Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

I went back and read BBT papers and I must say the huge amounts of papers supporting the the BBT. Than I tried to look at the evidence supporting the BBT. Not one evidence could stand up without an ad hoc idea supporting it. In my opinion the BBT is on weak foundation.

Pluto,

You are welcome to your opinion. Excuse us if not all of the rest of us agree with you.

maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Picking one point

This would be a very simple exe[r]cise to prove one way or another

Pluto,

Excuse me, what is a "sharmon medium" ???

And even knowing that "how" would that be a very simple "execise" to prove one way or another ???

maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

One of the main triggers of a supernova is the photodisintegration of Fe and similar elements to He than H than Protons than ... This process is well documented.

Pluto,

Kinda hard to follow your English.

First off, a Supernova ignites when Silicon (Si) is converted to Iron (Fe) -- often called the Silicon Flash. This is such a powerful process that most of the Silicon is converted in a few seconds (or less). Yes, the full process is well documented in any book on Nucleosynthesis (common grad course in Astrophysics).

Nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fusion: Nucleosynthesis
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/c...&filetype=.pdf
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start...61j2Utc7pK4-5w



maddog

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Pluto

But! till this date I cannot understand how the Big Bang Theory became the standard model. Not only that people who think along the lines of the BBT find it offensive that anybody should think differently. It must be Human Nature.

For Human Nature ... maybe yes, maybe no.

What is universal is anyone telling one how they "should" believe. On that note I would agree, it can be annoying. For myself, I would you are welcome to your beliefs. They are yours, anyway.

maddog

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by CraigD

That a black hole is losing mass it already had is exactly what Hawking radiation predicts. Unlike the more common kinds of radiation associated with black holes, which are produced mainly by thermal glowing of their disks of infalling matter, Hawking radiation is predicted to occur even if the black hole is surrounded by no matter or light at all.

Thanks for the correction Craig. I believe I was confusing the two.

[Pluto]

G'day maddog

I'm fully awear of most of the element formations within and outer envelope of the Stars.

The question is this:

Where does the Neutrons come from to form the Neutron star?

That would also answer the mechansim.

Also forgive my English, in actual fact its not my English the problem, its my dislexia. That's life.

Moderation Note: The subsequent discussion regarding the origin of neutrons in neutron stars has been moved to Where do the Neutrons come from to form the Neutron star?

[modest]

Originally Posted by CraigD

While I can find no theoretical or observational support for Pluto’s idea that neutron stars or black holes just spit degenerate matter out in their disks and jets, I find the question of what would happen if you could remove degenerate matter from a super-dense object like a neutron star an interesting one. Once it is no longer part of a large mass, a lump of matter like neutronium is essentially the enormous nucleus of a nameless unstable element, and should fission like mad. Would it emit free neutrons, which would each beta decay in about 1 minute to produce an atom of hydrogen, or would it do something more exotic? The question is way over my head.

Yeah!

I propose... The free neutrons would decay to protons and electrons—a process that would only be stopped by the formation of deuterium which could capture free neutrons before they decay. The decay of free neutrons will happen at an energy too high for protons and neutrons to combine forming deuterium, so... Depending on how quickly it's allowed to cool (or how quickly it's pulled out of the gravity well, I suppose), you'd either end up with pure hydrogen (if all the neutrons are allowed to decay) or some combination of hydrogen and helium.

While I have no (well, virtually no) understanding of the physics needed to come to this conclusion, I do recognize the situation is indistinguishable from big bang nucleosynthesis.

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

Which has, of course, been well-modeled. We stand on the shoulders of giants

Originally Posted by Pluto

Where does the Neutrons come from to form the Neutron star?

If you squeeze a proton and an electron together tight-enough you will get a neutron. This is called electron capture. According to wikipedia... that's what happens.

Neutron degeneracy is analogous to electron degeneracy and is demonstrated in neutron stars, which are supported by the pressure from a degenerate neutron gas. This happens when a stellar core above 1.44 solar masses (the Chandrasekhar limit) collapses and is not halted by the degenerate electrons. As the star collapses, the Fermi energy of the electrons increases to the point where it is energetically favorable for them to combine with protons to produce neutrons (via inverse beta decay, also termed "neutralization" and electron capture). The result of this collapse is an extremely compact star composed of nuclear matter, which is dominantly a degenerate neutron gas, sometimes called neutronium, with a small admixture of degenerate proton and electron gases.

Degenerate matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

~modest

[maddog]

Originally Posted by REASON

Sorry, pluto, but you're barking up a tree with this one.

And a Wrong tree at that.

maddog

[line]

I predict that the Big Bang will be forgotten oen huundred years from now. You want to bet?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by line

I predict that the Big Bang will be forgotten oen huundred years from now. You want to bet?

Sure, I'll also bet you that neither of us will be around in one hundred years.