Stellar Remnants

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Trying to explain the theoretical bases of matter within compact matter requires reading.

These few papers 2009 are on Kaon Condensates.

A bit of reading may allow you to understand the direction I'm coming from.

Kaon Condensation
http://aps.arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AN ... /0/all/0/1

 

[harrycostas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

On the subject of quark matter, why not if the theoretical black hole with a singularity is possible.

If the singularity is not possible what would be the end point of compaction?

Phase transitions is not a new topic and its well documented. This allows for various states of matter that could mimic the properties of the so called black holes.

This paper is along those lines and related to supernova remnants.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702671
Do Black Holes End up as Quark Stars ?

Authors: R.K.Thakur
(Submitted on 25 Feb 2007)

Abstract: The possibility of the existence of quark stars has been discussed by several authors since 1970. Recently, it has been pointed out that two putative neutron stars, RXJ 1856.5 - 3754 in Corona Australis and 3C58 in Cassiopeia are too small and too dense to be neutron stars; they show evidence of being quark stars. Apart from these two objects, there are several other compact objects which fit neither in the category of neutron stars nor in that of black holes. It has been suggested that they may be quark stars.In this paper it is shown that a black hole cannot collapse to a singularity, instead it may end up as a quark star. In this context it is shown that a gravitationally collapsing black hole acts as an ultrahigh energy particle accelerator, hitherto inconceivable in any terrestrial laboratory, that continually accelerates particles comprising the matter in the black hole. When the energy \textit{E} of the particles in the black hole is $\geq 10^{2}$GeV, or equivalently the temperature \textit{T} of the matter in the black holes is $\geq 10^{15}$K, the entire matter in the black hole will be converted into quark-gluon plasma permeated by leptons. Since quarks and leptons are spin 1/2 particles,they are governed by Pauli's exclusion principle. Consequently, one of the two possibilities will occur; either Pauli's exclusion principle would be violated and the black hole would collapse to a singularity, or the collapse of the black hole to a singularity would be inhibited by Pauli's exclusion principle, and the black hole would eventually explode with a mini bang of a sort. After explosion, the remnant core would stabilize as a quark star.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day

What's a Dynamo or a Dynamotor?

Dynamo,,,,,,,,,,Mechanical energy to electrical energy.

Dynamotor,,,,,,,,,,combines the motor and generator into one magnetic field.

This link video of a pulsar is quite interesting in view of a Dynamotor or Dynamo.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/e ... s/07080_00

and this link

Why coronal mass ejections are necessary for the dynamo
Authors: Axel Brandenburg
(Submitted on 3 Jan 2007)

Abstract: Large scale dynamo-generated fields are a combination of interlocked poloidal and toroidal fields. Such fields possess magnetic helicity that needs to be regenerated and destroyed during each cycle. A number of numerical experiments now suggests that stars may do this by shedding magnetic helicity. In addition to plain bulk motions, a favorite mechanism involves magnetic helicity flux along lines of constant rotation. We also know that the sun does shed the required amount of magnetic helicity mostly in the form of coronal mass ejections. Solar-like stars without cycles do not face such strong constraints imposed by magnetic helicity evolution and may not display coronal activity to that same extent. I discuss the evidence leading to this line of argument. In particular, I discuss simulations showing the generation of strong mean toroidal fields provided the outer boundary condition is left open so as to allow magnetic helicity to escape. Control experiments with closed boundaries do not produce strong mean fields.

 

[michaelmozina]

You can see it in the excessive use of qualifiers for most if not all of Michael statements, such as:

"I would be inclined to believe..."
"Coronal loop activity might... "
"That might also..."
"I would expect that to depend..."
"I would suggest that the sun's 22 year rotation cycle, and 5 minute wave cycle could be 'interpreted'..."
"I would think that would depend on a lot of factors..."
And my favorite
"I personally happen to believe that..."

No evidence just repeated unsubstantiated conjecture ad infinitum...

There's just no making you happy now is there?

Now, now I only insult people that state goofy conjecture as fact -

If I clearly note that these are "opinions" you accuse me of excessive use of qualifiers. If I state the case too strongly, you also get uptight. There's just no pleasing you is there?

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/be ... r_core.pdf

The idea of a neutron core wrapped in plasma has been around for awhile now. Does the fact the idea has been published in various papers make any difference to you?

 

[harrycostas]

G'day Michael

I thought you may be interested in this link particularly the point where Neutron stars can mimic a black hole property.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3604
The disc-jet coupling in the neutron star X-ray binary Aquila X-1

Authors: V. Tudose (1,2,3), R.P. Fender (4,2), M. Linares (2), D. Maitra (2), M. van der Klis (2) ((1) ASTRON, (2) Amsterdam, (3) Bucharest, (4) Southampton)
(Submitted on 25 Aug 2009)

Abstract: We study the accretion/ejection processes (i.e. disc/jet coupling) in the neutron star X-ray binary Aquila X-1 via a multi-wavelength approach. We use in the radio band the publicly available VLA archive containing observations of the object between 1986-2005, in the X-ray band the archival RXTE data (PCA and HEXTE) between 1997-2008, and in optical (R band) observations with the SMARTS recorded between 1998-2007. In the combined data set we find three outbursts for which quasi-simultaneous radio, optical (R band) and X-ray data exist and focus on them to some extent. We provide evidence that the disc/jet coupling in Aquila X-1 is similar to what has been observed in black hole X-ray binaries, at least from the point of view of the behaviour in the hardness-intensity diagrams (the hysteresis effect included), when the phenomenology of the jet is taken into account. Although based on a very small number of observations, a radio/X-ray correlation seems to exist for this system, with a slope of alpha=0.40 +/- 0.07 (F_{radio} \propto F_{X}^{alpha}), which is different than the slope of alpha=1.40 +/- 0.25 found for another atoll source, 4U 1728-34, but interestingly enough is relatively close to the values obtained for several black hole X-ray binaries. No significant correlation is found between the radio and optical (R band) emissions. We also report a significant drop in the radio flux from Aql X-1 above an X-ray flux of ~ 5 X 10^{-9} erg cm^{-2} s^{-1}. This behaviour, also reported in the neutron star X-ray binary 4U 1728-34, may be analogous to the suppression of radio emission in black hole X-ray binaries in bright, soft X-ray states. It suggests that from this point of view neutron star X-ray binaries can mimic the behaviour of black hole X-ray binaries in suppressing the jet in soft/disc-dominated X-ray states.

 

[origin]

Harry it really would help if you did not bounce around like a ping pong ball posting random links. Nobody here wants to try and quess what you think by reading scores of seemingly unrelated links. I asked a question in an earlier post that you did not answer and I think it would really help me to understand your position if you answered my question.

You said:

Further to that discussion the dynamo that exists in stars is quite similar, particularly the long life stars. A compact core exists having various compositions of matter, ranging from a Neutron/Proton soup to Neutron/quark soup or quark/Nutrino soup. The intrinsic property of such matter produces a spin in the core that ejects matter in many cases to the solar envelope and in some cases deep into space.
You can refer to wiki
Dirac spinor
Top quark condensate

I dutifully looked up Dirac Spinor and Top quark condensate.

So restating the question I asked earlier, "In your own words what does "Dirac Spinor and Top quark condensate" have to do with the preceding paragraph"?

 

[origin]

http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/be ... r_core.pdf

The idea of a neutron core wrapped in plasma has been around for awhile now. Does the fact the idea has been published in various papers make any difference to you?

Oh come on! O. Manuel? He is a pretty good Nuclear Chemist but outside of his field he is hopless. I trust his opinion on Astro physics about as much as I trust him babysitting my kids (shudder).

 

[harrycostas]

G'day origin

What do you want to know?

Do you want to be fed information or to read up on it?

Just google for it

Than you enter the world of:

Condensed matter astrophysics 2009
Search in
The SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System
http://www.adsabs.harvard.edu/

It is slightly complicated, but you will get a feel of the work done in this field.

I have not forgotten your questions, they will be answered.

As for Professor Manuel's work it is second to none, cutting edge information.

 

[UFmbutler]

After reading through the black hole thread in the Unexplained, which is probably where this will end up eventually, I'm not even going to bother responding to Harry anymore, except to say this: I don't need to do "more reading" to understand where you are coming from. Do you really think you are the only one who reads Arxiv? The difference between you and the people trying to address your arguments is that we are capable of recognizing a) when a paper should not be believed due to its author, or what it says, and b) when a paper relates to and more importantly, supports our argument. You lack both of those abilities. You literally just type in a word, such as dynamo, and just paste links that have that word in the abstract, or post the conclusions making it appear that you read the paper and understood it.

Regarding the moderator action mentioned throughout harry's other threads, I would contend that he is not following those instructions at all and this is nothing even close to resembling a scientific discussion. The only real discussion has been in the last couple pages, and not surprisingly harry is not involved in it.

Michael, while I wholeheartedly disagree with what you are contending, that a star could form around a stellar remnant, specifically a neutron star, at least you were able to make a point. Given that we see many pulsars and can measure their period and the derivative of the period w.r.t. time, one could do a calculation to see how long it would take a neutron star to reach the rotation periods of typical main sequence stars. If this time is significantly larger than the age of the oldest star(or is even on the order of a few Gyr) we know of, it doesn't bode well for your argument. I haven't done this, but I'm just throwing the idea out there. If we completely ignore the physics which, to me, would say that this is impossible, this would be an important piece of evidence.

edit: One would also need to take into consideration the fraction of high mass stars capable of producing neutron stars. To produce the numbers of main sequence sun-like stars we see, basically every single neutron star would have to turn into a MS star. If you are contending that star formation is a mixture of this and regular star formation, why is there a difference and how does it manifest itself?

 

[yevaud]

Just google for it

This, apparently, is the issue. In the absence of academics and understanding of this (or for that matter, any other) subject matter, Googling merely provides content - much of which is not understood by the poster.

Harry, constantly posting Google links is fine, if they are relevant. Much of what you post is not relevant to the topic at hand, or even contradicts your assertations.

 

[harrycostas]

G'day yvaud

Which link do you think is not relevant?

What assertions do you think I have mad that contradicts?

I have provided cutting edge information.

As for google links, which one have I posted?

 

[origin]

G'day origin

What do you want to know?

Do you want to be fed information or to read up on it?

What I want to know is, In your own words what does "Dirac Spinor and Top quark condensate" have to do with the preceding paragraph (from the earlier post)?

I have read up on these items and I do not see the connection. You apparently are very intelligent and have detected some subtlety that I missed. So by all means please feed me the information, I am sure there will be many other people on this board that would benefit from your explanation.

Just a couple of sentences showing the connection would do the trick, I am sure that there is no need to go into great detail.

Thanks

 

[yevaud]

Which link do you think is not relevant?

Those that others have noted really have nothing to do with what you'd posted them as "proof."

What assertions do you think I have mad that contradicts?

See above quote.

I have provided cutting edge information.

Your "cutting edge" information is frequently not in conformance with the hypothesis' you've posted them to "prove."

As for google links, which one have I posted?

Read your own comment, Harry, quoted in my prior post to you.

 

[michaelmozina]

edit: One would also need to take into consideration the fraction of high mass stars capable of producing neutron stars. To produce the numbers of main sequence sun-like stars we see, basically every single neutron star would have to turn into a MS star. If you are contending that star formation is a mixture of this and regular star formation, why is there a difference and how does it manifest itself?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28529720/

Manuel's neutron core theory begins with the premise that neutron material came first (the chicken came first) and that it fractured into large chunks that became the core of galaxies, and also into relatively small pieces, some or most of which attracted other elements over time. The sizes of the "chunks" of material, their rotation speed, and the presence (or lack thereof) of other materials to draw from determines whether it becomes a "naked" neutron core, a pulsar, a quasar, or it turns into a MS star. His premise is that there are no "black holes" (objects of infinite density), just heavy massive neutron cores at the center of galaxies, quasars and pulsars. Neutron repulsion prevents the larger (and smaller) pieces from completely collapsing into an infinite density "black hole".

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511379

 

[MeteorWayne]

A rather interesting choice of links. The first one talks about black holes forming before galaxies (which is still a matter of considerable debate and investigation in the scientific community). You appear to have come down with harrycostas disease whereby you post a link that refutes your own clain.

"His premise is that there are no "black holes"

Then an presentation at a conference you co-wrote with Manual in 2005 about his somewhat goofy ideas. And exactly what journal was that ever published in?

 

[michaelmozina]

A rather interesting choice of links. The first one talks about black holes forming before galaxies (which is still a matter of considerable debate and investigation in the scientific community). You appear to have come down with harrycostas disease whereby you post a link that refutes your own clain.

"His premise is that there are no "black holes"

I suppose that depends on how one defines a "black hole". We all seem to agree that very massive objects exist. It's the notion of "infinite density" that seems to be in dispute.

Then an presentation at a conference you co-wrote with Manual in 2005 about his somewhat goofy ideas. And exactly what journal was that ever published in?

I don't believe that particular paper was ever published in a journal whereas this paper (on a similar topic) was published in the Journal of Fusion energy.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/jofe1.pdf

 

[ramparts]

Is it just me or do astronomy articles get published in the Journal of Fusion Energy because they can't get accepted by journals actually meant for astronomy research?

 

[michaelmozina]

Is it just me or do astronomy articles get published in the Journal of Fusion Energy because they can't get accepted by journals actually meant for astronomy research?

It's just you.

 

[UFmbutler]

I've responded to Manuel's papers before...I simply can't accept his assertions, they are not backed up in a scientific manner. If you look at where he tries to back up his points with references, and then check what those references actually are...they are all his own papers. I could write a paper on unicorns living on the moon, and then write a series of other papers that keep referring to each other...it doesn't make it valid. The assertion that hydrogen fusion is not the dominant energy source in the sun is contrary to basic stellar structure, and to challenge something so fundamental requires more than, quite literally, saying "because I said so".

I don't even know where to begin with your arguments, since I believe black holes exist, due to a ton of evidence that suggests they do, and I believe stars are primarily powered by fusion, due to a ton of evidence that suggests they are.

Alternative theories are fine, but the only successful ones involve challenging the mainstream, a part you have down to a science, and then providing evidence backing your claim up and showing your model works better, which is the part that this and other alternative theories presented here lack. What Manuel/you seem to be doing is saying "I think black holes/dense objects in general are made of neutrons...prove me wrong". That's not how it works. I did read that paper and see no real explanation, it is just a presentation of an idea where he only refers to himself(with a few minor exceptions).

 

[drwayne]

Humorous aside:

Back in grad school, a professor told me of the point system for papers. For every paper that
he published, he went 6 points in the hole. For each citation of the paper, he got a point
back. The object of course was to at least get out of the hole.

Unfortunately, citing yourself did not count.

(Update: Being cited on the web doesn't count either)

Wayne

 

[michaelmozina]

Humorous aside:

Back in grad school, a professor told me of the point system for papers. For every paper that
he published, he went 6 points in the hole. For each citation of the paper, he got a point
back. The object of course was to at least get out of the hole.

Unfortunately, citing yourself did not count.

(Update: Being cited on the web doesn't count either)

Wayne

Well, that Journal of Fusion Energy paper has 40 citations, about 29 or so that have nothing to do with Manuel. By that logic that puts that paper in positive territory, even subtracting out references to his earlier papers and starting 6 points in the hole.

 

[UFmbutler]

I was referring to where he laid out the groundwork of his theory, in the beginning...the first half or so of the references are at least 75% his own papers, and your website. You can't build a theory on top of a flawed foundation. I'm not attacking you personally, I am just stating why I do not put any stock in what you are saying. I have said the physical/scientific reasons that give me doubts, and most of those questions still haven't been answered. Remember, this thread is about harry's assertion that stars that supernova and leave behind a remnant will collapse back in on themselves and make a "rejuvenated" star, which I believe is quite different(and somehow even more wrong) than what you/Manuel are asserting.

 

[ramparts]

Michael, where do you find 40 citations for that paper? I look at the ADS and see one, and that's from a paper Manuel posted on the arXiv this year.

And if the papers citing it aren't on the ADS, frankly I don't think they're going to be much good for solar astronomy :lol:

PS I'm seeing a couple of other papers on this Journal of Fusion Energy. I'm curious why you folks keep publishing there, if my surmising above was (as you suggest) misguided Why not submit to AJ, ApJ, MNRAS, or some solar physics journal, like all the other solar papers? If you look at the Journal of Fusion Energy's website, it doesn't exactly sound like it's meant for astronomy papers.

 

[drwayne]

I did see a paper "Solar Abundances of the elements" that was cited 40 times, 5 by someone other than the author.

Before assuming I am picking on anyone, I will note that my own papers are seldom cited - usually only by me*.
I qualify as the very small fish in the a very small puddle.

Wayne

*Usually in the vein of an early episode of Lost in Space - "Last year, as you recall ..."

 

[michaelmozina]

Michael, where do you find 40 citations for that paper?

My bad. I misread DrWayne's point criteria. He said citations "of" the paper, not citations "in" the paper.

PS I'm seeing a couple of other papers on this Journal of Fusion Energy. I'm curious why you folks keep publishing there, if my surmising above was (as you suggest) misguided Why not submit to AJ, ApJ, MNRAS, or some solar physics journal, like all the other solar papers? If you look at the Journal of Fusion Energy's website, it doesn't exactly sound like it's meant for astronomy papers.

In some cases the material itself is equally suited for publication in a journal related to nuclear chemistry (such and the CNO fusion paper), however clearly it's "easier" to publish non-standard material in publications where Manuel has already been published.