Stars and Black Holes

[Eclogite]

Hello All

 

Hydrogen formation,,,,,,,,,,this is just one process.

You follow this up with links that do not include any reference whatsover to hydrogen formation. What were you seeking to achieve by this?

The implication is that these links demonstrate your underlying thesis. They do not. As in almost every other case they serve to demonstrate you are mistaken. Please take the time to (a) explain how hydrogen is formed in the circumstances you claim, or (:) acknowledge you are mistaken.

 

You state you are interested in learning. What will it take to help you learn that on this point, the mechanisms of hydrogen formation, you are wholly mistaken?

[Little Bang]

There was an interesting question in one of Harry's posts, how did the big bang turn pure energy into the nessasary quarks that became all the matter that we see today?

As far his assertion that new hydrogen is being formed, I don't know of any observation that implies energy being converted to protons.

[Jay-qu]

Could the answer lie in strings?

[sebbysteiny]

thank you for your kind comments. - Eclogite

 

Your welcome :)

 

I have no time to tango with humiliation.

 

My focus is on learning more of the universe. - Harry Costas

 

Pull the other one

 

Could the answer lie in strings?

 

No, the answer lies in Harry Costos being entirely uninterested in scientific discoveries and much more interested in winding up scientists by finding obscure non-scientific websites whose content was probably even rejected by star trek. He's done this in EVERY contribution that I have seen.

 

Having said that, your doing a fine job Harry.

 

There was an interesting question in one of Harry's posts, how did the big bang turn pure energy into the nessasary quarks that became all the matter that we see today? - Little bang

 

Yes, it was a fine question. Infact, it was the ultimate question asking how this universe (and the first parts of matter) came to exist in the first place. Harry knows full well that science cannot yet answer that. It's a wind up - pure and simple. We can go back as far as 10^-6 secs or something, but not before, and no, we don't know exactly HOW the first matter was created. Perhaps Harry was there to enlighten us?

 

Nor do we know why there is more matter than anti matter in the Universe.

 

Nor can we prove god does not exists.

 

Anything else??

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

I came onto this forum to learn from discussions.

 

Maybe i'm wrong in what I say and maybe I'm right.

 

This is my last comment.

 

The End.

[InfiniteNow]

Did you just shoot yourself? :warped:

[sebbysteiny]

Don't do that!! Your contributions are funny. It adds spice.

[sebbysteiny]

Besides, you tugging at my heart strings has given me a change of heart and perspective? In light of that, I think I'm going to admit that I think there is some kind of answer to your question after all and that maybe I was a little "harsh".

 

I think mankind's problem is working out where the ENERGY came from, not where the first particles of mass came from, but astrophysics isn't my forte.

 

Nevertheless, I reckon it comes from the intense heat of the first seconds of the big bang causing enough energy to produce matter.

 

Ummm, maybe I should add more. The vacuum state (ie empty space) isn't so empty. According the Heizenburg's uncertainty principal, there is always uncertainty between energy and time, so we cannot possibly say that there is no energy anywhere with a cirtainty. The logical conclusion is that in a vacuum, there are infact billions of quasi particles existing and then disappearing fast enough for conservation of energy not to be violated in any measurable amount, but slow enough to fit the uncertainty principal.

 

What massive amounts of concentrated energy does is it gets absorbed by these quasi particles and makes them into permanant particles and anti particles. That's why, when you smash two protons together at high energy in a particle accellerator, you end up with quite literally thousands of very different particles. Wow, who would have thought nothing could contain so much!!!!

 

However, note that it produces both particles and anti particles. Every particle producing process known to science produces BOTH particles and anti particles.

 

But, we know that almost all of the universe is infact matter, NOT anti-matter and that there is also no way of getting rid of anti-matter without using matter that we know of. So where has all the anti matter gone???

 

Solve that, and you'll get a nobel prize.

[Tormod]

But, we know that almost all of the universe is infact matter, NOT anti-matter and that there is also no way of getting rid of anti-matter without using matter that we know of. So where has all the anti matter gone???

 

Good question. According to the standard model, most of it was annihilated together with the same amount of matter in the very early universe. Luck had it (for us) that there was an inbalance in the matter/antimatter ratio so we ended up in a mostly matter universe with only a small amount of antimatter (relatively).

 

This is of course only theories but that is how they explain it, even if we don't yet have any real understanding of it.

 

Wikipedia has some information:

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

 

Here is some more detailed information on antimatter:

 

One puzzle we have about the universe is the apparent dominance of matter over antimatter. Every type of elementary particle (electrons, protons, neutrons, and so on) has a corresponding type of antiparticle (positrons, antiprotons, antineutrons) of equal mass and opposite electric charge. But what we observe in the universe is overwhelmingly matter and not antimatter, which we know because matter and antimatter tend to explosively annihilate when they come into contact with each other. If other galaxies, for example, were made of antimatter, there would be regions in between where particles would intermix, giving rise to high-energy radiation that has not been detected. It is possible that this asymmetry between matter and antimatter is simply a feature of the initial conditions of the universe, but it would seem more satisfying if we could explain how it arose dynamically as the universe evolved. Such a hypothetical process is known as "baryogenesis," since the observed imbalance between matter and antimatter is actually an imbalance between baryons (protons and neutrons) and antibaryons. There are numerous models of baryogenesis, many of which may be testable at upcoming particle accelerators; to date, however, no single model has proven so successful that it has been accepted as a standard picture.

 

http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/cfcp/primer/reallyearly.html

[Tormod]

Like most theories we also have one that will give a different opinion and thats life. Who is correct? Time will tell in the next three years when the new telescope will be outfitted to study blackholes and the so called dark matter.

 

Read the above link and form your own ideas.

 

I think YOU should read the above links and then communicate YOUR ideas, rather than ask us to read the links and think (in fact I believe you are violating our forum rules here!).

 

But from what you quoted above, I read that new telescopes will study black holes *and* antimatter, not antimatter inside black holes.

[sebbysteiny]

Be fair to Harry Costas.

 

He's got heart.

 

I think it's great to be enquisitive and to find things on the internet. The problem lies in the presentation, I think.

 

Instead of arguing the theory as if he understands and believes it, he should perhaps say 'Hey, I came accross this theory. I don't understand it fully, but it seems to contradict what you guys think. What do you think?' and then give the link. Then we could discuss it and why (and where) it is bogus.

 

Tormod's quote also illustrates one other issue which seems to suggest that Harry does not fully understand science, but that's okay, that's what he's here for, right? Whilst he is right to point out that new observations could clarify which of our current models is correct, he is wrong to suggest that the more established models will be destroyed by one observation for this simple reason: we already have had more than enough technology and telescopes to experimentally confirm the model and it's predictions beyond question.

 

A question, such as whether or not the Higgs boson exists is still up in the air with many different answers and theories. This is mainly due to having insufficiently powerful particle accellorators to find the Higgs boson if it exists.

 

However questions such as whether the proton or even muons exist are bogus tripe since they have been experimentally been observed time and time and time again at every moment in which current theory predicts they should. A more powerful particle accellerator will NOT prove otherwise, though it could potentially reveal undiscovered insights into their formation.

[Racoon]

I thought this was interesting from one of the links from Harry! :)

It just all seems so Amazing!:shrug:

 

Supernova Ejection

As the mass of the star's iron core approaches 1.4 solar masses (due to continued silicon and sulfur burning in a thin shell adjacent to the iron core), a dramatic sequence of events is being triggered:

 

Iron Core Collapse

 

Gravity, which up to now was balanced by the outward force of the pressure, decisively gains the upper hand and the iron core collapses.

 

In less than a second, the core collapses from a size of about 5,000 miles to one of about a dozen miles, and an enormous amount of energy is released. This collapse happens so fast that the star's outer layers have no time to react and participate in it.

 

The amount of energy that is released during core collapse is truly gigantic -- it is equivalent to the energy produced by 100 stars like the Sun during their entire lifetimes of more than 10 billion years!

 

 

How much Energy is out there? Wow!

[Jay-qu]

How much Energy is out there?

 

do you really want an answer or was that just rhetorical? :shrug:

[Dark Mind]

I'd like to see you try to really give an answer ;).

[Jay-qu]

oh you would!

 

well because we dont actually know how large the universe is we cant talk exactly, but using the density of the universe which we reckon to be in the order of 10^-30 g/cm^3 and knowing cosmic background radiation gives the vaccume a temp of 3.7K, I think that a very approximate estimate could be given. But this is where my understanding stops.. ;)

[Dark Mind]

Well then how ever, pray tell, are you ever to hope to answer Raccoon's question... Without deepening your understanding? :eek:

[ronthepon]

It definitely has to be more than [math]{10^{70}}[/math] Joules, excluding all the so called dark energy and shady stuff like that.

 

(To get that value, use the matter contained in all the observable mass and think about [math]E= {m}{c^2}[/math])