Antimatter mystery solved

[billslugg]

Michael<br />You cannot be interpreting things in light of some "perspective". Just look at the facts and the truth will follow.<br />I have read through parts of your missives and the Astrophysical Journal article. There is a grain of truth in what you say about the electric universe. If one electron travels one inch, you have an electric universe. Everything else is a matter of degree. And that is where your arguments are lacking. <br /><br />Go into that AJ article, find where it gives the flux of the .511 MeV line. Multiply times the number of stars in the center of our galaxy and show me where that number equals the number coming from the so called "cloud". Then I will put some effort towards understanding what you are saying. Otherwise, your posts are WAY too long to take the effort to read. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Is there antimatter really?Thats what I like to know.I mean what is proof of antimatter.

 

[richalex]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Is there antimatter really?Thats what I like to know.I mean what is proof of antimatter.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Particle accelerators produce antimatter, which can be manipulated and investigated. Several years ago, scientists even managed to put an anti-electron around an anti-proton to make an anti-hydrogen atom.

 

[robnissen]

I find this very fasciniting and leads immediately to a couple of questions for me. <br />1. Can they tell if this anit-matter cloud includes elements, and if it does, does it include anything heavier than anti-hydrogen, and, if so, what?<br />2. Other than annilation when it meets matter, would antimatter water (H20), have any different properties than water?

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>No, not at all. I am simply pointing out that your model does not explain why we see the 511 keV radiation coming only from this cloud.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />But Rhessi demonstrates that 511 kev radiation is *not* limited to *only* that cloud. Our own sun emits these same wavelengths. I would have to assume that *all* suns (including binary suns) emit such wavelengths unless I want to assume that our sun is unique in that respect.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The news report that you cited makes the statement, "the gamma ray emitting region of the galaxy extends farther on the western side of the galactic center than it does on the eastern side."<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Ok. I'm willing to accept that the region of high gamma radiation is not round, but rather it is lopsided in some way that relates to the number of binary star systems that are present.<br /> <br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> It's pretty obvious that the stars of the galactic core are not the source of the 511 keV radiation, apart from these binary stars that are inside the boundaries of the emission region.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, this statement seems "subjective' to me. While I'm more than happy to believe that binary stars are part of the reason why we observe these specific wavelengths, the fact you are relying upon them as part of your explanation suggests to me that they *are* the emission point of these specific wavelengths. If our own star emits them, and binary stars are somehow responsible for these emissions, then it is only logical to assume that binary stars emit them too, and emit them in greater quantities, particularly in this area. I don't have any problem at all with their assessment that binary stars are responsible for an increase in these emissions, I simply question *how* these emissions occur.<br /><br />I still don't understand <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Michael<br />You cannot be interpreting things in light of some "perspective".<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />We are all guilty of that behavior, and these authors are doing it too. Their perspective is a "gravity centric"/"electron free" perspective, whereas my perspective is an electromagnetic perspective. I am not unique in the fact that my opinions are skewed by my perspectives about the nature of reality. The only thing that is different here is the fact my perspectives are somewhat unique, and represent a minority perspective at this point in time.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Just look at the facts and the truth will follow.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, IMO "truth" can be very 'subjective'. Rhessi shows 511 kev emissions come from our sun, so these emissions cannot possibly be limited to *only* this region of space. In "truth", we observe gamma rays coming from Earth that have been directly related to electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere. Dr. Charles Bruce showed the scientific link between the speed of propagation of electrical discharges on Earth, and the speed of discharges in the solar atmosphere. The most "common" way to get gamma rays is to crank up the amperage and slam objects together at very high speeds. Coincidently, those are the exact expectations of the conditions at the core of our galaxy based on EU theories. I can't help by note that fact, as much as I want to remain "scientifically neutral" and keep an "open minded' perspective.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I have read through parts of your missives and the Astrophysical Journal article. There is a grain of truth in what you say about the electric universe. If one electron travels one inch, you have an electric universe. Everything else is a matter of degree. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, we do seem to agree on this point Bill, <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Is there antimatter really?Thats what I like to know.I mean what is proof of antimatter.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Even I would have to concede that there is ample empirical evidence of the existence of antimatter. In that sense these authors have not proposed anything new that has not been shown to exist in nature. Their basic idea is theoretically possible. While it is theoretically "possible" however, it's not very probable, particularly when you consider the nature of solar wind particles that are composed of matter. Now of course the authors *could have* suggested that the stars in the core were composed of antimatter, but they didn't do that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[richalex]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>1. Can they tell if this anit-matter cloud includes elements, and if it does, does it include anything heavier than anti-hydrogen, and, if so, what?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>The only component of the antimatter clouds that I have seen are positrons (anti-electrons). I don't see any reference to anti-protons. <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>2. Other than annilation when it meets matter, would antimatter water (H20), have any different properties than water?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Antimatter has opposite particle spin than matter, so properties that involve spin would be affected (mirror image). Anti-electrons are positively charged, instead of negatively charged, and anti-protons are negatively charged instead of positively charged. So, a stream of anti-matter would bend the opposite direction as a stream of matter in a magnetic or electric field. Other than that, antimatter water should behave like regular water, until it encounters matter.

 

[richalex]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>But Rhessi demonstrates that 511 kev radiation is *not* limited to *only* that cloud. Our own sun emits these same wavelengths. I would have to assume that *all* suns (including binary suns) emit such wavelengths unless I want to assume that our sun is unique in that respect. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>The reason you must assume that other stars emit 511 keV radiation, instead of being able to demonstrate it, is because no one could detect it from those other stars and so confirm your assumption. The stars are too far away and the signal is too faint. This leads to the point that I have tried to make; why are we able to detect this radiation only from this cloud, but not from any of the stars, if the stars are the source of this radiation? <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Ok. I'm willing to accept that the region of high gamma radiation is not round, but rather it is lopsided in some way that relates to the number of binary star systems that are present.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>More importantly, the galactic core stars--which you claim is the source of this radiation--is symmetric, but the region of 511 keV radiation is not symmetric. If the radiation were coming from the galactic core stars, the radiation should be symmetric. <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>While I'm more than happy to believe that binary stars are part of the reason why we observe these specific wavelengths, the fact you are relying upon them as part of your explanation suggests to me that they *are* the emission point of these specific wavelengths. If our own star emits them, and binary stars are somehow responsible for these emissions, then it is only logical to assume that binary stars emit them too, and emit them in greater quantities, particularly in this area. I don't have any problem at all with their assessment that binary stars are responsible for an increase in these emiss</p></blockquote>

 

[robnissen]

Interesting. Thx. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The reason you must assume that other stars emit 511 keV radiation, instead of being able to demonstrate it, is because no one could detect it from those other stars and so confirm your assumption. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, I'm afraid that this is simply not the case. The "bulge" and central region you're describing is*not* the only region that generates these 511 kev emissions. The raw data shows that they come from many areas, including the galactic disk.<br /><br />http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0506/0506026v1.pdf<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Abstract. We present a map of 511 keV electron-positron annihilation emission, based on data accumulated with the SPI spectrometer aboard ESA’s INTEGRAL gamma-ray observatory, that covers approximately 95% of the celestial sphere. Within the exposed sky area, 511 keV line emission is significantly detected towards the galactic bulge region <b>and, at a very low level, from the galactic disk.</b><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />In other words the disk itself also "glows" just like we would predict if the stars in the galaxy emit these photons, just like our own sun emits these photons.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The stars are too far away and the signal is too faint.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Evidently that is not the case or we would see no galactic disk. In fact if you look at the unprocessed raw image, there are lots of areas that emit these types of photons. Even after heavy processing there is a noticeable emission signature from the galactic disk.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> This leads to the point that I have tried to make; why are we able to detect this radiation only from this cloud, but not from any of the stars, if the stars are the</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[richalex]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The reason you must assume that other stars emit 511 keV radiation, instead of being able to demonstrate it, is because no one could detect it from those other stars and so confirm your assumption.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Well, I'm afraid that this is simply not the case. The "bulge" and central region you're describing is*not* the only region that generates these 511 kev emissions. The raw data shows that they come from many areas, including the galactic disk.<br /><br />http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0506/0506026v1.pdf <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>None of this shows that 511 keV radiation was specifically detected from stars. The maps show regions that are many light years across emitting, not point sources. <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>In other words the disk itself also "glows" just like we would predict if the stars in the galaxy emit these photons, just like our own sun emits these photons. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>It isn't "just like," because it does not follow the contours of the galaxy. <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>More importantly, the galactic core stars--which you claim is the source of this radiation--is symmetric, but the region of 511 keV radiation is not symmetric. If the radiation were coming from the galactic core stars, the radiation should be symmetric.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I don't see why. You will have to explain that logic to me.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>The stars in the galactic core are pretty much symmetrically distributed, much more so than this cloud is. <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Stars will vary in size and they will not be completely evenly distributed<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Except

 

[michaelmozina]

Well RA, it looks like we're reaching a point in our discussion where we will simply have to agree to disagree about the source of these annihilation wavelengths.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I believe that your statement misrepresents the data. Rhessi did not detect 511 keV radiation from extra-solar stars.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I did not mean to suggest that Rhessi observes the annihilation wavelength from *other* stars, I simply pointed out that Rhessi observes this specific wavelength in solar flare/coronal loop events on our *own* star, and therefore it is highly likely that *other* stars emit them too. I also noted that 511 kev images of the whole sky show not simply a single cloud in the core, but rather they show us an emission pattern that includes the galactic disk as well, demonstrating that these emissions are not limited to the core but are spread out throughout the whole galaxy.<br /><br />I'm not sure if Rhessi even has the resolution necessary to resolve these emissions to a sun that is located in another solar system, but it might be interesting to point it at some of our closest stellar neighbors to see what we observe. The annihilation signatures from our own sun are intermittent, and seem to be related to solar flare activities. Specifically these emissions occur at the bases of the coronal loops during flare activity. These three movies are 9, 15 and 15 megabytes respectively, but they show (in blue) the 511 kev emissions that our own sun in capable of generating. The last image shows the effects on these surface events on the solar wind process, and the blowout that is typically accompanied by these types of emission events.<br /><br />http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003100/a003162/fast_close_640x480.mpg<br />http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002400/a002460/ar9906-</safety_wrapper <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

From the paper in question:<br /><br />"One certain source of positrons in the disk of the Galaxy is<br />the radioisotope 26Al. It decays with a lifetime of Ï„ ∼ 106<br />yr with emission of a 1809 keV gamma-ray photon; ∼ 85%<br />of the decays are also accompanied by the emission of a<br />positron. The galactic distribution of 26Al is well known<br />6 We note that, independently, large B/D ratios are also<br />favoured by microlensing surveys towards the galactic bulge<br />region (Binney & Evans 2001).<br />thanks to observations of the COMPTEL telescope aboard<br />CGRO, and follows that of the young stellar population.<br />Thus, under the assumption that the positrons annihilate<br />close to their production site, 511 keV line emission along<br />the galactic plane is expected, showing the morphological<br />characteristics of a young stellar population." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Thus, under the assumption that the positrons annihilate close to their production site, 511 keV line emission along the galactic plane is expected, showing the morphological characteristics of a young stellar population."<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, I guess I actually agree with their assessment that the positrons are being annihilated very close to their production site, I'm just convinced that the production site is the very near the surface of the sun (all suns in the galactic plane) since that is where I see them being annihilated inside of our own solar system. Due to the limits of our current gamma ray detection technologies, I can't see other solar systems in the galactic plane up close and personal, but I can definitely see where these emissions are generated in our own solar neighborhood thanks to the hard work of the Rhessi satellite team. <br /><br />IMO this would be a great debate that we might be able to attempt to settle using the new GLAST telescope. I love living in this particular decade. It's not quite instant gratification from my perspective, but the new space telescope technologies that are coming online are absolutely the right new technologies at exactly the right time (+- a few months <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[alokmohan]

If men made of antiimtter come shake hands you become gamma ray.I hope no such Et comes.

 

[michaelmozina]

You're safe as long as you meet them here on earth. If they were made of antimatter, they would never make it through the atmosphere. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Thus, under the assumption that the positrons annihilate close to their production site,<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />This statement by the authors ultimately requires us to then pinpoint the location of the "production site" for these positrons, and to describe how they are being created in the first place:<br /><br />http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0512/0512633.pdf<br /><br />This paper that Oliver Manuel, Hilton Ratcliffe and I wrote, offers us one logical way to explain the release process of these positrons and the subsequent observation of these signature annihilation gamma rays. It is also entirely consistent with the Rhessi observations from those earlier images from NASA. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Rhessi observation?

 

[richalex]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Rhessi observation?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>It's an orbiting observatory. <br /><br />RHESSI Home Page

 

[richalex]

I am not an expert on this by any means, but my take on all of this is <br /><br />1) Any place in which highly energetic, charged particles are accelerated, antimatter is likely to be produced. <br /><br />That means, any place where atomic particles are heated to a million degrees or hard x-rays or gamma rays are produced, should produce some amount of antimatter. <br /><br />2) The more energy, the more antimatter produced. <br /><br />That means that a productive neutron star or black hole should produce much more antimatter than our sun would. <br /><br />3) Compton and Thomson scattering don't make all the other wavelengths smear across 10k light years, so I don't expect it to have that effect on 511 keV radiation. <br /><br />4) Based on that quote that MeteorWayne posted, I need to adjust my own model. I was expecting the positrons to make their way into deep space on their own. Instead, it looks like the binary stars produce clouds of radioactive aluminum, which then drifts around in deep space before it eventually decays, releasing positrons in the process. <br /><br />Some links I used for reference: <br /><br />NASA: The Diffuse High-Energy Background<br /><br />NYT: CLOUD OF ALUMINUM REPORTED IN MILKY WAY'S CORE

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>3) Compton and Thomson scattering don't make all the other wavelengths smear across 10k light years, so I don't expect it to have that effect on 511 keV radiation.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />IMO, this is an "assumption" that you will ultimately need to abandon IMO as I will explain below.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>4) Based on that quote that MeteorWayne posted, I need to adjust my own model. I was expecting the positrons to make their way into deep space on their own. Instead, it looks like the binary stars produce clouds of radioactive aluminum, which then drifts around in deep space before it eventually decays, releasing positrons in the process.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />IMO that is a better model, but IMO you're still going to need Thompson scattering (Compton scattering probably wouldn't be enough to spread it out like that) to explain the diffuse nature of the emission patterns. You have point source here of aluminum in a neutron star type scenario, whereas neutron stars are thought to contain a mostly iron and Nickel "crust'. You have also obligated yourself to demonstrating that in the ISM in the core has a significantly greater concentration of aluminum than the rest of the galaxy. IMO I think that will be the prediction that falsifies the idea in the end. <br /><br />While I provided an observational "proof of concept" based on local stellar observations, the authors of that paper have simply 'presumed" that their aluminum model is correct and have not observationally demonstrated this model is scientifically preferable over the one I have provided.<br /><br />IMO the diffuse nature of the raw emission pattern that continues into the rings would ultimately require a whole lot more aluminum to exist in the ISM than has been observed in the ISM from spectral analysis. To spread it out like that, you would need some type of supernova to occur almost every <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>NYT: CLOUD OF ALUMINUM REPORTED IN MILKY WAY'S CORE<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I didn't read the paper, just the article, but their claim of the discovery of aluminum in the core is based entirely upon the presence of annihilation gamma rays, not from any sort of spectral analysis of these region that demonstrated an abundance of aluminum. They simply *assumed* that the annihilation gamma rays *must come* from Aluminum in the ISM. Without observational support of that claim via spectral analysis of the ISM in that region, I can't really comment any further. There was also no mention of 511 kev emissions from our own sun, which in theory at least could also come from aluminum decay fusion processes and decay processes related to aluminum near the surface of the sun. <br /><br />It seems to me that this claim of finding aluminum is based entirely upon the premise that the decay of this aluminum isotope is the only way to release free positrons. It is not certain however that this is the source of the positrons, it is more or less assumed from the start. <br /><br />What's also missing from his presentation is any explanation of why the gamma rays are diffusely spread throughout the galactic ring. In fact he seems to assume they only come from the core.<br /><br />I can see why you might have falsely believed that the gamma radiation was limited to the galactic core if this one one of the articles that you based that opinion on. IMO this article is very misleading and the conclusion he reaches (gamma rays come from aluminum decay) is direct consequence and function of the assumption he began with. There seems to be no additional observation evidence of concept (like that Rhessi data) to support the idea. If he had shown spectral data that verified his assumption, then I might have more sympathy for his conclusion. As far as I can tell however, the author is simply "begging the question" (a logi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[richalex]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>2. Other than annilation when it meets matter, would antimatter water (H20), have any different properties than water?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Antimatter has opposite particle spin than matter, so properties that involve spin would be affected (mirror image). Anti-electrons are positively charged, instead of negatively charged, and anti-protons are negatively charged instead of positively charged. So, a stream of anti-matter would bend the opposite direction as a stream of matter in a magnetic or electric field. Other than that, antimatter water should behave like regular water, until it encounters matter. <p><hr />Something that I have been wondering about is whether anti-H2O could form into a fluid? The reason that ordinary H2O has the properties it does is because of the unique electric charge distribution between the hydrogen atoms at one end and the oxygen atom at the other. This electrical attraction allows water molecules to form weak bonds to other water molecules at high temperatures than normal for molecules of this weight. The result is that water can be a liquid at temperatures that would vaporize methane or ethane. But, I wonder if reversing the charge distribution would disrupt this situation?</p>

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It appears they see a 1.81MeV signal that is the signature of Al26 to magnesium26 decay. A positron is also a byproduct of the decay and can then be a source for the .511MeV signal.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Sure, and I'm quite certain that there are AL26 isotopes out there, and 1.81MeV signals coming from that direction, and evidently the whole galactic plane as well too. <br /><br />It seems to however that no matter how you look at it, there simply is no "antimatter cloud" floating around out there. At best case there is a lot of Al26 floating around out there that decays once in a while and sets of a chain reactions that emits a 511 kev signal from that decay reaction. The "Headline" about persistent antimatter clouds is simply an attention grabber, and it's absolutely incorrect.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>There is a coincidence problem by suggesting the Al26 comes from supernovae which is worsened by the absence of radio sodium and nickel signals. So an alternate route is needed to make the Al26 without making the radio sodium or nickel. This may even curtail routes from massive stars and narrow the search to x-ray binaries to satisfy the rather severe constraints.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It also seems to me there is a volume problem here with this theory. You'd need a new supernova to blow it's top pretty darn frequently to keep up a "cloud of Al26". Other than a supernova event, is unclear how a binary pair of neutron stars might generate AL 26 from a surface that is predominantly nickel and iron according to neutron star theory.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The issue isn't whether stars like our sun can make a .511 MeV signal which it does, but rather an order of magnitude problem where the signal of rather high strength is seen to reside in the bulge and disk . If all stars like ours made the same order of magnit</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>