Big Bang Bullets II

Page 3 - 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.
Apr 13, 2021
255
22
685
Nuclear Theory
[Submitted on 7 Feb 2022]
Kaon meson condensate in neutron star matter including hyperons
Fu Ma, Wenjun Guo, Chen Wu
The recent measurement of the mass of neutron stars (PSR J1614 - 2230, PSR J0348 + 0432, MSP J0740 + 6620) restricts the lower limit ∼2M⊙ of the maximum mass of such compact stars, making it possible for dense matter to exist in massive stars. The relativistic mean field theory with parameter sets FSUGold including Kaon condensation is used to describe the properties of neutron stars in β equilibrium. Through careful choice of the parameter of the σ-cut cσ, we are able to produce a maximum mass neutron star with Kaon condensation heavier than 2M⊙, and we find that the parameter Λν of the ρ−ω interaction term in this model has a significant effect on K− condensation. In the case of using σ-cut scheme, K− condensation occurs only when the ρ−ω interaction Λν is switched off.
Comments:9 pages, 9 figures
Subjects:Nuclear Theory (nucl-th)
Cite as:arXiv:2202.03001 [nucl-th]
(or arXiv:2202.03001v1 [nucl-th] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2202.03001
Focus to learn more
Journal reference:Phys. Rev. C 2022
Related DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.105.015807
Focus to learn more
 
Apr 13, 2021
255
22
685
Nuclear Theory
[Submitted on 11 Jan 2022]
The quarkyonic matter state of neutron stars
Gaoqing Cao
This work extends our previous study of isospin symmetric quarkyonic matter to quarkyonic neutron matter which might be relevant to the inner cores of neutron stars. The vector-isovector ρ mesons are introduced to the model mainly to account for isospin density interactions, just like ω meson for baryon density interactions. The modified Lagrangian still preserves approximate chiral symmetry which could be significantly broken at lower density. And new free parameters are fixed by adopting the experimental constraints on the symmetry energy and its slope at saturation density. Eventually, the pressure and mass-radius relation are explored in advance for the quarkyonic neutron stars: while the former is well consistent with experimental restrictions, the latter is unable to reproduce the observed two solar mass of PSR J0740+6620.
Subjects:Nuclear Theory (nucl-th); High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph)
Cite as:arXiv:2201.03875 [nucl-th]
(or arXiv:2201.03875v1 [nucl-th] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2201.03875
Focus to learn more

If all this new to you, research more and more, have fun with it.
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,570
1,063
5,560
Well, we have a new value computed for H0 now in cosmology, the mooniversal expansion value.

Worry No More, The Hubble Tension is Relieved: A Truly Direct Measurement of the Hubble Constant from Mooniversal Expansion, https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.16551

My observation. H0 = 63.01 km/s/Mpc = 2.04200E-18 cm/s/cm expansion rate (2.042 x 10^-18). Plugging 63.01 for H0 into the cosmology calculators results in 15.156 Gyr old universe where z = 0, https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/toolbox/calculators.html

BB and expanding universe math can be fun :)

To add a point here, using c.g.s to express H0 shows how sensitive the expansion rate in 4D space is. 100 km/s/Mpc for H0 = cm/s/cm. Very small changes here make big differences in the cosmology calculators for age, look back time distances, and comoving radial distances based upon 4D space expansion metric. The paper on Mooniversal Expansion can be interpreted like this and shows the 4D space expanding universe model used in BB can flip the numbers on a tiny change.
3.24076E-18​
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: billslugg
Apr 13, 2021
255
22
685
Smile
I have read
https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.16551
Does not give concrete evidence.
We question all papers even from arXiv.
The expanding or contracting universe is mostly opinion.
Think of it this way.
The universe is infinite, the parts within keep on moving, changing, transforming expanding contracting and do their thing.
The universe is all and all be infinite cannot expand or contract.
 
Jun 1, 2020
2,215
1,803
5,060
Smile
I have read
https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.16551
Does not give concrete evidence.
We question all papers even from arXiv.
Yes, that's a good one to question, IMO.

Using 63kps/Mpc is less than on trillionth of the 3.8 cm per year. I doubt the authors are really this accurate.

Also, tides are very fickle over time due to shifts in continents, bay resonances, etc.. The Sun contributes about 1/3 of the tidal effects, as well. I suspect the Butterfly Effect comes into play in trying to get super accuracy on tidal action over history. This paper just seems cursory and not plausible. Is there any real chance mainstream cosmology will respect this work?
 
Last edited:

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,570
1,063
5,560
Yes, that's a good one to question, IMO.

Using 63kps/Mpc is less than on trillionth of the 3.8 cm per year. I doubt the authors are really this accurate.

Also, tides are very fickle over time due to shifts in continents, bay resonances, etc.. The Sun contributes about 1/3 of the tidal effects, as well. I suspect the Butterfly Effect comes into play in trying to get super accuracy on tidal action over history. This paper just seems cursory and not plausible. Is there any real chance mainstream cosmology will respect this work?
Part of the problem Helio when it comes to defining *really this accurate* is evaluating H0 measurements reported from different sources. Using km/s/Mpc gives one view, using cm/s/cm shows just how accurate any of the claims must be.

Example, 63 km/s/Mpc = 2.04 x 10^-18 cm/s/cm for 4D space expansion rate. 69 km/s/Mpc = 2.236 x 10^-18 cm/s/cm. Someone in cosmology department is splitting tiny hairs here. Even 100 km/s/Mpc = 3.24 x 10^-18 cm/s/cm 4D space expansion rate. Just tiny changes now make huge impacts in the cosmology calculators when measured like this for H0, resulting in different ages and distances (both look back distance and comoving radial distances). Issues like this should be clearly pointed out to the public I feel. Inflation epoch features 4D space expanding >= 3 x 10^31 cm/s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
Jun 1, 2020
2,215
1,803
5,060
I agree Rod. To have a really solid value for Ho, a confluence of multiple lines of evidence should converge nicely. They don't do this, as you note, though they are both playing in the same ball park. :)

It's just my opinion, but I disagree with the idea that the expansion applies to objects themselves when highly influenced by other forces. Does the gravitational action of the Earth, Sun and solar system not counter the expansion rate? If so, this Moon paper may be more lunacy than otherwise. ;)

If expansion is unbounded at any location, then what about the orbital distance of an electron around the nucleus? If the universe has expanded, say 1000 fold over a certain period, then will today's electron orbit be 1000x greater? If that were true, the photon energies would be very different and redshifts would not explain what we claim to see today. Or am I wrong? [I could be since Dr. Joe seems to have agreed with the expansion of all idea.]
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,570
1,063
5,560
I agree Rod. To have a really solid value for Ho, a confluence of multiple lines of evidence should converge nicely. They don't do this, as you note, though they are both playing in the same ball park. :)

It's just my opinion, but I disagree with the idea that the expansion applies to objects themselves when highly influenced by other forces. Does the gravitational action of the Earth, Sun and solar system not counter the expansion rate? If so, this Moon paper may be more lunacy than otherwise. ;)

If expansion is unbounded, then what about the orbital distance of an electron around the nucleus? If the universe has expanded, say 1000 fold over a certain period, then will today's electron orbit be 1000x greater? If that were true, the photon energies would be very different and redshifts would not explain what we claim to see today. Or am I wrong? [I could be since Dr. Joe seems to have agreed with the expansion of all idea.]
Some interesting points Helio. When it comes to 4D space measured as expanding in cm/s/cm vs. km/s/Mpc, does QM measure and observe this? 4D space should be expanding in the ~ 10^-18 cm/s/cm rate. So far I have not observed or read reports on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
Apr 13, 2021
255
22
685
With all the observation, what we see is what we get.
Do we see expansion?
Do we see contraction?
Do we see clustering?
What do we see in deep field images?
Yes to the above
 
Jun 1, 2020
2,215
1,803
5,060
Some interesting points Helio. When it comes to 4D space measured as expanding in cm/s/cm vs. km/s/Mpc, does QM measure and observe this? 4D space should be expanding in the ~ 10^-18 cm/s/cm rate. So far I have not observed or read reports on this.
Perhaps the problem, besides trying to get any accuracy at something that small, lies in the view that even our rulers would be expanding, so how would you know?

But there seems to me to be too many things out there that would defy the other forces not having sway with the super tiny rate of expansion on small scales, including the tensile strength of rulers.

It seems unlikely that if the other forces don't change with expansion then how can one say stars were much smaller long ago but of the same mass. This sort of physics would fail, IMO. But since what we see from the ancient past comes in the form of light, and those photons were emitted by primarily hydrogen, then how would one argue that the orbital distance an electron has around the nucleus is now much greater without changing the energy of the photon emitted? It seems more likely that the huge force of the EM interaction of the atom would simply ignore the tiny expansion.

Extending this, the Earth and the solar system are basically unchanged by expansion, but the extragalactic space has increased. Otherwise, the ratio of the galactic cluster diameters to empty space from billions of years ago would remain the same, and this too seems unlikely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,570
1,063
5,560
Perhaps the problem, besides trying to get any accuracy at something that small, lies in the view that even our rulers would be expanding, so how would you know?

But there seems to me to be too many things out there that would defy the other forces not having sway with the super tiny rate of expansion on small scales, including the tensile strength of rulers.

It seems unlikely that if the other forces don't change with expansion then how can one say stars were much smaller long ago but of the same mass. This sort of physics would fail, IMO. But since what we see from the ancient past comes in the form of light, and those photons were emitted by primarily hydrogen, then how would one argue that the orbital distance an electron has around the nucleus is now much greater without changing the energy of the photon emitted? It seems more likely that the huge force of the EM interaction of the atom would simply ignore the tiny expansion.

Extending this, the Earth and the solar system are basically unchanged by expansion, but the extragalactic space has increased. Otherwise, the ratio of the galactic cluster diameters to empty space from billions of years ago would remain the same, and this too seems unlikely.
Helio, using the cm/s/cm rates vs. km/s/Mpc, in the 10^-18 cm/s/cm expansion rate does show the comoving radial distance of 46 billion light years from Earth today is moving 3x c velocity or faster. Apparently QM does not show 4D space at Earth or in the solar system is expanding (at all) when H0 is converted to the smaller unit and objects with redshifts 1.4 or larger, are all moving away faster than c velocity because of the comoving radial distance requirement using 4D space metric.

So we have zero test showing space is expanding on Earth or in the solar system and much faster than c expansion velocity when objects with redshifts 1.4 or larger are found. Interesting how BB model works and does this :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
Jun 1, 2020
2,215
1,803
5,060
Another look at the expansion....

If you have a fast boat traveling up a river flowing at a steady rate, then the motion of the boat relative to the shore will be unchanged as it speeds up river.

Similarly, given how steady the expansion rate has been, even with slight acceleration, the solar system would see all the "boats" unchanged. IOW, whatever tiny amount of effect the expansion had during formation, it would have positioned the planets outward a tiny bit more long ago, yet so tiny that treating the expansion as a vector has never been discovered as affecting the planets, at least to my knowledge. [Perhaps this Moon paper does this?]

On the other hand, their motions must follow G, the gravitational constant, so maybe with expansion this empirical constant includes that "vector". :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Jun 1, 2020
2,215
1,803
5,060
Helio, using the cm/s/cm rates vs. km/s/Mpc, in the 10^-18 cm/s/cm expansion rate does show the comoving radial distance of 46 billion light years from Earth today is moving 3x c velocity or faster. Apparently QM does not show 4D space at Earth or in the solar system is expanding (at all) when H0 is converted to the smaller unit and objects with redshifts 1.4 or larger, are all moving away faster than c velocity because of the comoving radial distance requirement using 4D space metric.

So we have zero test showing space is expanding on Earth or in the solar system and much faster than c expansion velocity when objects with redshifts 1.4 or larger are found. Interesting how BB model works and does this :)
Yes. I'm not sure I've ever seen the redshift value for regions that are traveling so much faster than c that they have fallen from all possibility of viewing. The CMBR at 1100 is likely close, I would bet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,570
1,063
5,560
Any look at the expansion....

If you have a fast boat traveling up a river flowing at a steady rate, then the motion of the boat relative to the shore will be unchanged as it speeds up river.

Similarly, given how steady the expansion rate has been, even with slight acceleration, the solar system would see all the "boats" unchanged. IOW, whatever tiny amount of effect the expansion had during formation, it would have positioned the planets outward a tiny bit more long ago, yet so tiny that treating the expansion as a vector has never been discovered as affecting the planets, at least to my knowledge.

On the other hand, their motions must follow the G, the gravitational constant, so maybe with expansion this empirical constant includes that vector. :)
I look at the issue very differently. So we have tiny space nearby that cannot be shown to match the BB model space expansion metric, and we have a huge volume of space where objects with redshifts 1.4 or larger are expanding way faster than c velocity in their comoving radial distances, something again we cannot see and measure directly. That is interesting how the science works here.
 
Jun 1, 2020
2,215
1,803
5,060
I look at the issue very differently. So we have tiny space nearby that cannot be shown to match the BB model space expansion metric, and we have a huge volume of space where objects with redshifts 1.4 or larger are expanding way faster than c velocity in their comoving radial distances, something again we cannot see and measure directly. That is interesting how the science works here.
To clarify perhaps, the expansion rate can be analogous to the stretching of a rubber band that is nailed at one end and pulled at the other. The rate of movement of the rubber near the nail is next to nothing, but the other end is very fast.

From our choice of perspective, we are at the nail and the tiny expansion simply slides "underneath" the planets as the gravity forces aren't bothered by this tiny space motion.
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,570
1,063
5,560
To clarify perhaps, the expansion rate can be analogous to the stretching of a rubber band that is nailed at one end and pulled at the other. The rate of movement of the rubber near the nail is next to nothing, but the other end is very fast.

From our choice of perspective, we are at the nail and the tiny expansion simply slides "underneath" the planets as the gravity forces aren't bothered by this tiny space motion.
So at the tiny size we cannot test and verify the space expansion rate matches H0 used in BB model and at the larger comoving radial distances for objects with z 1.4 or larger, required because 4D space is used with a hyper-space dimension, we cannot test and see those areas either moving way faster than c velocity. What you say here Helio is how the science is done today apparently. Not something I would do in science without specific comments identifying issues like this in the abstracts, up front.
 
Jun 1, 2020
2,215
1,803
5,060
So at the tiny size we cannot test and verify the space expansion rate matches H0 used in BB model and at the larger comoving radial distances for objects with z 1.4 or larger, required because 4D space is used with a hyper-space dimension, we cannot test and see those areas either moving way faster than c velocity.
Well, we can at least observe areas moving away from us faster than light.

It's not intuitive how regions moving away from faster than light can then emit light that will reach us. The rubber band analogy helps here since what we call faster than light is relative to us at the nailed end, not relative to regions on the other end. The emissions from a star just past a region traveling just faster than light will be moving at a very slow speed relative to the star, so the light will quickly reach the region that is traveling slower than light relative to us.
 
Jun 1, 2020
2,215
1,803
5,060
I noticed a duplicate description in the "Power Spectrum" bullet. This shows the correction (pg. 2), but I can't fix it in the OP as the edit time has past.

 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,570
1,063
5,560
Well, we can at least observe areas moving away from us faster than light.

It's not intuitive how regions moving away from faster than light can then emit light that will reach us. The rubber band analogy helps here since what we call faster than light is relative to us at the nailed end, not relative to regions on the other end. The emissions from a star just past a region traveling just faster than light will be moving at a very slow speed relative to the star, so the light will quickly reach the region that is traveling slower than light relative to us.
"Well, we can at least observe areas moving away from us faster than light."

Helio, my answer is no, we cannot observe this at all. Such a distance is the comoving radial distance from Earth, not the look back time distance based upon light-time which is much closer to Earth position today.

Ned Wright's Javascript Advanced Cosmology Calculator (ucla.edu)

Just look at the light travel time distance when z=3.0, it is 11.550 Gyr light distance but comoving radial distance where the object and 4D space expanding today is at is 21.141 Gly from Earth. We cannot see what is taking place 21.141 Gly distance from Earth (remember the universe is only 13.8 billion years old according to BB model thus we have a limit on light travel time distance we can observe today). This means science does not measure and show that 4D space is factually expanding faster than c velocity when you examine the comoving radial distances from Earth and without those distances, the explanation for the redshifts used in BB model does not work, especially the larger redshifts 1.4 or larger. The cosmology department using GR metric uses a hyper space dimension. The look back or light-time distances presented to the public using the BB model, 4D space is not expanding faster than c velocity that we can see. This is not pointed out clearly to the public concerning cosmology and should be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Absolute zero
Jun 1, 2020
2,215
1,803
5,060
"Well, we can at least observe areas moving away from us faster than light."

Helio, my answer is no, we cannot observe this at all. Such a distance is the comoving radial distance from Earth, not the look back time distance based upon light-time which is much closer to Earth position today.

Ned Wright's Javascript Advanced Cosmology Calculator (ucla.edu)

Just look at the light travel time distance when z=3.0, it is 11.550 Gyr light distance but comoving radial distance where the object and 4D space expanding today is at is 21.141 Gly from Earth. We cannot see what is taking place 21.141 Gly distance from Earth (remember the universe is only 13.8 billion years old according to BB model thus we have a limit on light travel time distance we can observe today). This means science does not measure and show that 4D space is factually expanding faster than c velocity when you examine the comoving radial distances from Earth and without those distances, the explanation for the redshifts used in BB model does not work, especially the larger redshifts 1.4 or larger. The cosmology department using GR metric uses a hyper space dimension. The look back or light-time distances presented to the public using the BB model, 4D space is not expanding faster than c velocity that we can see. This is not pointed out clearly to the public concerning cosmology and should be.
What I'm saying is that if we employ our magic wand, rewind the clock and find a galaxy that is moving away from us just a little faster than c, then that light emitted would eventually reach us once we magically restore time to today.

This is because the light from the galaxy will quickly propagate into the region of space where the expansion in not traveling away from us faster than light.

Are we agreeing on this point?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,570
1,063
5,560
What I'm saying is that if we employ our magic wand, rewind the clock and find a galaxy that is moving away from us just a little faster than c, then that light emitted would eventually reach us once we magically restore time to today.

This is because the light from the galaxy will quickly propagate into the region of space where the expansion in not traveling away from us faster than light.

Are we agreeing on this point?
No Helio, because the comoving radial distances used in BB cosmology showing 4D space expanding faster than c velocity has not been shown true in nature like for example stellar parallaxes. They are the result of math used in GR extrapolated out to interpret large redshifts, not verification standards like solar parallax or lunar parallax measurements. If I am true to the scientific method, I will not introduce assumptions like you are doing, unless carefully declaring this and showing no test to verify at present that nature exist like the assumption used in the math. A problem here is that redshifts of objects 1.4 or larger, 4D space is expanding faster than c velocity for the comoving radial distances as shown from Earth today, thus the cosmological redshift interpretation employs a method that is not factually verified in nature like other measurements in astronomy, something as simple as defining the astronomical unit for example.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Jun 1, 2020
2,215
1,803
5,060
No Helio, because the comoving radial distances used in BB cosmology showing 4D space expanding faster than c velocity has not been shown true in nature like for example stellar parallaxes. They are the result of math used in GR extrapolated out to interpret large redshifts, not verification standards like solar parallax or lunar parallax measurements. If I am true to the scientific method, I will not introduce assumptions like you are doing, ...
The math is quite simple to demonstrate why an object traveling at a set speed will reach Earth if that speed matches the expansion rate where that object starts from.

A problem here is that redshifts of objects 1.4 or larger, 4D space is expanding faster than c velocity for the comoving radial distances as shown from Earth today, thus the cosmological redshift interpretation employs a method that is not factually verified in nature like other measurements in astronomy, something as simple as defining the astronomical unit for example.
The claim that the universe is expanding has all the arguments given in the OP. Each constitutes objective evidence (i.e. facts). Scrutiny, of course, is welcome for each one of those, but that list comes from mainstream science and they follow the SM.

One can argue for some weakness in one or more, but it's important that in a theory that addresses the entire cosmos, then all the facts must fit the model; their must be a convergence and a confluence. Scientists were initially opposed to Lemaitre's theory, but the more they saw the confluence, the more robust the model became. The discovery of the predicted CMBR has been regarded as the nail in the coffin for any opposing theory that existed in the past (e.g. Steady State theory).

Any fact discovered, however, that is in disagreement with the theory invalidates the theory. When Galileo discovered all phases for Venus, he immediately falsified the Ptolemy theory with that fact alone. Of course, others (i.e. Jesuits) had to study those phase changes over the course of Venus orbit in order to verify his discovery. They agreed with Galileo, though some chose not to and even some refused to look through the telescope.

The expansion is the heart of BBT. The exact rate, of course, is a very tough number to nail down and it is further hampered by the fact that it can't be linear over all time given DE at play.
 
Jun 1, 2020
2,215
1,803
5,060
If I may add....

The 2nd bullet in the list is the foundation to BBT - GR.

GR was just an idea, then a math nightmare for Einstein but he did not want to push his theory without having three separate lines of evidence to give it the credibility it needed:

The first evidence explained the discovery of excessive redshift from the Sun. He found that his equations produced the results they found, which is due to the huge gravity of the Sun at the photosphere.

The second line of evidence came from the unexplained precession of the equinox of Mercury that was off by 45 arcseconds per hundred years (IIRC). [The hypothesis of a close-orbiting planet they called Vulcan was deemed unnecessary at this point.]

The third line was the change in the light angle of background stars as their light passed near the Sun. Eddington's solar eclipse photographs convinced Eddington that Einstein was correct, as was determined from the GR equations, about double that predicted by Newton's equations, I think.

Once Eddington verified Einstein, the media almost instantly made Einstein famous, and they (media), apparently, were the ones who kept calling it the theory of relativity.

But it took the Belgian monk, a PhD physicist, who recognized that an expansion model is the only model that made sense, contrary to the others including Einstein and De Sitter.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS