Slashdot Mirror
Theory Posits Early Stars Powered By Dark Matter
ethericalzen writes "A BBC article highlights a theory that the first stars may have been powered by dark matter. A group of US scientists published a paper in Physical Review Letters speculating that, unlike the stars of today, which are powered by nuclear fusion, early stars might have been powered by the abundant dark matter crowding the universe after the Big Bang. The theory suggests that these stars would have collided and destroyed one another before nuclear fusion had a chance take hold." The BBC perhaps overstates the certainty with which the dark-matter theory is held, and doesn't mention that the postulated properties of such particles are completely speculative.
How can something so dark create so much light...
Maybe that's where all that Dark Energy came from.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
How do you overstate the certainty of dark matter? Last I read, the only serious alternatives were that there's more interstellar dust than we thought (improbable considering the observations of the bending of light), modifications to the theory of gravity (few supporters, unlikely, especially with said observations), and string theory.
everything is explained by dark matter. Universe heavier then we think it should be? dark matter. can't figure out the big bang? dark matter. I bet soon enought someone will figure out a way to tie dark matter to the cables in the middle east that got cut the other day.
-- All this knowledge is giving me a raging brainer.
Maybe a better word/phrase for this would be "interesting idea being bandied about".
Its use of "theory" like this that give the mouth breathers down in Florida and excuse.
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
after all:
1. Nibblonian civilization predates the Big Bang by 17 years.
2. Nibblonians poop dark matter.
Ergo, the first stars were made of Nibblonian poop.
There is zero evidence of Dark Matter. Circumstantial but it's just like string theory: a lot of take, no proof.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
Michigan researchers are using the same theory to come up with democratic delegates.
similar research is going on in florida
Here's the LANL preprint: http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.1724v2
Don't we have a pretty concrete definition of what a "star" is? If these early objects were actually composited of dark matter, wouldn't they be something else?
For example, a tennis ball and a "tennis-ball-shaped" object made of iron are two very different objects. I know which one I would like to have hit me in the head.
... and where did the dark matter come from? Well it was created from normal matter by running time backwards.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
If this was a simulation, would you simulate very atom? Or would you bulk compute matter that was less important, until it became important then simulate every atom?
Could dark matter, or matter we have trouble seeing, be the equivalent of hiding polygons which don't need to be rendered in a 3D scene?
Geez, I hope not. Quick, prove me wrong.
M0571y H@rml355.
Oh that's right, because Physical Review is edited and typeset by elves, who don't need a salary, so WTF is the journal insisting on an income for? Wretched selfish antisocial bastards.
In other words, "Math is hard, let's go shopping."
To paraphrase: "We can't think of any other alternatives so this one must be true!". Gee that's a scientific approach!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Are you Al Gore? ... http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com/
Eventually this will begin to show that the "Big Bang" did not start it all to begin.
As the astronomers equipment gets better, so it will be that science will have to change the reasons behind what it is seeing. Look for postulates of dark energy/matter (multidimensional areas in space), and also postulates of light changing its speed from place to place, depending upon the formula around localized reality, especially the time frame.
This will create new insight as how the Universe is moving.
As we approach the speed of Light then our Time frame changes... this also works in reverse... as time frames change then so does the speed of Light. Some locales in space have different time than that of Earth and therefore the speed of Light is also different.
And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
The dark matter worn on the faces of early minstrel stars was certainly key to their star power.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
FUCK EBAY
Id like to propose a new Slashdot rule for all future articles pertaining to Dark Matter and/or Dark Energy.
Unless you are a particle physicist or an engineering physicist or a PROFESSIONAL astronomer (amateurs, sorry youre out), then you are no longer allowed to comment on these articles.
The fact of the matter is, NONE of you (except maybe 2 or 3) have any idea what youre talking about. The editor is quite correct in this post in saying that the theory isnt 100% proven yet, and as a few posters have been kind enough to point out, that IS enough to not throw out the theory completely. So there are two sides to this, but you cant take a side on an argument if you don't even know what the argument is about. So...the rest of you...just stop talking
Considering that the need for Dark Energy to explain the expansion of the universe is in question, I don't know. We know very little about Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Now we hear that our own galaxy might be twice as thick as we previously thought. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are added to observed data to come up with models to explain observations. I'm thinking if 75% of the energy in the model is no longer required to explain observations and the 4% of free hydrogen and helium might be doubled that maybe we should take a look at the 25% that is Dark Matter as well.
for the fact that MOND gives good results.
There is nothing wrong with Dark Matter(DM) as a concept. It is certainly possible that DM exists. The only problem with DM (at least at the Galactic scale) is that MOND gives very good results. Its like the Max Planck's corpuscular theory of Black Body Radiation. Planck assumed that radiation could only have some allowed energy levels. This assumption was able to fit the Black Body Radiation curve very well. This is how Quantum theory was born.
Now MOND is similar in nature. It is based on an assumption that at a certain acceleration level gravitational pull no longer drops at r^2 with distance, but drops at r with distance. It is actually defined as a geometric mean of the acceleration due to Newtonian gravity and the special acceleration level. This simple modification works very well at the Galactic level.
DM at galactic scale would be perfectly fine if we did not have MOND work so well.
The other fact is that MOND does not work well beyond galactic scale. I believe that both approaches could be true. MOND and DM can both be true. I suspect that DM could be spread out nearly uniformly. The density might not be sufficient to produce much gravitational effect at galactic scales, but at larger scales, it may produce a large observable effect.
MOND can be explained very easily by GR, if the universe is curved. The problem is that flatness is considered a settled question.
The proposed idea that early stars were made of dark matter, etc. is pure speculation. Speculation is NOT a theory. Let's review: scientifically speaking "a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable" [wikipedia]. A theory also is built on a substantial mathematical/physical/chemical foundation on which it rests. Unfortunately there is an air-headed defintion that 'theory' is a speculative conjecture, opinion, or untestable notion; but only numbskulls think along those lines. Also, dark matter and dark energy are in themselves nothing more than speculative conjectures ... there is currently NO theory of dark matter nor of dark energy. In time, a workable theory involving them will no doubt be built.
How weakly do Weakly Interacting Massive Particles interact? Now we have them colliding and annihilating themselves? Often enough to create enough pressure to offset the gravity trying to pull the "star" together? Just how wimpy are your WIMPs?
And I also am not convinced these hypothetical objects should be called "stars." Quark stars and neutron stars were at least formerly fusion-powered stars before losing their morals and becoming degenerate matter.
You mean it wasn't pennywhistles and moonpies?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
...that the Dark Side created the universe.
Is this good enough?
DNA just wants to be free...