Cover photo
David Carlson


David Carlson

Shared publicly  - 
The shape gives it away:

What if macroscopic euhedral, almandine garnet crystals in schist and quartzite (in the absence of other pegmatites) are due to their spherical symmetry, whereby almandine garnets grow by crystallization in aqueous suspension over hot hydrothermal vents (trapped by the Bernoulli effect on their nearly-spherical shapes) in the microgravity of Kuiper belt object (KBO) internal oceans over authigenic gneiss-dome cores, mantled by concentric layers of authigenic hydrothermal quartzite, carbonate rock and schist?
Almandine Locality: Biotite Crystal Prospect, Topsham, Sagadahoc County, Maine, USA Size: small cabinet, 8 x 6 x 4 cm Almandine Garnet These garnets, rare from the locale, are razor sharp and stereotypic exmaples of the species. This piece features several...
1 comment on original post
Add a comment...

David Carlson

Shared publicly  - 
Bok globules are more efficient at condensing stars than astrophysicists:

Problem: Why are low-mass stars expelled from star clusters containing younger larger Herbig–Haro–object protostars?

Gee, that fits exactly with my alternative ideology that small stars are the progenitors of the largest stars in any star cluster (formed from the same Bok globule).  (Proviso: higher mass stars evolve faster than small stars, so the larger younger progeny may still overtake their smaller, older progenitors in the race to the main sequence.)

In a collapsing cloud, the greatest hang up is angular momentum, which astrophysicists attempt to dissipate with their favorite go-to mechanism of 'gradualism', which I suggest is the primary stumbling block of cosmology (galaxy formation, star formation and dark matter), planetary science (planet, comet and minor planet formation) and geology (particularly gneiss domes and granite plutons).  NATURE CHOOSES CATASTROPHISM OVER GRADUALISM.

'Flip-flop–fragmentation' (TRADING PLACES):
The fastest and most efficient means of getting rid of angular momentum is to fragment a vastly-larger circumferential accretion disk (supported by angular momentum), surrounding a smaller progenitor 'second core', by 'flip-flopping' or TRADING PLACES  with it.  So rather than gradually transferring the angular momentum outward by viscous friction by the inefficient astrophysicist method, resulting in a slow, steady infall of gas, the massive toroidal-shaped disk suddenly 'fragments', catastrophically coalescing into a single mass which centrifugally displaces the smaller progenitor core into a satellite status to become the next-generation stellar core.  (Effectively, flip-flop fragmentation creates successive stellar generations composed of bigger and bigger Baby Hueys).

So the older, smaller progenitor stars are given an angular momentum boost by their larger younger progeny in the stellar formation mechanism I designate, 'flip-flop–fragmentation'.
The dynamic (and messy) process of star birth

A new Gemini Observatory image reveals the remarkable “fireworks” that accompany the birth of stars. The image captures in unprecedented clarity the fascinating structures of a gas jet complex emanating from a stellar nursery at supersonic speeds. The striking new image hints at the dynamic (and messy) process of star birth. Researchers believe they have also found a collection of runaway (orphan) stars that result from all this activity.

Full story here:

More on Herbig–Haro (HH) objects

More on stellar kinematics:

Image credit: The HH 24 jet complex emanates from a dense cloud core that hosts a small multiple protostellar system known as SSV63. The nebulous star to the south is the visible T Tauri star SSV59. Gemini Observatory/AURA/B. Reipurth, C. Aspin, T. Rector

#science #astronomy #astrophysics  #herbigharoobject #starbirth  #starformation #hh24   #space  
15 comments on original post
Add a comment...

David Carlson

Shared publicly  - 
A ghost Planet X in the form of a former binary brown-dwarf Companion to the Sun that spiraled in and merged at 542 Ma in an asymmetrical merger that gave the Companion escape velocity from the Sun, and which aligned the major axes of the planets and planetesimals, may prove even harder to find than searching for dark matter in all the wrong places.
Add a comment...

David Carlson

Shared publicly  - 
Let's see, if the "enclosed mass of the observable universe increases with the radius cubed", whereas "the Schwarzschild radius increases linearly with mass", then at some point, the growing mass would seem to win, forming a Schwarzschild radius inside the observable universe.  

But what does that mean?  Would a Schwarzschild radius within the observable unviverse (eventually) halt the outward expansion of matter, causing it to begin to contract?

The idea of a periodic Big Sneeze vs. a solitary Big Bang is existentially attractive, where our universe periodically gets compressed to a certain point before rebounding in a Big Sneeze to its Schwarzschild radius.  I guess the recent detection of a 'neutrino background'  has put a lower limit on the compression of a Big Sneeze.

Let's see, the appearance of a Schwarzschild radius within the observable universe would seem to preclude expansion beyond the radius, but without halting the present rate of expansion; however every point of space would seem to have its own Schwarzschild radius, eventually squishing all matter and energy onto the event horizon surface at the Schwarzschild radius at the point of 'heat death', but that even make sense?
Are We Living In A Black Hole

Here’s an idea, what if the universe and everything we see around us is actually inside a black hole?

Whenever I’m asked this question, what folks typically have in mind is that the universe began as an infinitely dense point, just like the singularity of a black hole, and because of cosmic expansion there’s a limit to how far we can observe, so maybe that’s like the event horizon. While it’s an interesting idea, things aren’t quite so simple.

To begin with, the universe did not begin with an explosion from a single point. It was definitely very hot and dense in its early period, but it didn’t begin as a singularity. In fact there is debate whether black holes themselves have singularities. So while there are similarities between the two, we can’t simply equate them.

The limit of what we observe (the size of the observable universe) also doesn’t match up with the hypothetical event horizon of a “cosmic” black hole. For any mass you can calculate what is known as the Schwarzschild radius, which is the radius of a simple black hole of that mass. The mass of the observable universe is on the order of 10^54 kg, which gives a Schwarzschild radius about 5 times larger than that of the observable universe.

So maybe we’re just in a really big black hole, and we just see a part of it. Not really. Just because you can calculate a Schwarzschild radius that doesn’t mean an object is a black hole. Even if the Schwarzschild radius encloses all of your mass, it still isn’t necessarily a black hole. On a basic level the density of the observable universe is pretty uniform. If you don’t worry about cosmic expansion, then the radius of the observable universe increases at the speed of light with age, so the total mass of the observable increases with time. This is true in an expanding universe as well, but that’s a different story. The thing is, the Schwarzschild radius increases linearly with mass, but the enclosed mass of the observable universe increases with the radius cubed. As the observable universe increases over time, then the Schwarzschild radius eventually grows faster than the radius of the observable universe.

For a true black hole you can’t just calculate its size. You have to look at the overall structure. Our universe isn’t collapsing in on itself, it’s expanding at an ever increasing rate. So it doesn’t have the necessary structure to be the interior of a black hole. But there are some models that do propose that our universe was formed by the black hole of another universe. These models are very speculative, but generally propose that the super-dense interior of a black hole could create a “baby universe” that expands to become its own universe. Technically you could say this new universe is “in” the black hole that spawned it, but because of the bendable nature of space and time that’s not particularly meaningful. The new universe would in no way be limited by the size of the black hole, and would exist on its own once it formed.

So it’s an interesting idea to speculate about, but there is no evidence to support the idea that our universe is in a black hole.
Here's an idea, what if the universe and everything we see around us is actually inside a black hole?
118 comments on original post
Add a comment...

David Carlson

Shared publicly  - 
Outstanding writeup!

A good writeup leaves you wanting to know more, like what happens to the potential energy difference between a gram of iron and a gram of hydrogen gas crossing an event horizon.  At some point, inside or outside the event horizon depending on the size of the black hole, would tidal gravity be sufficient to tear the iron nuclei apart, absorbing energy (black-hole mass) in so doing?  Or alternatively, would hydrogen gas release energy in being converted to a neutron-star state followed by a quark-star state followed by what?

And how can black holes be charged, if the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light?  Isn't charge mediated by electromagnetic photons?

If two photons are entangled and only one gets sucked into a black hole, what happens to the entangled state?
Black Holes Tell No Tales. Or Do They?

You’ve just committed the perfect crime. No one saw you do the crime, and you left no trace. The perfect crime. The only way anyone could prove you did it is by finding the journal of your master plan. Get rid of the journal, and you are scot free. You want to be absolutely, 100% certain that the information it contains is permanently destroyed. Suppose you toss your journal into a black hole. Would that destroy all traces of your plan?

The answer to this hypothetical scenario lies at the heart of the information paradox. Stated more generally, the paradox raises the question: can information be destroyed? The question is important because it strikes at the very heart of what science is. Through science we develop theories about how the universe works. These theories describe certain aspects of the universe. In other words they contain information about the universe. Our theories are not perfect, but as we learn more about the universe, we develop better theories, which contain more and more accurate information about the universe. Presumably the universe is driven by a set of ultimate physical laws, and if we can figure out what those are, then we could in principle know everything there is to know about the universe. If this is true, then anything that happens in the universe contains a particular amount of information. For example, the motion of the Earth around the Sun depends on their masses, the distance between them, their gravitational attraction, and so on. All of that information tells us what the Earth and Sun are doing.

In the last century, it’s become clear that information is at the heart of reality. For example, the second law of thermodynamics. In its simplest form it can be summarized as “heat flows from hot objects to cold objects”. But the law is more useful when it is expressed in terms of entropy. In this way it is stated as “the entropy of a system can never decrease.” Many people interpret entropy as the level of disorder in a system, or the unusable part of a system. But entropy is really about the level of information you need to describe a system. An ordered system (say, marbles evenly spaced in a grid) is easy to describe because the objects have simple relations to each other. On the other hand, a disordered system (marbles randomly scattered) take more information to describe, because there isn’t a simple pattern to them. So when the second law says that entropy can never decrease, it is saying that the physical information of a system cannot decrease. What began as a theory of heat has become a theory about information.

Is Information Conserved?

It’s generally thought that information can’t be destroyed because of some basic physical principles. The first is a principle known as determinism. If you throw a baseball in a particular direction at a particular speed, you can figure out where it’s going to land. Just determine the initial speed and direction of the ball, then use the laws of physics to predict what its motion will be. The ball doesn’t have any choice in the matter. Once it leaves your hand it will land in a particular spot. Its motion is determined by the physical laws of the universe. Everything in the universe is driven by these physical laws, so if we have an accurate description of what is happening right now, we can always predict what will happen later. The future is determined by the present.

The second principle is known as reversibility. Given the speed and direction of the ball as it hits the ground, we can use physics to trace its motion backwards to know where it came from. By observing the ball now, we can know from where the ball was thrown. The same applies for everything in the universe. By observing the universe today we can know what happened billions of years ago. The present is predicated by the past.

These two principles are just a precise way of saying the universe is predictable, but it also means information must be conserved. If the state of the present universe is determined by the past, then the past must have contained all the information of the present universe. Likewise, if the future is determined by the present, then the present must contain all the information of the future universe. If the universe is predictable, then information must be conserved.

Now you might be wondering about quantum mechanics. All that weird physics about atoms and such. Isn’t the point of quantum mechanics that things aren’t predictable? Not quite. In quantum mechanics, individual outcomes might not be predictable, but the odds of those outcomes are predictable. It’s kind of like a casino. They don’t know which particular players will win or lose, but they know very precisely what percentage will lose, so the casino will always make money. The baseball example was one of classical, everyday determinism. To include quantum mechanics we need a more general, probabilistic determinism known as quantum determinism, but the result is still the same. Information is conserved.

So what about black holes?

At first glance it would seem that black holes destroy information. If you toss an object into a black hole, the object (and all its physical information) is lost forever. It is as if the information of the object was erased, which would violate the basic principle that information cannot be destroyed. Now you might argue that being trapped is not the same thing as being destroyed, but for information it is. If you cannot recover the information, then it has been destroyed. So it would seem that black holes “eat” information, even though the laws of physics say that shouldn’t be possible. This is known as the black hole information paradox.

But it turns out things are actually more subtle. In general relativity, once a black hole forms it exists forever. If more matter is thrown into it, it can grow larger, but it never goes away. This is important, because if black holes live forever they don’t actually destroy information. Since time is relative things get a bit strange. For example, if you were to toss your crime journal into a black hole, how long would it take to reach the event horizon? From the journal’s perspective, it will cross the event horizon and enter the black hole in a finite amount of time, but from the outside observer’s view the event horizon is never reached. Instead the journal appears to get ever closer at an ever slower pace. Any outside observer will see the time of the falling journal get slower and slower as the black hole warps spacetime more and more. From the outside it appears that the journal never quite enters the black hole, and so its information is never lost.

But suppose we took an object and compressed it into a black hole.  According to general relativity, a black hole has three measurable properties: mass, rotation (angular momentum), and charge. That’s it. If you know those three things, you know all there is to know about the black hole. So a black hole is much simpler than other massive objects such as planets, stars and the like. It would therefore seem to have less information. If you think about an object like the Sun, it has a certain chemical composition, and it’s giving off light with different wavelengths having varying intensities. There are sunspots, solar flares, convection flows that create granules, and the list goes on. The Sun is a deeply complex object that we have yet to fully understand. The Sun contains a tremendous amount of information. And yet, if our Sun were compressed into a black hole, all that information would be reduced to mass, rotation and charge. All that information is lost forever.

But perhaps information can be saved by quantum theory. In the 1970s Stephen Hawking showed that one of the consequences of quantum theory is that black holes cannot hold matter forever. Instead, black holes can leak mass in the form of light and particles through a process known as Hawking radiation. While Stephen Hawking’s clever bit of mathematics describing this effect is pretty straightforward, interpreting the mechanism is less clear. One way of looking at it is that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (which gives quantum theory its fuzzy behavior) means that virtual quantum particles can briefly appear in the vacuum of space, then then quickly disappear. In the normal, everyday world, these particles average out to zero, so we never notice them. But near the event horizon of a black hole, some of these virtual particles could cross the event horizon before disappearing, which decreases the mass (energy) of the black hole and allows other virtual particles to become “real” and radiate energy away. Another view is that the inherent fuzziness of quantum particles means you can never be absolutely certain that it is inside the event horizon. Although a particle cannot escape the black hole by crossing the event horizon, it could find itself outside the black hole through a kind of quantum tunneling.

Since a “quantum” black hole emits heat and light, it therefore has a temperature. This means black holes are subject to the laws of thermodynamics. Integrating general relativity, quantum mechanics and thermodynamics into a comprehensive description of black holes is quite complicated, but the basic properties can be expressed as a fairly simple set of rules known as black hole thermodynamics. Essentially these are the laws of thermodynamics re-expressed in terms of properties of black holes. As with regular thermodynamics, the entropy of a black hole system cannot decrease. One consequence of this is that when two black holes merge, the surface area of the merged event horizon must be greater than the surface areas of the original black holes. But remember that thermodynamics and entropy are a way to describe the information of a system. Because black holes have entropy, they also contain information beyond the simple mass, rotation, charge. Perhaps the information isn’t destroyed after all!

Unfortunately there’s a snag. Just like any quantum process, Hawking radiation is probabilistically determined. But it’s determined by the basic properties of the black hole. According to Hawking’s original theory, when a black hole evaporates, it evaporates into a random mix of light and matter. Not just “kind of” random, like tossing a dice, but truly random. This eliminates any possibility of recovering information from a black hole. So it would seem Hawking radiation also destroys information.

But several people have looked at modifications to Hawking’s model that would allow information to escape. For example, because Hawking’s quantum particles appear in pairs, they are “entangled” (connected in a quantum way). Perhaps you can used this quantum connection to give the information a way to escape. It turns out that to allow Hawking radiation to carry information out of the black hole, the entangled connection between particle pairs must be broken at the event horizon, so that the escaping particle can instead be entangled with the information-carrying matter within the black hole. This breaking of the original entanglement would make the escaping particles appear as an intense “firewall” at the surface of the event horizon. This would mean that anything falling toward the black hole wouldn’t make it into the black hole. Instead it would be vaporized by Hawking radiation when it reached the event horizon. This is known as the firewall paradox.

It would seem then that either the physical information of an object is lost when it falls into a black hole (information paradox) or objects are vaporized before entering a black hole (firewall paradox). Basically these ideas strike at the heart of the contradiction between general relativity and quantum theory.

Can Hawking save us?

This brings us to Stephen Hawking, and all the hullabaloo about his announcement that he’s solved the information paradox. Has he? The truth is we don’t know, but probably not. Hawking knows his stuff, but so do lots of other folks who have been working on this problem for years with less media attention. So far no one has been able to crack this nut. Hawking also hasn’t released a formal paper yet. So not only is his idea not peer reviewed, it’s not even public. Until we see the details there will be more speculation than facts.

But we do know a few things about the idea, and one interesting aspect is the fact that it’s not a quantum model. It actually draws upon the ideas of thermodynamics. Time for a little history.

In the late 1800s Ludwig Boltzmann proposed that the properties of a gas, such as its temperature and pressure, were due to the the motion and interactions of atoms and molecules. This had several advantages. For example, the hotter a gas, the faster the atoms and molecules would bounce around, therefore temperature was a measure of the kinetic (moving) energy of the atoms. The pressure of a gas is due to the atoms and molecules bouncing off the walls of the container. If the gas is heated, the atoms move faster and bounce off the container walls harder and more frequently. This explains why the pressure of an enclosed gas increases when you heat it.

Boltzmann’s kinetic theory not only explained how heat, work and energy are connected, it also gave a clear definition of entropy. The pressure, temperature and volume of a gas is known as the state of the gas. Since these are determined by the positions and speeds of all the atoms or molecules in the gas, Boltzmann called these the microstate of the gas (the state of all the microscopic particles). For a given state of the gas, there are lots of ways the atoms could be moving and bouncing around. As long as the average motion of all the atoms is about the same, then the pressure, temperature and volume of the gas will be the same. This means there are lots of equivalent microstates for a given state of the gas.

But how do equivalent microstates relate to heat flowing from hot to cold? Imagine an ice cube in a cup of warm water. The water molecules in the ice cube are frozen in a crystal structure. This structure is pretty rigid, so there aren’t a lot of ways for the water molecules to move. This means the number of equivalent microstates is rather small. As the ice melts the crystal structure breaks down, and the water molecules are much more free to move. This means there are many more equivalent microstates for water than for ice. So heat flows into the ice, which increases the number of equivalent microstates, so the entropy of the system increases. The second law of thermodynamics applies both ways.

The idea of equivalent microstates can be applied to general relativity through an idea known as degenerate vacuua. The region outside a black hole (the vacuum) is the same for a black hole with a particular mass, rotation and charge. But lots of things could have gone into making the black hole, from stars to old issues of National Geographic. A black hole made of hydrogen, or neutrons, or iron all look the same from the outside, so we could say that each type of black hole is a microstate, and thus all the different ways we could make a black hole are therefore equivalent microstates. Or in general relativity terms, their exteriors are degenerate vacua.

These different vacua are related by a type of symmetry relation known as BCS symmetry, or supertranslations. What Hawking seems to be saying is that these supertranslations can be used to connect the information inside a black hole with the outside world. Basically, these degnenerate vacua bias the Hawking radiation so that it isn’t random. That way the information can escape without creating a firewall. If the idea works, then it might solve the information paradox. But even the little information released about the work has raised some serious doubts from other experts. It seems to be based upon an idealized black hole that doesn’t match real black holes, and it might not work even then. Either way, it’s up for Hawking and his colleagues to prove their case.

So we still don’t know whether black holes tell no tales.

If you’ve made it this far, congratulations. This is a deeply complex topic, and while I’ve done my best to explain what I understand about it, I won’t claim to be an authority. Fortunately lots of other scientists have written about it as well. For a few good summaries check out Sabine Hossenfelder, Ethan Siegel, and Matt Strassler.
Stephen Hawking thinks he's solved a long standing problem in physics known as the information paradox. But has he?
45 comments on original post
David Carlson's profile photo
For that matter, what happens to the information crushed into a neutron soup on a neutron star?  Is a majority of the information released in electromagnetic form in the process of crushing the atoms?
Add a comment...
Have them in circles
270 people
attempt N win's profile photo
Jorge Garcia Castill's profile photo
David Ryan's profile photo
Bobby Tectalabyss's profile photo
Vince Lep's profile photo
Raku John's profile photo
Shaun Carter's profile photo
Mongrel Shark's profile photo
Saurav Karki's profile photo

David Carlson

Shared publicly  - 
Astrophysicists sneaking up on the truth while still courting ΛCDM propose direct collapse intermediate mass black holes at around z=20:

"Observations of the first of z > 6 quasars (Fan et al. 2003;
Mortlock et al. 2011; Venemans et al. 2013; Wu et al. 2015) pose a
conundrum for the existence of supermassive black holes (SMBH)
with M• ∼ 109 M⊙. There is growing consensus that an alternate
seeding mechanism, beyond their origin as stellar mass
remnants from the first stars, may best explain these high redshift
SMBHs. Whether these are seeded by the M• ∼ 102 −
103 M⊙ remnants of the first (Population III) stars forming from
metal free gas (e.g. Volonteri & Rees 2006; Alvarez et al. 2009)
, intermediate mass black holes M• ∼ 103 − 104 M⊙ resulting
from the runaway collapse of dense primordial star clusters
(Begelman & Rees 1978; Portegies Zwart et al. 2004), or massive
seeds that resulted from the direct collapse of metal free gas into
M• ∼ 104 − 105 M⊙ black holes"  
(from the Introduction of paper below)

Alternatively, without kowtowing to ΛCDM:

Direct collapse supermassive black holes (DC-SMBHs):
If the characteristic size for fragmentation in the epoch of big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) (when hydrogen fusion was in thermal equilibrium with helium fission) were the mass of spiral galaxies, then early baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) compressions might have initiated isothermal collapse mediated by endothermic helium fission, with fragmentation into gravitationally-bound proto-spiral-galaxies complete with DC-SMBHs.  And the Tully–Fisher relation (specific angular momentum of spiral galaxies) might derive from fractional fragmentation of spherically symmetrical BAO compressions.

Spiral galaxy formation by condensation in the epoch of BBN suggests baryonic dark matter, where over-dense proto-spiral-galaxies sequestered perhaps 5/6 of the big-bang baryons from participating in intergalactic BBN.  But proto-galaxy sequestration merely extended the epoch of BBN from intergalactic primary BBN into warmer proto-galaxies during 'BBN rebound', at exactly the same temperature, pressure and baryon density, yielding exactly the same lithium and deuterium to hydrogen ratio.  Later at the epoch of recombination, when hydrogen ionization was in thermal equilibrium with recombination, early baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) compressions may have promoted a second round of (intergalactic) condensation, with fragmentation into gravitationally-bound globules of dwarf galaxy size, mediated by endothermic ionization of hydrogen and helium.  And once again, proto-galaxy sequestration merely extended the epoch of recombination into warmer proto-galaxies, condensing the giant globules which would evolve into globular clusters.  Residual primordial globules, the giant molecular clouds (GMCs) of today, have mostly condensed (snowed out) their acquired stellar metallicity in the form of icy chondrules, leaving  gravitationally-bound molecular hydrogen and helium at circa 10 K as nearly-invisible dark matter.  This suggests that GMCs come in two states, their nearly-invisible 'normal state', and their luminous (opaque) 'excited state', where stellar radiation has sublimed icy chondrules in the GMCs with the lowest inclination halo orbits which are exposed to the highest dosage of stellar radiation.  And sublimed gaseous stellar radiation raises the average gaseous molecular weight in excited GMCs, lowering the speed of sound through dark clouds which promotes Jeans instability, condensing stars which convert primordial GMC globules into star clusters.
Mike2020able's profile photoDavid Carlson's profile photo
I suspect galactic clustering results from two superimposed baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) sound horizons from two epochs of galaxy condensation promoted by isothermal collapse mediated by two transient endothermic conditions.

The first episode of galaxy condensation occurred during the 'epoch of big bang nucleosynthesis' (BBN), 10 seconds to 20 minutes after the Big Bang when hydrogen fusion was in thermal equilibrium with (photodissociation) helium fission.  Then BAO compressions promoted isothermal collapse mediated by endothermic helium fission, with BAO compressions fragmenting into proto-spiral-galaxies, with the Tully–Fisher relation (specific angular momentum of spiral galaxies) attributable to the asymmetrical fragmentation of BAO compressions.  BBN condensed and sequestered perhaps 5/6 of the baryons in the universe into proto-spiral-galaxies which did not participate in intergalactic BBN which set the measured lithium and deuterium to hydrogen ratio based on the intergalactic baryon density of the universe.  Proto-spiral-galaxies merely extended the epoch of BBN into warmer gravitationally-bound proto-galaxies when expansion cooled the sequestered baryons down to the exact same temperature, pressure and baryon density as 'primary BBN', causing proto-galaxy 'BBN rebound' to form the exact same lithium and deuterium to hydrogen (protium) ratio as primary BBN.

The second episode of galaxy condensation occurred during the 'epoch of recombination', 378,000 years after the Big Bang when recombination was in thermal equilibrium with hydrogen ionization.  Then intergalactic BAO compressions promoted isothermal collapse mediated by endothermic hydrogen (and helium) ionization, with BAO compressions fragmenting into dwarf galaxies.  With continued expansion of the universe, the epoch of recombination extended into warmer proto-spiral-galaxies, condensing the hydrogen and helium continuum into clusters which constitute the gravitationally-bound globular clusters and giant molecular clouds.

A third round of universal condensation may have occurred at the 'epoch of reionization', when dwarf galaxies and giant molecular clouds collapsed and fragmented to form gravitationally-bound (Bok) globules, the largest of which continued collapsing to form Population III stars.  As the expansion cooled (Bok) globules along with everything else, the acquired stellar metallicity (snowed out) condensed into the solid state of icy chondrules, leaving gaseous hydrogen and helium which are largely dark below Lyman-alpha UV frequencies.  So the dark matter of galactic halos is suggested to be giant molecular clouds (GMCs) in their dark 'normal state' on steeply-inclined halo orbits, whereas the GMCs on shallow halo orbits to the disk plane receive a far-higher dose of stellar radiation which sublimes icy chondrules, rendering them opaque.  

So dark matter is suggested to be baryonic which is sequestered into intergalactic dwarf galaxies and into giant molecular clouds in spiral galaxies (and merged-spiral elliptical galaxies), and the dark baryonic matter in dwarf galaxies and giant molecular clouds is furthermore condensed into (Bok) globules, which are highly fluid and can merge and fragment among themselves.

So if galactic clustering is the result of two superimposed BAO sound horizons, then there should be a common denominator of the two regimes above the 150 Mpc (mega parsec) sound horizon imprinted at the epoch of recombination.
Add a comment...

David Carlson

Shared publicly  - 
Gas-giant planet formation by flip-flop fragmentation, or
Gradualism vs. Punctuated Equilibrium:

Imagine that 'gradualism' is THE great stumbling block to scientific progress in cosmology and planetary science today.

In this hypothetical scenario, planetary science requires the rooting out of gradualism in the form of pebble accretion in favor of punctuated gravitational instability (GI).  To give pebble accretion its due, we'll concede that it works great all the way up to the size of chondrules; however, it must resort to secondary ad hoc mechanisms to explain the prevalence of binary minor planets and apparent contact-binary asteroids and comets.

Applying the same ideology in cosmology requires the rooting out of gradualism in the form of the bottom-up (accretionary) approach to galaxy formation in favor of direct-collapse supermassive black holes as catastrophic events in the spontaneously condensation of the early hydrogen and helium continuum into gravitationally-bound proto(spiral)galaxies.  Imagine that early baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) compressions condensed the continuum during the epoch of big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), promoted by nearly isothermal collapse which was mediated by endothermic helium fission in the BBN temperature range.  Then fractional condensations of spherically-symmetrical BAO compressions imparted the typical specific angular momentum to proto(spiral)galaxies, explaining their spirality in a primary predictive fashion.

For the sake of clarity, let's dispense with super-Earth cascades which we'll suggest form (inside out) by hybrid accretion (Thayne Currie 2005) from km-scale GI condensates in the pressure dam at the inner edge of accretion disks against the magnetic corotation radius of solitary stars or at the resonant-sculpted inner edge of circumbinary disks around binary stars.

Now we arrive at the still-greater mystery of gas-giant planets.

"When the collapsing gas reaches a sufficiently high density (∼10^21 cm−3), the collapse stops and a protostar having almost a Jovian mass is born (Larson 1969)." (Machida et al. 2011)

Flip-flop fragmentation:
Imagine that gas-giant planets originate as protostar cores in Bok globules with excess angular momentum undergoing gravitational collapse.  Jovian sized second cores may be surrounded by a much-larger (circa 1 solar mass) hydrostatic accretion disk, supported by angular momentum (and perhaps a magnetic field).  If the accretion disk becomes asymmetrical and fragments, its radial symmetry is broken, allowing gravity to collect the former disk gas into a solitary mass which centrifugally displaces the older smaller core to form a much-larger core at or near the local center of mass, slinging its smaller progenitor into orbit around it.  So instead of the original core gradually shedding angular momentum to grow by slow infall, the larger fragmented mass is suggested to flip-flop with the smaller core, essentially trading places.  In this fashion, gas-giant planets, brown dwarfs and companion stars may form in a sequential punctuated fashion from smallest to largest, by trading places with smaller progenitors, converting gaseous angular momentum to condensed object angular momentum in a punctuated fashion, forming progressively larger, younger objects by flip-flop fragmentation.

To explain away our unusual solar system with 2 gas giant planets requires scooting even further out on the limb to suggest the formation of Uranus and Neptune as a circumbinary two-planet super-Earth cascade formed around a former binary-Sun, with Jupiter and Saturn as the progenitor gas-giant planets of the binary stellar components.  This was followed by the spiral-in merger of binary-Sun at 4,568 Ma from which asteroids, chondrites and hot classical Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) condensed by GI from the stellar-merger debris disk (rocky-iron asteroids against the expanded magnetic corotation radius of the newly-merged Sun, chondrites in situ against Jupiter's strongest inner resonances and KBOs against Neptune's strongest outer resonances), as well as contaminating the Sun and debris disk with stellar-merger-nucleosynthesis r-process radionuclides (principally 26Al and 60Fe), and enriching the Sun and debris disk in helium-burning stable nuclides (principally 12C and 16O).
Add a comment...

David Carlson

Shared publicly  - 
Large stars and over-sized dark molecular clouds falsify the standard model of star formation:

If giant molecular clouds come in two states,
1) a invisible (dark) 'normal state' with the luminous stellar metallicity condensed into icy chondrules, rendering the gaseous molecular hydrogen and helium virtually invisible, and
2) a visible 'excited state', with the luminous stellar metallicity sublimed into the gaseous state by nearby stellar radiation, then
large dark clouds may have only recently 'decloaked' (sublimed their icy chondrules to become opaque Bok globules) and not yet have had time to collapse into starless cores.

The idea is that the continuum condensed into gravitationally-bound globules at the 'epoch of recombination', promoted by isothermal gravitational collapse mediated by endothermic ionization of hydrogen and helium.  The high speed of sound of gravitationally-bound hydrogen and helium clouds provides hydrostatic support which is reduced when the high molecular weight ices are sublimed by nearby stellar radiation, lowering the speed of sound which promotes Jeans instability.  So by this alternative primary predictive ideology, large dark clouds (Bok globules) require no additional internal support mechanism other than a rapid sublimation (decloaking) of icy chondrules, whereas the standard model has been falsified by evidence of large stars and oversized dark clouds that should have undergone gravitational collapse, so the standard model is in search of a secondary ad hoc mechanism to keep oversized dark clouds artificially inflated.

Note: I'm black listed by Astronomy Magazine, but perhaps someone else could post this comment at the above link
Add a comment...

David Carlson

Shared publicly  - 
B68, the dark-matter Bok globule that got away:

Bok globules are typically composed of 2 to 50 solar masses of gravitationally-bound gas in the size of our extended solar system including our outer Oort cloud.  However, most Bok globules are themselves gravitationally bound into giant molecular clouds of up to 100s of thousands of solar masses.

I suggest that giant molecular clouds are decloaking dark matter, which come in two states:
1) an invisible 'normal state', with its luminous stellar metallicity condensed into icy chondrules, rendering the remaining molecular hydrogen and helium virtually invisible, and 
2) a luminous 'excited state', with some of the stellar metallicity from the icy chondrules sublimed into a visible (opaque) gaseous state.

And curiously, when stellar metallicity within gravitationally-bound Bok globules sublimes into the gaseous state, it lowers the 'speed of sound', promoting Jeans instability, causing giant molecular clouds to 'go nuclear' and convert to star clusters.  Therefore a HUGE problem for WIMPy dark matter models (the cuspy halo problem), requiring ad hoc secondary mechanisms to prevent their falsification, is a HUGE primary predictive strength for baryonic dark matter ideology which predicts that dark matter giant molecular clouds convert to stars in galaxy cores.
Big hole in the sky
Molecular Cloud Barnard 68

Explanation: Where did all the stars go? What used to be considered a hole in the sky is now known to astronomers as a dark molecular cloud. Here, a high concentration of dust and molecular gas absorb practically all the visible light emitted from background stars. The eerily dark surroundings help make the interiors of molecular clouds some of the coldest and most isolated places in the universe. One of the most notable of these dark absorption nebulae is a cloud toward the constellation Ophiuchus known as Barnard 68, pictured above. That no stars are visible in the center indicates that Barnard 68 is relatively nearby, with measurements placing it about 500 light-years away and half a light-year across. It is not known exactly how molecular clouds like Barnard 68 form, but it is known that these clouds are themselves likely places for new stars to form. It is possible to look right through the cloud in infrared light.
8 comments on original post
David Carlson's profile photoKemal Naghshi's profile photo
Add a comment...

David Carlson

Shared publicly  - 
Evidence for Pebbles in Comets 
Ironically, the finding of pebbles in comets is strong evidence against 'pebble accretion', and pebble size may instead indicate the limits of pebble accretion at a given orbital distance. As I've said for some time now, "Pebble accretion works great all the way up to the size of chondrules".
David Carlson's profile photoShaun Carter's profile photo
I will follow you
Add a comment...

David Carlson

Shared publicly  - 
Sol: not guilty of stealing minor planets

"one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypothesis"
(Occam's razor, Wikipedia)

In general, secondary ad hoc mechanisms should yield to primary predictive ideology, particularly ideology that unifies formerly disparate phenomena.

An alternative ideology with 3 alternative planet formation mechanisms unifies disparate phenomena under the evolution of a former quadruple star system.

- Triple fragmentation of an original protostar with excess angular momentum forms a hierarchical wide binary star system composed of two close binary pairs: binary-Sun and binary-Companion
- Uranus and Neptune condense planetesimals from a circumbinary protoplanetary disk by gravitational instability (GI) against the binary resonances, forming Uranus and Neptune by ['hybrid accretion' (Thayne Currie 2005)]  And the leftover planetesimals, scattered disk objects (SDOs), are scattered to the scattered disc
- Binary-Sun components isolate outer protostar layers with excess angular momentum during the runaway gravitational collapse forming the second hydrostatic core (SHSC), promoted by nearly-isothermal gravitational collapse mediated by endothermic hydrogen dissociation.  The isolated outer layers themselves undergo GI to form the hot-Jupiter proto-planets, Saturn and Jupiter around the two binary-Sun components.
- Dynamic evolution of the quad system causes binary-Sun to spiral in, leaving Jupiter and Saturn behind in circumbinary orbits, and the stellar components merge at 4,568 Ma, creating a primary debris disk, along with stellar-merger nucleosynthesis r-process radionuclides, principally 26Al and 60Fe and enriching the Sun and primary debris disk in the helium-burning stable isotopes, principally 12C and 16O.
- Asteroids condense by GI against the Sun's magnetic corotation radius, forming Mercury by hybrid accretion.  Chondrites condense in situ against Jupiter's strongest inner resonances.  (Hot classical) Kuiper belt objects (KBOs) condense against Neptune's strongest outer resonances, principally the 3:2 and 1:2 resonances.
- Continued dynamic evolution of the triple star system causes the components of binary-Companion to spiral in, increasing the wide-binary Sun-Companion period at an exponential rate over the next 4 billion years.
- As the solar system barycenter (SSB) between Sun and Companion moves out from the Sun (by Galilean relativity) at an exponential rate over time, it perturbs first Plutinos at 4.22 Ga followed by the cubewanos from 4.1 to 3.8 Ga, causing a double pulse late heavy bombardment of KBOs in the inner solar system.
- The binary brown-dwarf components of former binary-Companion merge at 542 Ma in an asymmetrical merger explosion that gives the Companion escape velocity from the Sun, but the fossil major-axis alignment of detached objects like Sedna and 2012 VP-113 are still visible, although KBOs and SDOs in shorter-period orbits have largely randomized by now.  The loss of the former centrifugal force of the Sun around the SSB caused heliocentric objects into lower orbits, including Venus (in a former synchronous orbit around the Sun) resulting in its slight retrograde rotation.  Earth's orbital upheaval is recorded in the Great Unconformity.
- A 542 Ma secondary debris disk formed from the binary-merger ashes, condensed cold classical KBOs (many of which fragmented to form binaries due to excess angular momentum) including binary Pluto (explaining its geologically-young surface) and Ceres with its low crater count.
New study shows the sun may have snatched Sedna, Biden and other objects away from a neighbor
Add a comment...

David Carlson

Shared publicly  - 
Academia Wrong Again:

"Circa two years ago the Italian cold fusion effort, led by entrepreneur Andrea Rossi, was moved to North Carolina, linked up with a venture capital firm, and well-financed developmental work began on building commercially viable cold fusion reactors. Last February the first prototype, a one-megawatt reactor system producing steam 24 hours a day, was installed for a one-year test in an undisclosed factory somewhere in the US. This device has now been successfully operating for over six months. If all goes well for the remainder of the trial period, a report is scheduled to be issued and heat producing devices will go on sale to the public."
Sometimes our government moves very slowly. In the case of granting a patent to cold fusion technology, which just might replace fossil fuels, it took 26 years. The odyssey that started with a press conference at the University of Utah back in 1989 and has bumped along below the world’s …
Stefan Andersson's profile photoDavid Carlson's profile photo
+mr.tinkertrain tinkertrain It has too be nuclear for any self-contained process that fits inside a shipping container which has been kicking out 1 MW for more than 6 months, but since they can't prove it, the US patent doesn't specify the process.  But no, I have no other information, and indeed, I'm not sure anyone fully understands the process, since the official position of academia is that it's a farce, hence my title, Academia wrong again.

I see huge possibilities, like the chance of adding a fusion propulsion unit module to the International space station, unleashing it from low Earth orbit to cruise into orbit around other celestial objects.
Add a comment...
Have them in circles
270 people
attempt N win's profile photo
Jorge Garcia Castill's profile photo
David Ryan's profile photo
Bobby Tectalabyss's profile photo
Vince Lep's profile photo
Raku John's profile photo
Shaun Carter's profile photo
Mongrel Shark's profile photo
Saurav Karki's profile photo
Orthodoxy means not thinking.