RE: Heating up neutron stars with dark matter
A question though (also : are neutron stars potential predecessors of black holes or do black holes only come from even more massive stars collapsing ?) but the question as i'm in interview mode for a second after reading this;
You need much bigger stars to start with to get a black hole instead of a neutron star. So in other words, they are not predecessors of each other.
I don't have any thoughts on the paper you are referring too (that is available from here). It seems like a new idea about dark matter (that appeared at the very first moment of the universe history) that is very valid and will be testable in a few years. I however do not understand the pre-big-bang statement as the two examples of the introduction refer to cosmic inflation and dark matter freeze-in that occurs after the big bang... I will read it more closely after my return from vacation :)
Well, you're the expert sensei ... don't let it take up too much of your time, i bet you have like a stack of paper on your desk by the time you get back.
Every answer comes with tenfold questionmarks attached, right . I've always been a bit confused on expanding universe versus black holes drawing everything inward ... shouldn't they , in the end consume it all ?
i mean the more massive one gets as it gobbles up more matter/energy, the further it reaches so the more it can eat as a consequence. Would that be possible that in the end the universe would "breathe in" again , come all together into the biggest supermassive dense object , which in turn
(heh)
implodes on itself to create, what's that called
a singularity ? (the lingo isnt my forte) which leads to a big bang and the circle is round (pardon the philosophy its about 4am lol)
always a pleasure
I have at least a full stack of e-mails (only about 200 thanks to the vacation break) :D
For the rest of your question: there are different potential scenarios for the end of the universe. In other words, we do not know: The black holes will continue to attract everything, but in how long? Will the universe continue expanding as well? Who knows?
yes, that's my favourite answer in the world :) to know that we know nothing makes us the wisest of all greeks (at least to the oracle :) - hope you enjoyed the time off and have found re-newed vigor to tackle the myteries of the universe once more there !!!
It is always nice to be back at the office after a longish break (3 weeks in my case). I am still processing my e-mails and have not therefore done much new things today (more on the continuity of what was going on before my break).
Hm ... back to the dark arts of science, the fringe of exploring the universe for lack of global funding for Musk and the joy of experiencing entropy first hand in an office that's been waiting un-touched for three weeks.
Steemit's not the center of the universe (i think, although i also think some might disagree there) and without your work there there wouldnt be much to write here :)
Hope you enjoyed the leave and are able to tackle the multiverse in all its dimensions from all angles with renewed vigor now (i decided to split up to a separate account for talking so my "utilities" and dabll-ications dont mix up with my sometimes less popular opinion ..) good to have you back then !!!!
At least every time I ask something on google map, it shows that I am at the center of it ^^
But yes, I enjoyed my break! Back to the roots of doing something different ;)
it does doesn't it ... i often get the impression some here in this little pond could use some reading up on Plato and his cave ... but well ... as long as they dont tell me who i should be i try to do not the same (omg i sound like jeezes) its good to have you back
I have never really left ;)
I have read the paper and discuss it with colleagues earlier today. I think that the wording 'pre-big-bang' has just been used to get a buzz. Cosmic inflation is actually right after the big bang and not before it. At least to my knowledge on how it is usually used.
I see, thanks for the clarification. All a big mystery to me, a bit like wizards of old wielding magic but you probably won't see it that way although complex mathematics might as well be spellcraft to those who ain't versed in it. I have read the craziest theories, among others one were , as the concept of time starts with the big bang (there is no framework before that) it would be (in theory) possible that half of everything was shot backwards in time from that moment but on all other accounts i have only read that time points forward only under any circumstance. Even once an article on how some supreme genius had succeeded (probably also in theory and math) to somehow propell data/information to the future but that it wouldn't be possible to do the same backwards either, which in essence came down to time travel might be possible but not to the past
... in theory :) 5am i should probably give it a rest , thanks for the reply
This is correct. Strictly speaking, the "before big bang" is undefined. Note that there are as well alternative cosmologies without a big bang.
correct
moving up in the world ... that moji's way too big ,duh. So i assume how the proto-mass (for lack of the professional term) containing all information that's present in today's universe got there will be undefined as well, although probably plenty of theory about it.
Alternate cosmologies without a big bang ? I'm gonna have to look up some than but im guessing big-bang is the most widely adopted or maybe the base to work with although im not sure where those fields cross over as that adresses the macro-cosmos while your fields address the micro (or more like the quantum) cosmos. It's a whole lot to oversee but if i'm not mistaken the behaviour of physics doesnt completely comply at macro/cosmic or micro/quantum levels ?
:p
around here every sentence turns out to morph into a question mark
hmm ....
Thanks :))) -> consensus ... i thought with the matter the gaps in the universe would be filled but then still about 70% is missing ? = lol , we're living in swiss cheese , most interesting, thanks !!!
The current standard model of cosmology is the Lambda-CDM model, wherein the Universe is governed by General Relativity, began with a Big Bang and today is a nearly-flat universe that consists of approximately 5% baryons, 27% cold dark matter, and 68% dark energy.
ssaa .. so while i'm here , and with that i'll leave it for this reply sorry for the extras (here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_galaxy_problem )
Is it ... possible that ahem , the observable universe (being potentially only a microscopic sample of the whole so to speak) is a bit of a statistical anomaly compared to the huge (or maybe infinite?) part we can't observe from down here in the backyard of this single galaxy and that this just makes it look like 90% is missing while this is just a weird pocket (pardon the lack of technical language i hope i expressed my concern somehow :)
with this i'll move up my reply section, thanks for all the info so far !!
Dwarf galaxy problem
The dwarf galaxy problem, also known as the missing satellites problem, arises from a mismatch between observed dwarf galaxy numbers and numerical cosmological simulations that predict the evolution of the distribution of matter in the universe. In simulations, Dark matter clusters hierarchically, in ever increasing numbers of halo "blobs" as halos' components' sizes become smaller-and-smaller. However, although there seem to be enough observed normal-sized galaxies to match the simulated size distribution, the number of dwarf galaxies is orders of magnitude lower than expected from simulation.