Big Bang Bullets II

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,734
1,112
5,560
Rod
"I would say the doctrine of uniformity falls apart AGREED
(science in the here and now does not) AGREED
and the explanation for the origin of the CMBR falls apart too. Could you explain please?

Cat :
Good question about the CMBR and vacuum energy density of space. In my opinion, unless the universe started out with the very high vacuum energy density postulated used in BBT, the CMBR did not arise in a very small, hot universe. Where did it come from you may ask? I do not know :) Other posts like #13-15 touch upon the changing TCMB plotted to redshifts but very limited data points here and certainly not back to 3000K or 3300K that may be needed. Even the data points showing TCMB to redshift out to near z=7.0 today do not show a vacuum energy density like used in inflation or origin of CMBR modeling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Rod, what do you think about the doctrine of uniformity?


To me, it is one of the most ridiculous doctrines I have ever heard.
Maybe it should be banned in this forum, as being some perverse religion?

One only has to open one's eyes to see that everything is not uniform.
Then look at the world, the Solar System, the Milky Way, the Galaxies . . . . . . . . . no uniformity anywhere. Isotropic . . . . . . my hat!

Oh! I know about the excuse of scale . . . but it is still very insecure as a would be belief.

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,734
1,112
5,560
Rod, what do you think about the doctrine of uniformity?


To me, it is one of the most ridiculous doctrines I have ever heard.
Maybe it should be banned in this forum, as being some perverse religion?

One only has to open one's eyes to see that everything is not uniform.
Then look at the world, the Solar System, the Milky Way, the Galaxies . . . . . . . . . no uniformity anywhere. Isotropic . . . . . . my hat!

Oh! I know about the excuse of scale . . . but it is still very insecure as a would be belief.

Cat :)
Cat, without the doctrine of uniformity used in science today, how can a meteorite date back 4.56 billion years old? The doctrine of uniformity underlies all radiometric dating as well as many calculations performed in astrophysics to explain the origin of the universe :) The same applies to showing distances in light years. Doctrine of uniformity concerning c must be maintained otherwise light time falls apart. When it comes to banning certain words or speech, my ancestors fought a war with a king and established the US Bill of Rights. I hold to that but others run the forums here :)
 

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
"I would say the doctrine of uniformity falls apart" AGREED


QUOTE
Uniformitarianism, also known as the Doctrine of Uniformity or the Uniformitarian Principle,[1] is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.[2][3] It refers to invariance in the metaphysical principles underpinning science, such as the constancy of cause and effect throughout space-time,[4] but has also been used to describe spatiotemporal invariance of physical laws.[5] Though an unprovable postulate that cannot be verified using the scientific method,[6] some consider that uniformitarianism should be a required first principle in scientific research.[7] Other scientists disagree and consider that nature is not absolutely uniform, even though it does exhibit certain regularities.[8]
QUOTE My emphasis.


"have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe"

This is what I am objecting to. It is not science, IMHO, to make ridiculous statements about infinite assumptions. I agree we need to assume our scientific discoveries apply in our immediate neighbourhood - subject to revision if or when required.

BUT - the whole of the Universe (not even just for the observable universe) - and for all time?

That is "for the birds", isn't it?

Cat :) :) :)
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,734
1,112
5,560
"I would say the doctrine of uniformity falls apart" AGREED


QUOTE
Uniformitarianism, also known as the Doctrine of Uniformity or the Uniformitarian Principle,[1] is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.[2][3] It refers to invariance in the metaphysical principles underpinning science, such as the constancy of cause and effect throughout space-time,[4] but has also been used to describe spatiotemporal invariance of physical laws.[5] Though an unprovable postulate that cannot be verified using the scientific method,[6] some consider that uniformitarianism should be a required first principle in scientific research.[7] Other scientists disagree and consider that nature is not absolutely uniform, even though it does exhibit certain regularities.[8]
QUOTE My emphasis.


"have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe"

This is what I am objecting to. It is not science, IMHO, to make ridiculous statements about infinite assumptions. I agree we need to assume our scientific discoveries apply in our immediate neighbourhood - subject to revision if or when required.

BUT - the whole of the Universe (not even just for the observable universe) - and for all time?

That is "for the birds", isn't it?

Cat :) :) :)
Cat, I will let others chew on this post of yours :) I am about to go out now and enjoy a mountain bike ride. Weather clear skies at my location and temperature near 15C.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Helio, I hope we have not digressed too far from your #1.
Your original presentation was excellent, but I thought that, if you are describing BBT, it might be incomplete without discussing the failure of science at t = 0, and what alternatives might be worthy of consideration - granted that all around t = 0 is grounded in the metaphysical.

Cat :) :) :)
 
Helio to clarify a bit more here, you said "Thus, with greater redshift, the temperature of what we observe will continue to be less and less." My answer is no, the larger redshift objects formed earlier in the BB model expanding universe and thus should show a warmer CMB temperature than we see here on Earth today.
I’m unclear what you’re calling warmer. More redshift automatically means lower temperature due to redshift. It began as a 3000K bb emission that is continually redshirting and cooling the universe due to expansion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Can I please have your answers/suggestions on one question, which afaik, has been touched on, but not answered/explained to my satisfaction.

What is the entropy of the Universe at or slightly after t = 0?
Or does the concept of entropy at t = 0 break with the rest of physics?
What is the entropy when physics becomes operative?
I can see arguments for being minimum or maximum.

Also, is a cyclic Universe (if it exists - hence metaphysical model like the BB) , a closed system? Hence (also metaphysical) would entropy decrease during a contracting phase between one nexus and the next? Assuming contraction follows expansion.

Cat :)



https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/15-6-entropy-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-disorder-and-the-unavailability-of-energy/#:~:text=Entropy is the loss of,increases in an irreversible process.
Entropy says a lot about available energy to do work. Maximum entropy would mean no amount of work can be done; hydrogen could not be formed, but if it could it would not fuse with helium, releasing great energy. Fusion increases the entropy of the universe, so no maximum, thankfully, has been reached.

iphone
 

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
OK, so I am getting the idea that 'entropy' is meaningless at t = 0, (ability to do work on what?).

Slightly after t = 0, does expansion of the Universe count as work?

Reverting to more metaphysics ( ;) ), if there were a contracting phase after expansion (I am aware of the fudge factor dark energy :) ) would a nexus magically transfer maximum entropy after expansion to minimum entropy need for the nexus to revert to (unknown stare at t = 0) to minimum entropy, entering the BB?

Cat :)
 
Helio, I hope we have not digressed too far from your #1.
Your original presentation was excellent, but I thought that, if you are describing BBT, it might be incomplete without discussing the failure of science at t = 0, and what alternatives might be worthy of consideration - granted that all around t = 0 is grounded in the metaphysical.
The t=0 issue is not a science problem, formally speaking, because it’s not science. Speculations are perhaps best seen as pre-science.

Of course, after using physics to reveal what happens when one squeezes a 46 billion lyr. universe down to that of proton, it’s extremely easy to assume, without merit, that a singularity was the beginning. It may have been a singularity but this point, literally, is outside the actual BBT.

Also, since I’m on the run, instead of entropy, think useable energy. A cyclical model is unlikely to rewind all the waste heat so that it would become useable energy, but we see lots of remaining available energy left today, so if DE or a blue sky pink phenomena triggers collapse then the next cycle would still form stars, etc., but not as well as what we se today.

One might argue that the low temperature of waste heat, with contraction, would become very hot, implying it would become useable. But if we allow the next universe to expand to the size of ours today, then we are back to it being waste heat, thus it must be deemed a decay to begin with. So for each cycle less available will exist, eliminating at least perpetuality. But you likely weren’t looking for infinite cycles anyway. 😉
 
Reverting to more metaphysics ( ;) ), if there were a contracting phase after expansion (I am aware of the fudge factor dark energy :) ) would a nexus magically transfer maximum entropy after expansion to minimum entropy need for the nexus to revert to (unknown stare at t = 0) to minimum entropy, entering the BB?
I can’t imagine how contraction would restore all to as it was before. Think Humpty Dumpty or a burnt match, both holding to the 2nd law. But that doesn’t mean I’m right, admittedly. 😀
 

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
Helio, as we are talking metaphysics, and not science, don't you think we should be allowed fudge factors like DE?

On #37, my thought is that, as (if) contraction proceeds, all particles (whatever they are) being forced closer together, so, eventually, it is assumed they will heat up, as in star formation - the eventual product being a BB. So, effectively, we might consider a cyclic universe (I put u as it is a theoretical universe) as a series of BB and BH. So, IF we think of a hypothetical universe, consisting of a series of BB -> BH -> BB et cetera, it is just a model.

I don't think it is relevant to consider special cases like unbreaking H.D. or unburning a match. These atoms and molecules would have been recycled many times during a phase of ? many billions of years.

The question remains, however, of whether entropy decreases on contraction. Since it is the opposite of expansion, why should not entropy reverse? Since we invent DM and DE, why should we not invent similar fudge factors to achieve the opposite?

Furthermore, since a CU would have to restore itself at each BH/BB, if we are to achieve continuity, there would have to be such a restoring mechanism.

That is about as far as I can push the CU model at the moment. Do not misunderstand the word 'push' to mean promote. To me the CU is just another possibility which might occur (hypothetically, in metaphysical discussions). It is an alternative t = 0 scenario which avoids the creation scenario, which I find unacceptable. "Something out of nothing" offends my scientific instincts. A BB following a BH appears to be a natural progression.

Anyway, it is all metaphysics, but as good as anyone else's - at least in my book.

Cat :) :) :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,734
1,112
5,560
I’m unclear what you’re calling warmer. More redshift automatically means lower temperature due to redshift. It began as a 3000K bb emission that is continually redshirting and cooling the universe due to expansion.
Helio see the TCMB to redshift plot report where an object with z near 0.89 and TCMB near 5 K. That is cooler than 3000K but warmer than what we see in our frame of reference on Earth today near 3K, thus with increasing redshift as seen from Earth, a warmer CMB should be seen from Earth's location. The CMBR redshift of 1100 used today in BBT for our position from Earth (not other locations in the universe with different redshifts), and starting TCMB 3000K is the doctrine of uniformity, not a spectroscopic measurement or measurement like the TCMB for redshift near 0.89 reported close to 5K. There is simply not enough TCMB vs. redshift data points to support that, just doctrine of uniformity used. In science using the z=0.89 and TCMB 5K plot report, we do not factually know that the CMBR started at 3000K and cooled to TCMB 5K at z=0.89 as we see on Earth. This is doctrine of uniformity speak.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Helio, as we are talking metaphysics, and not science, don't you think we should be allowed fudge factors like DE?
You must include DE, just as BBT must include it but perhaps in many different forms. A few years ago, an author listed by name about 24 DE theories. Being theories, they must include testable claims, so some may have fallen by the wayside, but more may have arisen.

On #37, my thought is that, as (if) contraction proceeds, all particles (whatever they are) being forced closer together, so, eventually, it is assumed they will heat up, as in star formation - the eventual product being a BB.
Yes, though when you compress everything will extreme fusion take place if the contraction rate doesn't match the former expansion rate? The BBT expansion rate was such that there wasn't enough time for anything but H and He to form, ignoring the tiny trace amounts of deuterium, etc. Since it's metaphysics, there is certainly room to allow this but do we know enough to use our knowledge of everything (DM and DE) to produce models that favor it? I doubt we are there yet.

So, effectively, we might consider a cyclic universe (I put u as it is a theoretical universe) as a series of BB and BH. So, IF we think of a hypothetical universe, consisting of a series of BB -> BH -> BB et cetera, it is just a model.
Agreed, at least as an idea. But I kinda hope you do a thread on what the term "hypothetical" means within the realm of science. Philosophy likes to use to boost favor for one idea over another. A scientific hypothesis must be objective-based and make a testable prediction. It's like a sub-theory. But, yes, the Cyclical idea is deemed possible by a number of scientists, no doubt.

I don't think it is relevant to consider special cases like unbreaking H.D. or unburning a match. These atoms and molecules would have been recycled many times during a phase of ? many billions of years.
But can you explain just how that recycling would work to restore things as they were? Certain labs can simulate the early physics of BBT, so if you hand them the ashes of a match, can they recycle it somehow. Would they even try? We both know the answer.

I love the expression from my thermo prof that he had as a footnote in his thermo book, "Heat won't flow from a cooler to a hotter, you can try if you like but you far better notter." Compressing a cool universe will make it hotter but it won't lift energy up to the top shelf where it once was. It can lift it up to a higher shelf but likely never back to the top. H.D. will never be the same.

But there are physicists who will argue that the 2nd law may not apply to the Universe as a whole. It's hard to get it into a lab where we can play with it. :) Perhaps quantum foam and other issues off some sort of supercharge to kick the old back to the original new. But this should come at a price as well unless we accept free lunches from bizarre ideas. Is that enough metaphors? ;)

The question remains, however, of whether entropy decreases on contraction. Since it is the opposite of expansion, why should not entropy reverse? Since we invent DM and DE, why should we not invent similar fudge factors to achieve the opposite?
Ok, but I will be delighted to go to Sweden for your prize when you can demonstrate that the overall negative entropy of the universe can be made to decrease even a tiny amount with some special process. Those that suggest they can do this are likely just using word salads and hand-waving, but without solid and verifiable test.

Furthermore, since a CU would have to restore itself at each BH/BB, if we are to achieve continuity, there would have to be such a restoring mechanism.
Yes, if an infinite number of cycles is required. But, like a bouncing ball that never returns to its original height, many cycles might be possible until it can no longer perform as necessary. But this too is supposition and it assumes we keep applying the 2nd law, which might not be a requirement, but the logic of it is hard to escape.

That is about as far as I can push the CU model at the moment. Do not misunderstand the word 'push' to mean promote. To me the CU is just another possibility which might occur (hypothetically, in metaphysical discussions). It is an alternative t = 0 scenario which avoids the creation scenario, which I find unacceptable. "Something out of nothing" offends my scientific instincts. A BB following a BH appears to be a natural progression.
Yes, I respect your aversion to t=0. I have my own suppositional take based on all the fine-tunning discoveries and personal experiences, but my view, if addressed in depth, would be seen as religious, which must, in fairness for any scientific website, but limited in presentation.
 
Last edited:
Helio see the TCMB to redshift plot report where an object with z near 0.89 and TCMB near 5 K. That is cooler than 3000K but warmer than what we see in our frame of reference on Earth today near 3K, thus with increasing redshift as seen from Earth, a warmer CMB should be seen from Earth's location. The CMBR redshift of 1100 used today in BBT for our position from Earth (not other locations in the universe with different redshifts), and starting TCMB 3000K is the doctrine of uniformity, not a spectroscopic measurement or measurement like the TCMB for redshift near 0.89 reported close to 5K. There is simply not enough TCMB vs. redshift data points to support that, just doctrine of uniformity used. In science using the z=0.89 and TCMB 5K plot report, we do not factually know that the CMBR started at 3000K and cooled to TCMB 5K at z=0.89 as we see on Earth. This is doctrine of uniformity speak.
If what you are saying is that if we could use galaxies for stepping stones to reach a high z, then we must, necessarily, find that their emissions would have been when the TCMB was higher. If we extrapolate this stepping method, we should get close to the 3000K prediction of the original Recombination temperature. Is this how you see it?

Thus, if that galaxy shows a TCMB of 5K when emission took place and headed our way, it would now have redshifted to the 2.7K we observe. This is what I think they are addressing, but I admit I could be wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
You must include DE, just as BBT must include it but perhaps in many different forms. A few years ago, an author listed by name about 24 DE theories. Being theories, they must include testable claims, so some may have fallen by the wayside, but more may have arisen.

Yes, though when you compress everything will extreme fusion take place if the contraction rate doesn't match the former expansion rate? The BBT expansion rate was such that there wasn't enough time for anything but H and He to form, ignoring the tiny trace amounts of deuterium, etc. Since it's metaphysics, there is certainly room to allow this but do we know enough to use our knowledge of everything (DM and DE) to produce models that favor it? I doubt we are there yet.

Agreed, at least as an idea. But I kinda hope you do a thread on what the term "hypothetical" means within the realm of science. Philosophy likes to use to boost favor for one idea over another. A scientific hypothesis must be objective-based and make a testable prediction. It's like a sub-theory. But, yes, the Cyclical idea is deemed possible by a number of scientists, no doubt.

But can you explain just how that recycling would work to restore things as they were? Certain labs can simulate the early physics of BBT, so if you hand them the ashes of a match, can they recycle it somehow. Would they even try? We both know the answer.

I love the expression from my thermo prof that he had as a footnote in his thermo book, "Heat won't flow from a cooler to a hotter, you can try if you like but you far better notter." Compressing a cool universe will make it hotter but it won't lift energy up to the top shelf where it once was. It can lift it up to a higher shelf but likely never back to the top. H.D. will never be the same.

But there are physicists who will argue that the 2nd law may not apply to the Universe as a whole. It's hard to get it into a lab where we can play with it. :) Perhaps quantum foam and other issues off some sort of supercharge to kick the old back to the original new. But this should come at a price as well unless we accept free lunches from bizarre ideas. Is that enough metaphors? ;)

Ok, but I will be delighted to go to Sweden for your prize when you can demonstrate that the overall negative entropy of the universe can be made to decrease even a tiny amount with some special process. Those that suggest they can do this are likely just using word salads and hand-waving, but without solid and verifiable test.

Yes, if an infinite number of cycles is required. But, like a bouncing ball that never returns to its original height, many cycles might be possible until it can no longer perform as necessary. But this too is supposition and it assumes we keep applying the 2nd law, which might not be a requirement, but the logic of it is hard to escape.

Yes, I respect your aversion to t=0. I have my own suppositional take based on all the fine-tunning discoveries and personal experiences, but my view, if addressed in depth, would be seen as religious, which must, in fairness for any scientific website, but limited in presentation.
Helio, thank you for your detailed response. When all is said and done, we are talking metaphysics, so we can only end with chacun à son goût. We respect each other's right to believe what suits us best, and I wish you all the best in everything you wish yourself.
Kindest best wishes,
Cat :) :) :) :) :) :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,734
1,112
5,560
If what you are saying is that if we could use galaxies for stepping stones to reach a high z, then we must, necessarily, find that their emissions would have been when the TCMB was higher. If we extrapolate this stepping method, we should get close to the 3000K prediction of the original Recombination temperature. Is this how you see it?

Thus, if that galaxy shows a TCMB of 5K when emission took place and headed our way, it would now have redshifted to the 2.7K we observe. This is what I think they are addressing, but I admit I could be wrong.
Bingo Helio and the CMBR redshift of 1100 for our position on Earth today comes with comoving radial distance of some 45 to 46 billion light-years radius distance as seen from Earth. This is not a spectroscopic redshift measurement like for galaxies and quasars or direct geometric distance measurement used but doctrine of uniformity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
Apr 13, 2021
316
32
710
The Big Bang theory, is just a theory.
Nucleosynthesis needs to be understood in both expansion and contraction.
What happens to matter during expansion is understood by contraction.
Atomic matter compacts under confinement 10^5.

Atomic matter breaks down to protons and neutrons and under confinement protons gain an electron to form a neutron, we observe neutron stars with an estimated compaction of 10^17.

Neutron matter is made up of 3 quarks and under extreme mass will swim as Quarks with compaction ranging from 10^18 to over 10^25 estimates. Scientists have predicted a quark core within a Neutron Star.

Quarks are made of Partonic matter, bundles of electrons with compaction over10^30 and so on.

Partonic matter breaks down to electrons forming I think the ultimate compaction of two electrons dancing together to form Axion Gluon Matter with and estimate compaction of 10^35.

Now understanding this type of compaction, you can reverse the process during expansion.

The expansion is generated by a dipolar vector forces within the compacted core expelling matter.
 
Jan 19, 2022
31
12
35
Neutron matter is made up of 3 quarks and under extreme mass will swim as Quarks with compaction ranging from 10^18 to over 10^25 estimates. Scientists have predicted a quark core within a Neutron Star.

Quarks are made of Partonic matter, bundles of electrons with compaction over10^30 and so on.

Partonic matter breaks down to electrons forming I think the ultimate compaction of two electrons dancing together to form Axion Gluon Matter with and estimate compaction of 10^35.

Now understanding this type of compaction, you can reverse the process during expansion.

The expansion is generated by a dipolar vector forces within the compacted core expelling matter.
Lost me some where there. Something made only of electrons but without a net negative charge. Where did all the positive charge go if that something does have a negative charge?
 

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
For your info:

Neutron stars are formed when a massive star runs out of fuel and collapses. The very central region of the star – the core – collapses, crushing together every proton and electron into a neutron.

Neutron Stars, Pulsars, and Magnetars - Imagine the Universe ...
https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov › science › objects › neutron...




Neutron star - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Neutron_star


A neutron star is the collapsed core of a massive supergiant star, which had a total mass of between 10 and 25 solar masses, possibly more if the star was ...
Merger · ‎White hole · ‎Strange star · ‎Quark star


Cat :)
 
Apr 13, 2021
316
32
710
Negative charges of electrons.
Bundles of electrons forming Quarks will have different spins resulting in a neutral charge.
Remove one electron results in a positive charge as in a proton.

As for a Neutron Star.
One critical phase has to take place with any Star, the core has to gain mass to create dipolar vector fields, creating an hour glass image expelling the solar envelope leaving behind a Neutron
Gaining mass can be from going through a nebulae or merging with another star.

if the core mass decreases the solar envelope increases in size that can lead to a red giant, this may lead to the core exploding leaving a Nebulae.
I-know it’s more complex.
 
Jan 19, 2022
31
12
35
Negative charges of electrons.
Bundles of electrons forming Quarks will have different spins resulting in a neutral charge.
Remove one electron results in a positive charge as in a proton.

As for a Neutron Star.
One critical phase has to take place with any Star, the core has to gain mass to create dipolar vector fields, creating an hour glass image expelling the solar envelope leaving behind a Neutron
Gaining mass can be from going through a nebulae or merging with another star.

if the core mass decreases the solar envelope increases in size that can lead to a red giant, this may lead to the core exploding leaving a Nebulae.
I-know it’s more complex.

If gravitational "force" can force an electron into a proton to produce a neutron than it would be likely neutrons, with enough force applied, would transform into mesons.

 

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
From OP's #1:

"Here is a tweaked and more colorful version of the prior arguments favoring Big Bang Theory. [Comments welcome, of course.]"

I have just seen (I won't disclose where to prevent possible embarrassment):

"Colliding universes may have caused it" (the BB)

Eeeeeeek! Is this use of the non-word "universes" really gone doolally?

I do not believe that our most respected contributor had this in mind. When he invited [Comments welcome, of course.], I don't think this was what he had in mind.

There is one Universe (by definition). There are different observable universes viz. different slices of the cake, according to location. How these different slices might collide is something else. I really would work towards a revision of language, as I consider this universe(s) issue is really holding back cosmology.


Cat :)
 
Last edited:
Apr 13, 2021
316
32
710
Colliding galaxies causing the BB.
What came first the chicken or egg.
The BB is a theory with foundations that contain no evidence.
All opinions are taken to be a form of evidence, hold no water.


Meson is a particle made up of two QUARKS.
KAON matter one of four Mesons.
Mesons are unstable, but can be confined in the core of a Neutron Star.
The Neutrons having 3 Quarks under extreme confinement make up various Mesons.
Meson stars and composites are of the transient condensates with compaction from 10^18 to over 10 ^25.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts