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.
Hao-Miao Jin, Cheng-Jun Xia, Ting-Ting Sun, Guang-Xiong Peng
‘We investigate systematically the possible deconfinement phase transition from nuclear matter to quark matter in compact stars. The properties of nuclear matter are fixed by expanding its binding energy to the order of ρ3, while those of quark matter are predicted by an equivparticle model. The Maxwell construction is then applied for the quark-hadron mixed phase. By confronting compact star structures with pulsar observations, we obtain several EOSs that are compatible with the latest observations while supporting quark cores inside the most massive stars. It is found that the quark core is rather small and does not emerge for compact stars with M≲2M⊙. The in-medium quark condensate of the stellar matter in those stars are then extracted within the framework of an equivparticle model, which decreases nonlinearly with density. At larger densities with pure quark matter, the quark condensate is still large and does not necessary decrease with density, indicating significant nonperturbative contributions within the density regions covered by compact stars.’
Scientists around the world are expanding into the science of condensates and their importance in forming Stars and cluster of Stars.


"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Harry, it depends on what is meant by the "Big Bang". Unfortunately, it appears that it seems frequently to include both the unknown metaphysical assertion at "time = zero" that there was a "singularity" and the scientific follow-up beginning one minute fraction of a second later.

There are some shades of meaning still open to discussion, but the above puts the question into first lines of consideration.

As things stand, it is totally unscientific to include both a metaphysical element and a scientific follow-up within the same term. Thus, "Big Bang" cannot be correctly used if it includes both elements. My suggestion is to use "Big Bang" for the scientifically adequate part of any discussion, and to use "t = 0" to cover the initial metaphysical element.

The crux of the question is that division by zero to produce an "infinite" quantity, is a mathematical operation, not a scientific procedure. For example, in mathematics, equations that are derived to explain natural processes may include 1/x. When x is equal to 0, there is a divide by zero error which may result in a singularity, e.g., a finite mass in an infinitesimally small volume, yielding an infinite density. In physics, however, other things usually obtain which make these equations break down as x gets close to zero, preventing these singularities from actually occurring."
Hello Catastrophe

Yo can spin it what ever way you want

The Big Bang could never have happened

You can have a million scientists giving opinions and if you multiply by zero, you have a zero event.

Quantum physics can in simple explain the ongoing universe.

Without using Dark matter or Dark Energy

The star and galaxy formation can be explained
Always learning
[Submitted on 12 Jul 2022]
Jets, Disks and Winds from Spinning Black Holes: Nature or Nurture?
Roger Blandford, Noemie Globus
“A brief summary is given of an alternative interpretation of the Event Horizon Telescope observations of the massive black hole in the nucleus of the nearby galaxy M87. It is proposed that the flow is primarily powered by the black hole rotation, not the release of gravitational energy by the infalling gas. Consequently, the observed millimetre emission is produced by an "ergomagnetosphere" that connects the black hole horizon to an "ejection disk" from which most of the gas supplied at a remote "magnetopause" is lost through a magnetocentrifugal wind. It is argued that the boundary conditions at high latitude on the magnetopause play a crucial role in the collimation of the relativistic jets. The application of these ideas to other types of source is briefly discussed.”
In search of the functioning parts of the images out there beyond.


"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Harry, you have probably noticed that my 'take' on t = 0 is to replace that ridiculous singularity with a nexus. Hey presto, all your infinities disappear - but - to have any sort of cyclic (e.g., torus) you hit the entropy question. As you know, the definition of entropy (in action) includes 'closed system' in its definition. So is a cyclic universe phase open or closed?

Of course, the whole topic (t = 0) is metaphysical, and not subject to examination and proof.

So, on topic, my definition of BB excludes t = 0, so is approximately 'correct' (subject to revision) whilst t = 0 nexus (imho) is at least as good an idea as a singularity (and probably a lot, lot better), but is sadly not open to scientific probing.

Do we have any common ground (in terms I can understand)?

Cat :)
To understand Black Holes

You need to understand the properties of condensates
Chiral Supersymmetry Dipolar Electromagnetic Vector Fields
Vector fields going into the core
Vector fields going out

A Mimic Black Hole property forms when the incoming vector fields prevent Electromagnetic waves from escaping

Vortex that escapes the EH is observed light years away from the surface of the EH

The core without a singularity can be estimated and explained by scientists

I maybe on the wrong path

For now this is the path i have taken in the past 50 years considering and read thousands of papers by prominent scientists

It is not as simple as it sounds
The Big Bang as a theory was supported by the majority.
Majority was so convincing that it was so logical.
And yet every evidence presented had no foundation
To the average eye
Yes the BIG BANG was the theory to hang your hat
NASA for years assumed the BIG BANG was correct
NASA years gone by
Said to me that they will prove the BT for once in for all
Hubble was to focus on an area of a rice seed for i million seconds
I said to NASA you will observe over 5 000 galaxies in various stage of formation as if they formed as an ongoing universe.
NASA said
We are going to see 13.2 billion years into the past and we will see the start of the BT.
After 1 million seconds
NASA made an announcement, we cannot explain how we observed over 5000 galaxies in various stages.
I said how come the universe is 13.5 million years old dated at that time
NASA said during the early universe time and space was different.
It’s than that i realised that NASA knew very little.

Their own scientific papers did not support the BT
Not seeing any problem with a "bounce" theory, in general, but have some issues with the paper abstract getting "perturbations" left outside the event horizon and then being consumed by expansion, again. For one thing, what exactly are those residual perturbation "in"?

As for DMH's post about needing a star to collapse to make the back hole, presumably a "bounce" cycle for the universe would have a phase that looks like what we see now, with plenty of stars, galaxies, collapsed stars, etc., which all end up getting compressed back into a black hole, smoothed into a sea of subatomic particles, and then going into something like the current BBT for the inflation cycle.

Not hard to imagine, and with enough unconstrained fitting parameters, it could probably be made to work mathematically. It doesn't seem to have any proof, yet. But neither does the BBT for many of its assumptions. One thing going for "bounce" theories is the assumed physical principle that all reactions are reversible. But, I think that trying to preserve the other assumed principles that "information is never lost or hidden" and "total entropy can never decrease" would make some weirdness in the hypothesizing. Frankly, I would expect a "bounce" could destroy information and "reset" entropy. Especially if everything is assumed to go inside a Planck size sphere.
The proof is in the putting
Understand the properties of condensates
Understand Transient Condensates
Observations we have of Dipolar Electromagnetic Vector fields
Further research
Chiral Supersymmetry

Right Now my Brain has a fog from a chest infection
I will be OK in a few days
Mimic Black holes can be discussed by reference to Transient Condensates that are able to form vector fields that prevent EMR from escaping at the same time create a dipolar vector field that expel matter in the form of Vortex Jet as seen in Neutron stars, Hourglass Nebulae and M87.
Transient Condensates Range from Axion Gluon Matter compaction into one atom over 10^35 to Neutron matter 10^17. Imagine the forces that can be created.

As for being in a Black Hole and specifically feel the forces

Hard luck

Classical Black Holes with a Singularity cannot form
The dipolar electromagnetic vector fields prevent a Singularity forming.

So! to address Black Holes one needs to read up on papers that many scientists have expressed interest.
We all want answers to alot of questions about,
Forming stars

We can wait for dust clouds to form and under compaction, may form a star

but! we will wait till the cows come home.

How do galaxies form billions of stars either in Elliptical, Bar and Spiral Galaxies

Understanding Transient Condensates, same principles as Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, one can explain how droplets from extreme Condensates released seeding Stars leading to clusters of stars that lead to dwarf galaxies that lead to large galaxies.

Hey! it's a thought not a destination.

or is it

[Submitted on 27 Oct 2022]
Effects of feedback on galaxies in the VELA simulations: elongation, clumps and compaction
Daniel Ceverino, Nir Mandelker, Gregory F. Snyder, Sharon Lapiner, Avishai Dekel, Joel Primack, Omri Ginzburg, Sean Larkin
The evolution of star-forming galaxies at high redshifts is very sensitive to the strength and nature of stellar feedback. Using two sets of cosmological, zoom-in simulations from the VELA suite, we compare the effects of two different models of feedback: with and without kinetic feedback. At a fixed halo mass and redshift, the stellar mass is reduced by a factor of 1-3 in the models with stronger feedback, so the stellar-mass-halo-mass relation is in better agreement with abundance matching results. On the other hand, galaxy elongation is robust against feedback strength. At a fixed stellar mass, Ms < 10^10 Msun, galaxies are more elongated in the strong-feedback case. More massive, star-forming discs with high surface densities form giant clumps. However, the population of round, compact, old (age_c > 300 Myr), quenched, stellar (or gas-poor) clumps is absent in the model with strong feedback. On the other hand, giant star-forming clumps with intermediate ages (age_c = 100-300 Myr) can survive for several disc dynamical times, independently of feedback strength. The evolution through compaction followed by quenching in the plane of central surface density and specific star-formation rate is similar under the two feedback models."
Nov 24, 2022
Visit site
I read 'some' of this thread but admit to understanding very little. I realise that you are obviously cleverer than I am, but my passion for the universe does outweigh yours. Please please post, when possible, in terms that the poor joe public can understand. I love to learn and watch all the science programmes on Discovery avidly. When Discovery is not fixated with Alaska or cars that is.
To understand processes that are ongoing throughout the universe.

One needs to understand Transient Condensates and their properties.
Compact matter from Neutron stars to quark stars to extreme compaction to Axion Gluon Matter
Chiral Supersymetry Dipolar electromagnetic vector fields
Matter can be destroyed by turning it into energy. Energy can be destroyed by turning it into matter. Both of those are different forms of mass. Mass cannot be destroyed.
An example of transforming mass into energy is when two hydrogen atoms are fused into a helium atom. The helium has less mass than the two hydrogens did, and the difference is about 0.7% and is released as energy.
An example of turning energy into matter is when two photons with a total energy of at least 1.022 MeV join together to form an electron and a positron.
Last edited:
Bill, you just posted "An example of turning energy into mass is when two photons . . ." From the context of the rest of your post, it seems you should have said "energy into matter".

Calling energy "mass" seems to be a new definition including both energy and matter.

Do photons gravitationally attract each other?
Yes, you are correct, the two photons turn into matter. I have changed the post. They already have mass. They have no rest mass, only relativistic mass. But then they never rest so "rest mass" is not relevant.

Here is a source that says photons attract each other gravitationally as long as they are not travelling in parallel.
(49) Do photons attract each other? Is there a gravitational force between photons? - Quora

Tab down a few paragraphs to Victor Toth's post, he gives some examples including a black hole made of nothing but photons.