pantheory Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Although Big Bang neucleosynthesis theory is considered successful in explaining the observed abundance of helium in the universe, it has had problems explaining other elements and isotopes such as deuterium and Lithium. This new study seems to indicated that new Lithium is being created by stellar black holes which would additionally confound the observed lithium shortfall with theory. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/342395/title/Black_hole_theory_deepens_lithium_crisis 1
David Levy Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) In the article it is stated: "But Fabio Iocco, a physicist at Sweden's Stockholm University, has proposed the opposite: a potential lithium factory,in the form of relatively small black holes weighing in at an average of five solar masses. As some of these black holes drain materialfrom a companion star, the sucked-in material forms a swirling, donut-shapedring. Iocco calculated that the swirling mass ends up being hot enough — more than 10 billion degrees Celsius — to ignite nuclear fusion and synthesize large amounts of lithium". As we all know, in the core of the milky way there is a supper massive black hole. It's mass is more than millions solar masses. So if a black hole of five solar masses could generate more than 10 billion degrees Celsius,what kind of energy this supper massive black hole would have??? Is there a chance that this ultra high power could generate new matter??? Based the knowledge gained from the accelerator in Europe: Wikipedia - "in November2010 reported that ATRAP group could develop a new method for producing anti-atoms - hydrogen. Method is based on the slowing down of anti-particles -protons and uniting with slow positrons." Just as the scientists were able to produce anti-matter in this man made accelerator, the nature might managed it a little better. It could generate newmass in the ultimate accelerator of nature - the nucleus of an active galaxy. Do you agree? Edited July 20, 2012 by David Levy
imatfaal Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 In the article it is stated: "But Fabio Iocco, a physicist at Sweden's Stockholm University, has proposed the opposite: a potential lithium factory,in the form of relatively small black holes weighing in at an average of five solar masses. As some of these black holes drain materialfrom a companion star, the sucked-in material forms a swirling, donut-shapedring. Iocco calculated that the swirling mass ends up being hot enough — more than 10 billion degrees Celsius — to ignite nuclear fusion and synthesize large amounts of lithium". As we all know, in the core of the milky way there is a supper massive black hole. It's mass is more than millions solar masses. So if a black hole of five solar masses could generate more than 10 billion degrees Celsius,what kind of energy this supper massive black hole would have??? Is there a chance that this ultra high power could generate new matter??? Based the knowledge gained from the accelerator in Europe: Wikipedia - "in November2010 reported that ATRAP group could develop a new method for producing anti-atoms - hydrogen. Method is based on the slowing down of anti-particles -protons and uniting with slow positrons." Just as the scientists were able to produce anti-matter in this man made accelerator, the nature might managed it a little better. It could generate newmass in the ultimate accelerator of nature - the nucleus of an active galaxy. Do you agree? David - I think, and I stand to be corrected here, that the reason that small black holes can give rise to such great heat is the small physical size (and thus low orbital radius of debris) and the intense gravitational gradient. The conservation of angular momentum means that most matter falling towards a small black hole will end up in very fast orbit around the black hole - the speeds reached are enormously high and it is these vast speeds and the energies involved that in the end give rise to the high temperatures. Super-massive black holes on the other hand will have matter falling in on a slower and wider orbit and whilst the final stages close to EH could get fast and hot the general setup is slower.
pantheory Posted July 20, 2012 Author Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) David - I think, and I stand to be corrected here, that the reason that small black holes can give rise to such great heat is the small physical size (and thus low orbital radius of debris) and the intense gravitational gradient. The conservation of angular momentum means that most matter falling towards a small black hole will end up in very fast orbit around the black hole - the speeds reached are enormously high and it is these vast speeds and the energies involved that in the end give rise to the high temperatures. Super-massive black holes on the other hand will have matter falling in on a slower and wider orbit and whilst the final stages close to EH could get fast and hot the general setup is slower. David, I agree with imatfaal in that the related theorists would probably see more problems with similar creation mechanisms from galactic sized black holes. Some of the most active are called AGN, and are thought to be akin to quasars. Seemingly these black holes would be bright enough and with a high enough temperature to enable torus fusion providing the power for galactic jets. In this case I believe it would be more of hydrogen fusion into helium than any other type of fusion such as helium fusion into lithium. The creation of completely new matter surrounding galactic black holes was one of the Steady State model proposals. Hawking, to a small degree, proposed Hawking radiation of new matter. Evidence for the creation of anti-matter from such a process might be the huge gamma ray bubbles seen above the polar regions of the Milky Way. If such a creation mechanism processes surrounds galactic central black holes then it can extend just so far before positrons would encounter electrons and would be eventually annihilated producing gamma rays, which might explain the observed gamma ray bubbles. We know how to create anti-protons here on Earth but storage systems so far cannot protect them. If or when we might ever invent a long-lived storage system for anti-matter, and produce anti-protons at much lower costs, then a new age of space travel would seem a lot closer. // Edited July 20, 2012 by pantheory
David Levy Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) Great replies. Thank you both. To imatfaal: 1. Super-massive black holes vs high temperature - I assume that you can agree with me that in the same orbital radius, the supper massive black hole will generate much, much, much more energy and temp than small black hole. 2. Matter falling to the supper massive black hole - Why the science estimate that the matter is falling in? Is there a possibility that the matter is moving outwards??? If so, this is a pure evidence for matter creation!!! To Pantheory: 1."The creation of completely new matter surrounding galactic black holeswas one of the Steady State model proposals". Wow, at last, I'm not alone with this idea... I estimate that somehow thereis a mechanism in the nature which generates new matter. 2. "Some of the most active are called AGN, and are thought to be akin to quasars". In wikipedia it is stated: "In observational there is a clear connection between brightness quasar and the rate of star formation in the central areas of the galaxy. (due to a huge mass of black hole). Models and simulations computerized successful recent restore these relationships, while out in the course and go the enormous importance of physics quasars in the creation and evolution of galaxies. So, There is an activity for star forming in quasar. Hence, this might be an indication that the matter is moving outwards... hence, an indication for new matter... 3. "I believe it would be more of hydrogen fusion into helium than any other type of fusion such as helium fusion into lithium". Why? If the temperature and the energy is high enough, why it is not possible to fusion of any kind molecules or atoms? 4. "We know how to create anti-protons here on Earth but storage systems so far cannot protect them" So we don't know how to create a proton or atom. But, what isa chance that the nature had found the correct formula how to do it better than us??? Edited July 20, 2012 by David Levy
pantheory Posted July 21, 2012 Author Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) Great replies. Thank you both. To imatfaal: 1. Super-massive black holes vs high temperature - I assume that you can agree with me that in the same orbital radius, the supper massive black hole will generate much, much, much more energy and temp than small black hole. 2. Matter falling to the supper massive black hole - Why the science estimate that the matter is falling in? Is there a possibility that the matter is moving outwards??? If so, this is a pure evidence for matter creation!!! To Pantheory: 1."The creation of completely new matter surrounding galactic black holes was one of the Steady State model proposals". Wow, at last, I'm not alone with this idea... I estimate that somehow there is a mechanism in the nature which generates new matter. The first well-known proposal of the creation of new matter was by Paul Dirac in his large numbers hypothesis. He proposed two different possible mechanisms of such creation in the framework of an expanding universe, to maintain a constant density. He proposed a process called "Additive creation" which generally involved new matter creation everywhere at a constant rate, and the second mechanism was called "Multiplicative creation" where most matter would accordingly be created surrounding the centers of active galaxies. In the decade that followed, Hoyle and others proposed Steady State cosmologies and would adopt/ propose variations of Dirac's matter creation mechanisms as well as some of his math. http://adsabs.harvar...RSPSA.343..155G 2. "Some of the most active are called AGN, and are thought to be akin to quasars". In wikipedia it is stated: "In observational there is a clear connection between brightness quasar and the rate of star formation in the central areas of the galaxy. (due to a huge mass of black hole). Models and simulations computerized successful recent restore these relationships, while out in the course and go the enormous importance of physics quasars in the creation and evolution of galaxies. So, There is an activity for star forming in quasar. Hence, this might be an indication that the matter is moving outwards... hence, an indication for new matter... 3. "I believe it would be more of hydrogen fusion into helium than any other type of fusion such as helium fusion into lithium". Why? If the temperature and the energy is high enough, why it is not possible to fusion of any kind molecules or atoms? 4. "We know how to create anti-protons here on Earth but storage systems so far cannot protect them" So we don't know how to create a proton or atom. But, what isa chance that the nature had found the correct formula how to do it better than us??? So, There is an activity for star forming in quasar. Hence, this might be an indication that the matter is moving outwards... hence, an indication for new matter... Yes, there have been a number of such proposals but all that I know of come from non-mainstream theorists. The reason is the the standard model proposes generally no new creation of matter and seemingly would have no motivation to do so. The so-called evidence to support such proposals are observed galactic clouds moving out from the center of the Milky Way galaxy, and the vast gamma ray bubble/ tiers above the polar regions of the galaxy, which some have proposed are the origins of new matter creation, specifically the indications of anti-matter/ positron creation. The mainstream explanation is that these tiers are remnants of resent galactictic jets. Why? If the temperature and the energy is high enough, why it is not possible to fusion of any kind molecules or atoms? Fusions of helium from hydrogen seems totally feasible to me surrounding galactic black holes but such speculation is beyond the scope of the article presented in a number of different ways. So we don't know how to create a proton or atom. But, what is a chance that the nature had found the correct formula how to do it better than us??? This would be a Steady-State cosmology proposal/ argument You might wish to read further about Paul Dirac's Large Numbers hypothesis where such conceived new-matter creation mechanisms are discussed in detail. Also realize that this is unrelated to present day Big Bang cosmology. // Edited July 21, 2012 by pantheory
David Levy Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) Thanks Please also refer to the following articale: http://www.jstor.org...=50235900154377 PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting ofthe Philosophy of Science Association © 1994 Philosophyof Science Association Abstract: We analyseaspects of the Big Bang program in modern cosmology, with special focus on thestrategies employed by its adherents both in defending the theory againstanomalous data and in dismissing rival accounts. We illustrate this bycritically examining four aspects of Big Bang cosmology: the interpretation ofthe cosmic red-shift, the explanation of the cosmic background radiation, theinflation hypothesis and the search for dark matter. We conclude that the Big Bang's dominance of contemporary cosmology is not justified by the degree of experimental support it receives relative to rival theories. So, the big bang theory might be a speculation... I fully support the steady state theory (which I called: updated steady state) and can explain how it works. The key element in supporting my theory is as follow: In an active galaxy the stars have an orbit disc cycle around the core. Can we verify if the stars are shifting inwards or outwards? If the stars are shifting outwards, this is a full evidence that the supper massive black hole generates new matter!!!! I have written full article and presentation about it. Neverthe less, It's too long for this site. s Edited July 21, 2012 by David Levy
pantheory Posted July 21, 2012 Author Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) David Levy, Yes there have been a great number of dissenters to the general BB model, and many present-day alternative theorists expect that the BB model will be replaced in the next couple of decades. This, however, is not the place in the forum to discuss what one thinks about the BB model. This is the news section of the forum and the subject of this thread is based upon the BB nucleosynthesis problem as it relates to Lithium abundances and its scarcity compared to BB nucleosynthesis predictions. Edited July 21, 2012 by pantheory
Recommended Posts