Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Superheated gas. ?

  1. Nov 30, 2003 #1
    Superheated gas. ???

    Hi, all.

    I'm 66, retired and having the time of my life visiting celestial
    websites. My 'education' consisted of the Carl Sagan television
    series some years back. Hubble rekindled that interest and I was
    enjoying every minute of it until recently when two mysterious
    developments occurred. First came reports of vast quantities of
    superheated gas scattered throughout space. Very curious stuff
    indeed. Some being heated by nearby violence and large amounts
    remaining in this state for billions of years plus vast 'rivers' flowing
    with no detectable heating mechanisms in sight. Much so hot that
    it has to drastically cool down to become starstuff! ...That's the first
    enigma. The second is even more puzzling, imho. Why is this
    situation taken so routinely? To this admittedly ignorant observer,
    lots of gas heating up and remaining at millions of degrees for
    billions of years screams for important new science to explain what
    is happening. It would seem the holy grail of a theory for everything
    couldn't be called complete with this matter left hanging.

    Certainly, I could be totally off base. It wouldn't be the first time.
    If this is a wrongheaded, hysterical and just plain stupid reading of
    the situation, feel free to correct me. ...And 'piling-on' is encouraged.

    What I would really like to see is a wide-ranging discussion of
    this phenomena. Preferably with contributions from experts who
    have so far been strangely silent within earshot. Something is
    obviously going on. Something new and even revolutionary. In most
    cases only hydrogen gas and gravity appear to be interacting. Is
    there some previously unknown mechanism inherent in hydrogen
    itself that produces these hellish temps? I certainly don't know and
    will play no part in securing the answer. To me, this supergas is king
    of space. Magnitudes hotter than stars and even galaxies.
    A few questions that quickly come to mind... What part, if any, does
    anti-hydrogen play in this yet to be written equation? What havoc
    does it wreak in its wanderings? Do black holes welcome it or
    attempt to decline the meals? Fun stuff. Does anyone else wonder?
    This is an attempt to shed some much needed light on the subject.

    And I don't want to come off as some kind of smart-aleck. My
    admiration for the foot soldiers of exploration knows no bounds. David
    Levy's days are uniformly full with writing, lecturing and the demands
    of family plus earning a living. And all clear nights are reserved for his
    famous lifelong comet search. Many in the field are equally devoted .
    My interest lies in nothing more than just enjoying the photos and
    marveling at the extraordinary work of some very special people.

    bobbyg66 - Tucson, AZ
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 30, 2003 #2
    Shroud Theory (Superheated Gas in Galactic Haloes)

    This field is very new.
    http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2002/mwclouds/
    Unfortunately, you won’t get many answers from the establishment. Nothing but a lot of “fence-sitting”.

    Personally, I think that the majority of this excess hydrogen DOES NOT come from recent Supernovas, but rather from earlier Supernovas that lived and died during initial phases of the Milky Way galaxy formation. The uniformity of the shroud statistically supports this option. According to most models I’ve seen, this hydrogen has been shrouding the Milky Way since it’s nativity (+/- 1 billion years).

    Posted by bobbyg66 (all excellent questions);
    “Why is this situation taken so routinely?”
    Because that’s how “scientists” avoid things that they cannot explain. They also ignore theories which do not support their Universal views (it’s a matter of politics and funding). I can compare the “billions of years old superheated galactic hydrogen paradox” to “Darwinian Natural Selection”. You don’t have to be a scientist to spot the “holes like a sive” in each theory.

    “Is there some previously unknown mechanism inherent in hydrogen itself that produces these hellish temps?”
    No. The most “magical” thing about hydrogen is the way four hydrogen atoms combine to form helium (and make the stars shine, because of the small amount of excess energy).

    “What part, if any, does anti-hydrogen play in this yet to be written equation?”
    An integral part, being the mirror of hydrogen.

    “What havoc does it wreak in its wanderings?”
    It converts any hydrogen it comes into contact with into radiation.

    “Do black holes welcome it or attempt or decline the meals?”
    They quite happily eat anti-hydrogen (if it comes within range).

    “Does anybody else wonder?”
    Yep. Been wondering and attempting to understand it for fifteen years now.

    When I was working on my “Vacuum Heart” Theory in the late eighties, one of the predictions of the model was excess hydrogen/anti-hydrogen in spaces between galaxies and galactic haloes. I received confirmation of the hydrogen galactic halo in 2000 modified steps in my theoretical process in March 2003. I am currently waiting on a reply from a mate in Russia regarding my revised version.
     
  4. Dec 1, 2003 #3
    Re: Shroud Theory (Superheated Gas in Galactic Haloes)

    if there is excess of hydrogen/antihydrogen in spaces between galaxies that will imply also that we could see explosions of energy from the anihalation of the hydrogen and anti hydrogen, do observations into between spaces of the galaxies show this claim?
     
  5. Dec 1, 2003 #4

    Labguy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: Re: Shroud Theory (Superheated Gas in Galactic Haloes)

    I think that the "huge clouds" seen would be so tenuous that an actual event of contact and annihilation would be very rare. Even then, an occassional annihilation (atom per atom) would probably amount to just a flicker that would be almost impossible for us to detect.
     
  6. Dec 1, 2003 #5
    Thanks for replying.

    It is reassuring that real scientists
    share some of my impressions. Hubble
    has allowed the public access to these
    many marvels. But with the magnificent
    photos come the explanations. Some
    are less than satisfying, to put it mildly.

    The main problem for the layman is his
    own ignorance, which can't begin to be
    addressed until he is a layman no more.
    I have neither the time nor the desire
    to take this option. Just to seek
    answers to the most obvious of these
    questions, if those answers are there
    to be had.

    1. Why is this gas so very, very hot?
    Much, much hotter than stars. Really?

    2. And even more mysterious, how does
    much of it, once attaining these
    temperatures, maintain them in
    seeming perpetuity?

    The heating mechanisms are all short-
    lived events and the absense of heat
    in open space would be expected to
    quickly return the gas to same.
    This is not happening in a large part of
    the resident gas population.

    Do theories exist that hold promise of
    answering these questions?

    When I asked what havoc these hot
    gases wreaked, I was thinking along
    the lines of 'star and galaxy killers'.
    If they are too hot to be part of stars,
    they should be expected to snuff them
    out on contact. Does this happen?
    And if not, why not? I don't envy the
    prrofessionals. Every question
    answered spawns many harder ones.
     
  7. Dec 1, 2003 #6

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  8. Dec 1, 2003 #7
    Thanks wolram, for the informative links.
    I really didn't expect much and got it.

    So until some movement toward finding
    answers is evident, I'll have to treat these
    reports like a private joke. No apparent
    harm done, but little to recommend them,
    either. The wait looks to be a long one.
     
  9. Dec 1, 2003 #8
    Consequences of Shroud Theory

    Posted by Loop Quantum Gravity;
    “if there is excess of hydrogen/antihydrogen in spaces between galaxies that will imply also that we could see explosions of energy from the anihalation of the hydrogen and anti hydrogen, do observations into between spaces of the galaxies show this claim?"

    Yep. Available research telescopes (although some military ones are) aren’t powerful enough to detect more than the occasional annihilation yet. My prediction is that high-energy cosmic ray signatures are exactly this (superheated gas matter/antimatter annihilations). Ultra-high-energy cosmic rays are signatures of matter/antimatter annihilations in the space between galaxies and within galactic haloes. When superheated gas is annihilated it produces ultra-high energy cosmic rays.

    Cosmic ray origins;
    http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/42/5/5
    http://www.hartrao.ac.za/news/990915cosmicrays/cosmic.html

    For anybody, interested. Please feel free to “shoot this down” guys. Well-aimed bullets have been fired at my head over this for fifteen years.

    Vacuum Heart Theory Predictions

    To summarise an intricate and complex theory (538 A4 pages). Vacuum Heart theory decrees that at the heart of ALL matter, be it atomic or sub-atomic, there is an inherent CRITICALLY OVERHEATED VACUUM (for want of better words). Some of the consequences (predictions) of the theory are;
    (1) Dark Matter is excess superheated gas (left over from initial phases of galaxy formation) which permeates the Universe (but the majority of it is invisible to current telescope technology).
    (2) Galactic haloes (in the form of hydrogen/anti-hydrogen) shroud all galaxies.
    (3) Electromagnetism (on a sub-atomic scale) and magnetic fields (on planetary and stellar scales) arise from quantum fluctuations within the vacuum heart of matter. This law applies to all matter from quarks to stars.
    (4) Planetary cores lose their magnetic fields if they are no longer sealed by oil. When exposed to the space medium (if atmosphere is lost, which is a necessary result), planetary magnetic fields are “suspended”. Reactivation of planetary magnetic fields can occur when planets produce sufficient oil.
    (5) Ultra-high-energy cosmic rays are signatures of matter/antimatter annihilations in the space between galaxies and within galactic haloes. When superheated gas is annihilated it produces ultra-high energy cosmic rays.
    (6) Dark Matter is simply superheated gas between galaxies and galactic haloes which surround galaxies. This superheated gas accounts for 82% +/- of the mass of the Universe.
    (7) Breakthroughs in the technology of fine measurement (telescope refinement) will confirm the Vacuum Heart theory.

    Obviously this is a brief summary. Just thought that I would put it “out there” again.
     
  10. Dec 1, 2003 #9
    Kudos and apologies.

    To Dogon.

    I will never be competent to even form
    an opinion on your theory's merits. But
    just learning that it deals with and
    validates the existance of permanent
    superheated gas turns my thinking on
    a dime. If it is true, and I would wager
    that it is, proof and universal acceptance
    will come. I apologise to you for being
    slow on the uptake and to all the others
    whose reports I dismissed as frauds.

    I will follow developments closely from
    now on with restored faith in the field.

    Thanks for setting me straight.
    bobbyg66
     
  11. Dec 2, 2003 #10
    Dogon wrote:"Vacuum Heart theory decrees that at the heart of ALL matter, be it atomic or sub-atomic, there is an inherent CRITICALLY OVERHEATED VACUUM."
    i thought (and even asked in a israeli forum of science) that vacuum cannot be heated or cooled because there arent real particles in vacuum therefore you cannot add to the velocity of particle because there arent particles to heat in the first place.
     
  12. Dec 2, 2003 #11
    hmm.. that was my thought as well. in response to why those clouds stay hot for extremely lonmg periods of time, it was my understanding that the particles are so wide spread that they hardly interact with each other and they keep their kinetic energy.

    basically all heat is simply an average "speed" of any given particle. if you only have one particle it will always maintain it's speed... ie. an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless affected by an outside force... or something like that. now if you have 2 particles of the same type and 1 is at 50 Kalvin and the other is at 1 kalvin, and then collide they will both become 25.5 kalvin (long as the hit at the right angle at least). so if you have 2 particles and they are both 50 K and the collide... they will both still be 50K. for that supperheated material in between galaxies, it may be millions of degrees, but the spacing of the particles will limit their interaction (collisions) that cool them off and bring them to an average temp. and also whatever they hit will be nearly as hot as they are.. so the cooling of them would expextedly take millions or billions of years.
     
  13. Dec 2, 2003 #12
    Thanks, blissfulpain

    for your thoughtful reply. As stated before
    my credentials are nonexistant. As will be
    my technical contributions.

    But something of unusual importance is
    going on here. An attempt to speed
    progress on completing the Theory of
    Everything. It appears that one of our
    posters, Dogon, may have the answer
    all who are qualified are reportedly hot in
    pursuit of. I say test it out. It's either true
    or it isn't. The problem is not a minor one.
    Effecting more than 70% of all matter in
    the universe. Per the theory's author.

    These tests will be conducted sooner or
    later, in all likelihood. I vote for sooner.
     
  14. Dec 2, 2003 #13

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    bobbyg66,

    You may have seen this post, or a similar one:
    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030912.html

    While of a quite different scale to the Milky Way shroud discussed in this thread, it gives a feel for the mechanisms at work, the gas densities and temperatures, the astronomical techniques used to study these things, etc.

    If you're interested, you could do some research of your own into this field, using data from a wide range of spacecraft and ground-based equipment. You'll need a broadband internet connection, and some image processing software would help too. Amazingly, the cost to you of getting access to the data (and the data themselves) is simply the cost of your time on the internet (and the PC system you use); even the software may be free!
     
  15. Dec 2, 2003 #14
    To Neried with my compliments.

    40 and more years ago, when this
    decision was called for, astronomy was
    sitting up all night in cold observatories
    after many years of learning and
    proving one's worth. Not surprisingly, I
    declined the option and instead became
    a free-lance problem solver. Inventing
    solutions to a wide range of problems
    throughout a 4 decade useful working
    life. I'd like nothing better than to
    contribute to this solution as well, but it
    is not to be. The early stages of senility
    and other health problems rule it out.
    However, my mind still works as well as
    ever. Just in shorter stretches. The days
    of 24 hour intense concentration were
    over long ago and now have shrunk to
    not much longer than is required to
    compose this reply. Not complaining.
    One plays it as it lies and my output
    seems not to have suffered at all. The
    quality is a different matter.

    I stumbled on this problem out of
    the enjoyment Hubble brings to all who
    marvel at its acchievements. This is a
    very real and important problem and
    has no shortage of qualified people to
    solve it. All they await is orders to do it
    and definitive answers will come quickly.
    I hope to learn what they are.
    bobbyg66
     
  16. Dec 3, 2003 #15

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    suggestions and guidance perhaps?

    bobbyg66, there are (AFAIK) a lot of very clever people doing professional astronomy. However, the number of interesting and important areas of research significantly exceeds the capabilities of the professionals available, leaving a great many opportunities for amateurs to make real contributions.

    As you'll have no doubt concluded from reading the posts on this site, there are many, many very, very bright PF members; many of whom may well delight in the opportunity to do real research, but don't have, for one reason or another, clear guidance on what areas of research are available, or make sense for them to do.

    Perhaps you could make a contribution?
     
  17. Dec 3, 2003 #16
    Thanks, Neried.

    That's very flattering. But nothing of
    importance can issue from an empty
    vessel. Remembering Carl Sagan; his
    explanations were daunting but
    credible. Then came neutron stars,
    black holes and the like. Stretching
    belief almost to the breaking point
    but not past. Now I'm supposed to
    believe in gas heated millions of
    degrees perpetually. I do, but only
    because a respected scientist here
    authored a theory explaining it.
    Even so, envisioning a tiny particle
    coexisting at these tempertures with
    nothing but miles of near absolute
    zero all around isn't something I'm
    likely to ever believe, absent a darn
    good explanation.

    But all of that is trivial compared to the
    real problem - the space
    establishment's decision to ignore what
    may be over 70% of all matter.
    Scientists are not thought capable of
    criminality but redefining this as one
    might produce some movement.
     
  18. Dec 3, 2003 #17
    Fifth Force (I’ll Say What Nobody Wants To)

    Posted by bobbyg66:
    “But all of that is trivial compared to the
    real problem - the space
    establishment's decision to ignore what
    may be over 70% of all matter.

    I couldn’t have said it better. All astronomers/astrophysicists (worth their salt) know that the standard models of the Universe are simply wrong. Any theory not taking into account or being able to adequately explain what constitutes the “Dark Matter Conundrum” is useless, in the long term. Sure, certain theories may work well (eg. Quantum Theory), but in the end, we can’t get it all to “fit” with what we are observing.
    Einstein knew it and we all know it. A “fifth force” must be taken into account. Forget String Theory, its never going to explain Dark Matter, never.
     
  19. Dec 3, 2003 #18

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hmm, I guess you're referring to the IGM - "matter" - rather than dark energy (which is ~70% of all the universe). As (baryonic) matter is merely 4% of the universe, albeit what we're made up of, and all that we can see, a focus on dark energy would be understandable. Ditto 'dark matter', which is ~20%.

    As to why it stays hot, well, it may not be such a difficult question to answer - how would it cool down? Remember that the temperature of a gas is related to the kinetic energy of the gas particles; in the IGM the particles (e.g. protons, He nuclei, electrons, some singly ionised He?) are moving in random directions, quite fast. However, the are also a long way apart, so collisions happen somewhat rarely. Being a plasma, the IGM will produce bremsstrahlung radiation, and there will be inverse Compton interactions with the CMB, ... but there aren't many ways for the IGM to cool down.

    If you google on IGM (or inter-galactic medium, and similar), you'll get lots of results (>3,000), many of which are research papers.
     
  20. Dec 3, 2003 #19
    Thanks again, Nereid.

    You seem to be saying that the absence
    of heat in space will not cool hot matter
    in the vicinity. That may be a reason they
    are giving it so little attention. There is
    no evident compelling need to teach it
    in an environment where anything of
    value being taught is increasingly rare.

    I did, however, understand enough of
    what you just said to raise hopes of
    eventually absorbing most. Fun stuff!


    And to Dogon:
    Thanks, I needed that. Have often
    questioned my own sanity. Never
    seriously because no one ever
    pursuaded me of much of anything.
    Even while knowing very little, all new
    challenges came to me when others
    were found lacking and soon instantly.
    There is an astounding amount of
    knowledge' out there that is just plain
    Wrong. But those are stories for another day...
     
  21. Jan 16, 2004 #20

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Scientific American, January 2004

    ... has an article "Our Growing, Breathing Galaxy" which has a significant overlap with the topic of this thread. I'm not sure if it's available on-line.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Superheated gas. ?
  1. Stars and gas (Replies: 4)

  2. Gas planets (Replies: 9)

  3. Gas Giants (Replies: 7)

  4. Chaplygin gas (Replies: 2)

Loading...