< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 356 OF 356 ·
|Oct-25-17|| ||twinlark: Seems it is or was being investigated.
The expansion and contraction of space in front and behind a spaceship which would remain in a bubble of flat space time is theoretically possible if the ship is surrounded by a doughnut shape ring of exotic matter to distort space in the manner needed.
<"Everything within space is restricted by the speed of light," explained Richard Obousy, president of Icarus Interstellar, a non-profit group of scientists and engineers devoted to pursuing interstellar spaceflight. "But the really cool thing is space-time, the fabric of space, is not limited by the speed of light.">
Might be a while before practice catches up with theory. My thinking is creating, containing and controlling a torus of exotic matter will take some time to implement.
In any case NASA recently stated it was not working on a warp drive:
If there is ever a breakthrough, such as creating a tiny warp field in a lab, I'm sure we'll all know about it yesterday.
|Nov-05-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark> A purge seems to be ongoing in Saudi's top leadership, including a billionaire who is closely associated with the Clintons. What do you make of it rumored to be related to Trump trying to hit back at his detractors?|
|Nov-05-17|| ||twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>|
Seems at first blush that the internal bloodletting is a turf war between at two factions. The Kingdom is doing badly. the wars in the Middle East and especially Yemen have been draining its treasury to the extent that part of the trillion dollar Saudi Aramco is being floated for privatisation.
That's just my initial guess. The place is doing badly and the knives are out. One thing it's not about is stamping our "corruption".
|Nov-06-17|| ||jessicafischerqueen: |
Ta for your post mate.
ASKED and ANSWERED and I'm going to allow it. I'm not really a judge, but I frequently tell people on the internet that is my job.
|Nov-06-17|| ||jessicafischerqueen: |
A player sauteed is half eaten
|Nov-06-17|| ||jessicafischerqueen: |
|Nov-07-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>|
<Yet all the oldest stars show spectra for Thorium.>
I don't understand this. My understanding is that old stars are light on metals. I've reread our earlier discussions about the r-process and old stars and can't find a link that talks about the presence of heavy metals in ancient stars. Could you send me such a link?>
I forgot to answer this question. Here are some links:
<The long-lived radioactive nuclei, uranium and thorium in the atmosphere of ultra-metal-poor stars in the Galactic Halo, are the "cosmochronometers" working over the Galactic history during more than 10 billion years.
The r-process and uranium-thorium cosmochronology.>
<The thorium abundance obtained for the halo star CS 22892–052 by Sneden et al. (15), with the questionable assumption that the primordial ratio Th/Eu for CS 22892–052 was identical to that of the Sun, yields an age for the star of ≈15.2 billion yr>
The presence of r-process elements in the oldest stars of the Universe is actually much studied because they provide clues as to how old is the Universe, independent of the cosmic microwave radiation and other studies.
The oldest known stars whose spectra can be studied always show r-process elements. In contrast s-process elements are absent in these ancient stars.
<For example, we can detect thorium in the earliest stars," he said. "Thorium has a half-life of 14 billion years. So we observe how much thorium the star has now, and compare that to how much we think it was born with. Thus, we have a clock...
For example, the s-process builds almost no europium (a mainly r-process element), but lots of barium (a mainly s-process element)," he said. "We find that the most metal-poor stars -- these are the oldest stars in the Milky Way -- contain more europium than barium>
Notice in the last article above dated 2002, the scientist assumes <The rapid process (r-process) is quite different. When a massive star dies in a supernova explosion, it creates an enormous blast of neutrons that pulverize atomic nuclei. These nuclei have no chance for beta decay. This creates incredibly neutron-rich nuclei, which then rapidly decay.>
No mention of neutron stars, just core collapse supernovas. Ditto for most articles 5 years or more ago. The shift to the neutron star merger theory as the main source for most r-process elements happened nearly 'instantaneously' after this 2010 article http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010M... came out. The recent observed GW170817 has all but completed the shift in thinking.
|Nov-08-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark>
You might want to take a look at this article:
1. <Population III stars are a hypothetical population of extremely massive and hot stars with virtually no metals, except possibly for intermixing ejecta from other nearby Pop III supernovas. Their existence is inferred from physical cosmology, but they have not yet been observed directly..
Current theory is divided on whether the first stars were very massive or not—theories proposed in 2009 and 2011 suggest the first star groups might have consisted of a massive star surrounded by several smaller stars. One theory, developed by computer models of star formation, is that with no heavy elements and a much warmer interstellar medium from the Big Bang, it was easy to form stars with much greater total mass than the ones visible today. Typical masses for Pop III stars are expected to be about several hundred solar masses, which is much larger than that of current stars. Analysis of data of extremely low-metallicity Population II stars such as HE0107-5240, which are thought to contain the metals produced by Population III stars, suggest that these metal-free stars had masses of 20 to 130 solar masses. On the other hand, analysis of globular clusters associated with elliptical galaxies suggests pair-instability supernovae, which are typically associated with very massive stars, were responsible for their metallic composition. This also explains why there have been no low-mass stars with zero metallicity observed, although models have been constructed for smaller Pop III stars...>
2. If these pop 3 stars exploded early then they certainly would not have time to develop into neutron stars, whose mergers would seed the next generation of stars- the pop 2 stars- assuming that these pop 2 stars were created only from the products of the pop 3 star supernovas. If all r-elements are produced only from neutron star mergers, and all pop 2 stars came from pop 3 star supernovas, then pop 2 stars should have no r-elements.
<Population II, or metal-poor stars, are those with relatively little metal. The idea of a relatively small amount must be kept in perspective as even metal-rich astronomical objects contain low percentages of any element other than hydrogen or helium; metals constitute only a tiny percentage of the overall chemical makeup of the universe, even 13.8 billion years after the Big Bang. However, metal-poor objects are even more primitive. These objects are formed during an earlier time of the universe. Intermediate Population I stars are common in the bulge near the centre of our galaxy, whereas Population II stars found in the galactic halo are older and thus more metal-poor. Globular clusters also contain high numbers of population II stars. It is thought that population II stars created all the other elements in the periodic table..>
Yet population 2 stars with r-process elements and thorium have been found.
This can only be explained by:
1. The pop 3 supernovas did create r-elements. So r-elements are in fact produced during core collapse supernovas. If so, it's probably a matter of time before astronomers discover a supernova that produced r-elements.
2. The pop 3 stars already included primordial neutron stars some of which subsequently merged (either with themselves or primordial black holes), thus providing r-elements for the pop 2 stars. In this case scientists have to discover mechanisms for how such primordial neutron stars can be formed from matter created from the Big Bang.
As of now, some scientists believe that primordial back holes can be formed during the Big Bang. Can neutron stars be formed too?
From one of my posts above.
<We show that some or all of the inventory of r-process nucleosynthesis can be produced in interactions of primordial black holes (PBHs) with neutron stars (NSs).. A PBH captured by a NS sinks to the center of the NS and consumes it from the inside. When this occurs in a rotating millisecond-period NS, the resulting spin-up ejects ∼0.1M⊙ – 0.5M⊙ of relatively cold neutron-rich material.>
This still begs the question: Where did the neutron stars come from?
|Nov-08-17|| ||twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>|
Thanks for those cosmology links. I'll get back to you as soon as I have absorbed them.
In the meantime I found an interesting article in <Foreign Policy> magazine about the diminution of "aggressive squadrons" in the USAF, ie: US pilots trained in Soviet or Russian air doctrine who flew Russian planes purloined from around the world to help maintain an edge against their enemy (ie Russia).
It seems that the number of pilots available for this program is quickly dwindling as they are needed on the various war fronts around the globe, so much of this program is being outsourced. The USAF have typically been flying Migs and one or two SU-27s over Nevada, but are finding times tough with the program, not just because of the lack of availability of pilots, but spare parts are hard to come by. Moreover, private contractors are scrambling for the contracts, buying up 2nd and 3rd generation non-Russian/Soviet fighters for the task, planes that will woefully underperform against the Chinese and Russian generation 5s:
According to several sources, the Air Force now has a number of MiG-29s that were obtained via Moldova and two Su-27s, one of which is believed to have been destroyed in the crash that killed Schultz.
Getting Russian aircraft has become easier since the fall of the Soviet Union [...] but keeping those aircraft flying proved difficult; they required spare parts that were difficult to get. “A lot of that was political,” said a former government official who worked with Soviet aircraft. “To get spare parts, you had to deal with the Russians and their purchasing agents, and you had to deal with their companies.”
The question now, however, is why the Air Force is turning to non-Russian aircraft to mimic a Russian threat. "[It seems that t]he Air Force would prefer to have something “maintained and operated by a big company.”
[Also]...The pool of U.S. Air Force pilots that can be spared to fly training missions is vanishingly small [...]
After looking at options to keep as many fighter pilots flying as possible, using contractors “turned out to be the quickest to field and most cost-effective” way to keep people flying, said Stephen Brannen, the adversary air program manager at Air Combat Command. He estimates that the contract will be worth as much as $500 million a year. But primarily, “it was borne out of the combat fighter pilot shortage,” he said.
The potential reward of billions of dollars has two companies in particular scrambling to buy foreign aircraft in a bid to win the contract ... Only <it’s not Russian aircraft they’re snapping up>. The Virginia-based Airborne Tactical Advantage Company, or ATAC, has bought 63 modernized French Mirage fighters, and Draken International has purchased 20 Mirages being retired by Spain.
Draken, which has somewhere around 80 aircraft, already has a deal to fly missions at Nellis Air Force Base. The industry’s biggest contractor, ATAC — with about 90 jets — flies with Navy aircraft carrier strike groups before they head out on lengthy deployments.
But private contractors’ planes don’t come close to matching the capabilities of modern Chinese and Russian planes, much less the U.S. aggressor squadrons flying F-16s and F-15s [...] but the hope is that with some upgrades to their avionics, they can mimic fourth-generation aircraft well enough.
Even beyond the cost, questions remain over how well these older jets and contract pilots can mimic advanced aircraft and if they can effectively replace highly trained Air Force aggressor squadrons that have flown missions for decades. “You have to train like you fight,” said retired U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Lawrence Stutzriem, a former fighter pilot.
...seeking private contractors isn’t the desired option but that it’s the only one the Air Force can afford right now given shortages in budgets and personnel. “It’s a temporary measure the way we see it...We would like to get it back in house.”
...American pilots have always trained against a peer threat, but with contractors flying older jets, “we know it’s going to be something less than that.”
But as of now, there’s not enough money and too few pilots to even place a timeline on that plan. And at least for the foreseeable future, a mission that was once a core Air Force capability will be filled by contractors flying private aircraft.
“It’s years away before we can start doing it ourselves again,” Holmes said.>
|Nov-08-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark: I found an interesting article in <Foreign Policy> magazine about the diminution of "aggressive squadrons" in the USAF, ie: US pilots trained in Soviet or Russian air doctrine who flew Russian planes purloined from around the world to help maintain an edge against their enemy (ie Russia).>|
I am amazed that the USAAF even has such a program. It indicates that they are mighty thorough in thinking of all scenarios against their number one rival, and training for it. I do not know if Russia or China has a similar program.
<It seems that the number of pilots available for this program is quickly dwindling as they are needed on the various war fronts around the globe, so much of this program is being outsourced. The USAF have typically been flying Migs and one or two SU-27s over Nevada, but are finding times tough with the program, not just because of the lack of availability of pilots, but spare parts are hard to come by. Moreover, private contractors are scrambling for the contracts, buying up 2nd and 3rd generation non-Russian/Soviet fighters for the task>
A reflection of the state of the US economy.
|Nov-08-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark> According to various sources and Wikipedia on primordial black hole formation:|
<Primordial black holes could have formed in the very early Universe (less than one second after the Big-Bang), during the so-called radiation dominated era. The essential ingredient for a primordial black hole to form is a fluctuation in the density of the Universe, inducing its gravitational collapse.>
I am not sure what <a fluctuation in the density of the Universe> is but the articles do not seem to assume that these are actual protons and neutrons crushed to a infinitely dense point. The primordial BH seems to arise from a temporary super deep gravity well in the fabric of space-time, and not from matter.
Primordial BHs are formed less than a second from the Planck epoch. I checked on when hadrons (protons and neutrons) were made.
<10 to the negative 6 seconds to 1 second>
This indicates that on the later phase of BH-forming density fluctuations, which is just before 1 second, hadrons already existed.
The question is: Could a density fluctuation in the early Universe just before 1 second collapse space containing hadrons into a neutron star but not all the way into a BH?
If this is possible then primordial neutron stars may have existed, and still exist.
Being formed in a different manner than the usual core collapse supernova, the primordial neutron star may have a different composition and internal structure from the core collapse neutron star. This hypothesis might be testable if astronomers can glean data on a sufficiently large sample of neutron stars; and see if their characteristics differ sufficiently enough to classify them into two types (the primordial neutron star and the core collapse neutron star).
|Nov-09-17|| ||twinlark: <primordial black holes and neutron stars>|
Makes sense. The BB purportedly emanated from a singularity, and hence, assuming all the matter in the universe was created at that point in time, regardless of its subsequent transformations into hadrons and then atoms (and anti-matter?), gravity separated from the unified force very early on. It makes notional sense that the post-Planck era would be very productive of heavy gravity products such as black holes and neutron stars.
How many of each were formed, assuming they formed at all of course, would probably have depended on local fluctuations in baryonic density in the "early" universe. After the initial formation of primordial black holes and neutron stars, the universe had to wait until the standard processes of stellar evolution produced the subsequent generations of these objects.
|Nov-11-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: More thoughts:
Why can’t the strong or electro weak force collapse matter into a black hole if their strengths are sufficiently large enough? Is there a theoretical way of increasing the strength of an electromagnetic or nuclear field to infinity in a dense volume of space, as seems to be possible with gravity (which is what allows gravity to collapse matter into a black hole)?
Even if the above is not possible and the strong and electro weak forces can’t collapse matter into a black hole ever, what prevents the Universe from immediately collapsing back into a giant black hole if it was almost infinitely dense at the immediate post Planck epoch in the Grand unification epoch (>10 to the −43 seconds to <10 to the negative 36 seconds), when gravity had already separated out from the other forces.
The answer that most science articles seem to provide is inflation. Which of course begs the question: What is and what caused inflation? There isn't any theory that fully explains it.
It seems to me that as of now 'inflation' is akin to a theoretical screw holding a nailcutter together. Scientists know that the screw has to exist in order for the nailcutter to cut nails, even though they don't know what it's made off.
|Nov-11-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chron... for the timeline.|
<The essential ingredient for a primordial black hole to form is a fluctuation in the density of the Universe, inducing its gravitational collapse.. There are several mechanisms able to produce such inhomogeneities in the context of cosmic inflation (in hybrid inflation models, for example axion inflation, ...), reheating, or cosmological phase transitions>
The above info implies that primordial Black Holes could have been made at the end of the grand unification epoch which ended at approximately 10 to the −36 seconds after the Big Bang. Gravity (which seems to be a theoretical prerequisite for the formation of BHs) was already a separate force by then, and a phase transition (and the subsequent inflation) was occurring (satisfying the prerequisite for the density fluctuations).
<Gravity had separated from the electronuclear force at the end of the Planck era. During the grand unification epoch, physical characteristics such as mass, charge, flavour and colour charge were meaningless.
The grand unification epoch ended at approximately 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang. At this point several key events took place. The strong force separated from the other fundamental forces. The temperature fell below the threshold at which X and Y bosons could be created, and the remaining X and Y bosons decayed. It is possible that some part of this decay process violated the conservation of baryon number and gave rise to a small excess of matter over antimatter (see baryogenesis). This phase transition is also thought to have triggered the process of cosmic inflation that dominated the development of the universe during the following inflationary epoch.>
At what epoch could primordial neutron stars have been made? They must have required the existence of quarks at the very least.
Let's take a look at:
Quark epoch: 10 to the −12 seconds... 10 to the −6 seconds.
<the strong interaction and the weak interaction had taken their present forms, but the temperature of the universe was still too high to allow quarks to bind together to form hadrons. The quark epoch began approximately 10−12 seconds after the Big Bang, when the preceding electroweak epoch ended as the electroweak interaction separated into the weak interaction and electromagnetism. During the quark epoch the universe was filled with a dense, hot quark–gluon plasma, containing quarks, leptons and their antiparticles. Collisions between particles were too energetic to allow quarks to combine into mesons or baryons. The quark epoch ended when the universe was about 10−6 seconds old, when the average energy of particle interactions had fallen below the binding energy of hadrons. The following period, when quarks became confined within hadrons, is known as the hadron epoch.>
With no hadrons present a this epoch, on can argue that NS could not have been formed, only exotic primordial Quark Stars (apart from BHs).
Now we go to the Hadron epoch: 10 to the −6 seconds to 1 second
<the hadron epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe during which the mass of the universe was dominated by hadrons. It started approximately 10−6 seconds after the Big Bang, when the temperature of the universe had fallen sufficiently to allow the quarks from the preceding quark epoch to bind together into hadrons. Initially the temperature was high enough to allow the formation of hadron/anti-hadron pairs, which kept matter and anti-matter in thermal equilibrium. However, as the temperature of the universe continued to fall, hadron/anti-hadron pairs were no longer produced. Most of the hadrons and anti-hadrons were then eliminated in annihilation reactions, leaving a small residue of hadrons. The elimination of anti-hadrons was completed by one second after the Big Bang, when the following lepton epoch began.>
|Nov-11-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Annihilation occurred at the end of the Hadron Epoch when the Universe was 1 second old.|
During the Hadron Epoch 10 to the −6 second to 1 second, is it possible for a local a local density fluctuation to collapse a volume of space containing protons and neutrons, plus electrons and positrons, into a Neutron Star (if it does not do so all the way into a BH)?
The next epoch is the Lepton Epoch:
From 1 second to 10 seconds.
<It started roughly 1 second after the Big Bang, after the majority of hadrons and anti-hadrons annihilated each other at the end of the hadron epoch. During the lepton epoch the temperature of the universe was still high enough to create lepton/anti-lepton pairs, so leptons and anti-leptons were in thermal equilibrium. Approximately 10 seconds after the Big Bang the temperature of the universe had fallen to the point where lepton/anti-lepton pairs were no longer created.>
The Lepton Epoch end coincided with the Big Bang nucleosynthesis:
10 seconds to 1000 seconds (10 seconds to 20 minutes after the Big Bang)
Note <At times much earlier than 1 sec, these reactions were fast and maintained the n/p ratio close to 1:1. As the temperature dropped, the equilibrium shifted in favour of protons due to their slightly lower mass, and the n/p ratio smoothly decreased. These reactions continued until the decreasing temperature and density caused the reactions to become too slow, which occurred at about T = 0.7 MeV (time around 1 second) and is called the freeze out temperature. At freeze out, the neutron-proton ratio was about 1/6. However, free neutrons are unstable with a mean life of 880 sec; some neutrons decayed in the next few minutes before fusing into any nucleus, so the ratio of total neutrons to protons after nucleosynthesis ends is about 1/7. Almost all neutrons that fused instead of decaying ended up combined into helium-4, due to the fact that helium-4 has the highest binding energy per nucleon among light elements. This predicts that about 8% of all atoms should be helium-4, leading to a mass fraction of helium-4 of about 25%, which is in line with observations.>
We may therefore have trouble creating NSs because even at 1 second, most hadrons were already protons. We can however assume that any gravitationally collapsing volume of space would also contain electrons in the appropriate mix and we can assume these to fuse with the protons to form neutrons. This is how regular NSs are made after all- gravitational collapse fuses protons with electrons in the core of a star.
Could primordial NSs have been made even when lots of anti-hadrons (anti-protons and anti-neutrons) were present before annihilation at age 1 second? Logically the answer should be yes, as long as <A slight matter-antimatter-asymmetry from the earlier phases (baryon asymmetry)> already existed. Thy would have existed in amounts slightly dominated by hadrons (matter) over anti-hadrons (antimatter), even if they had not yet mutually annihilated so that no anti-hadron is left. Any collapsing volume of space would have crushed all the protons and neutrons, anti-protons and anti-neutrons, electrons and positrons, into a matter-dominated NS.
Therefore, if primordial NSs exist, they probably have done so since the Hadron Epoch when the Universe was 10 to the −6 second to 1 second old.
If all the above speculation is true then primordial Neutron Stars would have made up a part of the earliest generation of stars (pop III).
|Nov-11-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: More thoughts:
If it takes the most extreme kind of density fluctuation to collapse the hadrons of the early Universe into BHs, would less extreme ones be more common and create more primordial NSs than BHs? In other words, 'moderate' local gravitational collapses from density fluctuations should create Neutron Stars more than small BHs, and more small BHs than big BHs.
It looks logical that these density fluctuations, depending on how extreme (or 'moderate') they collapse hadron-containing space) would have created relatively lots of NSs, followed by small BHs that by now should have already evaporated by Hawking radiation, and perhaps just a few large ones that can still last until today. Or perhaps no large ones at all, so that it would be impossible for us nowadays to detect any primordial BH because they have already all since evaporated away.
Is it even possible early density fluctuations created more weird aggregates of matter, such as above mentioned primordial quark stars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoti... and other funny stars? Maybe even primordial black dwarfs, or iron stars or nickel planets composed of unusual mixtures of isotopes. For example if a chunk of dense rock containing mostly only Nickel-62, which has the highest mean nuclear binding energy per nucleon of any nuclide, is found, can that be taken to be a primordial planet or planetoid formed by an Early Universe density fluctuation?
If a density fluctuation is done just right way, who's to say we might not end up with a celestial body made up of pure Gold. Or any other specific isotope of a heavy element, including Uranium or Thorium. A Jupiter-sized planet with a core and crust of Osmium, Iridium, Platinum, Uranium, and Thorium, seas of Mercury, and mountains of Gold (and other precious metals) would be fun to discover and own (",) [Although if such a celestial body did exist, it would probably be made mostly of stable lead or nickel-iron.]
|Nov-11-17|| ||twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>|
I like your reasoning. One question that enters the mind from this scenario is what happens to the energy created by the annihilation of anti-hadrons. Is this accounted for in the cosmic microwave background (CMB)? Even if it does represent some component of the CMB, what would have been the effect of this annihilation within processes at work during the lepton epoch?
It was a significant event as from the point of view of a hypothetical observer, with most of the universe is in the process of annihilating itself into relative darkness, which would have made for a spectacular fireworks display.
Where did that immense quantum of energy go and what did it do? Did it contribute to the expansion of the universe or even initiate inflation?
|Nov-11-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark: what happens to the energy created by the annihilation of anti-hadrons. Is this accounted for in the cosmic microwave background (CMB)?>|
Yes. Hadron annihilation results in mesons, which are all unstable and quickly decay to electrons and positrons, neutrinos and photons.
<when a proton encounters an antiproton, one of its quarks, usually a constituent valence quark, may annihilate with an antiquark (which more rarely could be a sea quark) to produce a gluon, after which the gluon together with the remaining quarks, antiquarks and gluons will undergo a complex process of rearrangement (called hadronization or fragmentation) into a number of mesons, (mostly pions and kaons), which will share the total energy and momentum. The newly created mesons are unstable, and unless they encounter and interact with some other material, they will decay in a series of reactions that ultimately produce only gamma rays, electrons, positrons, and neutrinos.>
<Even if it does represent some component of the CMB, what would have been the effect of this annihilation within processes at work during the lepton epoch?>
The hadron - antihadron annihilation creates enough energy such that the Lepton Epoch is pushed a bit further down the timeline:
<the lepton epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe in which the leptons dominated the mass of the universe. It started roughly 1 second after the Big Bang, after the majority of hadrons and anti-hadrons annihilated each other at the end of the hadron epoch. During the lepton epoch the temperature of the universe was still high enough to create lepton/anti-lepton pairs, so leptons and anti-leptons were in thermal equilibrium. Approximately 10 seconds after the Big Bang the temperature of the universe had fallen to the point where lepton/anti-lepton pairs were no longer created. Most leptons and anti-leptons were then eliminated in annihilation reactions, leaving a small residue of leptons.>
AFAIK the presence of lepton/anti-lepton pairs (such as electrons and positrons) don't affect hadrons so much. Once the electrons and positrons annihilated, then they just produced more photons, which went on to join the CMB as the Photon Epoch commenced.
<the photon epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe in which photons dominated the energy of the universe. The photon epoch started after most leptons and anti-leptons were annihilated at the end of the lepton epoch, about 10 seconds after the Big Bang. Atomic nuclei were created in the process of nucleosynthesis which occurred during the first few minutes of the photon epoch. For the remainder of the photon epoch the universe contained a hot dense plasma of nuclei, electrons and photons. 379,000 years after the Big Bang the temperature of the universe fell to the point where nuclei could combine with electrons to create neutral atoms. As a result, photons no longer interacted frequently with matter, the universe became transparent and the cosmic microwave background radiation was created>
<Where did that immense quantum of energy go and what did it do?>
As answered above, it mostly transformed into photons- the CMB.
<Did it contribute to the expansion of the universe or even initiate inflation?>
This article says <The expansion is thought to have been triggered by the phase transition that marked the end of the preceding grand unification epoch at approximately 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang. One of the theoretical products of this phase transition was a scalar field called the inflaton field. As this field settled into its lowest energy state throughout the universe, it generated a repulsive force that led to a rapid expansion of space.>
From what I can glean the inflation was triggered by the energy released by space as the Universe settled down to a lower energy state. It's the same concept as the false vacuum end of the Universe, except that it has already happened.
|Nov-11-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Going back to my speculations above, they're actually potential answers to the question: Why won't a density fluctuation in the Early Universe theoretically create only Black Holes? If such a density fluctuation fails to crush a volume of matter-containing space into a BH, can't it produce all kinds of weird aggregates of matter?|
I was thinking that such density fluctuations might produce unstable aggregates of neutron-rich matter, which would then undergo an r-process without even turning into a Neutron Star.
In this scenario, the r-process could have occurred in the early Universe by density fluctuations:
1. Producing unstable aggregates of neutron-rich matter that later on subsequently flew apart and in so doing underwent an r-process.
2. Producing primordial Neutron Stars, some of which later merged with each other or with primordial BHs and in so doing underwent an r-process.
IMO there is a way to test this hypothesis. If a pop III star that formed directly from the H, He, Li ash of the Big Bang is discovered to contain r-process elements, then such r-process elements predate the formation of that star itself, and could only have come from earlier processes, such as the above.
However, empirical facts do not support most of my 'heavy matter' speculations- that heavy elements can be made independently of the r-process by direct gravitational collapse of a small volume of space induced by density fluctuations in the Early Universe. Pop II stars show r-process elements in a regular pattern of abundance which is the same as that found in our Sun and other pop I stars, and no 'Gold planet' has ever been observed.
As I mentioned above it would be fun if it were though (",)
|Nov-12-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark> Some info on old stars:|
Population II stars, the oldest stars known by direct observation:
<Population II, or metal-poor stars, are those with relatively little metal.. These objects are formed during an earlier time of the universe. Intermediate Population I stars are common in the bulge near the centre of our galaxy, whereas Population II stars found in the galactic halo are older and thus more metal-poor. Globular clusters also contain high numbers of population II stars.>
Some named pop II stars (which include HD 140283, informally nicknamed the Methuselah star) are:
<ten very metal-poor stars (such as Sneden's Star, Cayrel's Star, BD +17° 3248) and three of the oldest stars known to date: HE0107-5240, HE1327-2326 and HE 1523-0901. Caffau's star was identified as the most metal-poor star yet when it was found in 2012 using Sloan Digital Sky Survey data. However, in February 2014 the discovery of an even lower metallicity star was announced, SMSS J031300.36-670839.3 located with the aid of SkyMapper astronomical survey data. Less extreme in their metal deficiency, but nearer and brighter and hence longer known, are HD 122563 (a red giant) and HD 140283 (a subgiant informally nicknamed the Methuselah star).>
Spectra from these oldest observed stars already reveal the presence of metals, r-process elements, all the way to thorium. S-process elements, from my readings, are absent in pop II stars; and present only in more recently born pop I stars (like our Sun). The s-process' location has been known for decades to be the ABG stage of low to intermediate mass stars (0.6–10 solar masses) that have much longer lifespans than the massive stars whose cores collapse triggering cores collapse (type II) supernovas.
Therefore, core collapse supernovas (which produce Black Holes or Neutron Stars) and pair-instability supernovas (which leave no remnant) from the earlier pop III stars are responsible for the metals found in pop II stars. Since r-process elements are found in pop II stars, astronomers unsurprisingly assume the core collapse supernovas of pop III stars produced them.
If you're wondering why there have been lots of studies on Thorium in stars, it's because
1. Thorium (and Uranium but in old stars, with its shorter half life U has mostly decayed into Lead) is an element that can only be made 100% via the r-process. Gold for example comes not only mostly from the r-process (94%) and so is considered an r-process element, but also a small bit from the s-process (6%). Thus any detection of Thorium's spectra from any star immediate confirms that star originated from gas ad dust that had been infused with r-process elements.
2. Since it is monoisotopic and decays with a known half life into Lead, Thorium can be used as a clock independent of the MCB, and the primordial products of the Big Bang.
|Nov-12-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Population III stars, the first stars born out the primordial products of the Big Bang.|
<Population III stars are a hypothetical population of extremely massive and hot stars with virtually no metals>
<Current theory is divided on whether the first stars were very massive or not—theories proposed in 2009 and 2011 suggest the first star groups might have consisted of a massive star surrounded by several smaller stars. One theory, developed by computer models of star formation, is that with no heavy elements and a much warmer interstellar medium from the Big Bang, it was easy to form stars with much greater total mass than the ones visible today. Typical masses for Pop III stars are expected to be about several hundred solar masses, which is much larger than that of current stars. Analysis of data of extremely low-metallicity Population II stars such as HE0107-5240, which are thought to contain the metals produced by Population III stars, suggest that these metal-free stars had masses of 20 to 130 solar masses. On the other hand, analysis of globular clusters associated with elliptical galaxies suggests pair-instability supernovae, which are typically associated with very massive stars, were responsible for their metallic composition. This also explains why there have been no low-mass stars with zero metallicity observed, although models have been constructed for smaller Pop III stars>
You can see from the above why hypotheses on the early Universe are quite speculative in all cases that require direct observation of these first stars. None has identified or observed as of now.
If the first ones detected show spectra for r-process elements, that would prove that the r-process must have been occurring earlier or early during the epoch when these pop III stars were forming, in the Reionization Epoch, 150 Million to 1 Billion years old From The Big Bang.
Stars formed out of gravitationally collapsing gas. If r-process nuclides were floating around in space at 150 Million to 1 Billion years old From The Big Bang, then they could have been incorporated into pop III stars and their spectra, assuming these r-process elements were present in sufficient quantities, might be observable.
Bet it would be quite a shocker if it is. Astrophysicists would have to explain how r-process elements got there.
|Nov-13-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Here is a paper that speculates on te existence of stable quark matter being formed in the Early Universe.|
<A first-order QCD phase transition that occurred reversibly in the early universe would lead to a surprisingly rich cosmological scenario. Although observable consequences would not necessarily survive, it is at least conceivable that the phase transition would concentrate most of the quark excess in dense, invisible quark nuggets, providing an explanation for the dark matter in terms of QCD effects only.>
I've been searching for papers on the possibility of Neutronium or other aggregates of neutron-dominated matter being formed in the Early Universe, but there does not seem to be any.
|Nov-14-17|| ||twinlark: <visayanbraindoctor>|
Earlier this year, a large Ukrainian ammunition and arms depot blew up spectacularly. The blame was pointed in predictable directions. However, at 2:06 of the youtube (below), there is an extra powerful explosion that some think was a tactical nuke "cooked" into exploding.
I tend to be sceptical of this claim as I think there would be a lot more damage, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was true. It would have to be a very small nuke.
|Nov-14-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark> That humongous explosion seems to be in the range of the FOAB.|
I doubt that it was a nuclear bomb though. A nuke would produce signature radioactive isotopes, easily detectable if winds blew them across the borders of Ukraine to other nearby countries. We would be hearing complaints about it by now.
IMO the depot was probably compartmentalized. There was an isolated compartment that contained a huge amount of explosives. When it was breached, the second explosion occurred.
I have read that Ukraine possibly inherited the largest quantities of legacy weaponry, ammo and explosives per area and population among the former USSR states. A huge proportion of these allocated for a European war were stored in Ukraine. That's why the Ukrainians never seem to run out of usable ammo and explosives.
It's a different matter with warplanes and advanced weaponry systems. Although Ukraine inherited a lot of these, they require maintenance, and without parts from Russia, they tend to eventually break down.
Although RT and Sputnik keep on denying it, IMO there are probably lots of covert Russian servicemen armed with advanced Russian weaponry operating within the Donbass. I can't imagine the militia of two provinces stopping one of the largest and most heavily armed militaries of Eastern Europe armed only with AKs, RPGs, ATGMs, MANPADS, and a motley assortment of tanks and IFVs. Honestly, I do not think the entire Philippine military will last a month against the Ukrainian military in a straight up confrontation.
Although for political purposes, both Russian and Novorussia must deny the involvement of covert Russian troops, I don't see how knowledge of this can prove detrimental for both of them. I think it even provides a deterrent against NATO sending in thousands of overt troops inside Ukraine, and thus escalate the war. The present US administration and NATO knows full well that any military unit they send into Ukraine is going to encounter Russian servicemen sooner or later.
The above is one reason why I was quite worried about HRC winning the last election. I think her previous actions and speeches indicate that she is insane enough to actually believe that a limited conventional war with Russia is possible, and that USA would win it. With HRC as POTUS, I believe there would be a full blown conventional war going on in the Ukraine right now, a massive invasion of Syria and Yemen with conventional troops from US allies, and a frightening shooting war with North Korea. Basically every warmongering error Trump is guilty of would have been magnified.
|Nov-17-17|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark> Regarding Trump, he has definitely been warmongering against N Korea and Iran. However, one good sign is that he has not been directly warmongering against Russia itself. If anything he seems to recognize the danger of a nuclear escalation in case of a conventional military encounter between US and Russia. Which is why I would have to congratulate the states that voted him in vs HRC who I think would have little qualm in going into a conventional shooting war against Russia, believing that it would not go nuclear.|
Now he meets with Putin in Vietnam, and they both indicate that they would like a more peaceful relationship between US and Russia. I think that's a far better idea than HRC's bellicose plans (such as shooting down Russian warplanes in Syria) that could have ended up in a nuclear disaster. Some questions:
1. Is Trump sincere in establishing friendly relations with Russia? Recal that this was one of his campaign promises. If he is, is he actually going to fight back against the US leadership factions that are hostile to Russia?
2. What's Trump up to in Saudi Arabia? He seems to be supporting MBS. In fact I do not think MBS would have started his purge in the first place if he had not gotten a personal reassurance from Trump. Is Trump actually trying to do a coup against certain factions in the Saudi leadership that he does not like? Does Trump have a long term goal?
3. What's Trump's endgame in Syria? There have been two related developments that I think are significantly portentous. One Trump has decreased or even severed logistical support to the various Islamist factions (even Syrians say so and they like that), and seems to be concentrating support for the Kurds (which Syrians don't like). Two, because of the above (and because of the continued refusal to extradite Gullen), Turkey has been further alienated away from the US. Is Trump planning eventually to 'betray' the Kurds in order to get back Turkey to his side? (Which would not surprise me considering how many times the Kurds have been betrayed.) Or is Trump planning to sticking to his 'allied' Kurdish-controlled SDF? (A. The latter position seems to have Netanyahu's backing, and given that he seems to be pals with Trump, it's also a possibility; it would play right into Netanyahu's intention to fragment Syria. B. Erdogan is sitting on both sides of the fence, which no doubt both Putin and Trump are aware of; but I do not know how this would figure out in Trump's calculus.)
4. Regarding the planned EU army, what's Trump's position? It's something that does not hug the headlines but is quite significant if it pushes through. BTW, I am against this: such an army can only be used against (a) Russia which always dangerously courts a nuclear disaster or (b) against EU member nations that want to secede. I am curious what Trump might think of it though.
5. What's Trump's endgame in Iran?
6. What's Trump's endgame in N Korea? (A hot war BTW is bound to affect us in East Asia. At the minimum even if only in the slowing down of the Korean and Japanese, and possibly American and Australian tourist business to the Philippines. At the maximum, if we send in actual troops, or if such a war is used by factions in our military to effect some kind of coup.)
7. How will Trump react to the Russia-China attack on the institution of the petrodollar? Personally the safest option for humanity in general is for US to try to increase its economic production legitimately; and to stop continually forcing the fiat scam of a petrodollar on the world by hook or by crook, but I don't know how Trump sees this.
8. There is the question of course: Is Trump intelligently aware of all, some, or none of the above issues; or is he deferring to other factions in the US leadership, blissfully happy in his ignorance?
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 356 OF 356 ·