Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #635102 > unrolled thread

Merging white dwarfs may create most of our galaxy’s antimatter

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Merging white dwarfs may create most of our galaxy’s antimatter Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-06-02 14:57 -0400
    Merging white dwarfs may create most of our galaxy’s antimatter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-02 15:05 -0700
      Merging white dwarfs may create most of our galaxy’s antimatter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 04:52 -0700
        Merging white dwarfs may create most of our galaxy’s antimatter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 06:29 -0700
          Merging white dwarfs may create most of our galaxy’s antimatter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 06:56 -0700
            Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our galaxy’s antimatter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-03 15:05 +0000
              Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our galaxy’s antimatter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 08:17 -0700
                Re: Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our galaxy’s antimatter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-03 16:11 +0000
                  Re: Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our galaxy’s antimatter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 09:53 -0700
                    Re: Re: Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our galaxy’s antimatter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-04 04:41 +0000
                      Re: Re: Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our galaxy’s antimatter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 08:27 -0700
                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our galaxy’s antimatter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-04 16:43 +0000
                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our galaxy’s antimatter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 10:21 -0700
          Merging white dwarfs may create most of our galaxy’s antimatter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 07:00 -0700
            Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our galaxy’s antimatter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-03 15:16 +0000
        Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our galaxy’s antimatter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 16:15 -0500
          Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our galaxy’s antimatter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-03 15:31 -0700
            Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our gala xy’s antimatter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 21:21 +0000
              Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our gala xy’s antimatter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 14:53 -0700
                Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our gala xy’s antimatter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 23:13 +0000
                  Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our gala xy’s antimatter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 16:55 -0700
                    Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our gala xy’s antimatter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 16:59 -0700
                      Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our gala xy’s antimatter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 09:41 -0500
                    Re: Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our gala xy’s antimatter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-05 00:38 +0000
                      Re: Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our gala xy’s antimatter john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 19:48 -0700
                        Re: Re: Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our gala xy’s antimatter moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-05 04:18 +0000
                          Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our gala xy’s antimatter Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 08:32 +0200
                    Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our gala xy’s antimatter Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 09:36 -0500
        Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our galaxy’s antimatter Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 20:36 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#635102 — Merging white dwarfs may create most of our galaxy’s antimatter

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2017/05/white-dwarfs-may-create-antimatter

More than four decades ago, astronomers discovered the first gamma-ray 
emission coming from outside the solar system. This high-energy signal 
is associated with the destruction of roughly 1043 positrons — a type of 
antimatter — each second. Despite extensive follow-up, astronomers today 
are still looking for the exact source (or sources) of this emission, 
which could run the gamut from mundane (natural processes in a star’s 
life) to exotic (dark matter) origins. Recently, a group of astronomers 
has determined that positrons resulting from white dwarf mergers could 
contribute significantly to the signal we see.

The emission associated with galactic positron annihilation occurs when 
a positron meets its counterpart, an electron, destroying both particles 
in the process. Thus, this emission requires a ready source of 
antimatter, which has remained mysterious ever since its initial detection.

Measurements suggest that the signal is nearly one and a half times 
higher in the bulge, or central regions of the Milky Way, than in the 
arms. This particular aspect of the emission has led to the development 
of several models that speculate an overabundance of positrons in this 
area could be due to processes related to dark matter or our galaxy’s 
central supermassive black hole. However, many astronomers are still 
searching for less exotic ways the positrons we’re seeing undergo 
annihilation could be produced.

In a paper published May 22 in Nature Astronomy, first author Roland M. 
Crocker of the Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics at 
Australian National University and his co-authors examine a possible 
stellar source of galactic positrons that could be responsible for the 
signal: white dwarf mergers.

White dwarfs are the remnant cores of Sun-like stars, left behind after 
the star runs out of fuel and dies. If two low-mass stars (between about 
1.4 and 2 times the mass of our Sun) circle each other closely in a 
binary system, they can interact via a process called mass transfer, 
where gas from the stars is exchanged. The end result is two white 
dwarfs that may eventually merge, and that merger can result in the 
production of radioactive isotopes that decay into positrons.

There are several clues that have led Crocker and his co-authors to this 
conclusion. The ratio of the signal’s strength in the bulge and arms is 
similar to the ratio of the stellar mass (essentially the number of 
stars) in these two structures as well. This led the astronomers to 
consider that the positron production could be related to an older 
stellar population, such as white dwarfs. Additionally, by looking at 
the processes that produce positrons through radioactive decay, they 
determined that the decay of 44Ti into positrons is the most likely source.

However, this material is not produced in sufficient amounts in most 
core collapse supernovae, which occur when a massive star reaches the 
end of its life. While supernovae triggered by the merger of two white 
dwarfs are much rarer, these events should produce more 44Ti per merger, 
which would then decay and produce the number of positrons required to 
create the emission line from their subsequent annihilation.

The current resolution of instruments used to study this emission is not 
high enough to find point sources, such as individual supernova 
remnants, in the bulge. Thus, more precise measurements and computer 
simulations will be needed to determine the positron production rates 
from such events. The authors also state that white dwarf mergers are 
likely not the only source of antimatter in our galaxy, which still 
includes contributions from massive stars and black holes, even if dark 
matter is eventually ruled out as a viable source for this emission.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#635123

No.
Opposite star arms share the same spin
making them opposite matter (antimatter).
There are thus exactly the same amount
of each, just as there should be.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#635173

Of course, when I suggested that
galaxies are half antimatter,
Odd asked where all the signs of
positron/electron annihilation are- there
should be some if opposite arms are
beside each other:
Obvious that he didn't know about this:
"More than four decades ago, astronomers discovered the first gamma-ray emission coming from outside the solar system. This high-energy signal is associated with the destruction of roughly 1043 positrons — a type of antimatter — each second. Despite extensive follow-up, astronomers today are still looking for the exact source (or sources) of this emission, which could run the gamut from mundane (natural processes in a star’s life) to exotic (dark matter) origins. Recently, a group of astronomers has determined that positrons resulting from white dwarf mergers could contribute significantly to the signal we see."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#635175

It has been observed that galaxies' arms are
at the axis of a helical magnetic field.
That axis must have a spin direction.
The arm exactly opposite must have the
same axial spin.
Since it is facing exactly the opposite way,
all of its matter will have exactly the
opposite spin.
Antimatter makes up exactly half of galaxies,
or tries to.
The analogy with atoms is the 'spin up' and
'spin down' electrons, which being exactly 
opposite each other share the same orbital.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#635176

'Snicker'
White dwarfs are antimatter???

That's what lack of a model does to Science.
No bearings.
It's like they're in a white-out snow storm,
or firing at noises in the dark.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#635185

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>'Snicker'
>White dwarfs are antimatter???

Snicker!
Half of galactic arms are antimatter???

>That's what lack of a model does to Science.
>No bearings.

You prove that all the time when you spew forth pseudoscience without any
model whatsoever.

>It's like they're in a white-out snow storm,
>or firing at noises in the dark.

Yup. Sounds like your posts, alright!

The sad part is that you don't see this. You simply project it onto
standard science.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#635187

MM
My model for the Atom is the spiral galaxy.
It's called "The Galaxy Model for the Atom".

Opposite star arms correlate with up/down
electron pairs.
The helical field surrounding the primary
star-arm- correlating as it does with the up
electron- means that the opposite star arm
will have the opposite helical field.
One field has Matter stars.
The other field has antimatter stars.

These ideas come because I HAVE a model.

Perhaps they're right about white dwarfs;
perhaps they drift to the edges of the arms
in both cases, and interact.
Track some.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#635188

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>My model for the Atom is the spiral galaxy.
>It's called "The Galaxy Model for the Atom".

That's not a model. A scientific model has rules or formulas that state
things like "if you do this, that happens" with rather specific statements,
not just handwaving.  Such as "if you drop an object on Earth, the position
of the object as it falls can be described by: y(t) = -(g*t^2)/2.  In other
words, given a time, you have an exact position prediction.  That's a model
for gravity on the earth's surface.

All you have is handwaving with absolutely no support, and usually 
conflicting with already made observations.

>Opposite star arms correlate with up/down
>electron pairs.

Vacuous, with no evidence.

>The helical field surrounding the primary
>star-arm- correlating as it does with the up
>electron- means that the opposite star arm
>will have the opposite helical field.

You don't even understand "up" and "down" as referring to electrons.

>One field has Matter stars.
>The other field has antimatter stars.

Conflicts with already existing observations. And what about non-spiral
galaxies? What about spirals with odd numbers of arms? What about galaxies
with partial or ill- defined arms?

>These ideas come because I HAVE a model.

No you don't. You have a whole bunch of vacuous claims with no evidence
or predictions.

>Perhaps they're right about white dwarfs;
>perhaps they drift to the edges of the arms
>in both cases, and interact.
>Track some.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#635189

MM
"No you don't. You have a whole bunch of vacuous claims with no evidence 
or predictions. "
They just observed jets to have spin.
I predicted that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#635270

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>"No you don't. You have a whole bunch of vacuous claims with no evidence 
>or predictions. "
>They just observed jets to have spin.
>I predicted that.

No, John, that's not a prediction as how science uses it, since you think
everything is retarded spinny things, with no explanation why, other than
OCD or something.  No evidence supporting your "prediction", only vacuous
claims.  The best we can say about your "prediction" is that a stopped
clock is correct twice a day.

A real prediction has a model which takes some parameters that produces
some result (a prediction).  Such as the simple gravity model I mentioned 
earlier.  You can plug in the height of the Empire State Building into
it and predict exactly how long it would take for a rock dropped from the
top of Empire State Building to reach the ground. That is a real 
prediction.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#635294

MM
"..
top of Empire State Building to reach the ground. That is a real 
prediction. "

So, forseeing a magnetic pole at rightangles
to the galactic disc, and that it is spinning,
and that atoms are instantaneously disclike
are not predictive?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#635298

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>"..
>top of Empire State Building to reach the ground. That is a real 
>prediction. "

>So, forseeing a magnetic pole at rightangles
>to the galactic disc, and that it is spinning,

Why yes, since the Standard Model predicted that and we saw that, that is
another piece of support for the standard model!  I'm glad you approve!

>and that atoms are instantaneously disclike
>are not predictive?

And now you're back to kookbabble. No model predicts that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#635302

MM
"Why yes, since the Standard Model predicted that and we saw that, that is 
another piece of support for the standard model!  I'm glad you approve! 
"
Well, in the mid-80s when the VLA
saw that, the article said it was a complete surprise
to see the magnetic field like that..
I could show you the article.

I'll bet you can't show me where and/or why
Standard Model predicted that, pre-1986.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#635179

Haha.
I like how they say 'may create most' of
our antimatter.
That leaves it completely open for there
to not only be other sources (VERY open-minded),
but for the white dwarfs to maybe NOT
even contribute the most!!!

Very forward-thinking. Who is paying these
deep thinkers?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#635186

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Haha.
>I like how they say 'may create most' of
>our antimatter.
>That leaves it completely open for there
>to not only be other sources (VERY open-minded),
>but for the white dwarfs to maybe NOT
>even contribute the most!!!

>Very forward-thinking. Who is paying these
>deep thinkers?

That's how science works, John. We make observations, we see something
puzzling, we have questions, we come up with a hypothesis that is a
possible answer to the questions, we make more observations to try to
refute/validate the hypothesis, and in the process, we may answer some
questions but more puzzling observations may bring up more questions.

This is not a fault in science, in fact it is a strength.  Remember, the
goal of science is to figure out how nature works, so any changes to the
model we have that is closer to the truth is a plus, not a minus.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#635224

On 6/3/17 6:52 AM, john wrote:
> Of course, when I suggested that
> galaxies are half antimatter,
> Odd asked where all the signs of
> positron/electron annihilation are- there
> should be some if opposite arms are
> beside each other:

And since all arms touch the galactic core, then there should be some 
there too.

> Obvious that he didn't know about this:
> "More than four decades ago, astronomers discovered the first gamma-ray emission coming from outside the solar system. This high-energy signal is associated with the destruction of roughly 1043 positrons — a type of antimatter — each second. Despite extensive follow-up, astronomers today are still looking for the exact source (or sources) of this emission, which could run the gamut from mundane (natural processes in a star’s life) to exotic (dark matter) origins. Recently, a group of astronomers has determined that positrons resulting from white dwarf mergers could contribute significantly to the signal we see."
> 

Right. So notice that this is a RARE occurrence and does not happen with 
every single fucking spiral galaxy like you claim it should.


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#635244

Odd
"
Right. So notice that this is a RARE occurrence and does not happen with 
every single fucking spiral galaxy like you claim it should. 
"
I didn't notice- how do you mean- rare?
They only know that it's coming from beyond
our solar system, presumably from within
our galaxy.
There was no mention of other galaxies.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#635316 — Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our gala xy’s antimatter

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> "
> Right. So notice that this is a RARE occurrence and does not happen with 
> every single fucking spiral galaxy like you claim it should. 
> "
> I didn't notice- how do you mean- rare?
> They only know that it's coming from beyond
> our solar system, presumably from within
> our galaxy.
> There was no mention of other galaxies.
> 

That's the point. If galaxies were the sources, they'd be easily
identifiable. This is a localized source that does not match up to
galaxies. READ THE PAPER, not the magazine article. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#635323 — Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our gala xy’s antimatter

Odd
"- hide quoted text -
john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> Odd 
> " 
> Right. So notice that this is a RARE occurrence and does not happen with 
> every single fucking spiral galaxy like you claim it should. 
> " 
> I didn't notice- how do you mean- rare? 
> They only know that it's coming from beyond 
> our solar system, presumably from within 
> our galaxy. 
> There was no mention of other galaxies. 
> 

That's the point. If galaxies were the sources, they'd be easily 
identifiable. This is a localized source that does not match up to 
galaxies. "

It comes from OUR galaxy.
So galaxies are sources- proven.
Or are white dwarfs outside of galaxies?
WHAT is your point?
I don't think you know.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#635332 — Re: Merging white dwarfs may create most of our gala xy’s antimatter

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> "- hide quoted text -
> john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> Odd 
>> " 
>> Right. So notice that this is a RARE occurrence and does not happen with 
>> every single fucking spiral galaxy like you claim it should. 
>> " 
>> I didn't notice- how do you mean- rare? 
>> They only know that it's coming from beyond 
>> our solar system, presumably from within 
>> our galaxy. 
>> There was no mention of other galaxies. 
>> 
> 
> That's the point. If galaxies were the sources, they'd be easily 
> identifiable. This is a localized source that does not match up to 
> galaxies. "
> 
> It comes from OUR galaxy.
> So galaxies are sources- proven.
> Or are white dwarfs outside of galaxies?
> WHAT is your point?
> I don't think you know.
> 

Right! So we see a bunch of galaxies around all pinpointable. You say the
should ALL exhibit this radiation. Every spiral galaxy should. So where is
it?

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web