PDA

View Full Version : Discussion: Oldest Quasars Give Clues About ...



Fraser
2004-Feb-13, 07:02 PM
SUMMARY: A new theory from University of Arizona researcher Xiaohui Fan predicts that the supermassive black holes which form the core of most galaxies were created only 700 million years after the Big Bang, when the Universe was only 6% of its current age. Fan used data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey to analyze the light of distant quasars, as far away as 13 billion light-years. He found that they contained light elements like hydrogen and helium, but also heavier elements like carbon and iron, which shouldn't have formed so early. But they could be explained if these black holes formed so early.

What do you think about this story? Post your comments below.

om@umr.edu
2004-Feb-14, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by fraser@Feb 13 2004, 07:02 PM
SUMMARY: A new theory from University of Arizona researcher Xiaohui Fan predicts that the supermassive black holes which form the core of most galaxies were created only 700 million years after the Big Bang, when the Universe was only 6% of its current age. Fan used data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey to analyze the light of distant quasars, as far away as 13 billion light-years. He found that they contained light elements like hydrogen and helium, but also heavier elements like carbon and iron, which shouldn't have formed so early. But they could be explained if these black holes formed so early.

What do you think about this story? Post your comments below.
I appreciate that Xiaohui Fan is attempting to address an observational puzzle: The presence of heavy elements like iron soon after the imagined "Big Bang." :rolleyes:

However, I am not personally convinced this "Big Bang" event ever occurred. <_<

I am skeptical of any scientific estimate of the amount of iron in objects or places far removed <_< , when in my opinion the scientific community has greatly underestimated the amount of iron in the star that makes up over 99% of the mass of the solar system. <_<

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.thesunisiron.com

damienpaul
2004-Feb-14, 06:07 AM
Oliver, I am curious, just how much iron is stated and is actually in the sun?

Patrick Feata
2004-Feb-14, 06:34 AM
Perhaps I&#39;m just old fashoned; but it is STILL my understanding that the heavier elements are formed by the fusion process in stars. I think (therefore I am sceptical) that this new theory may have some holes, (Punn intendid). ;)

om@umr.edu
2004-Feb-14, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by damienpaul@Feb 14 2004, 06:07 AM
Oliver, I am curious, just how much iron is stated and is actually in the sun?
The atomic abundance of hydrogen at the surface of the Sun is about 91%. :huh: The atomic abundance of iron at the surface of the Sun is only about 0.003%. <_<

Measurements on isotope ratios in the solar wind show us this is severely mass-fractionationed material&#33; :rolleyes:

Lighter mass (L) particles are enriched relative to heavier mass (H) particles at the solar surface by a factor (F), where

log (F) = 4.56 log (H/L) :P

Put in this equation H = 56 for iron and L = 1 for hydrogen, and you will find that the hydrogen is enriched relative to iron at the solar surface by a factor of F = ?

My 1983 estimate was that iron makes up about 80% of the elements in the Sun.

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com

damienpaul
2004-Feb-14, 07:04 AM
Interestingly, I actually understand those equations...:)

Now that is interesting, 80% iron?&#33;?&#33; I don&#39;t disbelieve you, mainly because I have not seen much info on the subject (lack of time). But can 80% of the elements be iron?

om@umr.edu
2004-Feb-14, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by damienpaul@Feb 14 2004, 07:04 AM
Interestingly, I actually understand those equations...:)

Now that is interesting, 80% iron?&#33;?&#33; I don&#39;t disbelieve you, mainly because I have not seen much info on the subject (lack of time). But can 80% of the elements be iron?
Yup. :D

Hydrogen is a minor element inside the Sun. B) [Wear sunglasses when peering inside&#33;]

Remember that meteor crater in Arizona? :huh: They probably told you that was from the core of a planetary-sized object that broke up? <_<

Well, it wasn&#39;t&#33; :D

Masuda and Lu at the University of Tokyo showed several years ago that the molybdenum isotopes in that and many other giant iron meteorites were never mixed after being produced by different nuclear reactions in a star. :lol:

As I recall, several other labs have since confirmed their findings, including a group at Harvard.
:rolleyes:

Anyway, the material that fell back on the collapsed SN core and made the Sun was mostly like that found in giant iron meteorites. :blink:

The H at the solar surface and that which departs in the solar wind is all coming from the decay of neutrons emitted from the collapsed SN remnant, a neutron star, at the core of the Sun. :D

Solar luminosity, the outflow of neutrinos, H+ ions in the solar wind, and solar magnetic fields are all consistent with this model of the Sun. :D

With kind regards,

Oliver B)
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com

damienpaul
2004-Feb-14, 08:12 AM
Let me get this straight&#33;


The H at the solar surface and that which departs in the solar wind is all coming from the decay of neutrons emitted from the collapsed SN remnant, a neutron star, at the core of the Sun. are you kidding me??? :blink:

Do you have some links to those studies?

Another silly question...whats an SN core?

Does this iron content have a bearing on the amount of iron in the inner solar system? like Mercury to Mars and the Asteroids??

om@umr.edu
2004-Feb-14, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by damienpaul@Feb 14 2004, 08:12 AM
Let me get this straight&#33;


The H at the solar surface and that which departs in the solar wind is all coming from the decay of neutrons emitted from the collapsed SN remnant, a neutron star, at the core of the Sun.* are you kidding me??? :blink:

Do you have some links to those studies?

Another silly question...whats an SN core?

Does this iron content have a bearing on the amount of iron in the inner solar system? like Mercury to Mars and the Asteroids??
First, SN = supernova. :D Its handy short-hand for those of us who can&#39;t type fast.

Second: Yes, the cores of the inner planets also formed out of iron-rich material that surrounded the collapsed SN core. Or you could say iron meteorites formed out of the iron-rich SN debris close to the pulsar and then accreted to form the cores of the terrestrial planets. ;)

Only a few iron objects remain out there now, so the ratio of iron to stone meteorites has decreased over the Earth&#39;s history. That is recorded in the Earth&#39;s internal layers. ;)

Next. Yes, there is a gradient of increasing iron from the asteroid belt to Mars, to Earth/Venus, to Mercury, to the Sun. :D I understand that there is a similar gradient in the asteroid belt, with the more carbon-rich objects further out and the more iron-rich ones closer in. :rolleyes:

Here&#39;s a link to our paper at the 2001 Lunar & Planetary Science Conference on the Sun&#39;s origin, composition and source of energy:

http://www.umr.edu/~om/lpsc.prn.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/lpsc.ps

Or here&#39;s a more recent link to a paper in which we confirm repulsive n-n interactions and explain in more detail how this explains solar luminosity.

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-n...-neutronrep.pdf (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf)
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.ps

Much of my work stems from a 1936 solar eclipse in Japan. Francis William Aston went there to observe it and gave a lecture attended by an unusually talented 19-year old student, named Kazuo Kuroda. After WWII, the US military relocated Kazuo Kuroda to this country, could not allow him to work in labs on nuclear secrets (we locked up people of Japanese origin during the war), and through a strange sequence of events, "Paul" K. Kuroda became my mentor in 1960.

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com

Guest
2004-Feb-14, 10:02 AM
Any calculations about the universe beginning make no more sense than the calculations of long term forcecasts in meteorology [1]. The light and heavy chemical elements came together in the sudden "firework universe" beginning with as the all-building interaction (matter) unfolded to smaller scales [1]. The proper qualitative understanding should precede any calculations.

1. Savov, E. Theory of Interaction, Geones Books, 2002.

VanderL
2004-Feb-14, 01:24 PM
Clearly, it&#39;s just a matter of time when the first quasar at 13.7 billion lightyears away will be found.
Maybe Fraser should reopen the Cosmology topic again, because the whole Big Bang theory will come under scrutiny again.
Cheers.

VanderL
2004-Feb-14, 08:38 PM
Oliver,

If our Sun is "built" on the core of a supernova remnant, would that mean that every star of the same type is also at heart an SN remnant, or is our Sun unique?
Cheers.

om@umr.edu
2004-Feb-14, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by VanderL@Feb 14 2004, 08:38 PM
Oliver,

If our Sun is "built" on the core of a supernova remnant, would that mean that every star of the same type is also at heart an SN remnant, or is our Sun unique?
Cheers.
:D Hey, that&#39;s a good question&#33;

The short, honest answer is that I don&#39;t know. ;)

I am an experimentalist. :D Thus, my conclusions are limited to objects measured.

Nor do I accept answers from self-appointed "experts", unless their "answers" have an experimental basis. <_< Thus, I am skeptical of many details reported on distant objects and places. <_<

With that disclaimer, I suggest that observations to date

1. Xe-1 is linked with Fe, Ni and S in meteorites, rocky planets, and the Sun,
2. Xe-2 is linked with He, C and Ne in meteorites and in gas planets far from the Sun,
3. Rocky, Earth-like planets are observed orbiting close to pulsar, PSR1257+12,

make it likely that any other star orbited closely by rocky, Earth-like planets was also "built" on the core of a supernova remnant. :rolleyes:

I suspect that the only thing unique about the Sun is its availability for measurements&#33; :D

With kind regards,

Oliver :rolleyes:
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com

VanderL
2004-Feb-14, 11:49 PM
Hmm, I&#39;m not sure I understand, so you argue that stars with rocky planets are the ones that have a supernova remnant at the core, regardless of any other properties of that star?(red giants, white dwarves or pulsars)
Does that also mean that since supernova&#39;s are quite rare, that there are relatively few stars with rocky planets?
Cheers.

om@umr.edu
2004-Feb-15, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by VanderL@Feb 14 2004, 11:49 PM
Hmm, I&#39;m not sure I understand, so you argue that stars with rocky planets are the ones that have a supernova remnant at the core, regardless of any other properties of that star?(red giants, white dwarves or pulsars)
Does that also mean that since supernova&#39;s are quite rare, that there are relatively few stars with rocky planets?
Cheers.
No, I suggest that a star closely obrited by rocky planets is the one most likely to have a supernova remnant at its core. :D

That is just my opinion. It is certainly not hard science&#33; :P

I am rather certain this star (the Sun), closely orbited by rocky planets (consisting of elements made in the deep interior of a supernova), formed on a collapsed supernova core. That conclusion is based measurements over the past 40 years. :rolleyes:

http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

A great paucity of collapsed supernova remnants has been reported in the literature. I suspect many of those are hidden from view in the cores of other stars.

That is just my opinion. It is certainly not hard science&#33; :P

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com

damienpaul
2004-Feb-15, 01:04 AM
It may not be hard science, but it does make sense&#33; well to me anyway.

Can I ask a silly question, about the present structure of the sun, mainly the size and the appeaance like a &#39;textbook&#39; star - was the remnent reheated? I am wondering on what you believe the internal structure of the sun is, particularly from the remnent to the photosphere.

Steve
2004-Feb-15, 03:19 PM
I like the idea that there is something very heavy in the core of the sun. May be some day we will know what it is.

dennishc
2004-Feb-15, 03:42 PM
Congratulations. At last someone using actual Experimental Data to come to conclusions about our Universe. :rolleyes:

If our sun has a SN remnant core, how does this impact the neutrino production model. I assume that a heavy core should screw up the current popular models. :unsure:

The idea that the Universe must start from a sungularity and then experience a magical inflation to expain the observed uniformity of the background radiation has always seemed like a fairy tail to me. :P

om@umr.edu
2004-Feb-15, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by damienpaul@Feb 15 2004, 01:04 AM
It may not be hard science, but it does make sense&#33; well to me anyway.

Can I ask a silly question, about the present structure of the sun, mainly the size and the appeaance like a &#39;textbook&#39; star - was the remnent reheated? I am wondering on what you believe the internal structure of the sun is, particularly from the remnent to the photosphere.

Thanks for the excellent feedback. :D

Yes, the remnant is heated by neutron emission, releasing about 10-22 MeV per neutron emitted.

<n> -> n + 10-22 MeV

The free neutron decays to monoisotopic H-1 in about 10 minutes:

n -> H-1 + anti-neutrino + 0.782 MeV

The H-1 ions are accelerated upward, toward the surface of the Sun. These H+ ions act as a carrier gas, maintaining mass separation in the Sun. About 99% of the H-1 is consumed by fusion on this upward journey.

4 H+ + 2 e- -> He-4 + 2 neutrinos + 27 MeV

Each year 3 x 10^43 H+ ions survive the upward journey and depart in the solar wind:

3 x 10^43 H+ (in the Sun) -> 3 x 10^43 H+ (in the solar wind)

This is explained in more detail in the Journal of Fusion Energy:
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-n...-neutronrep.pdf (http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf)
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.ps

When I get back to my office I will attempt to post a pdf copy of the paper on the Sun&#39;s Core. That was submitted for publication in Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Physics Beyond the Standard Model - BEYOND 2003.

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com

om@umr.edu
2004-Feb-15, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by dennishc@Feb 15 2004, 03:42 PM
Congratulations. At last someone using actual Experimental Data to come to conclusions about our Universe. :rolleyes:

If our sun has a SN remnant core, how does this impact the neutrino production model. I assume that a heavy core should screw up the current popular models. :unsure:

The idea that the Universe must start from a sungularity and then experience a magical inflation to expain the observed uniformity of the background radiation has always seemed like a fairy tail to me. :P
My answer to this excellent question :D is in our new paper, "IS THERE A DEFICIT OF SOLAR NEUTRINOS?". I cannot post the entire paper here, but if you send an e-mail to om@umr.edu I will attach one to my reply. The first part of the paper and the references are below:

Abstract. Measurements on the isotopic and elemental compositions of meteorites, planets, lunar samples, the solar wind, and solar flares since 1960 suggest that the standard solar model may be in error. A new solar model suggests that the observed number of solar neutrinos represents at least 87% of the number generated: There is little if any deficit of solar neutrinos.

In 1936 Francis William Aston, who developed the mass spectrograph for accurate determination of atomic weights and expressed his results in terms of nuclear packing fraction, visited Japan to view a solar eclipse. He presented a special lecture that sparked an unusually talented, 19-year old student’s interest in nuclear and solar studies, Kazuo Kuroda [1]. Kuroda joined the faculty at the University of Tokyo eight years later, moved to the US after the end of WWII, acquired “Paul” as a first name [1], and correctly predicted natural, self-sustaining, uranium fission re-actors in the early history of the Earth [2] and the presence of 244Pu at the birth of the solar system [3].

In 1956 John Reynolds reported the development of a new, high-sensitivity mass spectrometer for noble gases [4], a significant advancement over earlier instruments. Then in 1960, Reynolds reported two astonishing discoveries with his new mass spectrometer:

1. Meteorites contain radiogenic Xe-129 from the in situ decay [5] of extinct 129I.
2. The abundance pattern of the other eight stable isotopes of primordial xenon in meteorites is unlike that of terrestrial xenon [6].

Om, a new graduate student in 1960, was called to the office of Professor Kuroda, shown Reynolds’ startling results [5,6], and persuaded to use isotopic analyses of noble gases in meteorites as the subject of his PhD research. Manuel went to Reynolds’ lab to learn this instrument first hand, but before an instrument could be set up for his graduate work, Fowler et al. [7] concluded that the extinct I-129 in meteorites [5] might have been produced here in the early solar nebula, together with D, Li, Be and B.

Over 40 years of isotope measurements on meteorites, planets, lunar samples, the solar wind, and solar flares since 1960, and advances in understanding systematic trends in values of Aston’s packing fraction for the 2,850 nuclides currently known [8] suggest the following modifications to the earlier conclusion of Fowler et al. [7]:

1. Local element synthesis may have produced, not just the rare isotopes suggested by Fowler et al. [7], but also bulk material of the solar system and imprinted it with a record of linked chemical and isotopic variations across planetary distances [9].
2. Lighter mass elements and the lighter mass isotopes of each element may be enriched at the solar surface. When the photosphere is corrected for this empirical fractionation, the seven most abundant elements in the interior of the Sun seem to be the same ones that comprise 99% of the material in ordinary meteorites. The probability is < 2 x 10^-33 that this agreement is fortuitous [9].
3. Combined Pu/Xe and U,Th/Pb age dating shows our actinide elements were made in a supernova (SN) explosion at the birth of the solar system, about 5 billiuon years ago [10].
4. Neutron emission from the collapsed SN remnant at the solar core produces H-1 at the Sun’s surface, H-1 in the solar wind, and >57% of the Sun’s energy [11]. Solar fusion of this neutron decay product generates <38% of its energy [11].

Table 1 compares the standard solar model [12] (ssm) with the new solar model [11].

References

[ 1] O. K. Manuel, Meteoritics 36 (2001) 1409.
[ 2] P. K. Kuroda, J. Chem. Phys. 25 (1956) 781.
[ 3] P. K. Kuroda, Nature 187 (1960) 36.
[ 4] J. H. Reynolds, Rev. Sci. Instr. 27 (1956) 928.
[ 5] J. H. Reynolds, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4 (1960) 8.
[ 6] J. H. Reynolds, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4 (1960) 351.
[ 7] W. A. Fowler, J. L. Greenstein and F. Hoyle, Am. J. Phys. 29 (1961) 393.
[ 8] J. K. Tuli, Nuclear Wallet Cards (Nat’l Nuclear Data Center, Upton, NY, 2000) 74 pp.
[ 9] O. Manuel and S. Friberg in Proc. SOHO/GONG Conf., ed. H. Lacoste (ESA
Publications Division, SP-517, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 2003) p. 345.
[10] P. K. Kuroda and W. A. Myers, Radiochimica Acta 77 (1997) 15.
[11] O. Manuel, E. Miller and A. Katragada, J. Fusion Energy 20 (2003) 197.
[12] A. Dar and G. Shaviv, Ap. J. 468 (1996) 935.
[13] Q. R. Ahmad et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 011301.

Oliver :D
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om/
http://www.thesunisiron.com/

VanderL
2004-Feb-15, 08:41 PM
Hey, I have the feeling we are witness to something extraordinary here, maybe we should get all the experts together and find out if the Standard model isn&#39;t standard any longer. Kashi, Tinaa, Josh, Fraser, maybe we need a new topic; Debunking the Standard Model (or Debunking the Iron Sun, whatever).
Cheers.

om@umr.edu
2004-Feb-15, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by VanderL@Feb 15 2004, 08:41 PM
Hey, I have the feeling we are witness to something extraordinary here, maybe we should get all the experts together and find out if the Standard model isn&#39;t standard any longer. Kashi, Tinaa, Josh, Fraser, maybe we need a new topic; Debunking the Standard Model (or Debunking the Iron Sun, whatever).
Cheers.
Excellent suggestion&#33; I endorse it&#33; :D

I would even endore "Debunking the Iron Sun" as the topic. :P

The "Iron Sun" is the conclusion to 40+ years of measurements but heck, I will gladly abandon it if there is a better explanation for the observations. I don&#39;t want to make a fool of myself by falling in love with my own ideas. <_<

I have seen that happen to others&#33; :(

I will, however, be out of town most of next week giving lectures. :rolleyes:

But I hope to participate in a forum on this subject when I return.

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om/
http://www.thesunisiron.com/

VanderL
2004-Feb-15, 09:32 PM
Oliver, if there is any more information than the websites you posted please give. I&#39;d like to read up on the topic as much as possible.
Thanks.

om@umr.edu
2004-Feb-16, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by VanderL@Feb 15 2004, 09:32 PM
Oliver, if there is any more information than the websites you posted please give. I&#39;d like to read up on the topic as much as possible.
Thanks.
FOR BACKGROUND INFORMATION, PLEASE GO TO MY WEB SITE.

http://www.umr.edu/~om

THAT HAS BEEN RECENTLY UP-DATED.

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
om@umr.edu

Faulkner
2004-Feb-16, 03:03 PM
Sounds fine, but entertain me, how is the Standard Model jeopardized here, exactly? Oliver has pointed out that there are no "missing" neutrinos - that issue has been resolved?

Also, wouldn&#39;t the interior of a star be progressively denser & denser, into heavier & heavier elements, until...? Perhaps until the atoms become so heavy that they collapse under their own bulk, forming miniature black holes?

Could quasars be supermassive primordial stars that exploded & accreted themselves gravitationally into the familiar galactic disks we see, whirlpooling around a central massive black hole (ie quasar-supernova remnant)?

Is it remotely possibly that the enigmatic gamma-ray bursts we detect are in fact these galaxy-forming quasar explosions?

Could the Big Bang itself have been simply the mightiest of all supernovae, creating the colossal black hole remnant that surrounds us & that we call our "Universe"?

(Sorry fellas, I told you I wanted to be entertained&#33; ;) )

VanderL
2004-Feb-16, 04:55 PM
Sounds fine, but entertain me, how is the Standard Model jeopardized here, exactly? Oliver has pointed out that there are no "missing" neutrinos - that issue has been resolved?

Also, wouldn&#39;t the interior of a star be progressively denser & denser, into heavier & heavier elements, until...? Perhaps until the atoms become so heavy that they collapse under their own bulk, forming miniature black holes?

Could quasars be supermassive primordial stars that exploded & accreted themselves gravitationally into the familiar galactic disks we see, whirlpooling around a central massive black hole (ie quasar-supernova remnant)?

Is it remotely possibly that the enigmatic gamma-ray bursts we detect are in fact these galaxy-forming quasar explosions?

Could the Big Bang itself have been simply the mightiest of all supernovae, creating the colossal black hole remnant that surrounds us & that we call our "Universe"?

What do YOU think?

Cheers.

Faulkner
2004-Feb-16, 05:15 PM
Makes sense to me, but what would I know? :P

Nick4
2004-Feb-17, 08:05 PM
This story rilly confused me i dont know what it is saying. :huh: