PDA

View Full Version : Could the First Stars have been powered by Dark Matter?



Fraser
2008-Feb-14, 12:10 AM
Early stars that began to form about 200 million years after the Big Bang were strange creatures. From observation, the earliest stars (formed from coalescing primordial gas clouds) were not dense enough to support fusion reactions in their cores. Something within the young suns was counteracting the collapsing gas clouds, preventing the core reactions from [...]

More... (http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/13/could-the-first-stars-have-been-powered-by-dark-matter/)

trinitree88
2008-Feb-17, 05:09 PM
Early stars that began to form about 200 million years after the Big Bang were strange creatures. From observation, the earliest stars (formed from coalescing primordial gas clouds) were not dense enough to support fusion reactions in their cores. Something within the young suns was counteracting the collapsing gas clouds, preventing the core reactions from [...]

More... (http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/13/could-the-first-stars-have-been-powered-by-dark-matter/)

Fraser. This is patentedly as absurd a piece of writing as I have ever encountered.
We are to believe that a form of matter exists that is invisible not only to the naked eye, with its' limited range of the electromagentic spectrum, but to every precision engineered piece of equipment that any human being has ever devised, no radio, no microwave, no infrared, no ultraviolet, no x-ray, no gamma ray detector built will see it. However we are also to believe that this invisible material comprises a more significant component of the universe than all the matter that had been studied up to a dozen years ago, including the evanescent-but-yet-detected neutrinos/antineutrinos that still found a way to obey our entire hierarchy of conservation laws. These conservation laws entrain every rational scientists' guiding principles and manifest their completeness in trillions of particle interactions every day and presumably exert their influence over the entire visible universe invariantly...otherwise it will never be understandable.
Now we are to believe that a property of this invisible, undetectable, matter (other than its' gravitational infatuations)..is that it can appear from out of nowhere..(undetectable)...interact with itself in a form of annihilation akin to photons (making it bosons)..rather than with anti-dark matter....and in doing so, will only do this for a selected period in the history of the universe(early on). The "free energy" so generated enables fuel-less fusion-less production of light by early stars....just long enough to warm them up, and in the process actually generates matter (the kind we know) asymmetrically over antimatter (also the kind every particle physicist knows) by an as-yet- undefined, and never-seen, or experimentally corroborated mechanism.
This is absurd. Totally patentedly absurd.
The only way photons can appear, out of an "empty" vacuum...presuming you can be supernatural, and clear it of all neutrinos/ antineutrinos, and of the Zero point radiation...and still mark off the conservation laws is by annihilation of a Z0/anti-Z0 pair...two of Gamow's gravitons, as bosons carry forces. Total mass/energy,electric charge, baryon number, color number, linear and angular momentum, spin, and lepton family number is still conserved.
If you're going to allow the authors to create regular matter this way....congratulations are in order to Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey & Margaret Burbidge, J. Narlikar, and Wickramsinghe.....the world has found their mechanism for the Steady State Hypothesis...protons & electrons are created in the "vacuum". They'll be very happy I'm sure. pete

Ken G
2008-Feb-18, 03:05 AM
My problem with the story is it seems to report several things as established that come as a pretty big surprise to me. Granted, I don't know much about stars 200 million years post-Bang, but I wasn't aware that anybody did. I certainly was not aware that it was an "observed result" that such stars shine, but shine from a state at too low of a temperature (temperature is what matters far more than density) to have p-p fusion. Man, that's an awful lot to know about a class of objects that must be too dim to actually see! Then I was also unaware that "dark matter", whose properties still seem entirely hypothetical other than that they should be of a sufficient mass so as to have a nonrelativistic kinetic energy, is known to have a particular annighilation mode, such that even the branching into various known particles is known in advance of all experimental evidence of same. So what I'm saying is, it is quite hard to evaluate the potential impact of the predictions discussed, as buried as they are in a mountain of pure speculation touted as known physics. Finally, you throw in some issues about density that sound just plain wrong (my goodness the article seems to imply that the matter in the universe came from dark matter initially, but fails to notice its own accounting of the light energy that would require would dwarf the observed CMB), and it is really hard to assess what the claims of these authors really is. But it might be something interesting-- that's about all we can say.

Jerry
2008-Feb-18, 09:18 PM
(Something we don't understand[DM]*(something else we do not understand))=(something we do not have a handle on)^2

dilithium crystals and angels dancing on pinheads, anyone?

trinitree88
2008-Feb-22, 07:03 PM
(Something we don't understand[DM]*(something else we do not understand))=(something we do not have a handle on)^2

dilithium crystals and angels dancing on pinheads, anyone?

Jerry. Angels dance on dilithium crystals....everybody knows that. :shifty:
pete