Exploring Superheated Gas in Space

[bobbyg66]

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

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

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.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)


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.

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?

 

[Labguy]

Originally 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?

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.

 

[bobbyg66]

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.

 

[wolram]

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1200/2_161/82374331/p1/article.jhtml

http://www.news.wisc.edu/releases/3536.html

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0311/0311217.pdf

http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v34n4/aas201/760.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------
here are a few more sites worth a visit.

 

[bobbyg66]

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.

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

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.

 

[bobbyg66]

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 existence 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

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

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.

 

[Blissfulpain]

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.

 

[bobbyg66]

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.

 

[Nereid]

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!

 

[bobbyg66]

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

 

[Nereid]

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?

 

[bobbyg66]

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.

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

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.

 

[Nereid]

bobbyg66 wrote: 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.

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.

 

[bobbyg66]

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...

 

[Nereid]

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.

 

[marcus]

BobbyG and Nereid and others, would someone kindly say in 25 words
or less what the main topic is. In case I or another random reader is too lazy to follow Wolram's links to the articles and am curious anyway.

Wot the hek is this superheated (intergalactic?) gas thing.

Thanks pending yr kind indulgence.

m

 

[marcus]

well my curiosity got the better of me and I followed one of Wolram's links

http://arxiv.org/astro-ph/0311217

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0311/0311217.pdf

seems like a clearly written article
the galaxy has a halo as Lyman Spitzer (in 1968?) suspected it might
of very thinned out, partly ionized, hot gas.

Intermediate between the galactic plane and the halo, sort of 1000 parsec up out of the plane, there is a kind of transitional phase consisting of these clouds
Green Bank radio telescope observed the clouds. they are not as hot as the halo itself (correct me if I am wrong)
these clouds move with the rotation of the galaxy and they have rotation speeds about the same as stars (e.g. 240 km/s) plus they also have "random" velocities on the order of 50 km/s

this is consistent with their being gravitationally bound----in other words part of Milky Way and not the InterGalacticMedium or IGM.
the amount of mass in them is estimated at some tens of million of solar masses, not a very large part of the whole.

some of the material in the clouds could have been kicked up out of the main disk of the galaxy by supernova explosions
(or also light pressure?) I believe it says
and some could have be gas gradually settling down towards the galactic plane, out of the halo, and condensing into clouds

I didnt know about these things before, thanks BobbyG, Wolram, Nereid. Also may still be missing the point!
What questions do these observations raise?

 

[Nereid]

The SciAm article approaches the the IGM (etc) in terms of whether the Milky Way is still growing, and if so how. A key part to the answer is what the 'true' character of the various gas clouds - and other components of the IGM - above the galactic plane are.

The three bullet summary of the article (now a standard feature in SciAm) reads:
"- Since the early 1960s astronomers have thought that the Milky Way and other galaxies were born early in cosmic history and then evolved slowly. Today, however, evidence indicates that galaxies are continuing to grow. They cannibalize their smaller bretheren and gulp down fresh gas from intergalactice space.
- In our Milky Way we have a close-up view of the ongoing construction work. The incoming gas takes the form of high-velocity clouds discovered decades ago. Only recently were some of these clouds proved to be fresh material; observationally, they get entangled with circulating gas.
- These clouds come in several guises: clumps of neutral hydrogen reminiscent of intergalactic gas; a stream of gas torn out of nearby small galaxies; and highly ionized hot gas that may be dispersed throughout the intergalactic vicinity."

Not mentioned in this summary is that the article does touch on dark matter too.