(alpha) Dark Matter - what is it?

[Billy T]

This paragraph is for those who think “Dark Matter, DM, does not exist.” - Skip it you know DM does exist. If you repudiate DM, please explain the following OBSERVATION, or keep your OPINION private. Dark matter is postulated to exist, mainly because the observed orbital speed of stars around the galactic centers is too high to be explained by gravity from the visible matter interior to their orbits. I.e. something unseen is supplying most of the centripetal force causing them to orbit as they do.

The question in discussion is: What is DM?

I will try to defend the idea that DM is highly concentrated discrete masses, roughly point masses of a few solar masses at most, perhaps less than one solar mass, but large compared to planets like Jupiter. One standard, or at least a common, reason for rejecting this idea about the nature of DM is that there does not seem to be any origin for DM in this mass range. So I will first address that objection first:

(1) How could there be many “solar size” Black Holes?

Later, if I can at least make it plausible that there is a potential for such DM to be created (from stars) I will address the question as to why it is not seen (via optical lensing, “micro-quasar” effects, etc.).

In early universe, quarks first began to form and then stable matter, and then small “Primordial Black Holes” PBMs, also probably formed (perhaps magnetic monopoles also). It is at least conceivable that some PBMs may have been in “clouds” dense enough to not have evaporated away by now. (I.e. they “ate matter” more rapidly than they were losing it via Hawking radiation.); however, I will let others, if they care, argue for this source of the current ‘solar size” DM. ( I sometimes argue for black holes being formed from monopoles, but not here.)

I will base my argument for the existence of “solar size” DM on the death processes of large Generation III stars, which typically had 200 +/- 100 solar masses.

Standard calculation / analysis of the death of these stars ALWAYS assumes spherical symmetry, and concludes that these massive stars all terminated in single black holes, with masses of at least 5 solar masses, when their cores became mainly iron and they collapsed in supernovas events. Observational evidence violently disagrees with this assumption of spherical symmetry. - Almost everything from the relatively small Crab nebula to the repeatedly exploding Eta Carinae, (One of the few 100 to 150 solar masses star still known and close enough to resolve its structure well.) indicate this assumption is false. For example, see:

(Pete will soon insert a photo of an exploding star here for me, as I can not do so, and remove this line.)

What should one expect to be a more accurate model of the death of a large star when it is making iron in the central region? Answer:

The last iron forming stage of fusion requires enormous temperatures and still only the extreme “tail of the velocity distribution” can make collisions that lead to iron. Thus the rate of fusion formation of iron is very strongly dependant upon the local temperature and only depends quadratic on the density of the particles which will fuse to form the iron. At least crudely, if not exactly, the product of T, the local temperature, and D, the local density is proportional to the local pressure, P. Surely P( r), where r is the radial distance from the center of mass is a monotonically decreasing function of r, but that does not require that T always be. (To keep the explanation of the idea clear, I ignore that D = D1, +D2 + Di +… where even here only the three most important components for the fusion are explicit. Di is the density of the iron ions and perhaps the dominate “fuels“, D1 and D2, are the same ions. )

Because the temperature is so high, the magnitude of the relative small statistical temperature fluctuations are not negligible, especially in view of the strong dependency of the fusion rate upon temperature. I.e. some small region near, but not at the exact mass center of the star, is likely to be making iron more rapidly than at the exact mass center of the star. This slightly higher fusion rate, at r = a > 0, (only at some latitude and longitude, of course, but I avoid giving these coordinates.) initiates a self-accelerating thermal instability. I.e. any small volume, statistically hotter than average for that radius spot, will rapidly become much hotter and produce iron more rapidly despite the constantly falling D which keeps P(a) at that spot equal to P(a) at other colder spots, equally distant from the mass center. Note also that R >> a, were R is the full stellar radius. I.e. a is not far from the mass center, but not normally exactly at it.

Once the thermal instability at a is well developed, the temperatures, in this “hot spot” is higher than at the mass center and the dominate mode of energy transfer out of this hot spot is radiation, not conduction. The radiation pressure is likely to be a significant part of P(a). (Just guessing as I have no data.) Perhaps the best way to think of this “thermal runaway region” is a radiation filled bubble of relatively low mass density when the formation of iron abruptly terminates for lack of “fuel ion” density.

Without the constant fusion release of energy, the expanding radiation sphere, will quickly cool and the relative high mass density region just outside the “radiation bubble” will begin a radial collapse towards the off mass center point at a, where the first black hole will form. This rapid release of gravitational energy with the formation of black hole, not exactly at the mass center, will send a very powerful compressive shock wave into all near by parts of the star, including a front compressing the already much higher density region r < a. Even if these more central and denser regions were not yet quite ready to make black holes they will be “pushed over the edge” by the compression shock and more black holes will form, each generating additional compressive shock waves. When some of these "secondary shocks" collide, compressing even regions that were not close to the density required for forming a black hole, especially if compressing "from both sides," these regions too may form "tertiary black holes" and more shocks. - Sort of a chain reaction forming a multitiude of "solar size" black holes, all being hurled into space along with a great mass of very hot gases, which may even reform a lessor star and form a few more "solar size" black holes, much later.

SUMMARY: In essence, it seems plausible that the lack of the spherically symmetric collapse onto the mass center ASSUMED by the standard analysis, despite all the observational evidence that the collapse is not spherically symmetric, can give birth to a multitude of smaller “solar size” black holes, not the single big monster black hole the standard calculations predict for the collapse of a typical generation III star.

Please comment.

Does this seem possible? Probable? Etc. Can you fill in some details more quantatively? (I think I can do some what better in modeling the radial temperature and densities, prior to the start of the self-accelerating “thermal instability,” which is my central idea, based on my knowledge of how the fusion rate does depend strongly on temperature and only quadratically on fuel ion density, if any one needs these details.)

 

[Billy T]

... I am pretty sure that the magnetic monopole atom is highly relativistic and therefore not amenable to easy analysis.

I agree. I am not up to speed on the modern view of mass/energy and gravity, so I made up my own simple-minded rule, which seems to work. I.e. energy, E, which is the same in all reference frames (such as thermal energy) does produce gravity as if it were E/(c^2) mass, but energy whose magnitude varies as you change frames, such as kinetic energy of a bullet, never produces any gravity.

I know it is a terrible term, but I am old and addicted to concept of "relativistic mass" (the additional resistance to acceleration caused by high speeds) even though it is a vector, not scalar mass.

I have always thought "relativistic mass" never produces any gravity, but I am having difficulty applying my rule to the "relativistic mass" that each of the magnetic monopoles gains (presumably from falling towards the other in the magnetic field of the other) when a N and S monopole form a "dipole atom." This is because in the probably false classical view, this energy sort of looks like random thermal energy (no prefer direction of motion, contained in an object, etc.) which by my rule suggest it makes gravity but in the presumably more correct quantum view, would suggest that a dipole atom is a dipole atom with the same quantized energy levels in all frames, just as a hydrogen atom is the same in all frames (I think.) and does not make more gravity in one frame than another. (I do believe that the excited hydrogen atom is heavier and does make more gravity, so this also by way of analogy makes me think the mass and gravity made by a dipole atom might be greater than the two separated N & S monopoles.)

Note if in the case of the dipole atom, the "relativistic mass" or energy that each gained for the fall in their magnetic fields, does contribute to the total gravitational mass, then it would seem even easier for the dipole atom to convert to a black hole. I think there is a good chance they were created as predicted and have all joined together to be come black holes as they are individually very massive. (I bet they are not stable against Hawking radiation so that they no longer exist even as back holes but they would be strange animals in the quantum zoo, so anything may be true, even the possibility that they might be the stable dark matter. - can not decay by radiation any more than the quantized ground state hydrogen atom can, despite the constantly accelerated orbiting electron.)

I hope you can understand my confusion/problem and say a few words to help straighten me out.
Also is my rule for when energy makes gravity and when it does not consistent with your deeper understanding?

 

[Billy T]

As Pete has not yet inserted the photo of the "Eskimo," CGN 3292, in post 61, here is a link to it followed by my interpretation of what it may be happening:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap031207.html

The filamentary structures so clearly evident in the "face of the Eskimo" are the still reverberating and compressive after effects of the multitude of shocks I spoke of (and explained & predicted in my book, Dark Visitor, before this photo was published (in late Dec 2003) in post 61. (I first saw this picture less than a month ago.)

Radiation pressure from the “radiant face” (really a crudely shaped sphere) of the Eskimo has cleared a zone around the face. That gas (plasma actually) was also partially "eaten" but the more than 100 discrete objects expelled in the "chain reaction” forming the solar-size black holes, which I spoke of in post 61 and predicted in my book.

Being very dense compared to their cross section for stopping photons, these solar-size black hole have not been blown away form the face as much as the plasma ring (the Eskimo’s parka). I.e. they are found mainly at the inner boundary of the ring except for the smallest ones. These objects are not understood by the conventional theory and often are referred to as comets, because they have a bright head and tails that point away from the central star, but clearly comets do not come out of dying stars.

I explain their bright heads by what I called the “micro-quasar effect” I.e. the dense plasma near them is being compressed as it falls into the solar-size black holes. During the 10,000 years since the star exploded, while these solar-size black holes were traveling to the position they are now seen in, the near by plasma was denser and the associated micro-quasars were brighter. I can not prove that, but the denser plasma converging on the solar-size black holes during these 10,000 years also absorbed more of the radiation which is still driving the plasma ring deeper into space. This explains why the radial directions without a solar-size black hole have been cleared out. I.e. in radial directions with no mechanism for concentrating the plasma density, the plasma has been driven farther away and has been continuously expanding and cooling, so the high luminosity regions of the parka are found mainly behind the solar-size black holes, I.e. the “comet tails,” that point away from the central star, are the least dispersed part of the expanding “parka ring.”

My remaining comments are highly speculative, and probably will not stand up to careful analysis:

At “3:30 O-clock” in the photo one can see a single, more distant, “headless” comet tail. The solar-size black hole head is still there, but now in plasma with density too low to make the “micro-quasar” effect. It may have been (but this is highly speculative) the first solar-size black hole to form; the one that initiated the chain reaction. It acquired much greater escape velocity than the later ones as the central star was still intact when its “radiation bubble” (see post 61) began to collapse. - It had a high density “spring board” to push off from.

The “secondary black holes” may be those that are seen in the photo between 1 & 5 “O-clock”. They also had a denser “spring board” (than the terciary ones) and do not form as sharp an inner ring to the parka. Many are moving slower than #1, but faster than the tertiary formed black holes, which tend to appear all at a more uniform separation from the central star ( between 6 & 12 “O-clock.”) I.e. they mainly came for the other side of the star when the secondary shocks compressed less central, less dense gas from both sides.

Note also a slight indication that the parka consist of two sections. As indicated in some comet tails by a darker region in what should be the middle of the tail. The more distant parts of the tail are obviously traveling faster. Perhaps they were the outer layers of the star and blasted into space by the first shock wave following the collapse of #1. Also note that there are many more of the tertiary black hole “comet heads” and thus more of the less expanded plasma in the 6 to 12 “O-clock” sector. Note that comet heads in the 1 to 5 “O-clock” sector, the ones I am associating with the secondary black holes, are fewer and on average farther from the central star. Most of the plasma in tis sector was not "shielded" from central radiation pressure by gas concentrating around black holes, (the micro-quasars), so it has been dispersed into space and no longer is luminious as too cooled by expansion.

As already noted, this last part of this post is not too likely to be correct in detail, but it does hang together in a self consistent way, agrees with the photo, and is as I would predict from the model of three-stage chain-reaction formation of many black holes. This model is described in post 61, and based on the physical factors controlling the fusion rate, not the obviously false assumption of the standard theory’s “spherically symmetric collapse.”

 

[BenTheMan]

SUMMARY: In essence, it seems plausible that the lack of the spherically symmetric collapse onto the mass center ASSUMED by the standard analysis, despite all the observational evidence that the collapse is not spherically symmetric, can give birth to a multitude of smaller “solar size” black holes, not the single big monster black hole the standard calculations predict for the collapse of a typical generation III star.

Hi Billy---

Your proposal sounds interesting, but I am far from an expert on stellar evolution. It seems reasonable that density fluctuations would seed not spots during the collapse, but I would have to see some calculation It also seems reasonable that, if the system is as non-linear as you predict, one dying star could form multiple stellar mass black holes. Physicists are notorious for assuming spherical cows, and such (even though Poincare and Perelman have taught us that cows---or, specifically rabits---and spheres are homeomorphic!), and I'm sure that if you asked an astrophysicist to justify these calculations, you'd get an answer like "The non-spherical version is too hard."

I think one should keep in mind that Dark Matter makes up 25ish% of the total energy in the universe, while normal baryonic matter makes up only 3% or so. This is my first complaint. I am not saying that your proposal doesn't have some merit, I just don't see how this could generate enough dark matter. (This is also a question I have for other models of dark matter, not just yours.) You could look at constraints from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis---that is, the period after the Big Bang where deuterium and helium (and lithium too) began to form. Then you could see if there was enough extra matter so that you could form as much dark matter as was needed, and still have enough matter to satisfy present day observational constraints.

Also, presumably, your proposal predicts that there was no dark matter in the early universe, and dark matter only appeared at late times---after the first generation of stars starts dying. But if this is the case, then there is no way to stabilize the outer arms of the earliest spiral galaxies. So, if one were to look at the hubble deep field, you could tell if your proposal was valid. That is, the hubble deep field (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field) is 12 billion years old, and represents the first generation of galaxies formed. And, at least to my untrained eyes, there doesn't appear to be any difference between these spiral galaxies and some other generic spiral galaxies----the dark matter had to already be formed and stabilizing the arms of these galaxies.

 

[BenTheMan]

It also seems reasonable that, if the system is as non-linear as you predict, one dying star could form multiple stellar mass black holes.

Actually, I want to partially take this back. (I have been enjoying a very nice Kenyan coffee and reading string papers for the past hour, and just rethought this a few seconds ago...)

It is possible that several small black holes would form, but because they are inside the original stellar radius, my guess is that they would either swallow each other up, or form some sort of wierd bound states. If the initial conditions were just right, they may scatter off of each other and shoot out into space, but I don't think that this seems especially likely.

Actually, there could be some interesting physics in this---seeing how often a dying star gives multiple small black holes as end products. This is probably another thread though

 

[Singularity]

Ok then, Now create a planet completely made of apples such that it generates Gravity of 1G. Now forget it, we did this just to select 1G of apples.

Now use the apples to create small spheres of size S such that they generate just enough G to attract and revolve each other at max distance D. (I know this is too complicated)

Now place them in a line of length L such that each of them are at interval of distance D to the adjacent ones.

Phew, now the real question.

Will the 1G planet attract one S sphere at distance L more
than two S spheres attracting each other at distance D ?

The answer is obvious, the line of apple spheres will collapse at a rapid speed into a planet. But single sphere being far away from the planet will be less attracted as the sphere itself is not an effective attracter.

So as we can see from this example, there is no need of DM for our galaxy to exist with the visible matter. The matter transcends the gravity across the galaxy.

And BTW Dead Stars had been seen (so who needs DM) but ignored for long time now, heres some of the pictures,

 

[Singularity]

 

[Billy T]

Thanks for your comments.

...It seems reasonable that density fluctuations would seed not spots during the collapse...

Yes, that may be a conceptual possibility, but I neglect it, in comparison to the thermal fluctuations, for two reasons:
(1)The fusion rate increase (potential for self-accelerating instability) is much smaller. Perhaps even a stabilizing of density fluctuations to be expected. For example, assume a local 0.01% positive step function increase in density average for that radius, I.e. density in the "dense spot" is suddenly is 1.0001D(a) instead of D(a). The fusion rate will be a step function also but only 0.02% increased; however, this will cause the local temperature to begin a linear ramp increase as there is the heat capacity to consider. The local pressure, P(a) will also step function increase and the local density will begin at least initially a linear ramp down towards D(a) with perhaps an inertial "over shoot" briefly taking the local density below D(a). I am not sure that this can lead to a run-away instability, but it might.

(2)If the initial local fluctuation is a 0.01% step in temperature, then the fusion rate might have a 0.1% step. (Just guessing, but certainly much greater that in the density initiated step.) In contrast to the density step case, the initial linear decline in D(a) does not tend to directly stabilize the initiating step fluctuation - it tends to accelerate the initial thermal step as the greater energy production is being shared by fewer particles.

SUMMARY: I am reasonably sure that if there is any sense to my idea, it is the thermal statistical fluctuations that drive the instability, produce the local hot spot that grows to become the "radiation bubble" of low mass density and then suddenly collapses with the surrounding region falling into the bubble and having a great "overshoot" above D(a) at the center of the bubble, driving the local density above the "no return" or critical "black hole initiate" density. I tend to doubt that a positive density fluctuation can drive the local density to this critical black hole forming density.

I think one should keep in mind that Dark Matter makes up 25ish% of the total energy in the universe, while normal baryonic matter makes up only 3% or so. ...I just don't see how this could generate enough dark matter. (This is also a question I have for other models of dark matter, not just yours.)...

I will reply as Hoyl did when his steady state universe was questioned by: "... and just where do these spontaneously created protons you continually get come from?" (Hoyl said: "From the same place you get them all at once.") I.e. I will not try to explain something no other theory does. I will suggest two possibilities that may make this less of a problem:
(1)Perhaps the quantitiy of DM is over estimated. (1a)There may be more brown dwarfs; lost, space-wandering, planets, etc that we think. (1b) The luminious mass may be greater than we think. Especially, if a greater fraction of it is in small stars, as there is an uncertainty of approximately 30% in the mass/luminosity ratio for the smaller stars.
(2)I am attracted to idea of magnetic monopole as being part of the DM. (As small black holes in our era.) If this is the case, then my multitude of solar-size black holes need not be 100% of the DM, perhaps less than half? ( I have no way to even guess.)

Also, presumably, your proposal predicts that there was no dark matter in the early universe, and dark matter only appeared at late times---after the first generation of stars starts dying. But if this is the case, then there is no way to stabilize the outer arms of the earliest spiral galaxies.

Yes, some if not all of the DM did come later from GenIII stars, but I do not think we can see the velocity of the very distant (early) outer galaxy rotation rates. Even if we can, it may be very hard to accurately get the central mass for the observed luminosity as there are likely to be both absorption and lensing effects for things that far away. I am not suggesting any new mass is created - only that more becomes non luminous during the death of GenIII stars in more, but smaller, packets than the standard that are harder to detect.

As far as the problem of my multitude of solar black holes produced by a single GenIII star remaining separate until this era (instead of merging into a big one, just as the spherically symmetric theory would make), I think this does happen to some extent. (For example, the one in my book, which will soon plunge Earth into a unique, Northern-hemisphere-only, permanent ice age is postulated to have 2.2 solar masses. It may be the merged version of two lesser ones. It is also postulated to still be gravitationally bound to the one which passed much farther from the solar system in late 1920s (perturbing Neptune, causing discovery of Pluto, etc.) As I understand the long-term dynamics of a cloud of small, extremely dense, objects, merger is very unlikely compared to ejection from the group at least until most of the group has been ejected. When there are only four or less left in the mutually bound (and now "colder") group, then they may gravitationally radiate energy fast enough to make merger have a chance to occur. These very small objects (points?) will never hit each other (Well perhaps in the entire universe's during last 14 billion years it happened once prior to their spiraling together as the merger mechanism.)

 

[BenTheMan]

Yes, that may be a conceptual possibility, but I neglect it, in comparison to the thermal fluctuations

Aren't temperature and density proportional? I think they are, just from, say, the ideal gas law. More stuff=more collisions=higher temp?

I will not try to explain something no other theory does.

Yes, but at least orders of magnitude are important. You have to see if there are enough stars of the specific type you want early enough in the universe to stabilize all of the spiral galaxies whose rotation curves we can calculate.

(1)Perhaps the quantitiy of DM is over estimated. (1a)There may be more brown dwarfs; lost, space-wandering, planets, etc that we think. (1b) The luminious mass may be greater than we think. Especially, if a greater fraction of it is in small stars, as there is an uncertainty of approximately 30% in the mass/luminosity ratio for the smaller stars.

Well, this would be possible if we didn't have several different experiments giving us approximately the same answers. If there are lost planets/brown dwarves wandering around the nether regions of the universe, then there would have to be a lot of them---more than the stuff we CAN see.

Yes, some if not all of the DM did come later from GenIII stars, but I do not think we can see the velocity of the very distant (early) outer galaxy rotation rates.

Well, then, we should look at spiral galaxies whose curves we can calculate and see if any of them lived before the first Gen 3 stars were formed.

 

[BenTheMan]

As I understand the long-term dynamics of a cloud of small, extremely dense, objects, merger is very unlikely compared to ejection from the group at least until most of the group has been ejected.

Hmmm. Perhaps---this is definitely how the solar system was formed. But this happened over a distance of several parsecs. The process you are talking about happens within the radius of, say, a red giant. And supposing that some of the density fluctuations occured close together, at least some of the black holes should merge. I don't know---I will have to think about this one some more.

 

[BenTheMan]

Will the 1G planet attract one S sphere at distance L more
than two S spheres attracting each other at distance D ?

It demends on what the masses are and what the distances are.

So as we can see from this example, there is no need of DM for our galaxy to exist with the visible matter. The matter transcends the gravity across the galaxy.

Then how does one deal with the fact that spiral galaxies are not stable without dark matter?

Singularity---please stick to Billy T's points of discussion or get the hell out of this thread and start your own. Please refer to the alpha rules post, which specifically prohibits the hijacking of threads.

 

[Billy T]

....It is possible that several small black holes would form, but because they are inside the original stellar radius, my guess is that they would either swallow each other up, or form some sort of wierd bound states.

We have very different expectations here. I am suggesting the first black hole does not usually form at the exact mass center of a star, but accepting that the energy released by the collapse is very large (a supernova event's energy). If it had been at exact center then the black hole formed would remain where it formed and the majority of the stellar mass would be expelled into space (some near it might get eaten after the initial collapse - I do not know.)

That is ONLY because of the exact symmetry does the black hole avoid being hurled away from its formation point. If, for example, a/R = 0.01 or greater, I expect that the black hole will be hurled directly away from the center (r =0) point along the line passing thru both r=0 and the formation point, while much of the mass of the star would be hurled into the opposite hemisphere* IF THAT WAS THE ONLY EVENT.

I think this first collapse, however, sets off a chain reaction of events. Before the opposite side/hemisphere of the star from this first event has time to move any significant distance into space (perhaps even before the first event's shock wave reaches the opposite surface, but I doubt that) the secondary events are beginning. By the time the first event's shock has reached the r=0 point, the density at that points with r < a in the same hemisphere as the "first formation point" is greatly increased. - By orders of magnitude, as these are unbelievably strong shocks and even man-made shocks can (as when starting an atomic bomb to explode with well shaped HE lenses) make more than an order of magnitude compression.

Thus, many points in the region r < a are almost simultaneously, (exactly simultaneously on approximately spherical surfaces in the r < a region) are compressed to far more than the critical density for the formation of black holes. These super-critical -density, near-central (r < a) regions compete with each other for the mass available in the r < a sphere and form more than 10 "secondary" black holes, perhaps many more than 10. Note however, that those which are in the "same hemisphere" were both beginning to form before and had a stronger shock doing the compression, than those forming in the "other hemisphere." Thus more than half of the mass in "secondary" formed black holes is expected to be thrown out into the "same hemisphere" and the gas ejected with them will be less than the mass of gas ejected into the "other hemisphere" because being more massive, these black holes ejected into the same hemisphere were better 'competitors for the available mass.

All this is consistent with my less detailed speculative comments about the possibility that the single, significantly more distant, "headless" comet tail seen in the Eskimo photo at approximately 4 "O-clock" may be the result of the "first to form" black hole. Also consistent with the less regularly separated from the r = 0 point set of "comets" in the relatively gas free sector between approximately 1 & 5 "O-clock" because these are the "secondary black holes."- The ones with the greater mass and "better competitors" for the available mass than those formed in the "other hemisphere," which are mainly the "tertiary stage" black holes, most of which were formed from initially less dense gas (both because it was initially at r > a and because the first black holes shock had already began to disperse it into space, before it was pushed above the critical density by the convergence of two "secondary shocks" on both sides.) The most of the "uneaten" gas is almost exactly in the "opposite hemisphere" in the photo, just as this discussion predicts it should be.

Like the first black hole to form, almost all of the secondary black holes are in the same hemisphere* as the first to form. They are blasted into that hemisphere farther from the r = 0 point and their associated "secondary event shocks" mainly collide in gas in the other hemisphere to make many more, but lesser mass black holes. ("Lesser mass" because most are made from the initially lower density at r, such that R > r > a in the other hemisphere.) These smaller, tertiary-event black holes were not such good collectors of the available gas mass - that is why so much more gas is seen in the "other hemisphere."
----------------------------
*The "same hemisphere" and "other hemisphere" are defined by the following:
Imagine the North and South poles are on the line defined by the two points r = 0 & the "collapse point" of the first black hole to form. The first black holes “collapse point is inside the “same hemisphere.” and many of the collapse point for the larger “secondary” black holes are also. Most of the “tertiary collapse points” are in the “other hemisphere.”

If the initial conditions were just right, they may scatter off of each other and shoot out into space, but I don't think that this seems especially likely....

I disagree. It is difficult to avoid. In the long term, some particular member of a mutually gravitationally scattering set will gain the escape velocity and never return to the group. (It may take a long time, but once it happens, the group population is one less. Effectively the group is "cooled" and the escape of the next becomes less likely as typically the "big guys" throw out the "little guys" first.)

 

[BenTheMan]

In the long term, some particular member of a mutually gravitationally scattering set will gain the escape velocity and never return to the group.

Ok, I will not argue this point any further. I could convince myself both ways---this mechanism you describe is how the Kuiper belt and Oort Cloud were formed. In that case, however, the system had a huge number of initial objects which were weakly interacting. In the case of the collapse you speak of, one has a small number of objects, say, about 10, which may be strongly interacting depending on their proximities. I would like to see a computer simulation (which I think would be pretty easy to do) or some calculation, other than some hand wavy arguments.

I still think that one cannot expect to account for the total mass of gas we observe in supernovae AND generate more than 10 or so of these stellar mass black holes. I mean---even if every bit of gas in a supernova collapsed and formed a black hole, we could only get 100-200 stellar mass black holes out of these events, right? Do you have any indications as to how many ofthese small black holes you could form in such a collapse?

And if the object in the Eskimo Nebula is a black hole, how do you explain that there are no jets coming from the poles, as we typically see in black holes? It is passing through a huge gas cloud, it should be sucking in at least some of that matter, and shooting out some pretty wicked x rays right?

 

[Billy T]

Aren't temperature and density proportional?...

No, not even in an ideal gas. For example 100 boxes all with different density of H2 in them in thermal contact have the same temperature. Not even all real gases cool when they expand! (I think I recal this correctly, but forget how this is possible despite them doing work in the expansion - perhaps true only when expanding into a vacuum.)

...You have to see if there are enough stars of the specific type you want early enough in the universe to stabilize all of the spiral galaxies whose rotation curves we can calculate. ....we should look at spiral galaxies whose curves we can calculate and see if any of them lived before the first Gen 3 stars were formed.

First: I do not assert that all DM is made from GenIII stars (I am keeping the magnetic monopole option open as well as "there is ~30% more mass in the luminious mass than current thought" possibility open plus "more brown dwarfs, lost planets etc.". I will drag out all of them first if I must and only accept the "New type of matter" idea, as Occam instructs me to, when their total is clearly still inadequate to explain the galactic rotation data.)

Second: I think you may be confused by the strange way astronomers name things. Gen III preceeded Gen II and later generations - (They also call oxygen a "metal." In fact, it is one of their most important "metals"!) I think this because you speak of the Galaxies "before the Gen III stars." The Gen III stars were the FIRST to form from the NEUTRAL gas clouds, before galaxies existed. It is the radiation for the big Gen III stars that caused the "re-ionization" of the interstellar gas clouds.

...If there are lost planets/brown dwarves wandering around the nether regions of the universe, then there would have to be a lot of them---more than the stuff we CAN see.

Yes, if that is the only thing making DM, but they need not be 100%. They can contribute to DM. The gen III stars only lived of miillions, not billions, of years. If they did die like I think probable, they may have made separated small gas clouds - too small size to become long lived "suns." - I.e. perhaps part of the DM is made of "jupiter+ size planets, lost and wandering in space? I.e. perhaps their is more normal mass in he universe than we think, more than even the 30% error bars on the luminosity / mass relationship we use to estimate the mass in the luminious objects.

Don't get me wrong - I am a believer in DM, just not yet ready to tell Occam to go to hell, because I like inventing a new type of matter. At least my magnetic monoploes are PREDICTED to have been created and fit well into a more beautiful version of Maxwell's equations. It seem very reasonable, to me, that the N & S ones would rapidly get together, pairwise, as their attraction is the same long-range inverse-square law as gravity, which despite being billions(?) of times weaker, assembled the stars!

 

[Billy T]

...I still think that one cannot expect to account for the total mass of gas we observe in supernovae AND generate more than 10 or so of these stellar mass black holes. I mean---even if every bit of gas in a supernova collapsed and formed a black hole, we could only get 100-200 stellar mass black holes out of these events, right? Do you have any indications as to how many ofthese small black holes you could form in such a collapse?

let me "turn the tables": How do you know "total mass of gas we observe in supernovae"? i.e. how do you know it is not many (even 10) times greater than what is luminious? The original star would need to be 10 times more massive, of course, than you think it was, but so long as that is not more than say 300 solar masses -why not? We know 300 solar mass stars have existed. (I sure hope a real astronomer starts putting his/her 2 cents in as I do not know much about astronomy.)

As far as how many "solar size" black holes the typical Gen III makes promptly I can only guess as follows: 1 in the first stage, possibly less than a solar mass; 20 in the second stage, probably about one solar mass on average; and 100 relatively small ones in the third stage of my chain reaction, perhaps averaging only 0.3 solar masses or a total mass of 50 or 51 solar masses in 121 new black holes. This is a small fraction of the typical Gen III star's mass but the expanding post-explosion gas may re-assemble many years afer the supranova and the second generation star so formed, can also make some more mass into Black Holes, when it dies. The biggest Gen III stars might convert half their mass into "solar size" black holes in their asymetric collapse, so I tend to agree that part of the DM comes from some other sources - want to buy onto monopoles?

I expect many of the third stage black holes will be initially in short linear strings, where the outer gas of the star is being squeezed from both sides by same two of the second stage shocks converging along a line (arc). Lets consider a line with ten total Terticary Black Holes, TBHs, formed by the same two Secondary shocks, S1 and S2 along their "intersetion line" as they advance into the gas more distant from the r = 0 point. I will call the first of these to form "TBH12,1" where the "12" refers to the creating secondary shocks, S1 and S2, associated with the collapse formation of Secondary Black Holes SBH1 & SBH2. The next to form in this line is TBH12,2, then TBH12,3 ... etc. up to TBH12,10.

Now because TBH12,1 was formed nearer to r = 0 than TBH12,10 AND, was formed before TBH12,10 when Shocks S1 and S2 were stronger (Shocks are growing weaker all the time as they expand), I expect that TBH12,1 will be accelerated basically along the the densest points on a path orthogonal to the intersection line (arc) of S1 & S2 and eventually overtake and pass TBH12,10 (if they do not merge - hard to even guesstimate how "co linear" their formamtion points and initial ejection velocities will be.) Note this "intersection line" (arc) is moving out thur the star perpendicularly to itself and only a small section of it is moving thru the denser part of the star. It is along this denser part of the moving arc line along which the Terticary black holes form. I.e. they are sort of a radial out bound set and the first to form will travel faster than the last, facilating the chance of mergers.

Point I am trying to make is that in a few tens of thousand of years, at most, many of the 100 TBHxy,n will have merged so there may be only 25 instead of 121 independent black holes now existent. (All, even those that never merged, are too big to have evaporated.) That is the 50 solar masses end up as roughly 2 solar mass black holes on average. (The one in my book had 2.2 solar masses.) Thus instead of not having any black holes in this solar mass range as most believe, I am suggesting many (more than all the stars that have ever existed) are created in this mass range. Sorry about all the designations. - I now you do not like that, but if you try, the meaning of these designations should clear.

...And if the object in the Eskimo Nebula is a black hole, how do you explain that there are no jets coming from the poles, as we typically see in black holes? It is passing through a huge gas cloud, it should be sucking in at least some of that matter, and shooting out some pretty wicked x rays right?

Could be X-ray source, I have no data. I do not know what to expect at r=0 now. Perhaps some mass is falling in (together?) and making a weak, but not micro, quasar? I know little about why many large Black holes have jets, so hard for me to comment why none are seen in the "comets" of the "Eskimo's parka." Perhaps black holes of only a couple of solar masses of less never have jets. I assume the jets do not come from the black holes (as nothing does) but are somehow related to the angular momentum axis of the currently infalling matter that the associated magnetic fields twist around to throw out along this axis (sparing it the fate of being eaten by the black hole. Perhaps as the black holes and the gas making the "micro-quasar heads of the comet both come for the same star explosion (instead of as in a real quasar where the black hole is eating gas from some other star) there is too little angular momentum and or magnetic field to form jets. - That is about all I can guesstimate - too ignorant about "jets" to do more.

I do not worry about Singularity's attempt to hi-jack the thread. I see no evidence any one is joining that effort. - In fact in post 66, as no one is paying attention, Singularity is replying to Singularity! I assume Pete will eventually appear and delete the hi-jacking attempt posts. IMHO that is the best way to enforce alpha rules. - the slight effort Singularity has made will simply disappear. I will just continue to ignore.

 

[Billy T]

I think my idea may solve another astronomical problem also. Not sure just how big a problem it is, but it is my understanding that there should be more of what astronomers call "metals" than is actually observed. I.e. the single great collapse of a Gen III star to one massive central black hole releases all the energy in one unimaginably strong shock wave, which should have made more of these "metals."

In my suggestion for the death of a Gen III star, there are perhaps 100 smaller shocks that I bet produce less metals in total than the one big one made by the spherically symmetric collapse always assumed. Could I be killing two birds with one stone?

 

[Singularity]

It demends on what the masses are and what the distances are.



Then how does one deal with the fact that spiral galaxies are not stable without dark matter?

Singularity---please stick to Billy T's points of discussion or get the hell out of this thread and start your own. Please refer to the alpha rules post, which specifically prohibits the hijacking of threads.

Whos talking to u idiot.

 

[BenTheMan]

let me "turn the tables": How do you know "total mass of gas we observe in supernovae"? i.e. how do you know it is not many (even 10) times greater than what is luminious? The original star would need to be 10 times more massive, of course, than you think it was, but so long as that is not more than say 300 solar masses -why not? We know 300 solar mass stars have existed. (I sure hope a real astronomer starts putting his/her 2 cents in as I do not know much about astronomy.)

Here I will have to defer to the expertise of my astronomer friends, who tell me that they are quite sure that they can account for the mass of gas in a supernova. If they are sure then I am sure

Point I am trying to make is that in a few tens of thousand of years, at most, many of the 100 TBHxy,n will have merged so there may be only 25 instead of 121 independent black holes now existent. (All, even those that never merged, are too big to have evaporated.) That is the 50 solar masses end up as roughly 2 solar mass black holes on average. (The one in my book had 2.2 solar masses.) Thus instead of not having any black holes in this solar mass range as most believe, I am suggesting many (more than all the stars that have ever existed) are created in this mass range. Sorry about all the designations. - I now you do not like that, but if you try, the meaning of these designations should clear.

Ok, first we accept that neither of us have actually done a calculation to prove any of this. Second, even if this is the case, I am quite confident in saying that there is no way you could generate enough dark matter using this process. Even if all of the baryonic matter stored in stars in our hubble volume were to be transformed to black holes right now, we would still be a factor of 10 or so short of the total dark matter in the universe today.

Could be X-ray source, I have no data. I do not know what to expect at r=0 now.

I am quite sure that we'd be able to look at it and tell if it were a black hole. The surrounding gas would be swirling in, and emitting light from all frequencies as it sped up.

Perhaps black holes of only a couple of solar masses of less never have jets. I assume the jets do not come from the black holes (as nothing does) but are somehow related to the angular momentum axis of the currently infalling matter that the associated magnetic fields twist around to throw out along this axis (sparing it the fate of being eaten by the black hole

I think that this is absolutely correct. The star was spinning as it dies, so the resulting black holes must have angular momentum as well.

Perhaps as the black holes and the gas making the "micro-quasar heads of the comet both come for the same star explosion (instead of as in a real quasar where the black hole is eating gas from some other star) there is too little angular momentum and or magnetic field to form jets.

Not too sure about this, but I am reasonably sure that if it were a black hole it would have jets.

I think my idea may solve another astronomical problem also. Not sure just how big a problem it is, but it is my understanding that there should be more of what astronomers call "metals" than is actually observed. I.e. the single great collapse of a Gen III star to one massive central black hole releases all the energy in one unimaginably strong shock wave, which should have made more of these "metals."

This is another good point which I had not thought of, and one that should be easy to stick numbers to.

In my suggestion for the death of a Gen III star, there are perhaps 100 smaller shocks that I bet produce less metals in total than the one big one made by the spherically symmetric collapse always assumed. Could I be killing two birds with one stone?

Well, perhaps this is two stones killing your bird I think the spherical collapse assumption is probably fairly good---the assymetries seeded by the collapse of the star are amplified by the huge radial distances that these gas clouds expand.

 

[Billy T]

Here I will have to defer to the expertise of my astronomer friends, who tell me that they are quite sure that they can account for the mass of gas in a supernova.

Does that include dark mass? I.e. how do they know there is no dark mass? - Please do not tell me they assumed a spherical collapse, calculated with various mass stars until one of the set would now have ended up with the visible mass in their nebulae. I.e. they measuring or observed the nebulae mass, so they worked backwards WITH THEIR SPHERICAL ASSUMPTIONS to know what the mass of the star was before the explosion. - I.e. it was the one of the set in their calculation which gave the observed {visible} nebula mass. - I will just reply "yes but it a was actually a greater star in your set of calculations, which made both visible and dark matter, etc." and "BTW your spherical calculations are not consistent with fusion physics and statistical fluctuations of temperature."

...I am quite confident in saying that there is no way you could generate enough dark matter using this process. Even if all of the baryonic matter stored in stars in our hubble volume were to be transformed to black holes right now, we would still be a factor of 10 or so short of the total dark matter in the universe today.

Not trying to generate it all by any one mechanism (but bet I could, if you do tell me what I said "Please do not..." in reply above.) - I think magnetic monoples, now quite small black holes, perhaps quantum stabilized against Hawking and gravity-wave radiation (as the hydrogen atom is quantum stabilized against EM wave radiative decay caused by its accelerating electron. At least in classical POV or even perhaps the semi-quantum picture of the electron in ground state, which has l=0, or zero angular momentum, and electron passing back and forth thru the nucleus, the EM radiation should kill all hydrogen in micro seconds or less.)

You must be including the mass of "dark energy" to make the baryon mass 5% or less as if the "visible baryons are even 6% and the there is an equal masses of dark object baryons you can not have your factor of 10. But more fundamentally, how do we know how much baryon matter was created in the big bang? Could it not be 10 times the visible baryon mass? and now is undetected small black holes? Perhaps the answer is "no that can not be" but tell me why. Do you know what ratio of monopole mass to baryon mass is predicted by big bang theory? (If it can even predict any ratio) Could dark matter not be magnetic monopoles collapsed into black holes that have accreted mass for 14 billion years and are now "moon-mass sizes"?

...I am quite sure that we'd be able to look at it and tell if it were a black hole. The surrounding gas would be swirling in, and emitting light from all frequencies as it speeds up.

That is exactly what I suggested when calling the Eskimo's "comet" heads "weak quasars." - That gas has been expanding into space for 10,000 years. While it is surely dense compared to intergalactic space, it is very thin compared to the normal gas a quasar is eating from a star close enough to be ripped off by the gravitational gradient. Fact that this is to be expected and the "comet heads" are seen as bright spot is very supportive of my POV.

Note it is not the "falling in" that makes the gas radiate in a quasar - that only gives gas atoms kinetic energy. What make the radiation is the collisions that occur as much denser gas converges. I even noted that the one distant "comet" (at 3:30 O-clock) has no head as it is in a gas density too low to have many collisions before the gas disappears inside the event horizon.

...Not too sure about this, but I am reasonably sure that if it were a black hole it would have jets.

I think so too but only when the gas it is eating is denser - same answer as above.

...This is another good point which I had not thought of, and one that should be easy to stick numbers to. ...

Ask you astronomer friends if "too few 'metals' " is a serious problem still. I am reasonable sure a multitude of small shocks instead of one big one would make less. If astronomers now think, (without adjusting things to fit their spherical collapse theory) the quantitiy of "metals" is in agreement with one big shock then that may be a serious objection to my POV. I would need to argue that there were more and bigger stars the made the observed metals with lower efficiency (more smaller shocks in more material) and produced the same amount of metals. This would of course be consistent with the idea that there were originally more baryons so my POV is not in too much danger from this.

Too few metals maybe more of an embarrassment for the accepted spherical POV than my POV.

 

[Singularity]

i wonder if the oldest galaxies have all stars cold by now