Notices
Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: What is a feasible way for the nature to generate an Atom?

  1. #1 What is a feasible way for the nature to generate an Atom? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    The Science was able to produce anti-matter at CERN:
    By Wiki: "Antimatter atoms produced and trapped at CERN... Because matter and antimatter annihilate when they meet, the antihydrogen atoms have a very short life expectancy. This can be extended, however, by using strong and complex magnetic fields to trap them and thus prevent them from coming into contact with matter."
    So, the Science was able to generate an AntiAtom and keep it for short time based on the magnetic field and acceleration power at CERN.
    Therefore, we should look at the universe and try to find if there is any possibility for the nature to create Antiatom or even an Atom.
    I have found two possibilities as follow:
    Magnetar star and the core of spiral galaxy
    1. Magnetar:
    Magnetar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    By Wiki: "A magnetar is a type of neutron star with an extremely powerful magnetic field. Magnetars are characterized by their extremely powerful magnetic fields of 108-1011 tesla. These magnetic fields are hundreds of millions of times stronger than any man-made magnet,[6] and quadrillions of times more powerful than the field surrounding Earth."
    Hence, if the Science could generate an AntiAtom for short live at CERN, why the nature couldn't generate AntiAtom or even an Atom at a Magnatar which is stronger hundreds of millions time than the one at CERN?
    2. Core of spiral galaxy
    By Wiki: "The Galactic Center is the rotational center of the Milky Way galaxy… Existence of a supermassive black hole at the Galactic Center… The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the "5-kpc ring" that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy, as well as most of the Milky Way's star formation activity."
    Why this ring contains large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy??? How come??? Where this huge molecular hydrogen come from???
    Why also most of the star formation activity in the galaxy is taking place in this ring???
    The answer might be quite simple:
    The Center of the Milky way is a rotational supermassive black hole. Potentially it should have the power for ultra acceleration. This acceleration is significantly higher than the one at CERN or even at the Magnetar. Therefore, it should have the requested power which is needed to generate long live AntiHydrogen Atom or even Hydrogen Atom . A strong evidence for that is the bar which is surrounded by a ring that contains a large fraction of the molecular Hydrogen present in the Milky Way galaxy.
    This huge Atom creation might be the base for the most of the Milky Way's star formation activity. – New born Star!!!
    Do you agree?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    The Science was able to produce anti-matter at CERN:
    It didn't produce anti-matter out of thin air; the antiparticles were obtained through the decay of other high-energy particles in the accelerator. In other words, they were the result of the interactions and decays of already existing particles. Nothing new is being created here at all; it is basically just about turning one type of particle into other types through collisions and decays.

    Hence, if the Science could generate an AntiAtom for short live at CERN, why the nature couldn't generate AntiAtom or even an Atom at a Magnatar which is stronger hundreds of millions time than the one at CERN?
    While it is conceivable that small amounts of anti-matter may be generated in the vicinity of magnetars, but once again, nothing new is created. These are just particle decays and interactions.

    Do you agree?
    No.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Hence, if the Science could generate an AntiAtom for short live at CERN, why the nature couldn't generate AntiAtom or even an Atom at a Magnatar which is stronger hundreds of millions time than the one at CERN?
    I'm sure it could. But, a couple of points:

    a) As Markus nots, this is not new matter.

    b) Particles and anti-particles (and hence atoms-antiatoms) must be created in pairs (conservation laws). The anti-atom will, sooner or later, annihilate with an atom (producing gamma rays) leaving exactly the same number of atoms as before.

    c) Any such process as this could only generate tiny numbers of atoms relative to the enormous amount of matter that already exists (which is roughly 75% and 25% helium, with a few percent of other stuff).

    Where this huge molecular hydrogen come from???
    It is the hydrogen that originally formed the galaxy by gravitation.

    Why also most of the star formation activity in the galaxy is taking place in this ring???
    Presumably because that is where most of the hydrogen is.

    This huge Atom creation might be the base for the most of the Milky Way's star formation activity. – New born Star!!!
    You will have to show the maths that supports this, and that this is a better mechanism than current theories.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    So is that true regardless of how much energy the particle has when it collides? None of the experiments ever result in a number of particle greater than the number that was started with?


    Is matter-energy equivalence kind of a one way street then? Particles sometimes get converted into energy, but only very rarely is energy converted into particles?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    None of the experiments ever result in a number of particle greater than the number that was started with?
    The experiments did often result in more particles than they started with, but they never produced more total mass/energy than was started with. Energy was pumped into the colliding particles by the magnetic fields which accelerated them, and this energy was, via collision, transformed into new particles. But there is never a net gain in the mass/energy. Nothing really NEW is produced, just existing mass/energy changed.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Thanks Strange
    [QUOTE=Strange;439572]
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Hence, if the Science could generate an AntiAtom for short live at CERN, why the nature couldn't generate AntiAtom or even an Atom at a Magnatar which is stronger hundreds of millions time than the one at CERN?
    I'm sure it could. But, a couple of points:
    b) Particles and anti-particles (and hence atoms-antiatoms) must be created in pairs (conservation laws). The anti-atom will, sooner or later, annihilate with an atom (producing gamma rays) leaving exactly the same number of atoms as before.
    The Big bang is based on this phenomenon!
    By Wiki: "The Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter, as such, there should have been total cancellation of both… There are competing hypotheses to explain the matter-antimatter imbalance that resulted in baryogenesis, but there is as yet no one consensus theory to explain the phenomenon."
    Therefore, as this phenomenon works for Big Bang, it should also work for this theory.
    In the Big bang Theory, the whole mass of the Universe had been created in a fraction of a second without a real knowledge about the source of this energy. In this theory, we are much less demanding…We know that the rotational black hole of spiral galaxy has a huge energy. This energy is transferred to few Atoms per day or per year. It is just energy/mass change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,837
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Therefore, as this phenomenon works for Big Bang, it should also work for this theory.
    So far you haven't got a theory. just speculation.

    In the Big bang Theory, the whole mass of the Universe had been created in a fraction of a second without a real knowledge about the source of this energy. In this theory, we are much less demanding.
    Really?
    What's your "explanation"?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    984
    Using black holes as a power source for any process runs into a basic problem, What happens in the black hole stays in the black hole. The black hole has trmendous energy but all that energy stays home. Also we know nothing about internal conditions in a blackhole, for all we know they could be full of pink bunnies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Therefore, as this phenomenon works for Big Bang, it should also work for this theory.
    As we don't even know what "this phenomenon" is (as shown by the bit you quote) I don't see how you can make any claims about it.

    It is just energy/mass change.
    Exactly. The reason the steady state theory needs to create NEW matter is because the universe is expanding but must have been the same for ever. IF you convert energy to mass then, and if the universe is infinitely old (which is what the steady state theory claims) then there would be no energy left.

    The steady state theory requires the creation of NEW matter, not the conversion of energy to matter. (Have I not said that before?)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Therefore, as this phenomenon works for Big Bang, it should also work for this theory.
    As we don't even know what "this phenomenon" is (as shown by the bit you quote) I don't see how you can make any claims about it.
    .
    The answer is very simple;
    Do you accept the Big Bang Theory?
    Do you agree that this phenomenon is a vital element in the BB theory?
    Do you agree that so far there is no solid reply which could explain this Phenomenon? ": "…but there is as yet no one consensus theory to explain the phenomenon."
    If so, and as the science agrees that it is feasible, we also must accept it as is.
    However, if the Science couldn't explain this Phenomenon, I assume that you don't expect me to explain it.
    If you don't agree with that Phenomenon, than by definition, you shouldn't accept the BB theory…
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    It is just energy/mass change.
    Exactly. The reason the steady state theory needs to create NEW matter is because the universe is expanding but must have been the same for ever. IF you convert energy to mass then, and if the universe is infinitely old (which is what the steady state theory claims) then there would be no energy left. The steady state theory requires the creation of NEW matter, not the conversion of energy to matter. (Have I not said that before?)
    Energy to mass conversion;
    Actually this is the base for the Big Bang theory.
    In the big bang theory there is no solid explanation where this energy comes from.
    Here, we know that there is Energy. A huge Energy of a supper massive black hole. If you accept the idea of the big bang of converging Energy to Mass, than you should also agree that it is feasible for this black hole to convert its super energy to mass!
    With regards to the infinity power of the Black hole;
    Actually, I'm not sure that the science deeply understands the source of this supper massive black hole Energy. Neither do I. Somehow it generates the energy that is needed to keep the momentum of the spiral galaxy. Hence, if the spiral galaxy has the Energy to spin forever, it should also have the feasibility to generate few Atoms per year...
    Last edited by Dave Lee; July 14th, 2013 at 05:39 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Here, we know that there is Energy. A huge Energy of a supper massive black hole. If you accept the idea of the big bang of converging Energy to Mass, than you should also agree that it is feasible for this black hole to convert its super energy to mass!
    You don't get it do you. If you convert energy to mass then there is less energy. If the universe is infinitely old then you will have run out of energy (an infinite time ago).

    You can just choose to move the goalposts and say that instead of creating new matter, new energy is created. You still have the problem that this breaks conversation laws, there is not known mechanism, and it is not observed to happen.

    Again: in the steady state theory it is not sufficient to convert energy to mass, you need a source of NEW mass-energy. NEW. NEW. NEW.

    With regards to the infinity power of the Black hole;
    Black holes do not have infinite power.

    Actually, I'm not sure that the science deeply understands the source of this supper massive black hole Energy.
    It comes from their mass. They are very well characterised by GR.

    Neither do I.
    That may be the problem.

    Somehow it generates the energy that is needed to keep the momentum of the spiral galaxy.
    Not really. Black holes form a tiny fraction of the mass of a galaxy (typically around 0.1%) so have a tiny effect on the orbits.

    This energy also creates new Atoms. Please be aware that the creation per year of those new Atoms is absolutely neglected with regards to the size of the spiral galaxy.
    Because it is insignificant. Unless you have some math to show otherwise?

    Note that the amount of mass-energy creation required by the steady state theory would be detectable and there have been attempts to detect it.
    Last edited by Strange; July 14th, 2013 at 06:27 AM. Reason: %
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Hi Strange
    This is only the first phase of the introduction.
    I have some more evidences which hopefully prove the concept that spiral galaxy has the ability to create new atoms.
    Never the less, with regards to your message:
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    If you convert energy to mass then there is less energy.
    Agree, but…
    A spiral galaxy must use some energy to spin the whole stars and keep the spiral arms. Therefore, in the same token, the spiral galaxy might lose energy as its spin.
    Hence, if there is less energy, the spiral galaxy should decrease its spinning velocity and eventually it might lose its spiral arms and unique shape.
    But there is no sign that a spiral galaxy is losing energy even after 10 billion years.
    Therefore, somehow, it has the power to maintain the energy.
    A creation of a few Atoms per year in a spiral galaxy like the Milky Way is absolutely neglected with regards to the energy which is requested to keep the orbit momentum. Therefore, converting Energy to few atoms per year has no effect on the total energy and the orbit velocity of this galaxy.

    Later on I will open new thread for one more evidence for Atom creation in spiral galaxy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,837
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    A spiral galaxy must use some energy to spin the whole stars and keep the spiral arms.
    Huh?
    NEWTON!

    Later on I will open new thread for one more evidence for Atom creation in spiral galaxy
    Um, just a small point with regard to the English language: when you say "one more" that presupposes that there have been prior instances of whatever is under discussion.
    That is not the case here.
    You have presented no evidence whatsoever so far.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Hence, if there is less energy, the spiral galaxy should decrease its spinning velocity and eventually it might lose its spiral arms and unique shape.
    But there is no sign that a spiral galaxy is losing energy even after 10 billion years.
    Please explain why you think energy should be lost, quantify it and demonstrate, in appropriate mathematical detail, that it should be detectable over the few years we have been observing galaxies.

    Therefore, converting Energy to few atoms per year has no effect on the total energy and the orbit velocity of this galaxy.
    Then why mention it, if it has no effect?

    Later on I will open new thread for one more evidence for Atom creation in spiral galaxy
    Why? We know new particles and antiparticles can be created in energetic interactions. But we also know, as you state above, that this is utterly insignificant compared with the mass-energy of the galaxy. So we can ignore it.

    And why start a new thread? What is wrong with this one? (It hasn't even been moved to Pseudoscience yet!)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    I'm wondering if "David Lee" is the same as the "David Levy" crank from scienceforums.net. They both have this same, 'matter is created at the center of the galaxy' idea, and both don't seem to get the difference between the creation of matter from existing energy and new matter'. Neither one seems to understand conservation of angular momentum, and neither one seems to understand how gravity works.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    You have presented no evidence whatsoever so far.
    Yes, I did.
    The evidence is as follow:

    By Wiki: "The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the "5-kpc ring" that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy."

    Therefore, most of the hydrogen presented in the Milky way galaxy is located at a tiny ring in the center of the galaxy.
    This can't be due to gravity. Hence, there must be some mechanism in the core which generate this large fraction of hydrogen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    By Wiki: "The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the "5-kpc ring" that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy."

    Therefore, most of the hydrogen presented in the Milky way galaxy is located at a tiny ring in the center of the galaxy.
    Note well the false confidence of the pseudoscientist.

    Since when is 5kpc "tiny"?

    This can't be due to gravity.
    Why not? Do you think that gravity must make everything implode to the centre of the galaxy?

    Hence, there must be some mechanism in the core which generate this large fraction of hydrogen.
    There is no "hence".
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Therefore, most of the hydrogen presented in the Milky way galaxy is located at a tiny ring in the center of the galaxy
    This can't be due to gravity.
    Why not? Do you think that gravity must make everything implode to the centre of the galaxy?
    O.K.
    I hope that the following message will help you with this issue:

    The hydrogen "bridge" between Andromeda Galaxy and the Triangulum Galaxy
    Astronomers discover surprising clutch of hydrogen clouds lurking among our galactic neighbors
    Neighbor galaxies may have brushed closely, astronomers find
    "The new observations confirm a disputed 2004 discovery of hydrogen gas streaming between the giant Andromeda Galaxy, also known as M31, and the Triangulum Galaxy, or M33."
    "The GBT was also able to track the motion of these newly discovered clouds, showing that they were traveling through space at velocities similar to M31 and M33"
    The researchers also speculate that these clouds may represent a new and previously unrecognized source of neutral hydrogen gas that could eventually fall into M31 and M33, fueling future generations of star formation.
    The properties of this gas indicate that these two galaxies may have passed close together in the distant past," said Jay Lockman, of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO). "Studying what may be a gaseous link between the two can give us a new key to understanding the evolution of both galaxies," he added.
    "We think it's very likely that the hydrogen gas we see between M31 and M33 is the remnant of a tidal tail that originated during a close encounter, probably billions of years ago," said Spencer Wolfe, of West Virginia University. "The encounter had to be long ago, because neither galaxy shows evidence of disruption today,"
    Wiki - "Triangulum may be home to 40 billion stars, compared to 400 billion for the Milky Way, and 1 trillion (1000 billion) stars for Andromeda."[6]
    So let's summarize –
    Between the two spiral galaxies there is a Hydrogen cloud bridge. The two galaxies are traveling at ultra high speed in the space, but at full synchronization with each other. This enables them to maintain the Hydrogen Bridge.
    It is similar to hold a bridge between two aircraft which are flying in the sky…
    In the past the two galaxies were close to each other. Never the less, there is no evidence for collision between those galaxies.
    Andromeda is a supper giant spiral Galaxy.
    This hydrogen should come from the spiral galaxies. Therefore, this is one more evidence that the Hydrogen is moving outwards from the galaxy and therefore, it must be created in the galaxy!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    I hope that the following message will help you with this issue:
    When you quote form a source PLEASE provide a reference.

    The two galaxies are traveling at ultra high speed in the space
    What do you mean by "ultra high speed"? And what is this speed measured relative to?

    , but at full synchronization with each other.
    What does this mean?

    This enables them to maintain the Hydrogen Bridge.
    How do you know it is "maintained"? The experts in the field describe it as a "remnant".

    It is similar to hold a bridge between two aircraft which are flying in the sky…
    Not really, no. It is more like the spray from a ball bouncing off the surface of water.

    Therefore, this is one more evidence that the Hydrogen is moving outwards from the galaxy
    And yet your source (whatever it was) says: "... traveling through space at velocities similar to M31 and M33 ... could eventually fall into M31 and M33 ..." whih does not suggest the gas is moving outwards from the galaxies.

    and therefore, it must be created in the galaxy!!!
    No!!!! Even if it were streaming out of the galaxy (which you have failed to establish) that does not indicate any creation process on that scale. If that volume of hydrogen gas was being generated, I suspect it would be very, very obvious. Apart from anything else, an equivalent number of anti-protons and positrons would be created and we would see the distinctive gamma ray signatures.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    Between the two spiral galaxies there is a Hydrogen cloud bridge. The two galaxies are traveling at ultra high speed in the space, but at full synchronization with each other. This enables them to maintain the Hydrogen Bridge.
    It is similar to hold a bridge between two aircraft which are flying in the sky…
    In the past the two galaxies were close to each other. Never the less, there is no evidence for collision between those galaxies.
    Andromeda is a supper giant spiral Galaxy.
    This hydrogen should come from the spiral galaxies. Therefore, this is one more evidence that the Hydrogen is moving outwards from the galaxy and therefore, it must be created in the galaxy!!!
    I think it is more natural to assume this gas is falling into the galaxies, and is all that remains of an anicent meal.
    Feeding galaxy caught in distant searchlight by international research team



    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    By Wiki: "The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the "5-kpc ring" that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy."

    Therefore, most of the hydrogen presented in the Milky way galaxy is located at a tiny ring in the center of the galaxy.
    This can't be due to gravity. Hence, there must be some mechanism in the core which generate this large fraction of hydrogen.
    The galaxy is about 35 kpc in diameter. A 5 kpc ring occupies 10kpc of that diameter. That's practically 30%. On what basis do you justify calling 30% tiny?

    Moreover, the bar may be as much as 10kpc in diameter. As your source notes, the ring surrounds it. On what basis do you justify stating that a feature - the ring - situated that far from the centre of the galaxy is, in fact, at the centre of the galaxy?

    On what basis do you reject the possibility that the hydrogen is there because it is there, and require it to be generated in situ?

    Why do you reject the possiblity of gravity causing material to congregate in a particular zone?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    O.K.
    Dear all.
    1. Let's start with the following message from Dr. Braun.
    Colossal hydrogen bridge between galaxies could be fuel line for new stars - CSMonitor.com
    "..Galaxies have on average about 1 billion to 2 billion years worth of gas in the cosmic tank, a condition that has existed throughout most of the universe's history, Dr. Braun writes in an e-mail. Many of them, therefore, should have stopped forming stars billions of years ago. Moreover, the total mass of stars in the universe today is about five times higher than the amount of neutral hydrogen available 12 billion years ago…"
    The main message is: "The total mass of stars in the universe today is about five times higher than the amount of neutral hydrogen available 12 billion years ago."
    Therefore, the Idea of Atom creation might be quite feasible.

    2. Hydrogen Bridge between Andromeda and Triangulum Galaxy
    " Some researchers had suggested that the bridge really was a tail of material pulled from Andromeda by a close encounter with the Triangulum Galaxy."
    If this is correct, than it is a clear message that the Hydrogen is moving outwards from a spiral galaxy and not inwards.

    3. With regards to 5Kpc ring:
    Let's make a brief calculation:
    The aria of a Mily Way Galaxy circle with diameter of 35Kpc is 961 square Kpc
    The aria of a circle with diameter of 10Kpc is 78.5 square Kpc.
    The aria of a circle with diameter of 5Kpc is 20 square Kpc.
    I had an impression that 5Kpc ring means a diameter of 5Kpc. If the diameter is 10Kpc, why they didn't call it 10 Kpc ring???
    Anyhow, if the diameter is 5Kpc, the total aria of the galaxy is 48 times bigger than the ring. Therefore the ring is quite tiny with compare to the total aria of the galaxy.
    Even if the ring is 10 Kpc, the total aria of the galaxy is 12 times bigger.
    In any case, it is clear that most of the hydrogen of the galaxy is concentrate a ring which is relatively small & located in the center of the galaxy.

    Conclusion:
    As the Hydrogen at Andromeda is moving outwards and based on the following message by Wiki: ""The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the "5-kpc ring" that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy."
    It is a clear indication that there is some sort of Hydrogen creation in spiral Galaxy.
    Last edited by Dave Lee; July 15th, 2013 at 12:17 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    1. Let's start with the following message from Dr. Braun.
    Sorry, religious fundamentalists don't count as evidence.

    Therefore, the Idea of Atom creation might be quite feasible.
    Nope.

    2. Hydrogen Bridge between Andromeda and Triangulum Galaxy
    " Some researchers had suggested that the bridge really was a tail of material pulled from Andromeda by a close encounter with the Triangulum Galaxy."
    If this is correct, than it is a clear message that the Hydrogen is moving outwards from a spiral galaxy and not inwards.
    As you haven't provided a reference this information has zero value: I assume you made this up.

    However, it still doesn't support your claim: it was pulled (past tense, not "it is being pulled") by a gravitational interacation. It does not say that it is moving outwards. You seem to have serious reading comprehension difficulties.

    3. With regards to 5Kpc ring:
    Let's make a brief calculation:
    The aria of a Mily Way Galaxy circle with diameter of 35Kpc is 961 square Kpc
    The aria of a circle with diameter of 10Kpc is 78.5 square Kpc.
    The aria of a circle with diameter of 5Kpc is 20 square Kpc.
    I had an impression that 5Kpc ring means a diameter of 5Kpc. If the diameter is 10Kpc, why they didn't call it 10 Kpc ring???
    Anyhow, if the diameter is 5Kpc, the total aria of the galaxy is 48 times bigger than the ring. Therefore the ring is quite tiny with compare to the total aria of the galaxy.
    Even if the ring is 10 Kpc, the total aria of the galaxy is 12 times bigger.
    In any case, it is clear that most of the hydrogen of the galaxy is concentrate a ring which is relatively small & located in the center of the galaxy.
    So what: we already know it is probably an area of star formation because of the amount of hydrogen it contains. None of this supports your claims.

    As the Hydrogen at Andromeda is moving outwards and based on the following message by Wiki: ""The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the "5-kpc ring" that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy." It is a clear indication that there is some sort of Hydrogen creation in spiral Galaxy.
    a) You have provided no evidence it is moving out
    b) You have provided no evidence of hydrogen creation.

    Just repeating the same false statement and misunderstandings does not add anything to the argument. It won't magically become true when you post the same thing three times.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    1. Let's start with the following message from Dr. Braun.
    Sorry, religious fundamentalists don't count as evidence.
    I do not want to argue with you.

    So Please see the following web about Dr Robert Braun:
    Home

    About Me
    I studied Physics and Astronomy at the University of British Columbia through 1981, and then went on to do a PhD at Leiden University with a thesis entitled “The Interaction of Supernovae with the Interstellar Medium”. After obtaining my PhD in 1985, I filled the role of research associate and then assistant scientist at the Very Large Array of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (1985 – 1989). I subsequently filled a series of roles at ASTRON, the Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy (1989 – 2007), beginning with leading the Telescope Observing Group (1989 – 1992), then as staff astronomer (1992 – 2003) and finally as head of the ASTRON scientific staff (2004 – 2007). I led the Astrophysics Theme and Research Program of CSIRO Astronomy and Space Science (CASS) from 2007 – 2011 and then the role of Chief Scientist for CASS through 2013. In 2011 I was named an Honorary Professor of the University of Sydney. From June 2013 I’ve taken on the role of Square Kilometre Array Science Director based at the SKA Headquarters south of Manchester, UK.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Argument from authority? Fail.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Therefore, the Idea of Atom creation might be quite feasible
    Be aware that it is not Robert Braun saying that, it's David Lee (aka David Levy).
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Lee View Post
    O.K.
    Dear all.
    1. Let's start with the following message from Dr. Braun.
    Colossal hydrogen bridge between galaxies could be fuel line for new stars - CSMonitor.com
    "..Galaxies have on average about 1 billion to 2 billion years worth of gas in the cosmic tank, a condition that has existed throughout most of the universe's history, Dr. Braun writes in an e-mail. Many of them, therefore, should have stopped forming stars billions of years ago. Moreover, the total mass of stars in the universe today is about five times higher than the amount of neutral hydrogen available 12 billion years ago…"
    The main message is: "The total mass of stars in the universe today is about five times higher than the amount of neutral hydrogen available 12 billion years ago."
    Therefore, the Idea of Atom creation might be quite feasible.
    But the full text says:
    Left to their own devices, galaxies have on average about 1 billion to 2 billion years worth of gas in the cosmic tank, a condition that has existed throughout most of the universe's history, Dr. Braun writes in an e-mail. Many of them, therefore, should have stopped forming stars billions of years ago. Moreover, the total mass of stars in the universe today is about five times higher than the amount of neutral hydrogen available 12 billion years ago, suggesting that the universe's larger inventory of ionized hydrogen kept star formation going in some way.
    First page: Colossal hydrogen bridge between galaxies could be fuel line for new stars - CSMonitor.com
    I am sure, cutting off the end at that point was only an accident.
    Last edited by PetTastic; July 16th, 2013 at 05:56 AM. Reason: Inserted link to original text
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Looking at this another way, I have weird side question I'd like to ask, in case anyone knows the answer:


    How strong would a gravitational field need to be in order to rip an atom apart? Like say an iron atom getting ripped into smaller atoms?

    As you get closer to the center of a very dense/massive object like a black hole, there is a difference in how much force is pulling on your feet as opposed to your head, right? So in effect there is a force ripping your feet off of your body (due to the difference). Can that force get strong enough to unbind a nucleus? Or would you already have reached the event horizon by that point?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    How strong would a gravitational field need to be in order to rip an atom apart? Like say an iron atom getting ripped into smaller atoms?
    Atoms aren't composed of smaller atoms; they are composed of electrons, protons and neutrons.

    Can that force get strong enough to unbind a nucleus?
    Yes.

    Or would you already have reached the event horizon by that point?
    That depends on the mass of the black hole. For your average run-of-the-mill stellar black hole you would need go way beyond the event horizon to reach the point where gravity equals and exceeds the residual strong force, unbinding the nucleus.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Is there a small possibility that some of the alternatives to black holes like quark stars, or neutron stars behind an event horizons, could evaporate by producing protons, ie hydrogen atoms?
    Black hole alternatives: Black hole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Presumably, this idea has gone out of favor, because I can't find anything on it, in the usual places.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,562
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    neutron stars behind an event horizons
    Once something is inside the event horizon, it's a blackhole. However, event horizons are not necessarily associated with blackholes. For example, a constantly accelerated observer in Minkowskian spacetime has an observer horizon behind the direction of acceleration at a distance that depends on the acceleration. An inertial observer in the same spacetime has no such horizon. I don't know if it was this type of horizon you were referring to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Bachelors Degree PetTastic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PetTastic View Post
    neutron stars behind an event horizons
    Once something is inside the event horizon, it's a blackhole. However, event horizons are not necessarily associated with blackholes. For example, a constantly accelerated observer in Minkowskian spacetime has an observer horizon behind the direction of acceleration at a distance that depends on the acceleration. An inertial observer in the same spacetime has no such horizon. I don't know if it was this type of horizon you were referring to.
    Yes, I take your point, but if you are trying to stretch the laws of physics to the point where something makes atoms of hydrogen from heavier elements.
    Then an over weight neuton star supported by eletromagnetic forces from its spin, is about a desperate as you need to go.
    I believe in nothing, but trust gravity to hold me down and the electromagnetic force to stop me falling through
    Physics is the search for the best model not the truth, as only mythical beings know that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. How feasible is using railgun technology to launch space probes?
    By Junkieturtle in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 29th, 2013, 02:00 AM
  2. How feasible is a cure for spinal-cord injury?
    By Jagella in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 21st, 2011, 10:26 PM
  3. Behavioral epigenetics - nature can effect our nature !
    By scishark in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 7th, 2011, 07:46 PM
  4. Mass murder in the skies: was the plot feasible?
    By funzone36 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 23rd, 2006, 07:28 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •