PDA

View Full Version : Primordial Stars Frozen Indefinitely by Dark Matter



Fraser
2008-Jun-24, 11:00 PM
It is thought that primordial or "Population III" stars were born in dense clouds of dark matter, 100 million years after the Big Bang. During the period between birth and dark matter depletion, these first stars were effectively but into a "deep freeze" where normal star development was prevented. After this period when all the [...]

More... (http://www.universetoday.com/2008/06/24/primordial-stars-frozen-indefinitely-by-dark-matter/)

antoniseb
2008-Jun-25, 01:53 PM
One thing not mentioned here is how it came to be that there were clumps of dark matter. IF dark matter is mostly neutralinos (lightest supersymmetric particle), then there was a brief time when the universe had lots of supersymmetric particles, inculding ones with 'charge'. It is easy to imagine (by comparison to our world today) that these supersymmetric particles could have formed into dense collections of many-solar mass bodies before decaying into normal matter and neutralinos. The energy of decay could/should have been enough to turn these objects into the clouds of dark matter we think we are observing today.

GOURDHEAD
2008-Jun-25, 01:55 PM
Quoted from th e link:
As the matter became concentrated, non-baryonic particles may have begun annihilating, stopping natural hydrogen fusion (the mechanism commonly associated with star creation). "Normal" stellar evolution was therefore paused and the "dark star" phase began as dark matter annihilation heated the stellar cores. This asserts a thermodynamical interaction between dark matter and baryonic matter of which our instruments are made and suggests that dark matter should not be dark. Also, if the non-baryonic particles, including their antiparticles, were forming and anihilating, there should have been a rich soup of some sort of photonic energy responsible for the thermodynamic interaction with the baryonic matter: i.e., bah humbug!

trinitree88
2008-Jun-25, 04:59 PM
Fraser. As of today there have been no definitive results indicating any of the 17 particles or their 17 antiparticles that are needed to support supersymmetry. Zero for 34, even Jason Varitek came through last night for the BOSOX...but no physicist has ever seen a supersymmetric particle. None. Postulating WIMPS in any form in the early universe is reaching. At one point, they were postulated to be the cause of Bahcall's Solar Neutrino Deficit, but that showed up as expected at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory as an oscillation in the solar neutrinos, most likely due to MSW matter oscillations during their long sojourn through the outer layers of the sun....and as an additional diurnal oscillation of ~ 14% due to the rotation of the lab around the Earth's axis...indicating a bigger effect there than many thought. No WIMPS. Standard Model Particle Physics. The authors of the article have no experimental backup for their conjecture. ..only wishful thinking. pete