts of mass falling into a "seed" black hole, or by repeated fusion of smaller black holes. The necessary conditions are believed to exist in the centers of some (if not most) galaxies, including our own Milky Way.
Order of Kilopi
The resistance to collapse depends on the equations of state for the fluid in question. At a high enough mass, the collapse due to gravity overwhelms the resistance and you get a black hole. The approximate cutoffs are:
less than 1.44 solar masses = white dwarf
1.44 to 3-8 = neutron star
above 3-8 = black hole.
Nope. Try here for a discussion of neutron stars.
Established Member
In "SPACE" are they saying it very difficult.
Collapse or Collision: The Big Question in Star Formation
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...eigh_star.html
Order of Kilopi
The dinosaurs died out. I prefer to think of myself as an evolved tree shrew, if we're going back that far.
Well, it would be great, but don't hold your breath. it will be a long time before we have control at that kind of scale, and given the quantum nature of reality, it may not be possible to control things that scale the way we are accustomed for larger things.
Why would they do so? Even if we make up new rules of physics and decide that huge pieces of matter that dense could somehow overcome their gravitational attraction, why would the pieces be flung tens of thousands of light years away to form a galaxy? It would seem more likely that galaxies would be much more compact objects. Similarly, we actually see galaxies accreting by the mergers of smaller galaxies, so why should we just assume that isn't how they form, when assuming that is how they form allows the models to successfully duplicate the structure we actually see.
Furthermore, when we look at the largest scale, superclusters, we see that these are actually still falling together right now. That is, they are in the processing of forming through gravitational collapse. If your idea were correct, they should have started out close together, so they should already be formed. That is, your model assumes a top-down formation of the universe. However, even within the Big Bang theory, there's room for both a top-down model and a bottom-up model of structure formation. Observational evidence says that it looks like bottom-up is the right description.
When we look at multiple stellar mass neutron stars, just like the objects you're describing, they appear completely gravitationally stable, and that meshes perfectly with general relativity, which has also been tested in many other ways. Why should we assume that both observation and theory are incorrect without evidence for it?
Then you'll need to come up with some way to keep these stars stable against gravitational collapse if there's no fusion in the core.
This is pretty vague. The Big Bang model actually gives detailed numerical predictions for the relative abundance of elements that match quite well with observation, so you'd have to do at least that well. For example, what is this universal decay constant? How does it affect that stability of atoms? Why would atoms like iron or copper or lead or argon, which seem completely stable today, have nearly all broken apart in the earlier universe? This is especially tricky since, to break apart atoms down to hydrogen, you actually have to put in a pretty large amount of energy; they won't spontaneously split. If there was such a forceful drive for material to break apart, why wouldn't it all have done so immediately, leaving a sea of free particles at the very beginning, rather than breaking up so gradually? So here, you'd actually have to come up with a detailed model of nuclear decay that actually matches the observed element distribution, not just give a vague suggestion.
I don't actually think that's the case.
I can't actually think of any observations that would be explained better by your model than by the Big Bang. Perhaps you could suggest a few?
Such as?
Right, because for your theory to work, black holes can't form, since these huge masses need to be able to explode. Yet general relativity suggests that black holes are possible, and we've discovered many objects that behave just like black holes would, from theoretical considerations. Again, with no evidence in favor, why should we discard our best current model for gravity, as well as direct observations?
Newbie
It all depends on the amount of matter there, and what reactions are taking place..
What if matter won't implode because of pressure??? Well, that would simply be an explosion, which does happen. But to truly understand what is happening in regards to stars, and their evolution, you first have to understand what is going on inside the star with regards to fusion, mass, etc...
As the star is forming from the dust of the proto-solar system, the dust at the center contracts more and more as gravity causes the dust "grains" to collect closer and closer together, increasing both pressure and heat (almost identical, but that is beyond the scope of what I am writing here....). Once the amount of heat and gravitationally induced pressure is high enough, the bits of gas (and dust, rocks, slow aliens.... ;-) ) at the center begins to fuse, emitting a large amount of heat and radiation, and causing the pressure generated by the gravitational crunch to balance out with the pressure created by the "explosion" that is happening at the core, to form the star as we know it. This is what happened to our star and all other stars.... In Sol's case, this happened ~4.6 billion years ago....
Fast forward a few billion years from now.... As our star begins to exhaust up its stores of hydrogen in it's center, it will then begin to collapse as the mass has essentially stayed the same, but the pressure generated by the fusion is not strong enough to counter-act the inward pressure of gravity. As the star begins to collapse, pressure in the center necessarily goes up, raising the temp as well, until it hits the level that is necessary to fuse helium. I won't go into the calculations here, but if you are self-schooled in physics, you should be able to figure this out on yor own... Once that threshold is crossed, the star will then expand more as the outward pressure from the release of energy more than counteracts the inward pressure of gravity (but not explosively so...) and the star will have a new "diameter"... This will happen again and again until the star does not have enough mass to cause the next round of fusion to take place, and gravity wins out...
At this point, several things happen, depending on the mass of the star in question... For our star (by definition below the Chandraeshkar (sp???) limit..) what will cause the implosion to stop??? Electrons... This has been mentioned in an earlier post, but will be brought up again here, to lay the foundation for the second stop along the stellar graveyard train.... As the stellar mass is compressed further and further, the electrons begin to vibrate uncontrollably.... They are squeezed into smaller and smaller shells around the nucleus of the atom until they can't be squeezed any closer, and electron degeneracy pressure kicks in and stops the inward squeeze of the implosion.... The star is now a white dwarf and will cool here until it looses enough heat to stop glowing and become a "black dwarf"... A BROWN dwarf is nothing more than a failed star, one that doesn't have enough mass to ignite the first round of fusion.... This is where our star will wind up.... This is where all stars, from a ~1.4 final solar masses and lower will wind up...
The next stop is a neutron star. Here, the gravitational "pressure" is strong enough to overcome the electron degeneracy pressure and cause the electrons and protons to fuse into neutrons... Because neutrons have a higher threshold of "degeneracy pressure", they can resist much more gravitational "pressure" and stop the inward pull of gravity. As this is all that remains in the core, you now have a neutron star. Here, all stars with a final solar mass of ~1.4 - 3 or 4 solar masses wind up.
Beyond that??? Everyone's favorite, the black hole.... Here, the inward pull of gravity is so strong that it overcomes the neutron degeneracy pressure and collapses into a singularity, forming a black hole.... Anything with a final solar mass of greater than ~4 will wind up....
I say "final solar mass" as it is not the mass of the star itself that will determine what happens, but the mass of the star AFTER any nova's, super nova's happen to remove mass from the star and blow it into the universe....
BTW, all this is paraphrased from my own research in astronomy / cosmology and reading several books on the subject... If you have to read only one book, I recommend Black Holes and Time Warps by Kip Thorne (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...s&n=507846)
... Much of what is in that tome is paraphrased here....
Newbie
Nope... Oppie (Oppenheimer) proved this was not the case, as was initially postulated by Lev Landau with neutron cores powering stars....
Also, if you look at my last epic post (ironically my first....) just thinking about it, there in no way that a dwarf core could exist inside a star....
Banned
8) What always amazes me is how people can suppose for a moment that our understanding is clear and somehow proven.
Thats what man said 500 years ago, 1000 years ago..
Wisdom requires that you accept that whatever your understanding is today about the vast universe, it is without much doubt, seriously flawed, and deluded..
I have a proposal but i except it as just described.
You all seem to follow allong the accepted lines and hold attitudes which suggest you blindly except things like an expanding space, curved space, and fusion and big bang are without doubt...
Well, forgive me if i have doubt.
What i see is how creative people can and have always find ways to incorporate everything new we discover into a progressive rise in understanding following specific basic lines..
Lines which themselves predestine our study efforts.
for it is our theories and interpretaions of evidense which form the road we are on, and presently building.. the next steps in clearing the path is preset by the nature and direction of the road being bult.
for example.. all our glorious math suggested super black holes couldnt exist.. then we found them.. and we went back to the math, and some brilliant guys show us.. sure we can.. it can fit, and so, we can all breathe a sigh of releif, for we dont have to re-write all the books...
I would ask this.. does any one have reference to the measured rates of motion for the following.
1) the rate of spin, of stars around average galaxies..
2) the rates of motions of galaxies around superclusters.
-MT
Established Member
No scientific theory is provably correct, and no scientist would say otherwise. Hasn't this already been covered in this thread?
Indeed, there wouldn't be much point in a brilliant young student becoming a scientist if there was nothing left to figure out. But wisdom also requires that you build on, or at least understand, the existing body of knowledge rather than appealing to your own ignorance as as if it were a virtue.Wisdom requires that you accept that whatever your understanding is today about the vast universe, it is without much doubt, seriously flawed, and deluded..
How do you know how deeply people have questioned these things before accepting that these theories are the best we have, a theorectically consistent set of predictions that are born out observationally.You all seem to follow allong the accepted lines and hold attitudes which suggest you blindly except things like an expanding space, curved space, and fusion and big bang are without doubt...
You would have more sympathy if you understood where you disagreed with a theory. As it is you appear to be completely ignorant of them, and unwilling to do any work youself to remedy that.Well, forgive me if i have doubt.
True, science has appearted to have gotten into a rut in the past, until some brilliant new way of looking at things was discovered. But this was only ever done by someone who already understood the then current theories.What i see is how creative people can and have always find ways to incorporate everything new we discover into a progressive rise in understanding following specific basic lines..
Lines which themselves predestine our study efforts.
for it is our theories and interpretaions of evidense which form the road we are on, and presently building.. the next steps in clearing the path is preset by the nature and direction of the road being bult.
IRC, black holes were first predicted by general relativity, then discovered indirectly (you can't see them, they're black).for example.. all our glorious math suggested super black holes couldnt exist.. then we found them.. and we went back to the math, and some brilliant guys show us.. sure we can.. it can fit, and so, we can all breathe a sigh of releif, for we dont have to re-write all the books...
I would ask this.. why don't you do some research yourself. You don't even need to buy books or subscribe to journals these days. You could just try using google - afterall, the stuff you're asking for is pretty basic.I would ask this.. does any one have reference to the measured rates of motion for the following.
1) the rate of spin, of stars around average galaxies..
2) the rates of motions of galaxies around superclusters.
-MT
Honored Member
Hey, wait a minute. I don't blindly except things. When I except something from the realm of probabilities and possibilities, it's based on reliable, repeatable information derived from actual observations of nature.
No exceptions!
Newbie
No one is criticising you for having doubts, far from it.... We ARE however, cirticising those doubts.... Let me ask you this:
2 + 3 = 5, correct????
Suppose: 2 + x = 5
What is x??? 3, yes... That would be Newtonian mechanics... Correct?? yes, but can be made more detailed.....
x = 3 sin(90) Same result, just a little more detailed... This would be GTR... More detailed, but can be made more detailed....
x = tan (71.56505118) sin (90) Same result, just a little more detailed.. This would be quantum mechanics.... More detailed, but can be made more detailed....
Seeing a pattern here??? This is what science does, it constantly pushes boundaries and forges new understandings as to how things work... Not why, but how... Why is left to the philosophers...
What "glorious math suggested super black holes couldnt exist...." ??? Before GTR, there was no math to describe a black hole, but the concept has existed since the days of Newton... Do some research on that.... Also have to remember, once Schwarzchild was able to prove thru Einstein's own equations that black holes could in fact exist (math, not feeling) Einstein had to insert a "cosmological constant" to stop it from working, based on a feeling he had (feeling, not math).. Einstein was wrong, Schwarzchild was right....
I am sure that someone has.... Google it and find out for yourself, as that is the only way to know that you found it out, and we didn't have to tell you. Just make sure that when you find out, you adjust your theories to fit the data, and not the data to fit your theory....
Banned
8)
Ok, just so im clear on this.
Everyone hear believes in, as their foundation of beliefs the following.
1) There was some kind of big bang, and matter began as hydrogen and helium gases. mostly.
2) and that gravity is a warping of and or curving of space-time around masses.
3) The reason the galaxies move in orbit of superclusters, is some kind of vortex force/gravity thing.
4) The reason galaxies have orbitals in motions is due to that same vortex deal.
5) All the matter that is our solar system was supposively a gas, which was somehow effected by a nova nearby to cause this Gas cloud to condense and due to that vortex thinger spin into the star and planets we know and love.
6) you believe in Kaos theory and random formation.
7) You also believe that all of the confussion which i propose still exists, simply does not.
Is that right?
-MT
Order of Kilopi
No.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Banned
what does that mean..? is there a part that is wrong?No.
-MT
Established Member
I don't believe this, although to me it makes sense that when matter is created, it begins as hydrogen.
I doubt this.
I do believe that gravity causes these, but I have no idea what you mean by vortex force.
I assume that there are plenty of open questions in Solar system formation, but it seems sensible to me. If vortex here means pre-existing rotation which accelerates as cloud condenses, then it too makes sense to me.
It seems to me that Chaos theory is just a description of some processes that occur in nature. As such, I don't have problem with it. But I don't believe that truly random processes exist.
So far I haven't seen you propose anything that would add my confusion.
As you can see from my answers, it is not right. You should browse around here in some other threads, you would see that there are lot of people with very different opinions.
Banned
8) Well, if so many learned people can have so many varied views as to many specific details.... doesnt that suggest the simple reality that alot of these proposals are woefully in-adequate...
The establishment teaches.. curved space, big bang, and a hydrogen helium beginning.. and learning these things we all work along those lines... but what if those fundamentals are wrong?
If you just except it based on questionable data and math, then you may as well be religious and take it on faith.
If you honestly believe in a hydrogen helium beginning, then it obviously will effect all your thoughts, ideas and efforts...
And as it is, we are all taught these things as fundamental, when in truth the truely learned amoung you here knows and realizes that in truth alot of it is questionalble to a great degree.. thus the search of a unifying principle.
I have developed what i believe to be such, but i am wise enough to know its limitations, and am hesitant to totally embarrass myself before those who are trained to ridicule others for stupidity.
I put it to you.. what could be the smallest thing in the universe.?
i would say that it must be a one dimensional line of spatial tension.
electrostatic tension... nothing could be smaller...
-MT
Honored Member
The main error in what you presented is the constant use of the words "believe" and "belief". These have nothing to do with science.what does that mean..? is there a part that is wrong?No.
-MT
Scientific inquiry has to do with information and knowledge gained through observation and experimentation. As the sum of these data increases, some of it, through improved and/or different observations/experiments is found to be less descriptive of reality than previously thought, and is either modified or discarded. Hence the mass of scientific data is a dynamic structure, rather than a fixed catalog of "beliefs".
Since the approaches to modifying and/or adding to the dynamic mass of scientific knowledge are varied (as a result of creativity, new data, etc.), it is not unusual for there to be many differing scientific views of what is valid and what is not. But all these various views are subject to scrutiny and testing by the scientific method. Those views, or rather, hypotheses, that survive these tests and scrutiny, become part of our scientific knowledge. Those that don't are discarded (at least, by the scientists).
Unlike beliefs and dogma, in science everything is subject to question. But through the scientific method it is shown that not all questions and proposed answers are valid.
Newbie
Again, you are trying to equate religion and science, and the two have nothing to do with each other, really.... Problem is, religion is based entirely on faith, and science is based entirely on fact... Belief / faith is nothing more than acceptance as fact without any evidence supporting it. When you say "Everyone here [sp] believes in...." What you are trying to say is "Everyone here has accepted as fact without any evidence to support it...." is just plain wrong... The math supports it, as does logic and step-by-step thinking....
No, point of fact, matter started out as energy... That whole Big Bang thing....
Has been proven before thru gravitational lenses, perihelion shift of Mercury, etc... etc... etc...
Vortex deal???? What is that???? I think you are trying to coin a new phrase to explain something already understood and, to some extent, taken for granted.... As two (or more) objects are drawn together due to gravity, they are not drawn to each other, but a central point. Well, the more objects you have the more perturbations you will get in their courses towards each other, and as such, they will "collapse" non-uniformly. As they are all in motin, they will begin to spin, and as a figure skater that pulls their arms in will spin faster, so to will the objects that are being drawn to each other.... That spinning must be the "vortex deal" you are trying to allude to.... No faith, no belief, just plain old physics...
Not just a gas, but dust as well.... And who knows what that gas was made out of, or what its particular make up was... But as all objects in a centrifuge, objects of same or similar masses will begin to spin together, clumping... Follow that train of thought and see where it takes you...
Chaos theory has nothing to do with random formation, it has to do with unpredictibality in complex systems...
Nope.... At least among those that have bothered to look into it instead of hitting that dread "I believe button" that I keep hearing about.... With those people that hit the button, I can see where confusion hits, but not with those that know what you are talking about...
Established Member
And lets no forget theorectical predictions, experiments and observationsAgain, you are trying to equate religion and science, and the two have nothing to do with each other, really.... Problem is, religion is based entirely on faith, and science is based entirely on fact... Belief / faith is nothing more than acceptance as fact without any evidence supporting it. When you say "Everyone here [sp] believes in...." What you are trying to say is "Everyone here has accepted as fact without any evidence to support it...." is just plain wrong... The math supports it, as does logic and step-by-step thinking....
I wouldn't say proven. The theory of general relativity makes predictions that unprecedentedly match observation on this scale.Has been proven before thru gravitational lenses, perihelion shift of Mercury, etc... etc... etc...
Yeah, it sounds like MT is talking about angular momentum. It should be remembered that that momentum doesn't get created by the gravitational attraction but must be there to start with (presumably due to the non-uniformity of the big bang). To conserve this angular momentum everything must start to spin round the center of gravity at a faster rate as everything is drawn in, as per your skater example.Vortex deal???? What is that???? I think you are trying to coin a new phrase to explain something already understood and, to some extent, taken for granted.... As two (or more) objects are drawn together due to gravity, they are not drawn to each other, but a central point. Well, the more objects you have the more perturbations you will get in their courses towards each other, and as such, they will "collapse" non-uniformly. As they are all in motin, they will begin to spin, and as a figure skater that pulls their arms in will spin faster, so to will the objects that are being drawn to each other.... That spinning must be the "vortex deal" you are trying to allude to.... No faith, no belief, just plain old physics...
I don't kow anyting about star and planet formation, but I don't think it is similar to a centrifuge. All the mass swirling around the CoG is in free fall so what constitutes the mass shouldn't affect its path. Maybe you're talking about some derived effect which I am unaware of.Not just a gas, but dust as well.... And who knows what that gas was made out of, or what its particular make up was... But as all objects in a centrifuge, objects of same or similar masses will begin to spin together, clumping... Follow that train of thought and see where it takes you...
Newbie
Well, it is "proven" only in so far as anything scientific can be proven. It is, until someone can come up with a more detailed explanation of what is going on.... See my post on 2+3=5 for where that train of thought started. Bad choice of words on my part, I guess.....
Momentum is "created" as the objects start to move.... All depends on what frame of reference you pick as to where the momentum is directed. But it is the conservation of angular momentum that causes solar systems, galaxies, etc. to "spin".
It doesn't.... My bad... Is what I get for trying to think with a severe caffiene defficiency in the morning.... :-? I promise it won't happen again... I was trying to draw a parallel to how matter is seperated in a centrifuge (heavier stuff falls out first, followed by second heaviest, etc...) and how it seems to clump when the primordial system is collapsing to form the star, planets, etc...
Posting Permissions
