The Sun

Welcome, fellow hijacker.

I am old, but not enough to know that the planets are now in the same orbits they have had for "billions of years." How do you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(Don't say: "Because they are in nearly circular orbits." -See footnote)*

Also in late 1920s, Neptune's orbit was perturbed by something. Could not have been an asteroid hit as it was a gradual process extending over most of a year. Many astronomers noted it and began to search for the source, which was assumed to be a ninth planet. Pluto was found in 1930 as a direct result of this intense search by many.

Until almost 1950**, Pluto was believed to be several times larger than Earth, because that much mass in Pluto's orbit is required to make the perturbation that was observed. This explanation for the late 1920s perturbation fell apart when it was learned that Pluto is smaller than the moon.

What other explanation do you offer? How are you so sure that it was not some "dark visitor" passing our solar system, only 90 years ago?

I challenge you to give some other explanation for the late 1920s Neptune observations made by many astronomers.
-------------------------------------
*The finite time step analysis I did for book Dark visitor has a 2.2 solar mass "dark visitor" miss Earth by only 12 AU and yet the eccentricity is increase to only 0.0836 which is less than Mars currently has! An even larger dark visitor could rapidly pass outside the solar system with very little effect on the inner planets. I had to pass my small dark visitor THRU the solar system to send Earth into a rapid onset Ice Age. - Make all ports useless in a decade with falling sea levels, no oil imports, Washington DC under at least 100 feet of ice in less than 100 years, etc.)

**Life magazine put out a special edition, called The Solar System (I think - my copy got lost in the move to Brazil) in approximately 1950 that gave the mass of Pluto as 3 times Earth's mass, as I recall. Their timing was poor on this, as at about the time of issue it was learned how small Pluto is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are several explanations, including those by Conley and (shudders) Van Flandern; these involve quite modest objects orbiting in the outer solar system beyond Pluto. It is not necessary to posit a massive object passing by, although that is not ruled out. What seems to rule it out is the mass you have chosen.

*The finite time step analysis I did for book Dark visitor has a 2.2 solar mass "dark visitor" miss Earth by only 12 AU and yet the eccentricity is increase to only 0.0836 which is less than Mars currently has! An even larger dark visitor could rapidly pass outside the solar system with very little effect on the inner planets. I had to pass my small dark visitor THRU the solar system to send Earth into a rapid onset Ice Age. - Make all ports useless in a decade with falling sea levels, no oil imports, Washington DC under at least 100 feet of ice in less than 100 years, etc.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are several explanations, including those by Conley and (shudders) Van Flandern; these involve quite modest objects orbiting in the outer solar system beyond Pluto. It is not necessary to posit a massive object passing by, although that is not ruled out. What seems to rule it out is the mass you have chosen. There doesn't seem to be a sensible candidate in the mass range you mention; a stelar mass black hole would be more massive, and a primordial black hole would be quite a bit less.

Interesting. But if the passage of such objects occurs at random with the frequency you seem to suggest then we could expect one every few hundred years; we would have had millions passing through our solar system over the lifetime of the Earth, and the orbits of the planets would be chaotic. It is quite likely that some extrasolar objects have passed close to the solar system in that period, but not millions of them.

Hmm; did the perturber also change the semi-major axis of Earth's orbit? Or perhaps the obliquity? If not, I doubt that such a small change would affect the climate so much The Earth's orbit changes spontaneously over time, up to a limit of 0.058 eccentricity, and eccentricity should have a fairly small effect on climate (in theory). There are some suggestions that positive and negative feedback could amplify the effects, but I don't think this would be a rapid process.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As I pointed out in prior post, for Pluto to have been responsible for the late 1920s pertibation of Neptune, Pluto requires a mass of about three times that of Earth which it does not have by about a factor of 100! Your "explanation" with its "quite modest objects orbiting in the outer solar system beyond Pluto" implies that your idea of "quite modest" is an object with at least roughly 10 times Earth mass. - If that were the case, why has it not been discovered? After all, a moon-sized object (Sena, the "tenth planet," if Pluto is to remain the ninth planet) has recently been discovered. Surely a object roughly 100 times larger than Sena would have been discovered long ago. - SUMMARY: Try again. That "explanation" is nonsense.

Perhaps not, but I am still waiting for your suggestion as to what it might be. (First try above is nonsense.)

You are repeating the standard theory results and ignoring the reasons I gave in prior post as to why this theory (only one possible because of the complexity of the math) is wrong.

(1) Wrong for the THEORETICAL reasons:
I gave related to the way fusion rate depends upon temperature and density and the fusion rate instability that follows from these factors. This instability make the collapse that forms stellar black holes not be spherically symmetric collapse the complex General Relativity math requires be assumed (even thought wrong) to get any solution. Quoting from my post of 25June made at 8 minutes past the hour:

(2) Wrong for OBSERVATIONAL reasons:
The standard, but wrong, symmetric collapse theory mandates a 40 stellar mass star collapse MUST produce a Black Hole, but:

I thank 2inquisitive for providing this experimental evidence that the theory you are quoting is wrong. Prior to his reference, I had only the knowledge I gained while working on the fusion problem for 15 years (fusion rate dependency on temperature and density) to know that standard theory is wrong.

I agree 100% with you here. The reason why we have about a 50/50 chance that a second "dark visitor" will pass the solar systm soon if the Neptune perturbation of late 1920s was due to one, is that most of the stars occur as co-rotating pairs. The first generation giant stars all aged quickly and left at least a pair of gravitationally bound black holes behind. (If the 1920s one was the second of a pair, we may be "home free," - but it is a 50/50 chance it was not.)

Reason I said "may be home free" is that if each of these early giant stars did run thru a series of cycles: "Iron region collapse, making small black hole not at exact center; explosively expand asymmetrically (like Crab Nebula is); expelled mass falls together again and fuses some more iron; then collapse again making another small BH not at exact center....etc." then Earth in the next few thousand of years may need to "duck" several more Black Holes coming into our sector of space.
That is, I agree, it may never have happened before in a billion years and after we get thur this "shower of black holes" may never happen again for several billion more.

Yes. As the Earth is now in a nearly circular orbit, I assumed that it was. Eccentricity, e, is (D-d)/(D+d) where D is semi-major and d is semi-minor axis. With the dark visitor passing rapidly thru and nearly perpendiclar* to the ecliptic 12AU from Earth, I found D =1.108 & d = 0.937 from the assumed circular start. The year is, as Newton showed, proportional to the cube of D, so the 365.24 day year becomes 377.64 days after the dark visitor passes.
No, the earth remains inclinded 23.5 degrees to the ecliptic. I did not even model the very small torques a mass at 12AU can apply. It takes quite a lot to change the spin axis of the Earth.

I timed the point of closest approach so that the new Earth orbit would be 6.3% closer to sun in mid winter of the Northern hemisphere and 10.8% farther away in summer. I.e. changing Northern hemisphere to have:

slightly warmer winters and cooler summers, does not sound like the worst disaster mankind has ever seen, but it is.

This is because in that milder winter the mainly oceanic Southern hemispere's oceans, in warmer summers, are evaporating more and covering much of the earth with clouds. Almost every day in the Northern hemisphere, heavy "spring snows" (biggest snows always come on mild high-humidy days.) a couple of feet deep fall. Washinton DC gets 77 feet (winter total) the first winter after dark visitor passes and more as you go further north, into mid Canada, where the total begins to drop and blue sky sometimes appears.

Six months later, in the cooler summers this 77 of snow probably does melt at Washington, but not in mid Canada, so the albedo of Earth is increasing and the ocean level is dropping as water is stored on land. Soon the winter snow even at Washington does not entirely melt the following even colder summer. (Albedo was immediatly made much higher by Earth's large fraction of cloud coverage and is steadly increasing because of the southward expanding area permanently covered by snow.)

We southerns (I live in Brazil) have no ice, but the torrential rains that fall every summer eve, wash away whole cities; however, at least we do not freeze** and can still grow rice under the constant clouds heavy daily rains of summer. Fact that we too can not use our old ports is not much of a problem, as Brazil is still energy and food self-sufficient. (Most of PetroBras's oil is from off shore wells and extracting it gets even easier as the sea level falls and a new pipeline to shore becomes feasible.)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

---------------------------------------------
*The relative gravitational perturbation of the planets is reduced with this approach as all tend mainly to "fall" together towards the approaching dark visitor instead of move relative to each other. - This delays the date at which even amateur astronomers will know it is approaching.

**It rarely happens, but we even get a little snow on the colder winters days when a cloud forms, but it is melted or washed into the ocean when the heavy spring rains begin again. The lack of clouds while Earth is farther from the sun combined with the growing ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere is why the US government tries to burn lots of coal in open pit mines to the increase the atmospheric CO2, but these efforts are not sufficient to compensate for the increased albedo and night-time radiative loss to space in increasingly colder Northern summer, when there are no clouds and the day-time sun is giving 19% less energy at apogee. - I.e. it is not possible to stop the ice sheet covering Canada from advancing rapidly into the US. Even tip of "old Florida"*** is under about 30 feet of ice in 100 years.

***Florida is much bigger in 100 years than it is now as sea is much lower. The new tip, near also expanded Cuba, and many miles of new shoreline near the ocean is still ice free.

 

Not so. See my 1 July post and reference given there, which includes:

"PBHs could thus span an enormous mass range: those
formed at the Planck time (10−43s) would have the
Planck mass (10−5g), whereas those formed at 1 s
would be as large as 10^5M {solar masses}..."

Much more on this at my 1 July post. It is easy to find as all text copied from the reference is in this narrow form above. There you will also find reasons to think there may be an "enormous number" of PAIRED Black Holes also, within 50 Kpc of Earth. Also, find that even today, the PBH forming by the big bang compression can be as small as one solar mass.

I think I even convenced 2inqusitive, (when he too was questioning the possibility of a 2.2 solar mass black hole based on the wrong, but standard, symmetric stellar collapse formation model of black holes) that not only are these small black holes possible, but perhaps they are more numerious than all the stars that have ever existed! I also discuss in Chapter 8 of the book several other candidates for the "dark visitor" in addition to it being a black hole.

 

Yes; 10 earth masses is fairly modest; I think there is quite a good chance that there are one, or a number of objects of that sort of mass in the outer solar system. These explanations (not mine, by the way) are not nonsense, simply unproven, and not yet ruled out by observation. Your suggestion is no different.

 

Assymetric collapse would lead to fewer black holes, not more. The result of a collapsing star is sometimes called a collapsar; if the mass of the remnant is more than about three solar masses it will be a black hole; if it is less than three solar masses and more than the Chandasekar limit of 1.44 Solar masses it will be a neutron star, if it is less than 1.44 solar masses it will be a white dwarf.

The assymetry of collapse shouldn't affect this relationship; it does however mean that large stars will sometimes collapse into black holes and sometimes into neutron stars. You can't tell with confidence what a massive star will collapse into; but you can expect collapsars to fall into these three mass relatonships.

That is, if current theories are correct. Some people say that black holes do not form at all.

 

Incidentally the new object in the outer solar system is 2003 UB313; it is unofficially known as Xena. There is another named object, a little smaller, called Sedna; are you confusing the two?

 

Apart from that your story is fine. A three stellar mass black hole is perfectly feasible; just recalculate your orbits with the 'hole a little further away. Or assume a Primordial black hole with an unusually large mass.

 

I agree this is the standard theory for symmetric collapse. I know some of the physics of the Chandasekar limit also. (Has to due with the fact that collisions rapidly thermalize any initial distribution of electrons and ions to the same temperature and the lighter electrons become relativistic to have the same very high temperature of the ions. At mass less than 1.44solar these electrons are not hot enough to convert protons to neutrons, but that detail I do not understand...)

I may have mislead you by focusing on WHY there is an asymmetric collapse, non uniform radial function of density etc. - It is the resulting SHOCK WAVE from a non central point PASSING THRU HIGHER DENSITY parts of the star that can compresses parts of the star (perhaps several different parts) to form black holes smaller than 3 solar masses. Thus, I can agree with most of your text that follows, if it is taken literally. (I.e. the asymmetric collapse ITSELF does not change things, but the non symmetric mass distribution the shock wave from an "off center point" can compress parts of the star while blasting other parts in to space.)

I am glad that you are not fully defending the standard theory now. (It predicts a 40 solar mass star MUST form a black hole.)

Let me try to give plausibility type argument why that theory fails, and why more correct one also supports my claim that smaller black holes than the theory we both agree has failed predicts as a lower limit:

The minimum mass iron sphere, which will have surface gravity so strong that the iron nuclei on the surface can not support their own weight is about 3 Solar masses if gravity is the only thing trying to compress those nuclei, However, consider what happens if the release of the extreme gravitational collapse energy is not exactly at the center but adjacent to 2 Solar masses of iron which still has 0.2 masses of "fuel" that can be come iron by more fusion:

When the compression of the shock wave is added to the mutual gravity, it can reduce the volume of this 2.2 Solar mass to the point that it can, and does, become a black hole.

Your argument and the standard theory both assume that there is only the mutual gravity to compress a mass M to become a black hole and if that is the case then it is true that M > 3, but that is not the case, unless the collapse shock wave is symmetrically expanding into the lower density material of the outer layers of the star. If part of the shock wave is passing thru more dense regions, it combined with their own mutual gravitational compress can achieve "black hole collapse density," perhaps in many different regions.* I hope you already know that if you could compress the Earth sufficiently, you could form a black hole of only one Earth mass.
----------------------------------------
*Recall that because of the way the fusion rate depends upon local temperature and density there is an instability which rapidly increases fusion rate at some near central spot (raises local temperature and lowers local density to main pressure equilibrium). Thus, when the matter in some not quite central location becomes all iron it collapse, it send an unimaginably powerful shock thru much denser near-by regions of the star, which also would have soon exhausted their fuel and collapsed. These near-by regions, subject to this shock wave and their mutual self-gravity do not need to be three stellar masses to form a black hole. Hence it is at least conceivable that an asymetric collapse in a 300 solar mass first generations star could make in the first cycle a dozen small black holes with a totl mass of only 50 solar masses. Then when the majority of the 250 solar mass that was blasted in to space, reassembles, perhaps to make a 200 solar mass star you could get several more - perhapse one big star makes 30 black holes after all the cycles are finished and not enought mass is left to make another cycle.

Thus I do not understand why you would say: "Assymetric collapse would lead to fewer black holes, not more." Can you defend this statement in some way?
----------------------------------------
Furthermore, because the near central regions of the star have various very non radially symmetric densities, the shock wave propagation is very complex dynamics, impossible to model. Possibly this very strong shock wave may even be "focused" to greater strength in some parts of the star. (The pressure distribution is nearly radially symmetric but because of the fusion rate instability the temperate and density distribution near the heart of the star is far from a function of radius alone.)

You seem to be understanding that the standard model is wrong as it pridicts BH not neutron star from 40 solar mass collapse, yet you still believe its 3 solar mass prediction is correct. Once you understand that these shock waves ADD to the gravitational compression, you can easily understand that less than 3 solar mass can be converted into a black hole.

Carr is suggesting they may form in pairs also, but for my story it was great to read:

"Black holes with a wide range of masses could have formed in the early universe as a result of the great compression associated with the Big Bang...PBHs could thus span an enormous mass range ...those formed at 1 s would be as large as 10^5M {solar masses}*, comparable to the mass of the holes thought to reside in galactic nuclei. By contrast, black holes forming at the present epoch could never be smaller than about 1{solar masses}."

Thus even at the present time 2.2 solar mass black holes may be forming!
Certainly many of the millions that formed earlier are still around and some are growing faster than they are evaporating. He states on page six of the reference (left column):

"One of the interesting implications of these scenarios is the possible existence of a halo population of binary black holes [116]. With a full halo of such objects, there could be a huge number of binaries inside 50 kpc and some of these could be coalescing due to gravitational radiation losses at the present epoch"

So not only can one expect isolated 2.2 solar mass black holes, one can expect a huge number of gravitationally bound pairs of black holes in the few stellar mass range. I was obviously pleased to learn, after suggesting that the approaching "dark visitor" might be the second one of a pair. (First explaining what perturbed Neptune in late 1920s.)

The reference is paper by B.J. Carr of Astronomy Unit, Queen Mary, University of London. See full paper at: www.arxiv.org/astro-ph/0504034 ...case, why has it not been discovered?[/quote]

 

This is easy. If we have ten stars each with a mass forty times the mass of the Sun and they all undergo symetrical collapse, then they will all form black holes. If they all undergo assymetrical collapse, some will form black holes, some will form neutron stars.
Ergo, fewer black holes.
The formation of two black holes from a single star will be very rare, I would say practically impossible; and if two did form, they would be so close that they would soon lose orbital momentum to gravity radiation and tidal interactions, approach each other and merge.

 

--------------
Astronomers are still looking. It is almost certain certain that more objects as large as Xena or larger will be found in the outer system in the next few years; there could easily be objects more massive than the Earth out there. If a hypothetical large object is in a highly eccentric orbit well above the plane of the ecliptic it might well remain undiscovered for a long time yet.

 

By the theory you admit is wrong, you think 10. I think more than 1000 because you are ignoring the mechanism I suggest that can let each of the big (150 to 300 solar mass first generation stars) form dozens of "few solar mass" black holes and perhaps more than 100 "fractional solar mass" black holes.

It is OK to not believe the mechanism I propose to replace the incorrect theory with a more realistic one, but if that is the case, please attack the mechanism I am proposing. You just continually repeat the results of the theory you admit is wrong. If it is wrong about 40 solar mass star's residue, why is it correct about 300 solar mass star?! I think it is probably correct for stars with 10 or less solar masses, but totally wrong for the big stars that first formed when the universe was much smaller and the gas clouds proportionaly denser.

First part is just reassertion of your "wrong theory" view, without any counter argument to mine. I have told how and why many will form from each star, and you have not said one word indicating error in my mechanism.

It is true that two black hole co orbiting each other with only a stellar radius or less of separation in the era of the first generation stars would probably have merged by now as gravitational radiation removes energy from the 2BH system. I agree with that, however that is not true if they are both formed by a compressive shock wave produced by the collapse of some other near central part of the star (the first region to run out of fuel/ become all iron/ and collapse releasing much more energy that any other event in nature and blasting the 300 solar mass apart into a new "gas cloud" vaguely resembling the Crab nebula, except for the black hole points that were formed and made more shock waves expanding from other centers less than a second after the first.)

The picture you and the erroneous standard model are supporting has star density monotonically increasing as the distance from the mass center decreases. This is false! (And the reason why the standard theory results, you quote are false). The density near the center of the star is not the same at all radii, r, where r < < R, the full radius of the star. (Proof given in logical / factual steps below.) I will go thru the logic once more, step-by-step and you tell me where there is error in my alternative theory, OK?

1) Fusion rate is very strong function of temperature, at least exponential.
2) Fusion rate is much weaker function of density. I.e. it is quadratic in the density.
3) Facts (1) & (2) produce a thermal instability that grows up out of the statistical noise in the temperature. I.e. some slightly warmer spot, rapidly converting itself (a small volume, compared to the full star) into a much hotter one with much higher fusion rate.
4)The temperatures near center of star fusing iron are very high, producing great black body radiation, this initially small much hotter region producing much more so than others (because of the T^4 law). The mean free path of this radiation is very short be cause of the high electron density deep inside a big star. (It takes thousand of years for the energy of a photon born at center of our sun to reach the surface, as it is almost immediately scattered by a free electron [or is converted to KE, only to be "reborn" almost immediately in a collisional acceleration of some charged particles. Coulomb forces are long range, so no need to hit each other, which is rare and reason fusion collision is rare.] That is, it must "random walk" it way out in steps that are much less than one mm.)
5) Because of (4) the originally small (wrt to R) center of the instability heats the area surrounding it and the fusion rate there also increases. Effectively a "smaller, hotter star within a bigger hot star" is forming, but very probably not at exactly the center of mass.
6) The interior pressure in the big star is mainly* due to the self gravity and a monotonically decreasing function of distance from the center of mass - I.e. to a high degree, if not exactly, pressure is a function of radius, r, alone. P(r1) > P(r2) if r2 > r1.
7) Because the pressure is at least closely related to the product of temperature and density** the core of the of the hotter smaller star forming within the bigger star is much lower density than the center of mass of the total star, and the density in the center of the hotter internal star is less than even some points more distant from the center of mass, and much less than the density at the center of mass.
8) The core of the hotter star within the bigger star, with its much faster fusion rate, will be the first region to convert all the "fuel" to iron and begin to cool so that the flux of radiation from and to it become more equal.
9) As it cools, its density will increase to maintain the same pressure as other regions the same distance from the center of mass.
10) All the other regions of the big star still have fuel to burn and are producing energy and large “photon pressure“, but the smaller star within the bigger one is not. Lacking this photon pressure, it must contract more to maintain the pressure corresponding to that radius. Thus, not only has it run out of fuel first, it will achieve a higher density than other near by parts of the star to compensate for the lack of internally generated photon pressure, (Actually the flux of photons coming towards it compresses it also.) This photon pressure is enormous - even at the distance of Earth from sun it has significant effects upon Earth’s ionized outer atmosphere. Think what the inverse square law implies for the magnitude of this pressure deep in side the star!
11) Because of the above, especially the facts of (10), the first black hole forms with the collapse of the "star with in the star", not at the center of mass.
12) The energy released by this collapse to a point black hole (or even a very small "pea size" volume is much greater that all the energy produced by the star in more than 1000 years. (Just guessing, perhaps 10,000 years.) This enormous energy is released in a very short time. (Approximately the original radius of the collapsing mass divided by about half or a third the speed of light.) A shock wave of unbelievable power to compress matter is formed and expands outward from the collapse point.
13) Because the density is not a function of radius alone (See 7 again) this shock wave plows into many different regions of higher density and compresses some of them above the critical density to form black holes. Some of these "secondary black holes" may have only the mass of Jupiter etc. Each in turn creats its own shock wave as it collapse to a point. Shock waves collide at some points. Perhaps at the point of their collison black holes with less mass than the Earth form.
The more complex and variable the density structure of the star, the greater the number of separate black holes that will form. In a star with mass of 300 solar masses, probably none formed is more than 5 solar masses and many are less than one. (Again I am just guessing, but I think making very plausible guesses. - If anyone could quantatively analyze this complex mess the standard assumed spherically symmetric collapse around the center of mass point would have been abandoned, but the math even with that wrong but simplifying assumption is so complex that very few can do even that.)
14) In one (or two seconds at most) the star explodes, from many different centers, blasting all of the newly formed black holes and all of the "unburnt" fuel (not yet iron) gasses into space.
15) As the expanding mass blasted away from the exploding star "climbs" against its self gravity, its expansion velocity slows, and eventually it starts to re assemble, however the numerous black holes are "mutually orbiting each other" (and in the gravity of this eventually in-falling gas) Perhaps the in-falling mass totals 200 solar masses and repeats the whole process again, making still another dozen or so of multi-solar mass black hole and hundreds of smaller ones. etc. and this all repeats again for even a third or fouth cycle! Eventually the star made by the "re-assembling gasses" is small enough that the standard theory of a single black hole formed by a nearly symmetric collapse applies.
16) Occasionally two of these black holes pass relatively close to each other and one gains energy from the scattering interaction (the other loses it). Such a system of mutually "orbiting" dense bodies is know to be chaotic and unstable. Thus, the population of black holes in the cluster (sort of a hornet’s swarm) steadly diminishes with time, until a relative few, perhaps only two, remain in any one gravitationally bound system. The asymmetric collapse of a 300 solar mass star may very well make two or three gravitationally bound black hole pairs with total mass of the pair between 0.5 and 5 solar masses (My “dark visitor” with 2.2 solar masses is the second of such a pair. - The first caused the observed and yet unexplained, perturbation of Neptune in late 1920s.)

I am only trying to explain, perhaps with some errors, another reason for believing what my reference said, namely:

"there could be a huge number of {black hole} binaries inside 50 kpc."

He built his reasons on the compression of the big bang. I built my reasons on the compression that surely occurs in the explosion of a big first generation star. In stead of the demonstrably wrong theory you are quoting, as prevent black hole of less than 3 solar masses, you have a choice of two entirely different sources (mechanisms) that can produce a "hugh number” of less than 3 solar mass black hole pairs. This is the basis of cosmic horror story in my book, Dark Visitor (Web site under name tells how to read it for free. I always tell that if it is mentioned, as I am trying to recruit students for science, not make money, by scaring them to make them wonder if this cosmic disaster is true. - It could be.)

I have numbered the step of the logic of my mechanism so you can easily tell me where you think there is significant error and we can discuss that aspect of the mechanism. - Please do so, instead of just repeat the results of a theory, you admit is wrong.

-----------------------------------------
*I think, but perhaps the "photon pressure" is larger in core of a star hot enough to be producing iron by fusion.

**It is not exactly this product because of the photon pressure gives the temperature a greater effect and does not depend upon the density. Also the relativistic electron presure effects associated with the Chandasekar's limit on neutron stars may be significant. If either of these effects is significant, then statement (7) is even more true. - I.e. the density of the smaller hotter star is even less that other matter at its same distance from the center.

 

I see now how your model works; very ingenious. My opinion is that it would not work, and a collapsing star (no matter how assymetrical) would not produce dozens or hundreds of black holes. Compression between expanding regions of plasma inside a star exploding assymetrically would very rarely compress the plasma between them enough to form a black hole; this event would not occur numerous times in a single supernova event.
But that is only an opinion, unsupported by maths. I note that you don''t use rigourous maths either in your concept; in which case it also is not much more than an opinion.

Have you tried expressing this opinion at the Bad Astronomy website? The owner of that site, Phil Plaitt, is an astronomer specialising in supernovae. He may volunteer to test out your idea, and if not one of the other posters there (a number of whom are professional astronomers) might help you out. They might even be able to confirm your ideas.

Incidentally there may be primordial binary black holes; they are not ruled out by the evidence. There may also be binary stellar black holes caused by the collapse of binary pairs of giant stars. With luck it may be possible quite soon to detect such pairs using gravitational interferometry (using LIGO, for example)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO

 

thanks.

I agree that there is little math to support my view. I can not even do the math* with the assumption of a prefectly symmetric collapse to the center of mass of that small core portion of the star that ran out of fuel. (Which with this false assumption, would be a sphere at center of the star.)

I do show how the physics leads to my conclusion with well accepted physics to support idea logically in 16 sections or steps. Thus, I think my "opinion" is much better founded than your "gut only" feeling opinion rejecting it, especially as you do not challenge even one of the 16 steps that lead to the conclusion.

Thanks also for the suggestion of "free crticism" at Bad Astronomy. - I did not know such a site exists. - I rarely use the internet except to following financial developments related to my portfolio of stocks.

I will clean up the argument a little (Please tell me any points that seemed confused or were not clear.) and add the reference to 40 solar mass star that left neutron star residue (and I think possibly a dozen or so small, invisible black holes). I will wait at least a day, for your suggestions.

Yes I am hoping that they will, but the BH pairs needs to be very close and not too far away. BTW, I have been to see Joe Weber's detector at U of Md many years ago. Impressive techonolgy for the era, and he claimed some events, but I think not real. IMHO we need two widely spaced detections of the same event to even hope, and three that pair wise, by arrival time, agree where it came from, to be sure.

I found the BA site but am not sure how to send my idea/ theory. A sub page of Phil's suggest to Email subjects to: badastro "at" badastronomy.com - I assume that is: badastro@badastronomy.com, but do not think this is the way to offer a theory for discusion. What do you think? Have you ever contacted Phil? He states that he gets 100s of Emails per hour, so how can I get reasonable chance he will even see one form me?

I hope to hear from you soon (or anyone else reading with suggestion to make my idea more clearly stated.)
----------------------------
*Using a classical approach (wrong) I was able to show as Appendix 3 of my book, in less than two pages, that the energy released by even a small mass collapsing in its own gravitational field to a point is infinite. The book is designed for people with little math, so I was glad I could do this with out even using calculus. Again book is designed as tool for recuriting science students by scaring them to the point that they may want to know if the science in it is correct. I mentioned that this resembles the big bang - extreme energy released from a point. - Idea that all Black Holes may create new "daughter universes" is far from original with me.

 

The main reason I have that your theory would not work is that it relies on spherical geometry. If a small volume of plasma inside a 40 stellar mass star explodes in a supernova-like fashion it will similtaneously collapse into a black hole and expand against the gravity and mass pressure of the rest of the star; in your theory I believe that this spherical shock wave would compress some of the other regions of varying density into black holes. Unfortunately the shock wave expands as the surface of a sphere, and this obeys the inverse square rule; quite quickly the energy available to compress the other regions diminishes.
If there are multiple regions of space within a stellar core just on the verge of collapse then it might possibly trigger one or two to collapse independently, but that sounds more like a rare event than a common one to me.

 

Hey guys all this theoritical stuff ain't getting anywhere,. why don't we just wait till some new improved technology comes along so we can make detailed analysis of each of your sci-fi theories. Besides this thread is starting to drag on with infinite questions and possibilities...AND NO TRUE ANSWERS!!!

 

True answers is science is a rarity.
I'm enjoying this discussion and it's a good game for exercising the brain. Keep it on!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I do not understand how or why you could think that. My concept is built on exactly the opposite. - Asymmetric density, Asymmetric temperature and Asymmetric location of the first collapse center!

I also do not understand "expand against gravity" but perhaps you just mean that as matter is moving to a higher gravitational potential location, it will lose KE and slow down. - I said that would happen. It can "expand against the inertia" of other matter. The fact that the distribution of "other matter" near the point of collapse is not uniform also is why the shock wave is not even expanding spherically. Recall I mentioned that it might even tend to focus somewhat like dense glass in the center of an optical lens makes a focus. If the density at the center of the star is greater than farther from the star and an initially spherical expanding shock wave is expanding towards that center of star, then in fact it will at least distort to become more like a beam in that sector, if not actually convergent on the other side of the center.

I think the 40 solar mass (or less) star explosion is usually well described by the standard theory. But in the case of the neutron star residue, something obviously went wrong with that theory. I never suggesed the shock is expanding spherically - just the opposite as it propagates thru regions of non uniform density.

I of course do not know what went wrong with the standary theory in this specific case, but will sketch out a possibility along the general lines I have been suggesting. Perhaps earlier than the explosion, some smaller region burned all the fuel to iron, but it was too small too collapse - it just shrank a little as it cooled to the surrounding temperature and was then an iron nucleus mass with neutralizing quantitity of electrons (a neutral, fully ionized, iron plasma) then later a somewhat larger section of the near center region of the 40 solar mass star ran out of fuel and it was big enough to collapse and blow the star apart. Perhaps spraying pieces of iron* into space or perhaps the compression made by the shock passing thru the iron plasma part did push the density of that iron plasma above the "form black hole" density. There are no doubt a lot of other possibilities.

All we know with reasonable confidence is that the standard theory failed and we must not trust it, especially with the big first generation stars. Fortunately (for me) I seem to now have raised enough doubt in your mind, along with the observational evidence and my "alternative model" which you now somewhat** understand for to stop you from still citing the standard theory's 3 solar mass lower limit on black holes as "proof" that the 2.2 solar mass "dark visitor" is impossible.

I am not suggesting that by chance there are several different internal regions of the 300 mass star "just on the verge of collapse" when the first one does. I agree that would be a rare event.

Instead, I am suggesting that there might be several that are only an order of magnitude away from "form black hole density" when the first does collapse and that the shock wave produce when a 1000 or more years of total solar energy output is released in a second is so strong that it can in its passage compress 100 or more fold the matter it is passing thru. I am suggesting what really happens in big stars is that sort of a black hole "chain reaction" is triggered by the first to collapse and at least a dozen "secondary black hole" with more than a solar mass are created within less than 3 seconds. Then smaller than solar mass 'tertiary black holes" are created as the shock wave of the secondary ones collide on gas that was more than an order of magnitude away form being "form black hole" density"

We seen (or hear?) the neutron star - say it has four solar masses, just to illustrate my point, which is where it he remaining 36 solar masses? I have no trouble putting 36 solar masses in several “few solar mass” black holes and many of approximately one or less with my theory. Where do you put it? ( I have not read the original reference, perhaps the 40 solar mass quoted in it is the neutron star plus the observed nebulae, if there is one. If this is the case, my bet is that the original star was more than 40 solar masses, and thus more likely to follow my theory than the standard one anyway. I have always been granting that for stars small enough the standard theory is OK.)
-------------------------------------
*The iron meteorites are not from this type of source. They are vastly too numerious and all have approximatrely the same age, I think, but perhaps one of the thousands that have never been dated could be different and from such a stellar explosion, but I doubt that is the case.
** You do seem to have the roles of symmetry and Asymmetry backwards still.

 

Neutron stars cannot have more than about three solar masses or they collapse into a black hole themselves. If you were to add a solar mass of iron to a neutron star with a mass twice that of the Sun, it would itself collapse into a black hole.
So I think that your 'multiple collapse' scenario, if it were possible, might produce a mixed population of black holes and neutron stars.

Incidentally I don't think the conditions which led to the formation of primordial black holes have any analogue in the current universe, not even in the hearts of supernovae; the density and temperature of the universe was so great that the very physical laws were modified, and it was only the expansion of space itself which prevented the entire universe from collapsing into a single black hole.