Widdekind Posted June 27, 2013 Share Posted June 27, 2013 If hot gaseous galactic halo coronae contain multi-million-Kelvin plasma, then why wouldn't such gas undergo fusion, and thereby generate gamma-rays ? Prof. Lawson claims: [math]P \approx 1.4 \times 10^{-34} n^2 T^{1/2} \frac{watts}{cm^3}[/math] [math]L = P V \approx \frac{P V^2 m_H^2}{V m_H^2} watts \approx \frac{ 1.4 \times 10^{-34} M^2 T^{1/2} }{ \frac{4 \pi}{3} R^3 m_H^2 } watts [/math] For galaxy clusters, the estimated fusion luminosity, of the cluster halo gas, could be considerable: [math]\approx 4 \times 10^{11} \left( \frac{ \left( \frac{M}{100 T M_{\odot}} \right)^2 \left( \frac{T}{100 MK}\right)^{1/2} }{ \left( \frac{R}{Mpc} \right)^3 }\right) L_{\odot} [/math] [math]\approx 40 \left( \frac{ \left( \frac{M}{100 T M_{\odot}} \right)^2 \left( \frac{T}{100 MK}\right)^{1/2} }{ \left( \frac{R}{Mpc} \right)^3 }\right) L_{*} [/math] where [math]L_{*} \equiv 10^{11} L_{\odot}[/math] is a characteristic (big, spiral) galaxy luminosity. Prof. Sarazin seems to say, that the total x-ray luminosity, of galaxy cluster halo gas [math]\approx 10^{44.5} \frac{erg}{s} \approx L_{*}[/math]. So, this estimate, for fusion-generated luminosity, could account, for observed luminosities, or even exceed the same. Against this, because collisions in the IGM would be rare, perhaps inter-mediate fusion products (D,T,He-3) would decay back into H, before they re-collided, and fused into He-4 ? Were the fusion to occur, then the mass production rate, of He-4, in galaxy cluster coronae, would be: [math]L \times \frac{m_{He}}{4.23 \times 10^{-12} J} \approx \frac{4 GM_{\odot}}{Gyr}[/math] times all the factors in the parentheses. In the age of the universe (10 Gyr), that translates to [math]\approx 40 G M_{\odot}[/math], implying a metallicity of [math]\frac{4e10}{e14} = 4e-4[/math], which is negligible, and probably allot less than the errors in estimates of cluster halo gas metallicity. Q: does fusion occur, in gaseous galaxy (cluster) coronae ? more simply, our sun converts 10% of its mass to He-4, in 10Gyr. So, 4e11 L_sun ----> 10% x 4e11 M_sun / 10 Gyr = 4e9 M_sun / Gyr oops: L* = 1e10 L_sun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 If hot gaseous galactic halo coronae contain multi-million-Kelvin plasma, then why wouldn't such gas undergo fusion, and thereby generate gamma-rays ? Prof. Lawson claims: [math]P \approx 1.4 \times 10^{-34} n^2 T^{1/2} \frac{watts}{cm^3}[/math] [math]L = P V \approx \frac{P V^2 m_H^2}{V m_H^2} watts \approx \frac{ 1.4 \times 10^{-34} M^2 T^{1/2} }{ \frac{4 \pi}{3} R^3 m_H^2 } watts [/math] I don't see L=PV in the link; L has a different definition. Where does that come from? Isn't that just total energy? Why are you using [math]{ \frac{4 \pi}{3} R^3 [/math] for a shell volume? I don't follow your other calculations at all. It looks like you're using total mass instead of coronal mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Widdekind Posted July 3, 2013 Author Share Posted July 3, 2013 L = luminosity = energy per time P = "luminosity density" = energy per time per volume standardized definitions would be better; if "P" = "power" (J / s), then "P" = "L" = energy per time... for want of worthier symbols, i stuck w/ the "P" from the link, and tossed in "L" from astronomy conceptually, the former is the spatial density of the latter (Power per volume vs. Power total) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hypothetically, if fusion could occur, in diffuse space plasmas; then those plasmas would accumulate the products of fusion, such as D,T. So, those plasmas would not necessarily be "pristine" / "primordial", but would have undergone some fusion phenomena. In some sense, the whole of the universe, is like the inside, of a vast cosmic-scale star, some super-diffuse super-O/B/A super-blue giant. D/T/He3/He4 could have been accumulating therein, for the lifetime of the universe. Observed abundances of such intermediate fusion nuclei need not indicate pristine/primordial/unprocessed abundances, from the Big Bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now