Researchers explain the activity of black holes at the centre of galaxy clusters

Sep 04, 2009
The galaxy cluster NGC507 as seen in three wavelengths. Blue shows the X-ray emission as observed by the Chandra satellite; red depicts the radio waves, which mark the activity of the supermassive black hole, as received by the Very Large Array in New Mexico; and green shows an optical image from the Digitized Sky Survey. The radio waves, and therefore indirectly the black hole's influence, cover a region that extends about 200,000 light years; i.e., they reach the outskirts of the central galaxy in this cluster. (Credits: R. Mittal, Bonn University, CXO, VLA)

(PhysOrg.com) -- Astronomers at the University of Bonn have clarified the connection between black holes at the centre of galaxy clusters and surrounding gas, which serves them as "food". The scientists have produced a ground-breaking study of what could be called "cosmic feeding". It has now been published in the prestigious scientific journal Astronomy and Astrophysics.

A black hole is the term give by astronomers to a cosmic object whose is so strong that it draws in everything in the immediate vicinity. Not even light can escape the pull. Scientists expect to find such phenomena at the centres of all major galaxies. Black holes vary considerably in size. Like boxers, they come in different "weight classes". Supermassive black holes can have a mass that is millions, or even billions, of times greater than our sun's.

"Supermassive black holes are not always 'active'," explains Dr. Thomas H. Reiprich. "In fact most black holes simply 'smoulder' away." Dr. Reiprich works at the Argelander Institute for Astronomy in Bonn, where he heads the Emmy Noether Research Group for "Studying the Nature of Dark Energy with Galaxy Clusters". He is particularly interested in understanding the black holes in the cores of galaxy clusters, which are the largest objects in the universe. By looking at the radiation in the vicinity of a black hole, astronomers are able to draw conclusions about their "food situation". The radiation derives from material that is being slowly absorbed by the black hole. This "food" is mainly ingested by the insatiable cosmic bodies in the form of .

For black holes, gas is only "edible" if it is cooled down sufficiently - much like in real life! "The particles in hot gas move too quickly for them to come close enough to be pulled into a black hole," says Dr. Reiprich. His colleague Dr. Rupal Mittal, the study's principal author, adds, "For that to happen, the gaseous mixture must cool down. Just how long the cooling process lasts can vary. A billion years is very a short period by cosmic standards." The black hole at the centre of a in which the gas cools "quickly" enough will receive "edible" gas in abundance and be correspondingly active. The centres of galaxy clusters in which these processes take considerably longer are, in turn, far less lively.

Fast-cooling gas as fuel

The idea that all central black holes in galaxy clusters are active if there is sufficient gas available was already postulated by scientists. But the current work by the Bonn research group furnishes the evidence. "Earlier research had identified a high proportion of such galaxy clusters, but we have now been able to demonstrate that it's not just a 70 per cent incidence but applies to all cases," Reiprich sums up. "All galaxy clusters that cool down rapidly, and thus have an abundance of gas available in their interior, reinvigorate supermassive black holes - like a fresh log on a dying wood-fire. In other words, the black holes will really get going if their wide environment is right."

As part of their study, the researchers in Bonn combined the measurement of radio waves with X-ray images of more than sixty galaxy clusters. Thanks to improved data, they were able to examine these phenomena more closely than previous investigations managed to do. Using the X-ray observations they determined which galaxy clusters contain, in their cores, that can serve as food for black holes. And, by means of radio data, the Bonn-based scientists analysed the activity of supermassive .

More information: Astronomy and Astrophysics,Volume 501, Issue 3, 2009, pp. 835-850; DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/200810836

Provided by University of Bonn (news : web)

Explore further: Spectacular supernova's mysteries revealed

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Chandra catches 'piranha' black holes

Jul 24, 2007

Supermassive black holes have been discovered to grow more rapidly in young galaxy clusters, according to new results from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory. These "fast-track" supermassive black holes can ...

Proto supermassive binary black hole detected in X-rays

Apr 06, 2006

An international team of astronomers led by D. Hudson from the University of Bonn has detected a proto supermassive binary black hole in images of NASA's Chandra X-ray observatory. They found that these two black holes are ...

Huge Black Holes Stifle Star Formation

Aug 23, 2006

Supermassive black holes in some giant galaxies create such a hostile environment, they shut down the formation of new stars, according to NASA Galaxy Evolution Explorer findings published in the August 24 ...

Chandra data reveal rapidly whirling black holes

Jan 10, 2008

A new study using results from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory provides one of the best pieces of evidence yet that many supermassive black holes are spinning extremely rapidly. The whirling of these giant ...

A new way to weigh giant black holes

Jul 16, 2008

How do you weigh the biggest black holes in the universe? One answer now comes from a completely new and independent technique that astronomers have developed using data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory.

Recommended for you

Spectacular supernova's mysteries revealed

12 hours ago

(Phys.org) —New research by a team of UK and European-based astronomers is helping to solve the mystery of what caused a spectacular supernova in a galaxy 11 million light years away, seen earlier this ...

Supernova seen in two lights

13 hours ago

(Phys.org) —The destructive results of a mighty supernova explosion reveal themselves in a delicate blend of infrared and X-ray light, as seen in this image from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope and Chandra ...

Toothpaste fluorine formed in stars

Aug 21, 2014

The fluorine that is found in products such as toothpaste was likely formed billions of years ago in now dead stars of the same type as our sun. This has been shown by astronomers at Lund University in Sweden, ...

Swirling electrons in the whirlpool galaxy

Aug 20, 2014

The whirlpool galaxy Messier 51 (M51) is seen from a distance of approximately 30 million light years. This galaxy appears almost face-on and displays a beautiful system of spiral arms.

User comments : 27

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

omatumr
2.4 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2009
THE SURROUNDING GAS IS WASTE, NOT "FOOD"

Repulsive interactions between neutrons prevent the formation of Black Holes.

Massive compact objects at the center of galaxies (and stars) are neutron stars.

Repulsive interactions between neutrons cause these objects to "evaporate" by neutron-emission. The neutrons decay in a few minutes to Hydrogen (H).

Some of the H waste product may fuse into heavier elements, as does H moving up from the solar core, but some H escapes to interstellar space.

Just like the 50,000 billion metric ton of Hydrogen that pours from the surface of the Sun each year.

See: "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass," Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2009) pages 1847-1856 or Yadernaya Fizika 69 (Russian, November 2006) number 11.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com

lomed
5 / 5 (6) Sep 04, 2009
Massive compact objects at the center of galaxies (and stars) are neutron stars.
I would think an object composed entirely of neutrons would have an average density similar to that of an atomic nucleus. However, a 1 billion solar mass black hole has an average density (bounded by its event horizon) less than that of water. Thus, as long as you are using general relativity, you cannot have a neutron star (of nuclear density) that is that massive (or even anything remotely comparable), because it will have an event horizon, and thus be a black hole.
Question
4 / 5 (4) Sep 04, 2009
Omatumr:

Neutrons decay into hydrogen okay, but where do you come up with the idea neutrons are repulsive toward each other? Are there any experiments that confirm this?

earls
3 / 5 (2) Sep 04, 2009
Question:

"Neutron stars, in which gravity is opposed by neutron degeneracy pressure and short-range repulsive neutron-neutron interactions mediated by the strong force;"

http://en.wikiped...collapse

http://www.physic...ces.html

Consider:

http://www.google...+-manuel

http://www.google...+-manuel

It seems to be a well understood mathematical concept, but I'm afraid I have failed to discover a pure in situ experiment.
JukriS
Sep 05, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
omatumr
3.1 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2009
EVIDENCE OF REPULSION BETWEEN NEUTRONS

Omatumr:

Neutrons decay into hydrogen okay, but where do you come up with the idea neutrons are repulsive toward each other? Are there any experiments that confirm this?


Thank you for the question.

Mass data for the 3,000 types of atoms that comprise the entire visible universe show clear evidence of repulsive interactions between neutrons in every atomic nucleus with two (2) or more neutrons.

See the "Cradle of the Nuclides" here: http://tinyurl.com/2otxps or
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm" title="http://http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.omatum...Data.htm

This finding was made in the spring semester of 2000 with help from five students in an advanced nuclear chemistry course (Chem 471: Special Topics in Nuclear Chemistry) at the University of Missouri-Rolla.

The finding has been reported in these papers and many others cited in the last one, and nobody - absolutely nobody (none, zero) in the nuclear, solar, or astrophysics community - has had the courage to suggest that our conclusion is wrong. To do that, the critic sends a note the editor asking that their criticism be published as a rebuttal.

01. http://xxx.lanl.g.../0411255

02. http://tinyurl.com/39kwoz or
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf" title="http://http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.omatum...tnuc.pdf

03. http://tinyurl.com/n99jvr or
http://www.spring...ak3lyrc/

04. http://tinyurl.com/mw7mhu or
http://www.spring...6685079/
.
.
.
.

05. http://arxiv.org/...609509v3

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
Question
1 / 5 (1) Sep 06, 2009

Oliver K. Manuel: Thanks.
You have many good ideas and I find myself in agreement with most of your solar model. But I do have a question, in the excerpt below from one of your links refers to nuclide masses (neutrons?) as being in a high potential energy state.

One would think that the neutrons in a neutron star after a supernova collapse would be at a very low energy state. Wouldn't the pressure of a supernova explosion squeeze most of the heat energy out of the remaining neutrons just like a compressor squeezes heat energy out of a gas? (This heat energy would escape from the supernova by way of neutral neutrino radiation.)

The remaining neutron star would then be reheated by absorbing nearly all of the natural background of neutral neutrino radiation that strikes it. This heating would turn the surface neutrons into hydrogen gas recreating a star like our sun over the eons. This view would explain why nearly one-half of the neutrinos originating from the sun are missing. They are really neutral radiation that is reabsorbed by the neutrons in the sun.

All of this is explained in more detail starting on pages 7, also on 27 and 28 at the link below:

http://www.scribd...-Physics


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

excerpt

" Nuclide masses showed repulsive n-n interactions, high potential energy for those in a neutron star, and a source for luminosity, neutrinos, and the carrier gas that sustains mass fractionation and an outflow of solar-wind hydrogen [12, 13].

05. http://arxiv.org/...609509v3


earls
5 / 5 (3) Sep 06, 2009
"nearly one-half of the neutrinos originating from the sun are missing"

I take it you don't subscribe to "neutrino oscillation"?
Question
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 06, 2009
"nearly one-half of the neutrinos originating from the sun are missing"



I take it you don't subscribe to "neutrino oscillation"?


Correct, I do not subscribe to neutrino oscillation.
JukriS
Sep 07, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
earls
5 / 5 (3) Sep 07, 2009
Now we're up to three different explanations, anyone else want to take a crack (or should I say crank?) at it?

Regardless of who, what, when, where, why, how the sun is producing neutrinos, from what I understand two aspects of neutrinos have been experimentally verified:

a. They have mass.
b. They oscillate.

Does anyone care to dispute?
omatumr
2 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2009
DO NEUTRINOS OSCILLATE IN 8 MINUTES, BUT FAIL TO
DO SO IN 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 YEARS??

I don't think so.

To check the basic conservation laws of physics, double beta decay rates were measured where two electrons and two neutrinos are simultaneously emitted from nuclei like Se-82, Te-130 and Te-128.

For time spans up to 10^24 years, we saw no compelling evidence of neutrino oscillations [See: "Geochemical measurements of double-beta decay," J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 17 S221-S229 doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/17/S/024
http://www.iop.or...17/S/024

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com

omatumr
1 / 5 (3) Sep 07, 2009
Oliver K. Manuel: Thanks.

You have many good ideas and I find myself in agreement with most of your solar model. But I do have a question, in the excerpt below from one of your links refers to nuclide masses (neutrons?) as being in a high potential energy state.

One would think that the neutrons in a neutron star after a supernova collapse would be at a very low energy state.


Thank you for your kindness. You are correct in suggesting that neutrons were believed to be tightly bound in neutron stars - bound there by losing ~10% of their rest mass. I.e., the nuclear binding energy of each neutron was thought to be about +93 MeV.

Because of neutron repulsion, the nuclear binding energy of each neutron in a neutron star is about -(10 to 22) MeV. For the neutron star in the core of the Sun, the nuclear binding energy is now about -12 MeV.

This is explained further on the Naked Science Forum: http://tinyurl.com/lkj7zw

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com


lomed
5 / 5 (3) Sep 07, 2009
For the neutron star in the core of the Sun, the nuclear binding energy is now about -12 MeV.
I thought an object with negative binding energy (binding energy = potential energy - kinetic energy) would explode (in fact, already be in the process of exploding).

For time spans up to 10^24 years, we saw no compelling evidence of neutrino oscillations
As given in the abstract of the paper described in the following link ( http://www.osti.g...=6508597 ), the limit on the double beta decay of Tellurium 130 only serves to put an upper bound on the mass of the neutrino. The abstract says that they obtained a somewhat lower Te-128 to Te-130 ratio than in your paper, and that the result was an upper bound of 5.6 eV for the rest mass of a (electron) neutrino. Note, double beta decay is predicted if neutrinos have mass due to the majorana mechanism (which is probably the most widely accepted); however, there are other possible ways of explaining massive neutrinos which would not produce ("neutrinoless") double beta decay at all. Since the lower limit given on the wikipedia page on neutrinos is 0.04 eV, I see no reason to believe the paper you cited proves neutrinos have zero rest mass (and thus do not oscillate).
Question
not rated yet Sep 07, 2009
Earl, the evidence that neutrinos oscillate comes from the fact that fewer neutrinos arrive at the detection tanks in the upward direction as opposed to the downward direction. Is this proof that neutrinos oscillate, not at all. It could also be proof that neutrinos are nothing more than neutral radiation and some of this radiation is absorbed after traveling through the earth.
omatumr
1 / 5 (1) Sep 07, 2009
NO, CONSIDER THE NEGATIVE BINDING ENERGY
OF AN ALPHA PARTICLE TO URANIUM NUCLEUS

For the neutron star in the core of the Sun, the nuclear binding energy is now about -12 MeV.
I thought an object with negative binding energy (binding energy = potential energy - kinetic energy) would explode (in fact, already be in the process of exploding).


With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com

lomed
not rated yet Sep 08, 2009
NO, CONSIDER THE NEGATIVE BINDING ENERGY
OF AN ALPHA PARTICLE TO URANIUM NUCLEUS
Yes, sorry, I temporarily forgot that potential energy is measured with respect to infinity for inverse power law forces (thus implying a negative binding energy). Do you have any idea where this extra 12 MeV binding energy comes from? I presume it would involve a new fundamental force, since all the significant known ones have been included in previous calculations by nuclear physicists.
omatumr
1 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2009
REPULSIVE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE NEUTRONS:
FUNDAMENTAL FORCE OVERLOOKED BY PHYSICISTS

NO, CONSIDER THE NEGATIVE BINDING ENERGY
OF AN ALPHA PARTICLE TO URANIUM NUCLEUS


Yes, sorry, I temporarily forgot that potential energy is measured with respect to infinity for inverse power law forces (thus implying a negative binding energy). Do you have any idea where this extra 12 MeV binding energy comes from?


Yes.

1. Measurements from 1960 to 1976 showed us that the Sun exploded axially 5 Gyr ago, ejected the material that now orbits it, and then reformed on the pulsar.

2. Close attention to existing data finally convinced us in 1983 that the interior of the Sun is mostly iron (Fe), not hydrogen (H), as expected in a supernova remnant.

3. Close attention to existing data finally convinced us in 2000 that repulsive interactions between neutrons in the mysterious energy source that powers the ball of iron that rises in the East eash morning and sets in the West each evening.

I presume it would involve a new fundamental force, since all the significant known ones have been included in previous calculations by nuclear physicists.


Yes. They only failed to consider the unrecognized repulsive force between neutrons that turns out to be the primary energy source that powers the cores of Sun, other stars, and galactic centers.

I will provide references if requested.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
lomed
5 / 5 (1) Sep 08, 2009
the unrecognized repulsive force between neutrons that turns out to be the primary energy source that powers the cores of Sun
Is this "unrecognized repulsive force" due to unforeseen effects of the strong force (or one of the other known fundamental forces), or is it entirely new (and thus probably mediated by an as yet undiscovered boson)?
omatumr
1 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2009
REPULSIVE FORCE BETWEEN NEUTRONS PUBLISHED
BUT IGNORED - LIKE OTHER FINDINGS SINCE 1960
THAT EMBARRASSED NAS AND FUNDING AGENCIES

Is this "unrecognized repulsive force" entirely new?


Yes. It was discovered in the spring of 2000 - with the help of five graduate students - in the rest mass data of all known nuclei in an Advanced Nuclear Chemistry course (Chem 471) that I taught at the University of Missouri-Rolla.

See CRADLE OF THE NUCLIDES: [url]http://tinyurl.com/2otxps[/url]

Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source, Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2001) pages 197-201: http://tinyurl.com/mw7mhu

Numerous other papers cited in: Fingerprints of a local supernova, in SPACE
EXPLORATION RESEARCH (Nova Science Publishers, Inc., Hauppauge, NY, in press, 38 pp, 2009); ISBN: 978-1-60692-264-4
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0684

NAS has used its control over the budgets of NSF, DOE, NASA, NOA, etc. to hide, distort, or ignore repulsive interactions between neutrons and many other experimental findings since 1960 that compelled us to its discovery:

1. SPACE SCIENCE

The Sun gave birth to the solar system 5 Gyr ago by ejecting the material that now orbits it.
- a. The Sun reformed on the pulsar.
- b. Nearby material formed iron meteorites and iron cores of inner planets.
- c. The supernova envelope formed the giant gaseous Jovian planets.
- d. Rocky planets formed in layers, beginning with their iron cores.
- e. Iron is the most abundant element inside the Sun.
- See: http://tinyurl.com/359q3u

2. NUCLEAR SCIENCE

Repulsive neutron-neutron interactions in the solar core trigger reactions that produce solar luminosity, solar neutrinos, and SW-Hydrogen in exactly the proportions observed.
- a. Neutron-neutron interactions are strongly repulsive in all nuclei.
- b. Neutron-proton interactions are strongly attractive.
- c. Neutron-neutron and Coulomb-free proton-proton are symmetric.
- d. Hydrogen is a waste product, not fuel, of the Sun's nuclear furnace.
- e. Nuclear dissociation powers the Sun and sustains our lives.
- f. Solar neutrinos do not oscillate.
- See: [url]http://tinyurl.com/2otxps[/url]

COSMOLOGY

If this tiny corner of space is representative of the rest of the universe, then
- a. Competition between long-range gravitational forces and short-range repulsive forces between neutrons in compact massive objects at the cores of the Sun, other stars, and galaxies sustains their dynamic operation and releases Hydrogen to interstellar space.
- b. The universe may be finite and expanding as emissions from the first-formed neutron star(s) decay to the most dispersed form of nuclear matter, Hydrogen.
- c. The universe may be infinite and oscillating between:
- c, 1. Expansion as compact objects like that at the cores of stars and galaxies evaporate and release hydrogen to interstellar space, followed by
- c, 2. Contraction as the neutron stars evaporate away leaving less repulsive forces between neutrons to counter gravitational forces of attraction.

Despite opposition, All is well today
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
lomed
5 / 5 (1) Sep 09, 2009
Is this "unrecognized repulsive force" due to unforeseen effects of the strong force (or one of the other known fundamental forces), or is it entirely new
By "entirely new" I meant a new fundamental force (like the strong and weak nuclear forces, EM, and gravity). What I think you are describing is a new emergent force i.e. a force due to some unforeseen effect of the accepted fundamental forces.
omatumr
1.5 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2009
N-N REPULSIVE INTERACTIONS: AN EMPIRICAL FACT

Repulsive forces between neutrons and most of the other conclusions posted above for SPACE SCIENCE and NUCLEAR SCIENCE are empirical facts.

Honest science requires us to accept what is - whether or not we understand (or imagine that we understand) why it is.

Scientists sometimes "invent" imaginary reasons for observations that prevent them from eventually finding the truth.

For example, alphabetically labeled neon components (Ne-A, Ne-B, Ne-C, Ne-D, Ne-E, etc.) for ordinary neon in various stages of mass fractionation [See: "The neon alphabet game", Proceedings of the 11th Lunar & Planetary Science Conference, volume 15, number 2 (1980) pages 879-899]

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
lomed
5 / 5 (1) Sep 09, 2009
N-N REPULSIVE INTERACTIONS: AN EMPIRICAL FACT
I take this to mean you do not speculate on the source of this repulsive interaction. Of the forces that act on neutrons, only the forces due to the pauli exclusion principle and the strong force are relevant within the nucleus. The pauli exclusion principle prevents identical fermions from sharing the same quantum state, requiring additional energy to be added in order to put more neutrons in close proximity to each other. The strong force is repulsive at very small distances, and attractive at greater distances (and is mediated by gluons). Thus, I would explain your results as a demonstration of the interplay between the pauli exclusion principle and the strong force when additional neutrons are added to a nucleus (each one requiring at least as much energy as the last). If your repulsive force cannot be describe by the forces that are known act on neutrons, then you require a new fundamental force/interation to explain it.
omatumr
1 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2009
OBSERVATIONS ARE IMPORTANT; EXPLANATIONS COME LATER

Decades may lapse before we figure out an explanation for any observation. Here is one example during my research career.

1. OBSERVATIONS (1960s through 1990s): Iron meteorites are as old as "primitive" meteorites.

1. EXPLANATION (1991): Iron meteorites are material ejected directly from the core of the Sun. Molybdenum isotopes made by various nuclear reactions are still today, 5 x 10^9 yrs (5 Gyr) later are still not homogenized [Qi-Lu, Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Tokyo, 1991]
http://tinyurl.com/mwsevr

2. OBSERVATIONS (1960s through 1980s): Isotopes of many elements in meteorite inclusions, in the solar wind, in solar flares, in the Earth, and in other planets revealed evidence of severe mass fractionation as seen, for example, in Ne isotopes over the range of 0.1 < Ne-20/Ne-22 < 15.

3. OBSERVATION (1980s to 2000s): The Sun is mostly iron and cannot shine. But the Sun continues to shine.

With kind regards,
OM
omatumr
1 / 5 (2) Sep 11, 2009
OTHER EXPLANATIONS

2. EXPLANATION (1983): The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass. http://arxiv.org/.../0609509

3. EXPLANATION (2000): Neutron repulsion is the primary source of energy in the cores of stars and galaxies. http://arxiv.org/.../0511379

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
lomed
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 12, 2009
OBSERVATIONS ARE IMPORTANT; EXPLANATIONS COME LATER
Observations are important, however, the point of making observations is to produce models of reality that are accurate. There are two functions for observations with respect to models: judging accuracy , and serving as a basis for additions to a model (to make it more accurate). Thus, either your observations support a model, they serve as a basis for improving a model (in very rare cases, this would require a qualitatively different model), or they are irrelevant(due to poor procedure and/or other sources of inaccuracy).

I believe your observations constitute a validation of existing theory, while you think they could be used to improve models. The difference in opinion could be resolved by comparing the predictions of the appropriate theories with your observations. For someone familiar with the data and existing theories, it should not be difficult to at least speculate about reasonable explanations of the observations.
omatumr
1 / 5 (2) Sep 13, 2009
GO AHEAD, TELL US HOW EXISTING THEORY EXPLAINS . . .

Molybdenum isotopes in massive pieces of iron that fall from the sky are not still throughly mixed today [Qi-Lu, Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Tokyo, 1991], 5 x 10^9 yrs (5 Gyr) after the iron was ejected from the core of a supernova?

http://tinyurl.com/mwsevr

Don't forget the imaginary interstellar cloud of existing theory that supposedly

1. Collapsed to form the solar system,
2. Differentiated chemically to form iron meteorites,
3. Left the isotopes of Molybdenum unmixed, all this
4. Before Pd-107 and other short-lived nuclides decayed away.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.edu

http://www.omatum...Data.htm
lomed
5 / 5 (4) Sep 13, 2009
Molybdenum isotopes in massive pieces of iron that fall from the sky are not still throughly mixed today
All it takes for a material to remain unmixed, is a lack of inelastic collisions. It is likely that in order to become homogeneous the region containing the isotopes would have to be melted, which implies either many, or large (at least partially) inelastic collisions.
3. Left the isotopes of Molybdenum unmixed, all this
4. Before Pd-107 and other short-lived nuclides decayed away.
Since supernova debris is usually hot and moving at high velocity, one would think it would take longer for the debris cloud to coalesce into planets than a cold semi-stationary interstellar cloud. Additionally, since Pd-107 is part of the uranium-235 decay series (http://en.wikiped...dium-107 and http://en.wikiped...ium-235) all that is required is that some U-235 be incorporated into the same cloud (in either model) within the last few hundred million
sward
2 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2009
Black Holes have a likeness to water/air vortex's these natural phenomena have been observered on Mars so are not unique to Earth. I still think that what happens in space can be compared with what happens in nature on Earth. Study vortex's and this may lead to a better understanding of the Vortex's in space.