Cosmogenesis .

[sutty27]

We've just established that the old stars get converted into radiation. As does anything which falls into a black hole. So where are you going to get material for new stars?

 

No we didn't establish that at all, although I accept that you offered it as an opinion.

 

Ordinary matter would very likely revert to quark matter inside a blackhole.

[unbeliever]

No we didn't establish that at all, although I accept that you offered it as an opinion.

 

Ordinary matter would very likely revert to quark matter inside a blackhole.

 

If you're referring to quark-gluon plasma, then you're proposing that there's no such thing as a black hole and stars do not collapse beyond being neutron stars. Let's ignore for the moment that you previously claimed that suttyverse black holes did exist and were constantly producing hydrogen.

There is a limited amount of pressure that quark-gluon plasma can withstand due to quantum degeneracy pressure.

The required mass of a star to have sufficient gravity to overcome all quantum degeneracy pressure effects and force total collapse is given by the Chandrasekhar limit.

 

Also, if large collapsed stars and galactic centres are actually neutron stars, then there would be visible effects.

[sutty27]

If you're referring to quark-gluon plasma, then you're proposing that there's no such thing as a black hole and stars do not collapse beyond being neutron stars. Let's ignore for the moment that you previously claimed that suttyverse black holes did exist and were constantly producing hydrogen.

There is a limited amount of pressure that quark-gluon plasma can withstand due to quantum degeneracy pressure.

The required mass of a star to have sufficient gravity to overcome all quantum degeneracy pressure effects and force total collapse is given by the Chandrasekhar limit.

 

Also, if large collapsed stars and galactic centres are actually neutron stars, then there would be visible effects.

 

The collapse of the star just seeds the black hole which increases in mass over time, as the mass increases gravity increases, as the density and temperature increases atoms break down, finally protons and neutrons break down into quarks.

[unbeliever]

The collapse of the star just seeds the black hole which increases in mass over time, as the mass increases gravity increases, as the density increases atoms brake down, then protons and neutrons break down into quarks.

 

Quark-gluon plasma or quark matter is not dense enough to comprise black holes. It has a density of around 1GeV/fm^3 or 10^18 kg/m^3

There is a star called S2 which has been studied extensively close to the centre of the galaxy where (in the real universe) there is a black hole called Sagittarius A.

S2 is in close orbit around Sag A (15 AU at its closest) and takes 15 years to orbit it. From this, it can be determined that the object Sag A has a mass of a little over 4 million times the mass of the Sun. If Sag A were composed of quark-gluon plasma, then S2 would hit it.

 

Now you have to choose between.

A. Pretending you haven't understood this or deflecting.

B. Denying the density of Quark matter is what I've stated. Without evidence I assume.

C. Coming up with some ridiculous scheme whereby S2 passes through Sag A.

D. Suggesting that a large number of professional astronomers are lying or stupid.

Edited May 19, 2016 by unbeliever

[sutty27]

Quark-gluon plasma is not dense enough to comprise black holes. It has a density of around 1GeV/fm^3 or 10^18 kg/m^3

There is a star called S2 which has been studied extensively close to the centre of the galaxy where (in the real universe) there is a black hole called Sagittarius A.

S2 is in close orbit around Sag A (15 AU at its closest) and takes 15 years to orbit it. From this, it can be determined that the object Sag A has a mass of a little over 4 million times the mass of the Sun. If Sag A were composed of quark-gluon plasma, then S2 would hit it.

 

Then quarks must be made of something even smaller that can be compressed into an even smaller space, the end result is that ordinary matter as been turned back into the stuff that created the hydrogen, all that's required now is a mechanism to force its expansion, maybe that's the heat that is building up in side it.

[unbeliever]

Then quarks must be made of something even smaller that can be compressed into an even smaller space, the end result is that ordinary matter as been turned back into the stuff that created the hydrogen, all that's required now is a mechanism to force its expansion, maybe that's the heat that is building up in side it.

 

Great, now you're inventing a new family of subatomic particles.

"must be". Really? Couldn't just be that your whole scheme is nonsense then.

Shall we call your new quark constituent particles suttyons? How many are there? 27 sounds a bit much.

Do tell. What are their properties: spin, colour, charge, mass. Is there a new force involved? That would involve a new boson I expect. We're going to need names for all these things. I think we should call the force "wishful thinking".

 

Let's get the accelerator folk onto it. Are there free suttyons, or do they experience colour confinement? What centre of mass energy is required to break up quarks? At the moment the LHC maxes out at 14 TeV, so you'll have to let us know if that's enough.

At least some of the suttyons must be charged, so we won't be looking just for missing transverse momentum. That'll help. So if they all experience confinement it'll be a matter of looking for the right pattern of hadronic jets.

I'm actually sitting opposite an ATLAS chap right now. He can pass on your instructions to the LHC folk. What shall I tell him.

Edited May 19, 2016 by unbeliever

[sutty27]

Great, now you're inventing a new family of subatomic particles.

"must be". Really? Couldn't just be that your whole scheme is nonsense then.

Shall we call your new quark constituent particles suttyons?

Do tell. What are their properties: spin, colour, charge, mass. Is there a new force involved? That would involve a new boson I expect. We're going to need names for all these things. I think we should call the force "wishful thinking".

 

You claimed black holes are too dense to be made of quarks, the logical conclusion is that quarks aren't the smallest constituents of matter, maybe they are made of preons.

 

What do you think makes up the mass of a blackhole?

[unbeliever]

You claimed black holes are too dense to be made of quarks, the logical conclusion is that quarks aren't the smallest constituents of matter, maybe they are made of preons.

 

What do you think makes up the mass of a blackhole?

 

Singularity. Like almost everybody else in the field.

No instructions for the LHC folk then.

[sutty27]

Singularity. Like almost everybody else in the field.

No instructions for the LHC folk then.

 

What's a singularity?

[unbeliever]

What's a singularity?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

 

What you have to appreciate is that the compression force inside a black hole is literally infinite.

You can invent matter particles all you want, there will be a finite pressure holding them apart. Quantum degeneracy pressure it's called. The strength of this pressure is finite. The strength of the gravitational field of a black hole is infinite.

 

What is basically means that inside a black hole all particles are compressed into a single particle. Not a composite particle like a proton with its 3 quarks, but a single combined particle. This must happen because an infinite force cannot be resisted.

Edited May 19, 2016 by unbeliever