What If Missing Particles and Stuff Cannot Be Found?

[wolram]

There are many papers in the arxiv that require some as yet to be found particle, for the said papers to be valid such as.

the axion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion
the Graviton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
the Higgs boson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

When i say valid i mean that, if the required particle is proven not to exist the paper is falsified.
This leads me to ask, where will theories lead if the existence of any, all of these particles are found not to exist?

But it is not just" missing particles", huge chunks of the mass of the universe are missing.

Dark energy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
Dark matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

So i ask the same question.

Although some theories do not require some of this missing
"stuff", these theories seem to be on the fringe of main stream science,
i am not sure how many if not all are falsifiable, but unless some of this missing ,"stuff" , is found then it seems nearly every paper on this subject is falsified.

 

[wolram]

http://cast.web.cern.ch/CAST/
The CAST experiment to find the AXION

http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/higgs.html
The search for the HIGGS BOSON.

http://members.surfeu.at/dchakalov/LHC.html
The Large Haddron Collider, search for the HIGGs, And an insight to the
efforts and cost expended in the search.

 

[turbo]

This situation is pretty frustrating. If you work on a model that does not require these things, people who gladly believe in these things will publicly call you a crank and denigrate you. These same people will blithely keep believing in the mysterious entities, and when the best, most expensive telescopes, colliders, underground detectors, etc, in the world fail to detect them, they say "well, we have to wait until the NEXT big telescope/collider/detector comes on line, because entity X will be detected at a higher resolution/energy level/sensitivity than we predicted when we built the last instrument." This kind of behavior is more indicative of blind faith than logical inquiry.

 

[wolram]

By TURBO 1
This situation is pretty frustrating. If you work on a model that does not require these things, people who gladly believe in these things will publicly call you a crank and denigrate you. These same people will blithely keep believing in the mysterious entities, and when the best, most expensive telescopes, colliders, underground detectors, etc, in the world fail to detect them, they say "well, we have to wait until the NEXT big telescope/collider/detector comes on line, because entity X will be detected at a higher resolution/energy level/sensitivity than we predicted when we built the last instrument." This kind of behavior is more indicative of blind faith than logical inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can well imagine this frustration, especially if one has a falsifiable
theory on the back burner.
I am trying to look forward and guess if any of these particles, entities
will ever be "discovered", to date the search for same is akin to climbing
a greasy pole that gets ever taller.
But until the existence or lack of for this stuff is proven the arxives
is just a deposit of unfinished synphonies.

 

[wolram]

If String theory is to be included, then also Missing "entities" are
extra dimensions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

As of 2005, string theory is unverifiable. It is by no means the only theory currently being developed which suffers from this difficulty; any new development can pass through a stage of unverifiability before it becomes conclusively accepted or rejected. As Richard Feynman noted in The Character of Physical Law, the key test of a scientific theory is whether its consequences agree with the measurements we take in experiments. It does not matter who invented the theory, "what his name is", or even how aesthetically appealing the theory may be—"if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong." (Of course, there are subsidiary issues: something may have gone wrong with the experiment, or perhaps the person computing the consequences of the theory made a mistake. All these possibilities must be checked, which may take a considerable time.) No version of string theory has yet made a prediction which differs from those made by other theories—at least, not in a way that an experiment could check. In this sense, string theory is still in a "larval stage": it possesses many features of mathematical interest, and it may yet become supremely important in our understanding of the Universe, but it requires further developments before it can become verifiable. These developments may be in the theory itself, such as new methods of performing calculations and deriving predictions, or they may be advances in experimental science, which make formerly ungraspable quantities measurable.

 

[wolram]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_radiation
Although it seems that Gravitational radiation is accepted as" real"
AFAIK it has not been detected to date.

 

[wolram]

http://tw.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0504241

a search for WIMP dark matter.

This is one of the prime candidates for DM, There are some results but
not very definitive.

 

[wolram]

I guess this seems a very negative thread, Main stream cosmology theories
auto, seems to be running without an engine or wheels, but that could
change at any time with one discovery, maybe some one out there has
a brighter take on the situation, i would love to hear good news

 

[wolram]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9506/9506171.pdf

A small scale structure of space time.
A bibiographical review.
this is dated Jan 96 so it is quite old, maybe some one has a more up to date
overview?

 

[owl3951]

The explosion of physics in the first half of the 20th was primarily based upon simple mechanics, mostly of motion--spin, collision, movement of a particle on the surface of a sphere, speed of light, etc. I, being old-fashioned, tend to get a little nervous about explaining the cosmos when we move far away from the simplest views and approaches. Dark energy and matter seem to become a fudge factor for what we can't yet explain. We lose sight of Occam's razor. I guess the only point of this post is that it reveals my bias towards the fundamentals, and the fact that I believe the "secrets" to be revealed will still come from exploration of basic mechanics.

 

[wolram]

The explosion of physics in the first half of the 20th was primarily based upon simple mechanics, mostly of motion--spin, collision, movement of a particle on the surface of a sphere, speed of light, etc. I, being old-fashioned, tend to get a little nervous about explaining the cosmos when we move far away from the simplest views and approaches. Dark energy and matter seem to become a fudge factor for what we can't yet explain. We lose sight of Occam's razor. I guess the only point of this post is that it reveals my bias towards the fundamentals, and the fact that I believe the "secrets" to be revealed will still come from exploration of basic mechanics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess the development of new maths opened up new possibilities, but
when all the calculations are done and they predict some thing is missing
and that thing can not be found it must at least suggest the possibility
that some thing is wrong.
It could be that it is to early to sound the alarm bells, but it seems that
there are to many triggers to keep them silent.

 

[wolram]

I have just found this in the reference library courtesy of MARCUS

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0503107
Understanding Our Universe: Current Status and Open Issues
T. Padmanabhan
To appear in "100 Years of Relativity - Space-time Structure: Einstein and Beyond", A.Ashtekar (Editor), World Scientific (Singapore, 2005); 30 pages; 4 figures

"Last couple of decades have been the golden age for cosmology. High quality data confirmed the broad paradigm of standard cosmology but have thrusted upon us a preposterous composition for the universe which defies any simple explanation, thereby posing probably the greatest challenge theoretical physics has ever faced. Several aspects of these developments are critically reviewed, concentrating on conceptual issues and open questions. [Topics discussed include: Cosmological Paradigm, Growth of structures in the universe, Inflation and generation of initial perturbations, Temperature anisotropies of the CMBR, Dark energy, Cosmological Constant, Deeper issues in cosmology.]"

 

[Starship]

Even if superstring theory is correct, it probably will never be proved in this millenia because we can't reach the energy scales needed. Only in some 10,000 years from now it will become possible.

 

[wolram]

Even if superstring theory is correct, it probably will never be proved in this millenia because we can't reach the energy scales needed. Only in some 10,000 years from now it will become possible.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Starship

I know very little about ST and how it can be tested,or if it can, other
than the few over views i have read, i do know that these extra dimensions
are being looked for by high energy experiments, but you say in 10,000 yrs
from now, is it so far beyond us?

 

[SpaceTiger]

There's also Pop III stars, cosmic strings (different from string theory), B-mode polarization of the CMB, the integrated sachs-wolfe effect, and many more, I'm sure. I'll keep thinking about it while I'm attending the talk that's starting now.

 

[wolram]

There's also Pop III stars, cosmic strings (different from string theory), B-mode polarization of the CMB, the integrated sachs-wolfe effect, and many more, I'm sure. I'll keep thinking about it while I'm attending the talk that's starting now.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am agog ,"about the talk that is that is starting now," i know about cosmic
strings, and there falsification, but what is this talk about?

 

[SpaceTiger]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am agog ,"about the talk that is that is starting now," i know about cosmic
strings, and there falsification, but what is this talk about?

I just meant I didn't have time to write a longer post cause I had to attend a talk. I'm a student, you know.

The talk was about period-finding in photometric data.

 

[wolram]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_string

A cosmic string is a hypothetical 1-dimensional topological defect in the fabric of spacetime. Cosmic strings are hypothesized to form when different regions of spacetime undergo phase changes, resulting in domain boundaries between the two regions when they meet. This is somewhat analogous to the boundaries that form between crystal grains in solidifying liquids, or the cracks that form when water freezes into ice.

Cosmic strings, if they exist, would be extremely thin with diameters on the same order as a proton. They would have immense density, however, and so would represent significant gravitational sources. A cosmic string 1.6 kilometers in length would exert more gravity than the Earth. Cosmic strings would form a network of loops in the early universe, and their gravity could have been responsible for the original clumping of matter into galactic superclusters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A bit about the cosmic strings, mentioned by Space Tiger.

 

[Chronos]

Theories are great. I love a great theory. However, theories that explain perceived anomalies, while ignoring all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, are likely to be wrong. Especially the ones that suggest modern scientists are too idiotic, or brainwashed, to tell the difference.

I am still awaiting an example of a high redshift entity superimposed "directly in front" of a lower redshift object. A single example will suffice.

 

[wolram]

T Padmanabhan

"Last couple of decades have been the golden age for cosmology. High quality data confirmed the broad paradigm of standard cosmology but have thrusted upon us a preposterous composition for the universe which defies any simple explanation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
By CHRONOS
I am still awaiting an example of a high redshift entity superimposed "directly in front" of a lower redshift object. A single example will suffice.

I guess it is possible that the composition of the universe is not "preposterous,
may be it is the, "broad pardigram of standard cosmology", that is preposterous.

But i am certainly not qualified to make a judgment."

 

[wolram]

Originally Posted by SpaceTiger
There's also Pop III stars


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_III_stars

Population III stars
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Population III stars are a hypothetical population of extremely massive stars that are believed to have been formed in the early universe. They have not been observed directly, but are thought to be components of faint blue galaxies. Their existence is necessary to account for the fact that heavy elements, which could not have been created in the Big Bang, are observed in quasar spectra as well as the existence of faint blue galaxies. It is believed that these stars triggered a period of reionization.

Current theory is divided on whether the first stars were very massive or not. One theory, which seems to be borne out by computer models of stellar evolution, is that with no heavy elements from the Big Bang, it was easy to form stars much more massive than the ones visible today. Typical masses for population III stars are believed to be about several hundred solar masses, which is much larger than current stars. This also conveniently explains why there have been no low-mass stars with zero metalicity observed. Modifications to this theory have shown that stars this massive may not in fact be able to form, and will have roughly 100 solar masses instead. Confirmation of these theories awaits the advent of NASA's James Webb Space Telescope.

The greatest mass of star which may form today is about 110 solar masses. Any attempt to form a star greater than this results in the resulting protostar blowing itself apart during the initial ignition of nuclear reactions. Without enough carbon, oxygen and nitrogen in the core, however, the CNO cycle could not begin and the star would not go nuclear with such enthusiasm. Direct fusion through the proton-proton chain, however, does not proceed quickly enough to produce the copious amounts of energy such a star would need to support its immense bulk. The end result would be the star collapsing into a black hole without ever actually shining properly. These stars, if through new physics we do not yet know much about, were able to form properly then their lifespan would be extremely short, less than one million years certainly. As they can no longer form today, observing one would require us to look to the very edges of the observable universe. Seeing this distance while still being able to resolve a star could prove difficult even for the James Webb Space Teles

cope.

 

[wolram]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Planckian_problem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In black hole physics and inflationary cosmology, the trans-Planckian problem refers to the appearance of quantities beyond the Planck scale, which raise doubts on the physical validity of some results in these two areas, since one expects the physical laws to suffer radical modifications beyond the Planck scale.

In black hole physics, the original derivation of Hawking radiation involved field modes whose frequencies near the black hole horizon have arbitrarily high frequencies -- in particular, higher than the inverse Planck time, although these do not appear in the final results. A number of different alternative derivations have been proposed in order to overcome this problem.

The trans-Planckian problem can be conveniently considered in the framework of sonic black holes, condensed matter systems which can be described in a similar way as real black holes. In these systems, the analogue of the Planck scale is the interatomic scale, where the continuum description loses its validity. One can study whether in these systems the analogous process to Hawking radiation still occurs despite the short-scale cutoff represented by the interatomic distance.

The trans-Planckian problem also appears in inflationary cosmology. The cosmological scales that we nowadays observe correspond to length scales smaller than the Planck length at the onset of inflation.

 

[turbo]

Theories are great. I love a great theory. However, theories that explain perceived anomalies, while ignoring all the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, are likely to be wrong. Especially the ones that suggest modern scientists are too idiotic, or brainwashed, to tell the difference.

I am still awaiting an example of a high redshift entity superimposed "directly in front" of a lower redshift object. A single example will suffice.

Here you go.

http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:astro-ph/0409215

You rejected this example out-of-hand earlier, saying that it wasn't directly superimposed over the nucleus of the galaxy. Of course, that would make it almost impossible to detect, and if we did detect it, you would fall back on the "lensing" argument. I can forsee no observation that will cause you to seriously consider the possibility that some objects can have intrinsic redshifts. You have too much invested in calling Arp and the Burbidges names and ridiculing their work.

Go to these SLAC lectures and listen to the Rocky Kolb lectures. Not every physicist is convinced that the standard model is viable.

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C0307282/lecture_program.html

Observational astronomers (and Arp is one of the best) and experimentalists like Kolb seem to be willing to ask "why?" when observation doesn't match theory, while cosmologists seem content to tweak the theory to match observation, adding complications all the way. This is not the way science is supposed to work.

 

[wolram]

turbo-1

People reading this thread may not know your point, may be a few words
would help.

 

[wolram]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0501/0501090.pdf

I do not want this thread to turn into a redshift debate, but i thought
the works of H ARP and his alternate views should come under the
title, missing stuff.

 

[ohwilleke]

The implicit question wolram raises flows from a folk theorem of the history of science. In essence the folk theorem says that if you've got a huge mess of stuff that is unexplained phenemena under existing theories that you may be on the verge of having an insight that makes sense of most of them.

Analogous times in the history of science were the period in QM research when we had a "particle zoo" before QCD and the standard model showed that a few components could be assembled to make up the observed particles, the period of confusion over results in the first few years of teh 1900s before special relativity and general relativity were devised, and Ptylometic astronomy, which tried to explain planetary orbits around the Earth before Kepler and Galieo came along, and ultimately, before Newton put the icing on the cake explaining it all with a simple, elegant theory of F=GM/R^2 from which Kepler's laws could be derived.

 

[turbo]

turbo-1

People reading this thread may not know your point, may be a few words
would help.

I don't want to hijack your thread, wolram. You've done a good job pointing out "missing things" that are required to keep the standard model afloat, and I'd like to see some informed responses to these problems.

If I explained why I think that polarization of the vacuum fields (ZPE) can resolve questions critical to the reconciliation of GR with quantum theory and allow a quantum dynamical model of gravitation to be formulated, I would draw a heck of a lot more heat than light to this thread and your efforts would have been in vain.

 

[wolram]

The implicit question wolram raises flows from a folk theorem of the history of science. In essence the folk theorem says that if you've got a huge mess of stuff that is unexplained phenemena under existing theories that you may be on the verge of having an insight that makes sense of most of them.

Analogous times in the history of science were the period in QM research when we had a "particle zoo" before QCD and the standard model showed that a few components could be assembled to make up the observed particles, the period of confusion over results in the first few years of teh 1900s before special relativity and general relativity were devised, and Ptylometic astronomy, which tried to explain planetary orbits around the Earth before Kepler and Galieo came along, and ultimately, before Newton put the icing on the cake explaining it all with a simple, elegant theory of F=GM/R^2 from which Kepler's laws could be derived.

I say throw all of them out and let's have a fresh start, we have been led
into a maze of ambiguity that leeds to insanity, any road one takes in this
science leads to a never ending paradox, if we blindly follow this science
we will be lost for ever.

 

[wolram]

I don't want to hijack your thread, wolram. You've done a good job pointing out "missing things" that are required to keep the standard model afloat, and I'd like to see some informed responses to these problems.

If I explained why I think that polarization of the vacuum fields (ZPE) can resolve questions critical to the reconciliation of GR with quantum theory and allow a quantum dynamical model of gravitation to be formulated, I would draw a heck of a lot more heat than light to this thread and your efforts would have been in vain.

Just keep to your principles Turbo-1 , what i think is immaterial to the scientific
community, but at least i have the freedom to think.

 

[Chronos]

Here is the latest entry on the search for the unseen:
Dark Matter Dynamics and Indirect Detection
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0504422

Here is another interesting recent entry:
Possible Effects of Dark Energy on the Detection of Dark Matter Particles
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0503120

 

[wolram]

Thanks for the links CHRONOS


Here are some of the particles that are hypothosised.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutralino

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In particle physics, the neutralino is a hypothetical particle and part of the doubling of the menagerie of particles predicted by supersymmetric theories.

Since the superpartners of the Z boson (zino), the photon (photino) and the neutral higgs (higgsino) have the same quantum numbers, they mix to form a particle called simply the neutralino. Virtually undetectable, it participates only in weak and gravitational interactions. Of the weakly-interacting massive particles (WIMPs) under consideration, the neutralino, as the lightest electrically neutral supersymmetric particle (at 30-5000 proton masses), is the leading candidate for cold dark matter.

Particles in Physics - Elementary particles

Fermions : Quarks | Leptons
Gauge bosons : Photon | W+, W- and Z0 bosons | Gluons
Not yet observed:
Higgs boson | Graviton
Supersymmetric Partners : Neutralinos | Charginos | Gravitino | Gluinos | Squarks | Sleptons

 

[wolram]

The cosmological constant problem



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

A major outstanding problem is that most quantum field theories predict a huge cosmological constant from the energy of the quantum vacuum. This would need to be canceled almost, but not exactly, by an equally large term of the opposite sign. Some supersymmetric theories require a cosmological constant that is exactly zero, which does not help. This is the cosmological constant problem, the worst problem of fine-tuning in physics: there is no known natural way to derive the infinitesimal cosmological constant observed in cosmology from particle physics. Some physicists, such as Steven Weinberg, think the delicate balance of quantum vacuum energy is best explained by the anthropic principle.

 

[wolram]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

* Weak anthropic principle (WAP): "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so."
* Strong anthropic principle (SAP): "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history."
* Final anthropic principle (FAP): "Intelligent information-processing must come into existence in the Universe, and, once it comes into existence, it will never die out."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you resort to this way of thinking you have given up on science.

 

[wolram]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0407/0407213.pdf

Supersymmetry Fails__________

Lee Smolin

Pages 8-9

 

[ohwilleke]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0407/0407213.pdf

Supersymmetry Fails__________

Lee Smolin

Pages 8-9

On that count, I definitely do agree with Dr. Smolin.

 

[wolram]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry

In particle physics, supersymmetry is a hypothetical symmetry that relates bosons and fermions. In supersymmetric theories, every fundamental fermion has a superpartner which is a boson and vice versa. Although supersymmetry has yet to be observed in the real world it remains a vital part of many proposed theories of physics, including various extensions to the Standard Model as well as modern superstring theories. The mathematical structure of supersymmetry, invented in a particle-physics context, has been applied with useful results in other areas, ranging from quantum mechanics to classical statistical physics. SUSY is the acronym preferred for whichever grammatical variation of supersymmetry occurs in a sentence. Experimentalists have not yet found any superpartners for known particles, possibly because they are too massive to be created in our current particle accelerators. Hopefully, by the year 2007 the Large Hadron Collider at CERN should be ready for use, producing collisions at sufficiently high energies to detect the superpartners many theorists expect to see.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So if L Smolin is correct the missing stuff just got less.

 

[wolram]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_Sachs_Wolfe_effect
Integrated Sachs Wolfe effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The integrated Sachs Wolfe effect is a change in the fluctuations of the temperature of the cosmic microwave background due to evolution of the Universe according to the standard Big Bang model.

It is due to the gravitational redshift induced by photons falling into and climbing out of regions of space with different density, called potential wells, in between the Earth and the surface of last scattering (close to the particle horizon). The non-integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect is also due to gravitational redshift, but is the effect only at the surface of last scattering itself.

There are two main contributions to the integrated effect. The first occurs shortly after photons leave the last scattering surface, and is due to the evolution of the potential wells as the universe changes from being dominated by radiation to being dominated by matter. The second, sometimes called the 'late-time integrated Sachs Wolfe effect', arises much later as the evolution starts to feel the effect of the cosmological constant (or, more generally, dark energy), or curvature of the Universe if it is not flat. The latter effect has an observational signature in the amplitude of the large scale perturbations of the cosmic microwave background and their correlation with large scale structures in the universe.

 

[wolram]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/string_systems_030226.html

Just ahead of a bandwagon of theoreticians suggesting the discovery of extra dimensions might be just around the corner, a streetwise inquiry into the potential effects of these additional "spaces" has come up as empty as a gas tank during an oil embargo.

Theorists are unlikely to be sobered by the new study of possible effects on gravity in tiny spaces, however. The research is useful in that it puts an upper limit on the distance at which strange new physical behaviors might yet be detected. Further, it explored only one possible manifestation of extra dimensions.

 

[wolram]

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/2005_04.html

A link to NOT EVEN WRONG .

Lots of information on how string theory is progressing?

 

[wolram]

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0504/0504059.pdf

New mass limit on the Axion.

 

[ohwilleke]

In support of the argument that I'm not the only person comparing 1905 and 2005 in terms of the state of physics.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7327050/?GT1=6428

 

[SpaceTiger]

I must say this is a very interesting thread. Let me add a few other ideas. Sorry if I accidentally repeat anything:

- Quark stars
- Magnetic monopoles
- primordial black holes
- Oort cloud
- quantum gravity
- "ejected" planets (planets not bound to stars)
- white holes
- wormholes
- GZK cutoff (maybe resolved)
- Cosmological Neutrino Background (CNB)
- Tachyons
- Source of cosmic rays
- Intermediate Mass Black Holes (maybe seen)

 

[Billy T]

I must say this is a very interesting thread. Let me add a few other ideas. Sorry if I accidentally repeat anything:

- Quark stars
- Magnetic monopoles
- primordial black holes
- Oort cloud
- quantum gravity
- "ejected" planets (planets not bound to stars)
- white holes
- wormholes
- GZK cutoff (maybe resolved)
- Cosmological Neutrino Background (CNB)
- Tachyons
- Source of cosmic rays
- Intermediate Mass Black Holes (maybe seen)

Me too, and your's is an interesting list - thanks. I have questions about four of your items:

On Magnetic monopoles - I am confused about how heavy they are. I saw a website in google search that set floor by fact none have been produced in accelerators. That "floor" is many OM below theory predictions I have seen which tend to put the mass at least 10^15 times the proton mass. (some as high as 10^21 times!)

I have also seen site suggesting an interesting reason why they have not been seen - I.e. suggestion that even one Mag. Monopole may be so heavy and so compact that it is a black hole (some how stabilized by the magnetic field) or was a BH that long ago evaporated. A third idea (mine, but perhaps not original) is that a N & S Mag. Monopole would attract over long ranges much more rapidly than gravity assembled matter into stars and might be able to form a stable "hydrogenic like" atom. It would need to call upon quantum mechanics to escape the death spiral of radiation loss, just as the electron accelerating around the nucleus does. Any comments?

On "ejected planets" - I would bet that any planets that could slowly form from matter that did not end up in star would be in stable nearly circular orbits ad not likely to be ejected by any "sister" planets unless there were a pair of stars. Paired stars are quite common, if not more common than single stars. Perhaps two stars mutually orbiting could resonately "pump up" from a gravitation well of one a planet. So I limit my bet to the single star case. Obviously a third body on an open trajectory could gravitationally quickly eject a planet. (This is what happens to the sun's outer planets when the "dark visitor" of my book by same name passes.) Can you think of any other mechanism that can eject planets or reject my "bet" ? (I.e. claim that chaos in solar systems can eventually eject weakly bound planets of single star even though their orbits were stable long enough for difuse matter to collect into a planet.)

On tachyons - Their mass becomes infinite if they were to slow down to speed of light, so they never will or could. If one were inside our equipment's "light cone" now, at for example the left side of our light cone and headed towards the right side, I think we could get to it. I.e. we could have it and our measuring equipment at the same point in our space, but at (or very near) this common point it would only be passing thru our light cone so quickly that nothing could be measured. Is this correct? If it is, they could exist and never be observed, but like gravity "escaping" from a black hole, their gravity might be felt - could it be the "dark matter?

On Intermediate Mass Black Holes - Your comment "maybe seen" interests me greatly - what did you mean by this?

The implosion of a star large enough to have formed an iron core before imploding is, IMHO, very unlikely to be the spherically symmetric implosion always assumed for mathematical convenience. (It is quite a fine art to implode even the very uniform and small critical mass of uranium to make a A-bomb, without blowing it into pieces.)

Because only the extreme "Maxwellian tail" of the velocity distribution is energetic enough to be fusing in nuclear collisions in the active region of a star, I would think that despite what must be high thermal conductivity, some regions of the active fusing region of a star are slightly hotter than others. This would be a self amplifying instability that is only limited by the density decrease of the hotter region. This true because the fusion rate should be decreasing only quadratically with density decrease, which would be linear with the temperature increase, but the fusion rate is increasing exponentially with temperature. (I am assuming that the velocity of light is not limiting the increase of velocity, even at iron forming temperatures, but the instability effect I am tying to describe must still exist even if it is, only the strong quadratics exponential proportions I have stated would be less strong.)

Thus, I think it highly likely that some parts of the "active fusing region" get closer to the iron end point before others. If true, the implosions compressing a large and inhomogeneous mass - much harder to do than symmetrically compress a small uniform shell of uranium, and of course there is no one trying hard to make it a symmetric collapse. This is why I think that when the final implosion comes, it is very unlike to be the symmetric event assumed in most if not all models.

Since the first generation of stars (and perhaps most of the second generation too - all those that had already started to assemble) were roughly at least 100 times the solar mass, it seems to me that several of your "intermediate mass black holes" and lots of planet size chunks of iron could have separated in the blast of an asymmetric implosion.

Some "implosion pieces" and smaller BHs that formed during the implosion would would no doubt be recaptured by the larger BHs created, but if some of the "trans iron elements" that now exist were "built up" or "slow cooked" inside active stars by baryon capture, as I understand accepted theory teaches, and these atoms escaped (some are inside me now) then surely some of the larger pieces that were separated in an asymmetric and inhomogeneous implosions could also.

Thus, I think one can plausibly argue along these lines (and also noting that there were several generations of large stars before our sun was born) that there are more of your "intermediate black holes" than there are currently active stars. (A number that has been estimated to be greater than all the grains of sand on Earth's beaches!) Next paragraph provides one answer to the question: Where are they?

We should not be able to see them, unless they were close to our sun because:
(1) Their "weak quasar" radiation would not been seen, probably not even from the "night side" of a planet orbiting a star until it enters the solar wind of that star as the density in "empty" intra stellar space is so low.
(2) Even if one were to pass very close to Barnyard's star (I think that is the closest star's name) it would not be detectable or resolved from the stellar radiation, if only a few stellar masses.

This reasoning is why I assigned only 2.2 solar masses to the "dark visitor," I presumed to be now about 130 AU from the sun, still undetected, but headed our way. Any comments?

 

[SpaceTiger]

Man, Billy, you always have to make me work, don't you?

On Magnetic monopoles - I am confused about how heavy they are.

Not at all my area, unfortunately, so there's not much I can say about it. If I get around to it, I may do some more research on the subject and make a comment.

On "ejected planets" - I would bet that any planets that could slowly form from matter that did not end up in star would be in stable nearly circular orbits ad not likely to be ejected by any "sister" planets unless there were a pair of stars.

If a planet the size of Pluto were to pass close to a planet like Jupiter, it could be very easily slingshotted out of the system. This would likely only eject small planets, however, so they'd be hard to see. The longterm stability of multi-planet systems is an extremely complicated problem that is still in the process of being answered, so a more complicated analysis of your bet will have to wait.

On tachyons - Their mass becomes infinite if they were to slow down to speed of light, so they never will or could. If one were inside our equipment's "light cone" now, at for example the left side of our light cone and headed towards the right side, I think we could get to it. I.e. we could have it and our measuring equipment at the same point in our space, but at (or very near) this common point it would only be passing thru our light cone so quickly that nothing could be measured. Is this correct? If it is, they could exist and never be observed

From what I know, that all sounds right.

but like gravity "escaping" from a black hole, their gravity might be felt - could it be the "dark matter?

I don't know the answer to this question, but I suspect the answer is no. I believe that tachyons are hypothesized to have negative mass, so that would imply that they could instead be used to explain dark energy.

On Intermediate Mass Black Holes - Your comment "maybe seen" interests me greatly - what did you mean by this?

The inferred masses of Ultraluminous X-ray Sources (ULXs) are in the intermediate mass black hole range (~10⁴ solar masses). I suggest a google or ads search.

...This is why I think that when the final implosion comes, it is very unlike to be the symmetric event assumed in most if not all models.

Asymmetric supernova explosions are a popular explanation for "neutron star kicks". I believe that the popular theory right now involves acoustic pulsations in the core. Again, I suggest a search.

Thus, I think one can plausibly argue along these lines (and also noting that there were several generations of large stars before our sun was born) that there are more of your "intermediate black holes" than there are currently active stars.

This can't make up a significant component of the matter in our galaxy because of a combination of microlensing and CMB measurements.

 

[Billy T]

Man, Billy, you always have to make me work, don't you?

Did not mean for only you to try to answer my questions or make comments on ideas in my post 43. Perhaps someone can enlighten us both on mass of mag. monopole etc.

If a planet the size of Pluto were to pass close to a planet like Jupiter, it could be very easily slingshotted out of the system. ...

I knew this and of course agree, but don't think it likely that planets formed far apart as the pair you mentioned were, would ever get close. I spoke of the long planet formation period (and need for stable orbits while doing so) plus the tendency for orbits to be come circular as I think that small planets that are forming near a larger one are very likely to dissipate energy either in the still uncollected matter they formed from or by tides and end up as bound moons, not ejected planets. - just guessing - I don't know.

The inferred masses of Ultraluminous X-ray Sources (ULXs) are in the intermediate mass black hole range (~10⁴ solar masses).

We had different size black holes in mind when speaking of the "intermediate mass black hole range." I intended 5 to 50 solar masses - BHs, that might have formed from iron core star collapses, even symmetric ones. For me this is "intermediate between Hawking's "babies" and those at the center of typical galaxy. I doubt the lens effects of many 5 to 50 solar mass BH would do much we would be able to notice and continue to think the total number of them is the same OM as all the current stars (for reason stated in my last post) at least until some one offers a creditable counter argument.

Asymmetric supernova explosions are a popular explanation for "neutron star kicks". I believe that the popular theory right now involves acoustic pulsations in the core. ...

I was vaguely aware of this "neutron star kicks" -it partially caused my thoughts about the asymmetric collapse of a black hole forming star, but the "fusion instability" producing inhomogeneity in the core of a BH forming star is IMHO more important than some sound waves producing regions of temporarily different fusion rates as the pressure wave peaks passes and both heats and compresses the reacting / fusing matter.

The mechanism I suggested is a growing instability that saturates at a higher level of reaction rate, not transitory until it starts to run out of fuel. It could makes some core regions a moderately high percent iron while others are still only slightly iron. Perhaps it could even initiate a black hole collapse of only that region in a 100 solar mass star -blowing apart other still iron forming regions of the core etc. with the sudden release of a lot of gravitational energy. - Admittedly only wild ideas until someone does some numerical evaluations to show them reasonable or wrong. In first and second generation stars, where I suspect many 5 to 50 solar mass BHs may have been made, these "meganova" events are vastly greater than the nova (or even supernova of our later generation stars) - Certainly when this event is compared to the "kick" during the formation of a neutron star, it is like comparing that of a flea to that of a horse!

This can't make up a significant component of the matter in our galaxy because of a combination of microlensing and CMB measurements.

I'll take your word on this, but I was speaking of BHs of 5 to 50 solar masses, with most typical around 10, not your 10,000 solar mass ones. Does your comment still apply?

 

[SpaceTiger]

I'll take your word on this, but I was speaking of BHs of 5 to 50 solar masses, with most typical around 10, not your 10,000 solar mass ones. Does your comment still apply?

Actually, it only applies to the 5 - 50 solar mass objects, not to the 10,000 solar mass ones. I inferred that you were thinking of a different mass range at the end of your post. The black holes you're thinking of would be considered stellar-mass black holes. They're observed to exist in small numbers and are likely the explanation for "microquasar" behavior in nearby systems (like SS433).

I hope you'll take no offense if I don't try to further analyze your supernova theory. That subject is extremely complicated. Unless you're specifically referring to somebody else's work on the subject, I find it highly unlikely that your basic conceptual arguments would hold.

 

[Chronos]

I second that notion. I think it's very improbably any naive new ideas in cosmological phenomenon are likely to hold these days. The observational and theoretical constraints are just too sophisticated for anyone but a professional to properly grasp - and even then, only within a narrow range of specialization. Most of the lottery picks are taken. I think it's going to take a lot of sophisticated nibbling around the edges to usher in any new physics.

 

[turbo]

I second that notion. I think it's very improbably any naive new ideas in cosmological phenomenon are likely to hold these days. The observational and theoretical constraints are just too sophisticated for anyone but a professional to properly grasp - and even then, only within a narrow range of specialization. Most of the lottery picks are taken. I think it's going to take a lot of sophisticated nibbling around the edges to usher in any new physics.

I think that you're mistaken, here. Specialization often leads to systemic myopia. A particle physicist trying to set detection limits on the Higgs Boson is probably not the person who is best equipped to describe a model of the Universe in which the Higgs Boson is unnecessary, although I must say that Rocky Kolb seems quite open-minded about such things.

Einstein's theories started out not as mathematical representations, but as thought experiments - just the kind of logical associations that most people today would dismiss as crackpot ideas.

 

[Billy T]

I second that notion. I think it's very improbably any naive new ideas in cosmological phenomenon are likely to hold these days. The observational and theoretical constraints are just too sophisticated for anyone but a professional to properly grasp - and even then, only within a narrow range of specialization. Most of the lottery picks are taken. I think it's going to take a lot of sophisticated nibbling around the edges to usher in any new physics.

I agree with both you and spacetiger on this. It is highly improbable that I would intuitively guess (even with considerable knowledge of physics) a correct answer to such a complicated and mathematically complex (and still in early development stages) problem as the implosion of a superstar (first = "generation III") "meganova." I don't have the time, inclination or background to adequately defend my speculations.

None the less, I think it useful to point out that the assumption of a spherically symmetric meganova collapse is made out of mathematical necessity. It is not based on physics. The physics indicates just the opposite - a highly asymmetric collapse, at least as I understand it, and for the reasons I gave in prior post. (I would be please if someone can find fault with my reasons, especially the "fusion instability" reason I described.)

The current analysis, mathematically limited to the assumed symmetric collapse, is sort of like the drunk looking for his lost keys in the light under a lamp post because that is the only place where he can see, despite the fact that he thinks he lost them in the dark parking lot. Because I think this assumption of a spherically symmetric collapse high improbable, for reasons of physics given in prior posts (mainly the growing then saturating instability of the fusion rate in sub regions of the stellar core, but not limited to this), I think the current predictions, are based on a foundation that is very likely only mathematically convenient, but physically wrong. Thus some speculation, based on explained physics as I have, is justified, but one must be careful to admit, as I do, that it is only that. Not results sustained by mathematical analysis.

Changing subject, but still in a simular line of speculative suggestion, I wounder if the term "neutron star" does not belong in the same class of physics misnomers that "tidal wave" does. This thought was stimulated by ST's inclusion in his list of missing stuff "quark star."

Is there any reason to believe that the three quarks that make up neutrons would retain the same close association with each other they had when they were more widely separated, clearly a unique particle, in a nucleus after they are so tightly compressed one against another "adjacent neutron" that forces (presumbably exchange of virtual particles) are interacting between different neutrons and preventing further collapse? That is, is there some reason to believe that a quark in one neutron interacting by virtual particle exchange with the quarks of a "very adjacent" neutron would continue to only exchange virtual particles with the other two in its original neutron? (I.e. do the neutrons retain their original identity?) If the answer is "yes" each quark only interacts with its original two "sisters", then my question becomes: "What is preventing further collapse into a black hole?" ( and how does it recognize its "sister quark" from the original neutron if there is an identical quark in the "adjacent neutron" exchanging virtual particle with it to produce a force that resists further collapse? Is there some new force (not the repulsive region of the strong force) acting to prevent further collapse?

I don't know enough high energy nuclear physics to even speculate an response to these questions, but do find it at least plausible that once the the collapse has occurred and a "neutron star" has formed, that what really has formed is a "quark star." I.e. the quarks of a "quark star" no longer "belong" to a particular neutron just as the valence electrons in a metal no longer belong to any particular atom. If this is the case, then "quark star" probably should be removed from ST's list and "neutron star" added.

This is another example of where I think it is useful to use the physics one does understands to speculate about questions one can not answer. It is both interesting to do so, and may provoke someone with more knowledge to think about the questions raised. Surely this must be considered useful and appropriate here. I am NOT trying to defend baseless speculation, but speculation based on accepted physics seems to me to be both useful and fun. Would you agree?

Does anyone out there in cyberspace know enough high energy physics to comment on my speculation that "neutron stars" may really be "quark stars"?

PS by "edit" - While I was writing, Turbo -1 made his post and I think he makes a very good point. To some extent, it is the same point I was making when I noted that speculation may prompt someone with more knowledge to think about the questions raised, but Turbo-1 expressed it better than I did. To put it more poeticly - Sometimes the blind can lead the sighted.

 

[Garth]

To put it more poeticly - Sometimes the blind can lead the sighted.

In fog for example?

Garth