Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Display:
 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Peter Jackson: on 10/29/14 at 10:33am UTC, wrote Akinbo, I see them. Can you adjudicate? The deal was no big advances till...

Akinbo Ojo: on 10/28/14 at 18:56pm UTC, wrote Peter beware of grey aliens. Scroll down a bit to see Alan Lowey post April...

Peter Jackson: on 10/28/14 at 17:39pm UTC, wrote Azad, Certainly electron-positron (fermion) pairs annihilating, as...

azad khurram: on 10/28/14 at 6:56am UTC, wrote My discussion with Peter earlier led me to predict annihilating dark matter...

Alan Lowey: on 5/2/14 at 6:41am UTC, wrote Astronomers observe corkscrew nature of light from a distant black hole

Alan Lowey: on 4/4/14 at 6:26am UTC, wrote The ill fated MH370 passenger plane could have been affected by the 'cosmic...

Alan Lowey: on 4/3/14 at 18:44pm UTC, wrote My discussion with Peter earlier led me to predict annihilating dark...

Alan Lowey: on 4/1/14 at 18:51pm UTC, wrote Wow, there's a connection between gravitational resonances and organic...



FQXi FORUM
September 26, 2021

CATEGORY: Cosmology [back]
TOPIC: Quark Stars and a New State of Matter? [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Feb. 3, 2014 @ 17:52 GMT
Thank you to Alan Lowey for suggesting this topic, stimulated by a feature article by Anil Ananthaswamy that appeared in New Scientist magazine, "Quark Stars: How Can a Supernova Explode Twice?" (subscription required).

Alan has written the following synopsis of the ideas involved. Please address your response to him:


Astrophysicists can thank string theorist Edward Witten for quark stars. In 1984, he hypothesised that protons and neutrons may not be the most stable forms of matter.

Both are made of two types of smaller entities, known as quarks: protons are comprised of two "up" quarks and one "down" quark, whereas neutrons are made of two downs and one up. Up and down are the lightest of six distinct "flavours" of quark. Add the third lightest to the mix and you get something called strange quark matter. Witten argued that this kind of matter may have lower net energy and hence be more stable than nuclear matter made of protons and neutrons.

A series of double explosions of neutron stars has got two scientific teams excited because these could well be the signatures of such quark star formation. The implications are huge due to strange quark matter being a top candidate for the elusive dark matter, which scientists know must exist in order to give spiral galaxies their dynamic form. After decades of disappointing outcomes for the proposal of everyday matter for the identity of dark matter, more exotic candidates, once considered fringe science, are coming to the fore.

Edward Farhi, an MIT physicist who researched strangelets, says that if two strange stars collided, they could send strange matter careening toward Earth. "If you had a little lump on the table, it would just sit there," says Farhi. (See, "Should I be afraid of strange matter?")

Remarkably, in 1993, a group of researchers identified two seismic events that they think provide the first evidence of this previously undetected form of matter passing through the Earth. (See "Did quark matter strike the Earth?") The so-called strange quark matter is so dense that a piece the size of a human cell would weigh a tonne.

Bookmark and Share


Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 4, 2014 @ 18:20 GMT
I going to start this topic with a controversial proposal, namely, that the diagram on page 22 of Bulk viscosities of magnetized quark matter and neutron star phenomenology showing the 45 degree polar view can be related to the findings of this research Earth's New Center May Be The Seed Of Our Planet's Formation

[quote]"It's a very robust effect," they insist. In the innermost inner core waves travel most slowly at a 45 degree angle to Earth's axis, as opposed to an east-west direction in the rest of the inner core.[end quote]

Is strange matter so strange that it exists at the center of the Earth, right under our noses? Is this possible I ask.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 10, 2014 @ 19:27 GMT
Is evidence of strange quark matter meteor strikes more abundant than we realize?

What created this mysterious Siberian crater?

[quote]But the nest's shape is not at all like other locations where meteorites were found. Another expert, a doctor of physical and mathematical sciences, Igor Simonov, of Moscow Institute for Problems in Mechanics, conducted a series of intriguing experiments, and evidently established that the crater could have been formed from the fall of a cylindrical object of super dense material.

Tantalisingly, he said: 'On Earth this material is not available, but somewhere in space it may exist.'[/quote]

.............

This Mars crater is strikingly similar:

Golf Ball Crater on Mars

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 11, 2014 @ 08:50 GMT
Alan,

If we keep an open mind, there is no evidence against the possibility of quark matter as one of the many candidates for dark matter, although I have my ideas that the major candidate is more diffuse rather than concentrated. Why do you say it is elusive? Can something claimed from evidence to be so abundant be elusive? I am of the opinion that it has been found experimentally from earth-based and space based light experiments.

Again, one of the hallmarks of the major candidate is that it interacts very minimally with more familiar matter in a gravitational way. Quark matter on the other hand from your post can interact electromagnetically

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 11, 2014 @ 16:36 GMT
Hello Akinbo,

And firstly thank you for taking an interest. A recent Scientific American article seems to disagree with you when you say "I am of the opinion that it has been found experimentally from earth-based and space based light experiments."

Dark Matter Search Considers Exotic Possibilities (3rd Jan 2014)

The subtitle reads: "As observations fail to pin down the so-far undetectable stuff, explanations once considered fringe are now getting another look"

The first paragraph reads: "Ever since astronomers realized that most of the matter in the universe is invisible, they have tried to sort out what that obscure stuff might be. But three decades of increasingly sophisticated searches have found no sign of dark matter, causing scientists to question some of their basic ideas about this elusive substance."

The strange quark matter is covered here:

"Another exotic possibility attracting increased interest is quark matter - an extremely dense phase of matter made of strange quarks (exotic cousins of the up and down quarks that form protons and neutrons). Quark matter could be created inside very massive neutron stars, and in sufficient quantities it could make up a population of quark stars that would emit no light but could exert a gravitational pull on normal matter."

...........

I don't quite understand the significance of your last point made, I'm afraid. Incidentally, I suspect that strange quark matter objects interact very strongly gravitationally between one another yet much more weakly with familiar matter.

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 12, 2014 @ 08:52 GMT
Alan, my last post was because of the use of "magnetized quark matter" in your post.

The Dark matter searches that didn't find anything were looking for something claimed to be abundant in a deep hole underground when in my opinion common sense dictates that what is claimed to be abundant should be looked for over-ground. But more on this later if you are interested.

Since you mention 'quark matter meteors' and 'quark stars', what of 'quark planets'? Indeed some have started toying with this idea and written a paper that such quark planets can be a cause of orbital precession. And that may cause trouble for Einstein because Mercury's orbital precession may be due to one such quark planet orbiting the Sun. In particular, Planet Vulcan might just be a quark planet causing Mercury's orbit to precess and then what will happen to General relativity if this turns out to be the case is left to be pondered.

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Rodney Bartlett wrote on Feb. 16, 2014 @ 08:14 GMT
Princeton physicist Ed Witten conjectured that the true ground

state of matter (in the sense of the lowest energy per particle) consists of a

mixture of roughly equal numbers of up, down, and strange quarks, with enough electrons thrown in to ensure that this soup is electrically neutral. Scientists have never demonstrated this conjecture to be true, and don't have

evidence...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 16, 2014 @ 09:40 GMT
Hi Rodney,

and thank you for taking an active interest in this thread discussion. I agreed with your opening paragraph until I read:

"Princeton physicist Ed Witten conjectured that the true ground state of matter (in the sense of the lowest energy per particle) consists of a mixture of roughly equal numbers of up, down, and strange quarks, with enough electrons thrown in to ensure...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Rodney Bartlett wrote on Feb. 17, 2014 @ 05:34 GMT
Hi Alan,

Thanks for providing the info in all those websites. However, they don't appear to be presenting what I'd call evidence. To me, evidence is proof. The websites you listed speak of hints, progress, possible connections and strong indications - these things are certainly worth taking attention of, but they are not proof. There is a definition in my dictionary that says evidence is indication that an idea is correct, or support for an idea. Maybe you used this less rigorous interpretation that strong indications are evidence? The scientists you mention may possibly be proved right - but they may possibly be proved wrong. So it's a smart idea for readers of this page to leave their minds open to other ideas (such as the ones presented later on in my original post).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 17, 2014 @ 05:54 GMT
Hi again Alan, Speaking of ideas "presented later on in my original post)", could I add to that post's final paragraph (using some lines from my entry in FQXi's 2014 contest - "NEW PHYSICS SUGGESTS DARWIN'S ORIGIN OF SPECIES IS INCOMPLETE, AND THAT GODLIKE HUMANITY WILL EMERGE" (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1977) -

In the 19th century, Scottish mathematician and physicist Maxwell...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 17, 2014 @ 20:01 GMT
Rodney,

The evidence for quark stars isn't just confined to the anomalous double explosions of supernovae:

Quark Star Plays Role in New Theory for Brightest Supernovae

[quote]Super-luminous supernovae, which produce more than 100 times more light energy than normal supernovae and occur in about one out of every 1,000 supernovae explosions, have long baffled astrophysicists. The problem has been finding a source for all of that extra energy.

University of Calgary astrophysicists Denis Leahy and Rachid Ouyed think they have a possible source ? the explosive conversion of a neutron star into a quark star.

.........

Leahy and Ouyed's computer models suggest a quark-nova explosion would account for the extra energy observed in super-luminous supernovae. The properties they found in their simulations matched up with those of three of the most luminous supernovae to date: SN2006gy, SN2005gj and SN2005ap.

"In theory, when a neutron star converts into a quark star it releases a lot of energy and it produces something that looks like a supernova explosion in terms of energetics," Leahy said during a presentation of the results today, here at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society (AAS).[end quote]

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Rodney Bartlett wrote on Feb. 18, 2014 @ 04:02 GMT
Hi Alan,

I read that interesting article, and I do see now that the researchers are definitely on the right track. The article states, "Other explanations for the bright supernovae are possible, the researchers say". I think these "other explanations" reveal that the scientists are going in the right direction but have failed to go far enough. As the article says, "Quarks are considered to be the tiniest elementary particles that form the building blocks for protons and neutrons, which in turn form atoms." The term "tiniest elementary particles" appears to mean "the ground state or lowest possible energy level". And according to my original comment on this page, "the binary digits of 1 and 0 must surely be the ground state or lowest possible energy level". Admittedly, this explanation probably sounds more unusual than the notion of quark stars. But I believe my previous explanations answer every question more than satisfactorily. In the end, my explanations lead back to black holes instead of quark stars. And black holes, while as unusual as my ideas, are scientifically accepted while the article points out that quark stars are still just theoretical.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 18, 2014 @ 06:37 GMT
Rodney,

We are at loggerheads with differing opinions. You sound at little out of date though with respect to your assertion that 'black holes' are scientifically accepted. Have you heard that Prof. Hawking has just retracted the previously held scientific notion of 'black holes' and the chaos that this has caused?

Stephen Hawking’s Blunder on Black Holes Shows Danger of Listening to Scientists, Says Bachmann

[quote] WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Dr. Stephen Hawking’s recent statement that the black holes he famously described do not actually exist underscores “the danger inherent in listening to scientists,” Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota) said today.

Rep. Bachmann unleashed a blistering attack on Dr. Hawking, who earlier referred to his mistake on black holes as his “biggest blunder.”

“Actually, Dr. Hawking, our biggest blunder as a society was ever listening to people like you,” said Rep. Bachmann. “If black holes don’t exist, then other things you scientists have been trying to foist on us probably don’t either, like climate change and evolution.”

Rep. Bachmann added that all the students who were forced to learn about black holes in college should now sue Dr. Hawking for a full refund. “Fortunately for me, I did not take any science classes in college,” she said.

Bachmann’s anti-Hawking comments seemed to be gaining traction on Capitol Hill, as seen from the statement by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Chairman of the House Science Committee, who said, “Going forward, members of the House Science Committee will do our best to avoid listening to scientists.” [end quote]

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Rodney Bartlett wrote on Feb. 18, 2014 @ 12:25 GMT
You're right, Alan. We have differing opinions. When a person has a certain view, it's always possible to find support for that view. For example, I wanted to find out more about Stephen Hawking's recent statements about black holes. So I typed "hawking black holes" into Google, and the first thing my eye saw (even though it was partway down the page) was "Why Hawking Is Wrong About Black Holes" by Brian Koberlein, an astrophysicist and physics professor at Rochester Institute of Technology.

http://www.universetoday.com/108870/why-hawking-is-wrong-abo
ut-black-holes/

He says, "What I’ve presented here is a very rough overview of the situation. I’ve glossed over some of the more subtle aspects. For a more detailed (and remarkably clear) overview check out Ethan Seigel’s post on his blog Starts With a Bang! Also check out the post on Sabine Hossenfelder’s blog, Back Reaction, where she talks about the issue herself - ending with "In summary, nothing has changed in our understanding of black holes due to Hawking’s paper. ."

You have your definite views ... I have mine. Time will determine who's correct.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 18, 2014 @ 12:47 GMT
Rodney,

In your own view of black holes, how do clocks behave near them?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 18, 2014 @ 15:40 GMT
Hi Rodney,

Yes, people become entrenched in their views. As you say, time will tell.

Cheers,

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 18, 2014 @ 16:04 GMT
Rodney,

Robert Koberlein talks about quark stars:

In a Flash

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 18, 2014 @ 15:51 GMT
Strange quark matter is also credited with being able to explain another celestial anomaly:

Could Quark Stars Explain Magnetars Strong Magnetic Field?

[quote]Magnetars are the violent, exotic cousins of the well known neutron star. They emit excessive amounts of gamma-rays, X-rays and possess a powerful magnetic field. Neutron stars also have very strong magnetic fields (although weak when compared with magnetars), conserving the magnetic field of the parent star before it exploded as a supernova. However, the huge magnetic field strength predicted from observations of magnetars is a mystery. Where do magnetars get their strong magnetic fields? According to new research, the answer could lie in the even more mysterious quark star…[end quote]

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 18, 2014 @ 15:57 GMT
There's more:

Some black holes may actually be 'quark stars'

[quote]Think black holes are strange? Understandable, considering these powerhouses of the universe (many times heavier than our sun) are collapsed stars with gravity so strong that even light cannot escape their grasp.

But maybe they're not "strange" enough, some astrophysicists suggest. "Stellar" black holes, ones only a few times heavier than the sun, may actually be something even weirder called a quark star, or "strange" star.

A physics team led by Zoltan Kovacs of the University of Hong Kong sizes up the issue in the current Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Quark stars are only theoretical right now, but "the observational identification of quarks stars would represent a major scientific achievement," Kovacs says.

If quark stars exist, it could prove a theory that normal matter – the stuff of people, planets and stars – isn't stable and could help explain the existence of the "dark matter" that fills much of the universe.[end quote]

This plays very well into my own personal hypothesis that *all* celestial bodies have strange quark matter at their cores.

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Rodney Bartlett wrote on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 13:00 GMT
Replying to Akinbo Ojo's comment of Feb. 18, 2014 - "Rodney, In your own view of black holes, how do clocks behave near them?" (Answering this will be great mental exercise for me! And I do love exercise!)

Hi Akinbo,

If you could compare the speed of a clock you carried into a black hole with that of a reference clock kept far away, then the clock falling into the black hole would...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 10:22 GMT
Rodney,

Let me brief in my response since this blog is on Quark stars.

RE: If you could compare the speed of a clock you carried into a black hole with that of a reference clock kept far away, then the clock falling into the black hole would appear to slow down relative to the clock far from the hole (at the event horizon, it would appear to stop).

In other words, any process takes an infinite amount of time to complete. Now compare this with "Seth Lloyd led off the longer talks... and gave the sage advice that if you should find yourself falling into a black hole, whatever you do, don’t struggle".Refer here and here. We all know that Struggling is a process, can it be completed in a black hole? If it can, then can the duration taken to complete struggling not be used to measure a finite time?

Then hear Zeeya Merali's sweet voice here contradicting the theory that clocks virtually come to a stop. If you fell in a black hole, how long will it take you to be spaghettified, ripped apart, crushed and frazzled to a crisp? These are processes that will take eternity according to Einstein's common sense but those who think they know more than the founder of General relativity speak from both sides of the mouth on this topic. Hawking is to be praised for now partially retracing his steps.

Finally, as I have posted on a blog elsewhere, RE: Einstein's work famously showed that time is relative... that clocks run more quickly at higher altitudes because they experience a weaker gravitational force than clocks on the surface of the Earth. When you want to dtermine the time taken for light to travel a given distance, which clock will you use?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 20, 2014 @ 11:37 GMT
Akinbo,

thank you for addressing the point that this forum is for discussion about Quark Stars and strange quark matter (SQM). I wish to make a quick response to your last point though:

"Finally, as I have posted on a blog elsewhere, RE: Einstein's work famously showed that time is relative... that clocks run more quickly at higher altitudes because they experience a weaker gravitational force than clocks on the surface of the Earth. When you want to dtermine the time taken for light to travel a given distance, which clock will you use?"

It worth noting that pendulum clocks tick or swing more slowly at higher altitudes contrary to atomic clocks. This to me is proof that 'time' can't be thought of as running faster in a lower gravitational field, only *atomic* clocks can. This is why Einstein's mathematical equations without a mechanism for the gravity force are redundant imv.

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 21, 2014 @ 19:08 GMT
Alan,

That is an interesting observation. I keep making the point that while we experience time as a sequence of events and physics further distills this to measures of duration, the reality is that what is present isn't a point on some dimension and thus moving along it through these situations, but that what is present is all that is physically real and since it constantly changing configuration, it is these events which are created and dissolved, ie, going from being in the future to being in the past. We are not traveling/flowing from yesterday to tomorrow, rather tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. This makes time an effect of action, like temperature, not the space in which it occurs.

Then each action is its own clock and runs according to circumstance. If time really were a flow from past to future, you would think a faster clock would move into the future more rapidly, but because it processes/ages/burns faster, it actually recedes into the past that much quicker.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 21, 2014 @ 19:00 GMT
This latest finding suggests exotic matter is at play:

NASA's Chandra Sees Runaway Pulsar Firing an Extraordinary Jet (Feb 18 2014)

"With the pulsar moving one way and the jet going another, this gives us clues that exotic physics can occur when some stars collapse," said co-author Gerd Puehlhofer also of the University of Tuebingen.

Originally discovered with...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 21, 2014 @ 19:20 GMT
Alan,

One of my contentions has been that black holes are really cosmic vortices and what gets pulled in them is what gets shot out those jets at the poles.

So the fact this has a tail and a jet perpendicular to one another raises the possibility the tail is material being pulled in, rather than blown off. Possibly the nebula isn't its own, but one it's pulling material from. Just a thought.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 21, 2014 @ 20:06 GMT
John,

I had the thought that all these exotic high energy celestial bodies have the same basic form. It's exactly like that of the Earth: they spin around an axis, have a magnetic field and also wobble:

"The X-ray jet in IGR J11014-6103 is the longest known in the Milky Way galaxy. In addition to its impressive span, it has a distinct corkscrew pattern that suggests the pulsar is wobbling like a spinning top."

I'm convinced that they all have exotic matter, anisotropic strange quark matter, at their cores to produce the same basic form. How do you feel about this extraordinary idea? I'm guessing you'll need plenty of convincing.

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 22, 2014 @ 02:22 GMT
Alan,

I'm somewhat of the opinion that we don't really appreciate the nature of ordinary matter. Physics seems bent on finding some mystery buried down in the most elemental nature and goes to extremes of smallest, largest and most abstract, but this everyday reality we live in is a balancing act of forces and properties, of which we tend to focus on one side of, or see the two sides as...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Feb. 23, 2014 @ 10:55 GMT
The pix in attachment may explain why a supernova can explode twice; what lies at earth centre; the source of planetary and stellar magnetism; the reason behind celestial bodies spinning on the one hand (which matters more to Alan), and on the other hand (the aspect that matters more to me), why Michelson-Morley type experiments on earth surface are null (isotropy of light speed despite the earth's motion), while in contrast light arriving to observer from beyond the earth shows anisotropy and dependence on observer's motion (like CMBR and the need to correct for observer motion when studying Pulsar light); why the frequency of light should vary vertically with height as if there was a medium varying in density with height; why light grazing the surface of a celestial body should undergo refraction in the process. All these, in addition to resolving why outer lying stars do not escape from galaxies given their high rotational velocities as if galaxies contained more than the observed luminous matter, the major reason why dark matter was discovered in the first place. There may be more that the pix can explain.

Akinbo

attachments: FQXi_pix.doc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 23, 2014 @ 11:37 GMT
Akinbo,

I appreciate the diagram and the consideration of strange quark matter at the core of celestial bodies. I don't quite see why there has to be a significant mixture on the surface though and also existence in the interstellar medium. Just having gravitationally anisotropic exotic matter at the inner cores of planets and stars would be enough to explain observations imv.

The null result from the M-M experiment is an interesting point of discussion. It is considered to show that a stationary aether doesn't exist in which light waves travel, analogous to waves on water. Yet we've ended up with a stationary "fabric" on which gravitational waves travel. Isn't the concept of space-time much the same thing as the aether?

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 23, 2014 @ 11:57 GMT
Here's an interesting snippet on the first measurements of the speed of light:

View From Mars Hill: Jupiter key to estimating the speed of light

[quote]So what of this constant rate of light’s speed on which the above numbers rely? In our Earthbound lives, light seems to travel extremely quickly, virtually instantaneously. How did we ever accurately determine the speed of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 24, 2014 @ 09:01 GMT
Alan,

This may not be your forte. RE: "The null result from the M-M experiment is an interesting point of discussion. It is considered to show that a stationary aether doesn't exist in which light waves travel, analogous to waves on water".

Let's leave the aether out for the moment. The greater importance of the M-M experiment vis-a-vis other experiments indicating on the contrary that earth's motion can influence light arrival times was that an earth-bound medium, not necessarily the aether must be present to explain the discordant light findings. In the absence of such a transparent medium Galilean relativity MUST be abandoned and another type of relativity (Lorentz transformation/Special relativity) MUST take its place. No feasible transparent candidate medium capable of being earth bound to influence earth surface experiments was found until long after the drama of 1887, 1905 and 1916. It was only from about 1932/1933 that a new actor previously unrecognized as a possible member of the cast came into reckoning and in my thinking it has come to rescue Galilean relativity from the strangle hold of Special relativity as the long sought earth-bound medium. See also the references in the pix I attached.

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 26, 2014 @ 17:43 GMT
Coalescing binary neutron stars are the target detection for a very sensitive 'gravity wave' detector:

[quote]The first stage detectors achieved their target sensitivity in 2006 and, as expected, they detected no signals. You would know if they had!

The second stage detectors are expected to begin operating next year. The Australian team is readying itself because the new detectors change the whole game.

For the first time we have firm predictions: both the strength and the number of signals. No longer are we hoping for rare and unknown events.

We will be monitoring a significant volume of the universe and for the first time we can be confident that we will “listen” to the coalescence of binary neutron star systems and the formation of black holes.

Once these detectors reach full sensitivity we should hear signals almost once a week. Exactly when we will reach this point, no one knows. We have to learn how to operate the vast and complex machines.

If you want to place bets on the date of first detection of some gravity wave then some physicists would bet on 2016, probably the majority would bet 2017. A few pessimists would say that we will discover unexpected problems that might take a few years to solve.[end quote]

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 27, 2014 @ 18:05 GMT
Akinbo,

We were talking about how strange quark matter might be the seeds of celestial body formation. Take a look at this:

SMA Unveils How Small Cosmic Seeds Grow Into Big Stars

[quote]The team studied two specific spots within the Snake nebula, designated P1 and P6. Within those two regions they detected a total of 23 cosmic "seeds" - faintly glowing spots that will eventually birth one or a few stars. The seeds generally weigh between 5 and 25 times the mass of the Sun, and each spans only a few thousand astronomical units (the average Earth-Sun distance). The sensitive, high-resolution SMA images not only unveil the small seeds, but also differentiate them in age.

Previous theories proposed that high-mass stars form within very massive, isolated "cores" weighing at least 100 times the mass of the Sun. These new results show that that is not the case. The data also demonstrate that massive stars aren't born alone but in groups.

"High-mass stars form in villages," said co-author Qizhou Zhang of the CfA. "It's a family affair."

The team also was surprised to find that these two nebular patches had fragmented into individual star seeds so early in the star formation process.

They detected bipolar outflows and other signs of active, ongoing star formation. Eventually, the Snake nebula will dissolve and shine as a chain of several star clusters.[end quote]

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 27, 2014 @ 18:19 GMT
If "black hole" is re-written as Strange Quark Matter then the lack of star formation would be due to the seeds of formation having coalesced into the center:

Bullying black holes force galaxies to stay red and dead

[quote]“Once again, Herschel has detected something that was never seen before: significant amounts of cold gas in nearby red-and-dead galaxies,” notes Göran Pilbratt, Herschel Project Scientist at ESA, “nevertheless, these galaxies do not form stars, and the culprit seems to be the black hole.[end quote]

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 27, 2014 @ 19:05 GMT
Will certainly be updating my knowledge of Quark matter.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 27, 2014 @ 19:57 GMT
I thought some more:

It makes sense that giant elliptical galaxies are old spiral galaxies who's central Strange Quark Matter has stopped spinning enough that the SQM loses it's gravitational anisotropy. Because the quarks of SQM are unbounded I have hypothesized that centrifugal force can create the gravitational anisotropy. This is why they then attain their elliptical shape from a former star producing giant spiral.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Feb. 27, 2014 @ 21:11 GMT
Does dark matter have its own version of Higgs field? A dark-Higgs field? Did the big bang create multiple versions of a Higgs field?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Feb. 28, 2014 @ 00:06 GMT
If dark matter had its own Higgs field (a dark Higgs field), then that would distinguish it from our known Higgs field. Our known standard model of fundamental particles would owe their existence to some unknown property or quality of our Higgs field. Yet a dark Higgs field for dark matter would have its own unique qualities that give rise to its own dark standard model of dark matter particles. And both of these Higgs fields would have some relationship with our common space-time continuum.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Feb. 28, 2014 @ 05:26 GMT
Hi Jason,

and welcome to the discussion on quark stars and strange quark matter.

The Simple English Wikipedia entry on Higgs field describes it as:

[quote]The Higgs Field is an invisible energy field that exists everywhere in the universe. The field is accompanied by what may be a fundamental particle called the Higgs Boson, which it uses to continuously interact with other particles. As particles pass through the field they are endowed with the property of mass, much as an object passing through treacle (or molasses) will become slower.[end quote]

If I was a supporter of Einstein's aether-like theory, which I'm not, then I'd say "no". The idea of strange quark matter as the candidate for dark matter has been discussed here previously. Personally, I find it a lot easier to think in terms of particles or helical strings in empty space. The gravity force is then transferred from one object to another by an Archimedes screw like structure, spinning twice as fast as it moves. No need for a space-time continuum in this scenario.

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Feb. 28, 2014 @ 06:17 GMT
Hi Alan,

That Archimedes screw is popular with many people for some reason. Probably because it's conceptually easy to visualize and understand.

As far as the definition of the Higgs field, I like the idea that it suggests some strange kind of aether. I guess there are two kinds of people who are interested in physics: those who like very well defined physics/predictable physics; and those who like aetherial physics. For some strange reason, nature split the difference. Black hole physics and event horizons tell us that everything is information theory. But it's like quantum mechanics takes that "information" and blurs it by adding a layer of mystery.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 28, 2014 @ 08:59 GMT
Peter,

I awoke with a revelation. A simple law that will lead to a theory of everything.

The larger a quark strange matter core, the quicker it loses it's spin and so the quicker is loses it's anisotropy

This applies to planets, stars and galaxies. Mercury is very small, which implies that it has a very fast spinning SQM core and therefore is very anisotropic. It's this high SQM core anisotropy combined with it's high orbital speed which leads to it's anomalous precession.

Large stars will have large SQM cores which therefore lose their spin more rapidly. They therefore lose their rotational plane gravitational anisotropy relatively quickly which leads to a loss of radiation pressure and the star collapses in on itself.

As explained previously concerning the demise of a spiral galaxy to a lenticular and then to an elliptical. The possibility of a more luminous lenticular galaxy compared to a spiral galaxy can be explained by the reduced spin of the central SQM. The galactic plane becomes lost yet the stars themselves still attain star forming material. The stars themselves still have spinning SQM cores. A galaxy merger scenario is therefore not required.

A simple law that can explain the dynamics of the macro-world. The quantum world explanation isn't far away.

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 1, 2014 @ 19:33 GMT
I had a left-field idea: could strange quarks exist at the center of baryonic atoms?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Mar. 1, 2014 @ 21:41 GMT
Star explodes, collapses into neutron star, then again into a quark star. I think ive got it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 2, 2014 @ 05:26 GMT
That's the basics, yes. I'm also speculating that strange quark matter (SQM) would have been formed just after the Big Bang along with regular protons and neutrons and become the seeds of formation of all the celestial bodies.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 2, 2014 @ 16:51 GMT
Exotic orbit for the largest Trojan asteroid — the only one known to possess a moon (Feb 27 2014)

This is a classic case of strange quark matter at play imo.

[quote]The research, conducted with expert assistance from colleagues at the Institut de Mécanique Céleste et de Calcul des Éphémérides (IMCCE) of the Observatoire de Paris, revealed that the 12 km moon orbits the large 250 km asteroid every 3 days at a distance of 600 km in an ellipse inclined almost 45 degrees with respect to the asteroid’s equator.

“The orbit of the moon is elliptical and tilted relative to the spin of Hektor, which is very different from other asteroids with satellites seen in the main-belt,” said Matija Cuk, coauthor and scientist at the Carl Sagan Center of the SETI Institute. “However, we did computer simulations, which include Hektor being a spinning football shape asteroid and orbiting the Sun, and we found that the moon’s orbit is stable over billions of years.”

Hektor has been known since the 1970s to be spinning rapidly (less than 7 hours) and extremely elongated. Using the high angular resolution of the Keck II telescope, combined with a large number of photometric observations taken since 1957, the team built a refined shape hoping to get a clue to the origin of the system.

“We built several models of equal quality from the photometric data, but we favored a model made of two lobes since some of the best adaptive optics observations suggest that the Trojan asteroid has a dual structure,” said Josef Durech, co-author and researcher at the Charles University in Prague.[end quote]

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 6, 2014 @ 05:08 GMT
Spiral galaxy with Streaks Of Blue (Mar 4 2014)

My interpretation of this phenomenon is that the galaxy within the cluster passing 'face-on' across an anisotropic quark plane from a larger galactic center or the plane of the Great Attractor itself. See below. This then has the strongest influence on the most anisotropic quark matter cores i.e. those of young stars.

The rather obscure...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 6, 2014 @ 05:19 GMT
Spiral galaxy with Streaks Of Blue (Mar 4 2014)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 6, 2014 @ 05:14 GMT
Giant Celestial Object Spinning At Over Half The Speed Of Light Mar 5 2014)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 9, 2014 @ 05:59 GMT
Strange quark matter at the core of stars would account for dark matter especially due to the recent find of hidden stars and brown dwarfs in our own backyard:

WISE finds 3,525 stars and brown dwarfs within 500 light-years of our sun

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 9, 2014 @ 18:49 GMT
Did dark matter kill the dinosaurs? Maybe is wonderfully relevant to the idea of exotic strange quark matter existing at the center of the sun and galactic center. The 35 million year solar cycle through the dark matter 'disc' is directly analogous to the idea of additional tidal forcing on the earth's 100ky ice age cycle through the plane of angular momentum of the solar system. This would give an additional mechanism for the demise of the dinosaurs as the consequences of extreme tidal forcing at the center of the sun.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 12, 2014 @ 10:01 GMT
The Milky Way and Andromeda are encircled by twelve large galaxies arranged in a ring

Why the ring shape? Is anisotropic gravity a possible answer?

attachments: Local_sheet_sideview_small.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 12, 2014 @ 12:08 GMT
Alan,

Expansion reverses within the LG, so focussing is inevitable. Intrinsic rotation and large scale 'flow' are also directional (look at the so called 'axis of evil'). The condensed dark matter is very much the gravitational 'glue', but the condensate itself is what is 'flowing'.

This recent paper has a good local flow analysis; Beyond a certain radius the flow becomes 'outwards'. Dark energy in the nearby Universe: HST data, nonlinear theory, and computer simulations.

Unfortunately I don't have a free access link, but I think I have a pdf.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 12, 2014 @ 13:47 GMT
Peter,

Here's a clearly written summary of the situation:

"The Great Attractor" --Cosmic Flows of the Local Universe (Video|)

There isn't any evidence which suggests that the hypothesis of gravitationally anisotropic exotic matter existing at the center of stars and galaxies is incorrect. Dark matter hasn't been located and dark energy is a complete mystery to the mainstream. Do you agree?

This simple hypothesis solves the lenticular galaxy conundrum and gives a explanation for the transition from spiral galaxy to lenticular to elliptical. See last post 28th Feb.

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 12, 2014 @ 14:50 GMT
Alan,

I agree. Although there's little evidence for it either, and plenty of evidence supporting a distribution of low EM profile matter like fermions and free protons in space, (it mainly needs to be outside large massive bodies, i.e. between the clusters) and equally no evidence against.

Yes, I like the video, excellent work. I posted it everywhere I could think of last year, and also one with Helene Cortois' commentary; Video of the Universe.

I haven't yet seen evidence it has to be 'exotic', but do post any. I agree 'dark energy' is as much as a mystery as 'matter'! (probably the same stuff but in vortices).

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 12, 2014 @ 19:22 GMT
Alan,

The 26.8% dark matter (22.7% pre Planck) must be most significant in the 'voids' between the bodies to recreate the gravitational effects found. That is the whole basis of the calculations and the simulations that work. But It seems mostly pretty thinly spread, but concentrated in the extended haloes of galaxies and clusters decreasing gently out hundreds of parsecs. There ain't many stars out there!

If you don't have access to the MNRAS or ApJ you can still find a lot of info on the arXiv. i.e. Simple fermionic dark matter models and Higgs boson couplings. or; The core-cusp problem in cold dark matter halos and supernova feedback: Effects of Mass Loss or such more simplistic ones as as; Density of Dark Matter in Galaxy Clusters

then also piles of local hardcore stuff like; Telecommunications expert suggests Earth may have dark matter disc.

You seem to have the evolution of galaxies the wrong way round, discs ("elliptical") come after spiral and before lenticulars. Did you find that somewhere? I thought you'd read my paper on evolution. The sequence seems simple and exceptionally well evidenced (if not generally understood) without the 'solution' you suggest. What is it?

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 12, 2014 @ 20:09 GMT
Peter,

There is an abundance of stars out in the darkness:

The second WISE study, which concentrated on objects beyond our solar system, found 3,525 stars and brown dwarfs within 500 light-years of our sun.

The simulation modellers haven't thought of anisotropic dark matter at the center of stars. If they did, then I'm saying they'd get much better results.

Here's the Wikipedia entry on Lenticular Galaxies

Formation theories

The morphology and kinematics of lenticular galaxies each, to a degree, suggest a mode of galaxy formation. Their disk-like, possibly dusty, appearance suggests they come from faded spiral galaxies, whose arm features disappeared. Alternatively, as lenticular galaxies are likely to be more luminous than spiral galaxies, which suggests that they are not merely the faded remnants of spiral galaxies. Rather, lenticular galaxies might result from galaxy merger, which increase the total stellar mass and give the newly merged galaxy its disk-like, arm-less appearance


Their appearance suggest they come from faded spiral galaxies who's arm features have disappeared. According to my theory, they are often more luminous than spirals because only the galactic center exotic matter has lost it's spin and so lost it's higher anisotropic gravity on the galactic plane. The stars still have high spin exotic cores and so shine brightly. This scenario therefore gives the devolution of spiral to lenticular to elliptical. It requires a little thought and imagination but gives an elegant solution to the galaxy formation conundrum.

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 12, 2014 @ 21:30 GMT
Peter,

The Cuspy halo problem actually fits my hypothesis:

The cuspy halo problem arises from cosmological simulations that seem to indicate cold dark matter (CDM) would form cuspy distributions — that is, increasing sharply to a high value at a central point — in the most dense areas of the universe. This would imply that the center of our galaxy, for example, should exhibit a higher dark-matter density than other areas

Observations can't see it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there:

One approach to solving the cusp-core problem in galactic halos is to consider models that modify the nature of dark matter; theorists have considered warm, fuzzy, self-interacting, and meta-cold dark matter, among other possibilities

Self-interacting dark matter is what I have been proposing in the form of strange quark matter which has a strong SQM to SQM gravitational interaction on the plane of core rotation. It's this interaction which gives additional large tidal forcing on Earth's 100ky inclination cycle and the moon's 1,800yr lunar tidal cycle.

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 12, 2014 @ 21:35 GMT
Peter,

Take a look at this:

Observational evidence for self-interacting cold dark matter

Cosmological models with cold dark matter composed of weakly interacting particles predict overly dense cores in the centers of galaxies and clusters and an overly large number of halos within the Local Group compared to actual observations. We propose that the conflict can be resolved if the cold dark matter particles are self-interacting with a large scattering cross-section but negligible annihilation or dissipation. In this scenario, astronomical observations may enable us to study dark matter properties that are inaccessible in the laboratory

Strange quark matter is an excellent candidate.

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 13, 2014 @ 18:01 GMT
Alan,

I agree your model is novel but take care about selective interpretation bias, one of the biggest problems in astrophysics. I must admit as an astronomer I also cringe a lot when people quote wikiscience at me! Having said that I'll never dismiss ANY proposition out of hand.

There may well be some exotic DM within bodies, but the DM spread in the extended haloes (NOT in visible bodies) can not only account for all the gravitational effects on it's own (that's not to say it actually 'does', but also requires to be where it is to have the effects it does, NOT significantly within massive visible bodies, or even the 'dust'. The G potential of the bodies is well calculated, it's the 'other' potentials (not focussed locally on the bodies) that are most 'poorly understood'.

I have a current paper on galaxy evolution, including constraining DM, which has just passed peer review (subject to some minor improvements) which should go up on arXiv later this month. It rigorously derives the findings you suggest other causes for. I'll send you a link, IF you too have an open mind!.

It also identifies the reasons the DM and ionized gas haloes counter rotate ("kinetic decoupling") from the stellar disc.

In the interim another of many related papers I cite, giving the evidence it's happening not the solution; Decoupled gas kinematics in isolated S0 galaxies

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 13, 2014 @ 18:34 GMT
Alan,

Filament Dark Matter spin orientation; reading the monthly notices, just came across this interesting consistent finding; The hierarchical nature of the spin alignment of dark matter haloes in filaments. Spin half is something that the (low EM profile) fermions we find (and of the Higgs) process posess.

Fascinating.

The 'field orientation' matter is consistent with my EPR resolution. I did direct you to it again hidden in the spheres, did you read it? See Richards post of 1st March with 17 responses.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 13, 2014 @ 18:57 GMT
Peter,

Yes, I am prone to interpretation bias due to my working hypothesis but I think the idea of the devolution of spirals to lenticular to ellipticals has merit, with annihilation occurring at galactic centers. I'd be interested to read your paper on galaxy evolution though and I promise to keep as open a mind as I can.

I greatly appreciate your consideration that "There may well be some exotic DM within bodies". I haven't been able to find anyone else who's made the suggestion. Maybe I'm the first, who knows?

A couple of links didn't work but I googled "Filament Dark Matter spin orientation". I suspect this is something like spirals being arranged like beads on a string, which I've read somewhere recently. I'm still thinking very conceptually at the moment and can find these kind of papers quite presumptuous about so called established facts. There's so much that will become clear in our lifetimes, I'm sure. What a relief when some real progress is finally made on the nature and locality of dark matter.

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 14, 2014 @ 08:19 GMT
Peter,

Dense Disk and Torus Funnel at the Centre of the Circinus Galaxy (13 Mar 2014)

Although there is now a much clearer picture of a torus than before, there are some puzzles remaining: For example, both the dust disk and the polar dust have a temperature of about 300K (~30°C, i.e. about room temperature). Surprisingly, there is no evidence for hotter dust towards the centre as would be expected for a centrally heated dust distribution.

"The presence of both a bright disk-like component and a more extended polar dust component at a similar temperature were not predicted by the present models of active galactic nuclei", concludes Gerd Weigelt, director at the MPIfR and head of the research group for infrared astronomy.


Your galaxy evolution theory will need to incorporate the latest findings.

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 14, 2014 @ 06:02 GMT
Peter,

Following a host of conflicting reports in the wake of the mysterious disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 last Saturday, representatives from the Kuala Lumpur–based carrier acknowledged they had widened their investigation into the vanished Boeing 777 aircraft today to encompass not only the possibilities of mechanical failure, pilot error, terrorist activity, or a botched hijacking, but also the overarching scope of space, time, and humankind’s place in the universe.

I've always been interested in all elements of the unexplained with mystery ship and aircraft incidents included. I suspect that the fate of the 777 could have been due to an ultra brief high energy beam emanating from the Earth's exotic core. Believe it or not, there's been other famous cases where radar tracking information from different locations has given conflicting reports of last location.

Source: MH370: Malaysia Airlines plane search continues amid signals mystery

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 14, 2014 @ 16:10 GMT
Alan,

It doesn't 'incorporate' but rather 'predicts', and has been for some time. I have pointed this out, but nobody seems terribly interested.

The reason nobody else has predicted exotic dark matter within stars and planets is that it's gravitational effects put is around not 'in' such bodies. Unless it has some other kind of gravity!

Fermions (vortices, as your 'corkscrews') have almost zero EM profile (are 'dark' to spectroscopy) but very high coupling co-efficient (refract light effectively), so are ideal. (strictly also positrons and protons, making the 'pure space-plasma' actually found). We also find a lot out there, and know the Higgs process and moving mass produces them. What's wrong with those looking I really can't imagine!

I agree there are many assumptions, but the trick is picking the RIGHT ones to discard!

Best wishes

Peter

PS. Early short paper here, now vastly expanded and evidenced; Cyclic evolution.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 14, 2014 @ 17:24 GMT
Peter,

We have considerably differing world-views but with the common feature of helical structures. I'm convinced of self-interacting dark matter at the center of moons, planets and stars.

Good luck with your work.

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 17, 2014 @ 15:54 GMT
Gravity investigated with a binary pulsar

The first pulsar was discovered in 1967 at the radioastronomy laboratory in Cambridge, England (Nobel Prize 1974 to Antony Hewish). What was new about the Hulse-Taylor pulsar was that, from the behaviour of the beacon signal, it could be deduced that it was accompanied by an approximately equally heavy companion at a distance corresponding to only a few times the distance of the moon from the earth. The behaviour of this astronomical system deviates greatly from what can be calculated for a pair of heavenly bodies using Newton's theory. Here a new, revolutionary "space laboratory" has been obtained for testing Einstein's general theory of relativity and alternative theories of gravity. So far, Einstein's theory has passed the tests with flying colours. Of particular interest has been the possibility of verifying with great precision the theory's prediction that the system should lose energy by emitting gravitational waves in about the same way that a system of moving electrical charges emits electromagnetic waves.

This Hulse-Taylor pulsar could be used to test for the anisotropic graviton model of gravitation as an alternative to Einstein's relativity.

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 19, 2014 @ 16:42 GMT
Notice how the explanation for the large difference in precession between the binary pulsar and mercury is comparable to my explanation for mercury's anomalous precession relative to the other planets. (See post Feb 28)

The discovery of the binary pulsar

Hulse's and Taylor's discovery in 1974 of the first binary pulsar, called PSR 1913 + 16 (PSR stands for pulsar, and 1913 + 16 specifies the pulsar's position in the sky) thus brought about a revolution in the field. We have here two very small astronomical bodies, each with a radius of some ten kilometres but with a mass comparable with that of the sun, and at a short distance from each other, only several times the moon's distance from the earth. Here the deviations from Newton's gravitational physics are large. As an example may be mentioned that the periastron shift, the rotation of the elliptical orbit that the pulsar (according to Kepler's first law from the beginning of the 17th century) follows in this system, is 4 degrees per year. The corresponding relativistic shift for the most favourable example in our solar system, the above-mentioned perihelion motion of Mercury, is 43 seconds of arc per century (this is less than a tenth of the very much larger contributions to the perihelion motion caused by perturbations from other planets, chiefly Venus and Jupiter). The difference in size between the shifts is partly due to the orbital speed in the binary pulsar, which is almost five times greater than Mercury's, and partly due to the pulsar performing about 250 times more orbits a year than Mercury. The orbiting time of the binary pulsar is less than eight hours, which can be compared with the one month our moon takes to orbit the earth.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 27, 2014 @ 08:38 GMT
An asteroid with rings and likely shepherd moon is only 250km across and the new dwarf planet 450km across is described as:

Trujllio and colleagues estimate that the new dwarf planet is relatively small -- about 450 kilometers (280 miles) in diameter, which less than the driving distance from Philadelphia to Boston. It's probably ball-shaped, he said.

So why is this not a major planet such as Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars? Trujillo explains that a bona fide planet is big enough that other objects in its orbit will be sucked into it gravitationally. A dwarf planet is not big enough to become gravitationally dominant; it's too small to pull in objects in the area of its path.


There's a discrepancy here.

Also, the similar inclinations of the two distant objects could be due to the exotic dark matter hypothesis rather than a 10x super-earth planet:

In the most speculative part of today’s announcement the astronomers noted that 2012 VP113 shares a similar inclination in its orbit to the previously discovered Sedna,which Trujillo also had a hand in discovering, and which was originally termed 2003 VB12. They suggest that a much larger planet’s gravity could be corralling both objects.

They suggest that this as yet unseen gravitational sheep dog would be huge: perhaps 10 times the mass of the Earth, and orbiting a few hundred times further from the sun than our planet. Such ‘Super Earths’ are now routinely found around other stars. To find one in our solar system would constitute as much of a shake up as the discovery of Uranus, Neptune or Pluto did back in 1781, 1846, 1930 respectively.


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 28, 2014 @ 00:51 GMT
A really interesting discovery.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Mar. 28, 2014 @ 11:42 GMT
Hi Georgina and thanks. I'm predicting that further discoveries in the outer solar system will reveal a problem with basic Newtonian gravitational mechanics. If a shepherd moon is confirmed for the 250km diameter double ring asteroid then this will be a blow to the basic assumptions of gravitational attraction. Additional self-interacting exotic dark matter at their cores will be needed to resolve the issue imo.

It would also account for the similar inclinations of the two outer dwarf planets. If many more are discovered then I predict a greater distribution around the plane of angular momentum of the solar system.

All the best,

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Apr. 1, 2014 @ 18:51 GMT
Wow, there's a connection between gravitational resonances and organic matter:

Dwarf Planet Discovery Could Help Show Life's Spread Through Solar System

He found that those resonant objects that are embedded in the Kuiper Belt are full of this ultra-red material, indicating likely organics. On the edge of the belt, some of those objects also still have the material, showing that it is somehow leaking into the inner Solar System. Those that are quite far away, however, show none of the material.

Sedna and 2012 VP133 are well beyond the boundaries of the Kuiper Belt. Sheppard's new paper argues that they are part of the edges of the Oort Cloud, a theorized icy collection of objects extending thousands of AUs away from Earth. (The Oort Cloud is perhaps best known for being the supposed source of many comets that fly into the inner solar system.)


(Is the Oort Cloud a source of dark matter? The dark matter halo hypothesis fits with the idea of dark matter at the core of Oort Cloud objects)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Apr. 3, 2014 @ 18:44 GMT
My discussion with Peter earlier led me to predict annihilating dark matter at the galactic centers.

Here's recent evidence that this is jut the case in our own Milky Way:

Fermi Data Tantalize With New Clues To Dark Matter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Alan Lowey replied on Apr. 4, 2014 @ 06:26 GMT
The ill fated MH370 passenger plane could have been affected by the 'cosmic rays' produced from annihilating dark matter at the Earth's core. These would have affected the electronics of the aircraft. These emissions would be responsible for equatorial terrestrial gamma ray flashes (TGFs) in general.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on May. 2, 2014 @ 06:41 GMT
Astronomers observe corkscrew nature of light from a distant black hole

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


azad khurram wrote on Oct. 28, 2014 @ 06:56 GMT
My discussion with Peter earlier led me to predict annihilating dark matter at the galactic centers.

_______________

[url=http://www.vcefile.net/online-vc
e.php]http://www.vcefile.net/online-vce.php[/url]

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 28, 2014 @ 17:39 GMT
Azad,

Certainly electron-positron (fermion) pairs annihilating, as wherever they're propagated. I've found no reason that, along with the significant free proton fraction, (=pure plasma n=1) this spectroscopically 'dark' medium now found can't perform all the functions of 'dark matter'.

If anybody knows of any falsifiable reasons please advise.

Many thanks

Peter

PS Azad; Your links' lead nowhere. Click on 'link help page' just above the dialogue box here and follow the instructions, (NOT repeating the http: in the brackets). But I also think the address is incomplete.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Akinbo Ojo replied on Oct. 28, 2014 @ 18:56 GMT
Peter beware of grey aliens. Scroll down a bit to see Alan Lowey post April 3, 2014 and compare. You may ask Jason for help if you can't recognize grey aliens.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Oct. 29, 2014 @ 10:33 GMT
Akinbo,

I see them. Can you adjudicate? The deal was no big advances till 2020 to give us a chance to get our house in order. I see the need to 'feed' in' the new way of thinking gradually so by 2020 the paradigm change process is possible to start. These things do take cosmic time!

I think their view is that in case we're NOT ready by 2020 it's be dangerous to start a ball rolling now that can't be stopped. I'm convinced it's more an uphill than downhill process. Or am I being a bit 'previous'?

As one whose had at least an initial glimpse, what's the fair solution? What with ISIL, Ebola, the Chinese etc I do see they have a point. (I hope Ebola's nowhere near you).

Do you think it may be them messing with your electricity? lol.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.