Researchers find last of universe's missing ordinary matter

June 20, 2018, University of Colorado at Boulder
A simulation of the cosmic web, or diffuse tendrils of gas connecting galaxies across the universe. Credit: NASA, ESA, E. Hallman (CU Boulder)

Researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder have helped to find the last reservoir of ordinary matter hiding in the universe.

Ordinary matter, or "baryons," make up all physical objects in existence, from stars to the cores of black holes. But until now, astrophysicists had only been able to locate about two-thirds of the matter that theorists predict was created by the Big Bang.

In the new research, an international team pinned down the missing third, finding it in the space between galaxies. That lost matter exists as filaments of oxygen gas at temperatures of around 1 million degrees Celsius, said CU Boulder's Michael Shull, a co-author of the study.

The finding is a major step for astrophysics. "This is one of the key pillars of testing the Big Bang theory: figuring out the census of hydrogen and helium and everything else in the periodic table," said Shull of the Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences (APS).

The new study, which will appear June 20 in Nature, was led by Fabrizio Nicastro of the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica (INAF)—Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Researchers have a good idea of where to find most of the in the universe—not to be confused with dark matter, which scientists have yet to locate: About 10 percent sits in galaxies, and close to 60 percent is in the diffuse clouds of gas that lie between galaxies.

In 2012, Shull and his colleagues predicted that the missing 30 percent of baryons were likely in a web-like pattern in space called the warm-hot intergalactic medium (WHIM). Charles Danforth, a research associate in APS, contributed to those findings and is a co-author of the new study.

To search for missing atoms in that region between galaxies, the international team pointed a series of satellites at a quasar called 1ES 1553—a black hole at the center of a galaxy that is consuming and spitting out huge quantities of gas. "It's basically a really bright lighthouse out in space," Shull said.

Scientists can glean a lot of information by recording how the radiation from a quasar passes through space, a bit like a sailor seeing a lighthouse through fog. First, the researchers used the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph on the Hubble Space Telescope to get an idea of where they might find the missing baryons. Next, they homed in on those baryons using the European Space Agency's X-ray Multi-Mirror Mission (XMM-Newton) satellite.

The team found the signatures of a type of highly-ionized oxygen gas lying between the quasar and our solar system—and at a high enough density to, when extrapolated to the entire universe, account for the last 30 percent of ordinary .

"We found the missing baryons," Shull said.

He suspects that and quasars blew that gas out into deep over billions of years. Shull added that the researchers will need to confirm their findings by pointing satellites at more bright quasars.

Explore further: Hubble Survey Finds Missing Matter, Probes Intergalactic Web

More information: F. Nicastro et al, Observations of the missing baryons in the warm–hot intergalactic medium, Nature (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0204-1

Related Stories

'Sideline quasars' helped to stifle early galaxy formation

March 21, 2013

University of Colorado Boulder astronomers targeting one of the brightest quasars glowing in the universe some 11 billion years ago say "sideline quasars" likely teamed up with it to heat abundant helium gas billions of years ...

Where is the universe's missing matter?

April 19, 2018

Astronomers using ESA's XMM-Newton space observatory have probed the gas-filled haloes around galaxies in a quest to find 'missing' matter thought to reside there, but have come up empty-handed – so where is it?

Recommended for you

Reducing the impact forces of water entry

November 20, 2018

When professional divers jump from a springboard, their hands are perpendicular to the water, with wrists pointed upward, as they continue toward their plunge at 30 mph.

Tiny lasers light up immune cells

November 20, 2018

A team of researchers from the School of Physics at the University of St Andrews have developed tiny lasers that could revolutionise our understanding and treatment of many diseases, including cancer.

184 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

b_man
1 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2018
hahaha... Infinite Wave Theory, circa 1998:)
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 20, 2018
There it is. This has been a problem in cosmology for at least a decade. Yet another Big Bang prediction confirmed.
Fred99999
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2018
I've been TELLING them to look in the space between galaxies! But would they listen to me?! Nooooooo!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2018
do you accommodate the change in angular velocities, based on red-shift?
Urgelt
2.8 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2018
This is a bit weak. They looked at *one* quasar and evaluated light from it. Did a nice job of it, I'm sure, but that's a sample size of one. One!

Until we look elsewhere, we haven't proved the assumption that what we saw in one direction applies in all directions.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2018
do you accommodate the change in angular velocities, based on red-shift?

Not sure where you are going with this one, HF...
Hyperfuzzy
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2018
have you figured out that Einstein's wrong and probably an idiot genius?

or Genius among idiots, do you feel you're in a safe place?

logic of standard model? Infinite Wave Theory, circa 1998:na
Hyperfuzzy
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2018
if one uses logic; one removes stupid
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (14) Jun 20, 2018
That lost matter exists as filaments of oxygen gas at temperatures of around 1 million degrees Celsius

Erm... I think this is wrong. The filaments are composed of hydrogen, not oxygen (if I'm reading the linked abstract right). The hydrogen is hard to detect because its signal is drowned out in the profusion of Lyman alpha lines.
However oxygen VII is an absorber of the radiation emitted by this hydrogen and *that* effect can be detected. So the hydrogen is detected 'by proxy'.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2018
only the geometrical centers of the mysterious e field and the ripples from the motion due to the mysterious center we call charge
Hyperfuzzy
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2018
1st, I think your universal constants are off; jeez that's bee demonstrated. good grief, i don't see anybody here i haven't met;

not only no you need to correct for +/-speed of light >-infinity<+infinity; yeah every thang attracts ...
redshift also visible in shift of time between measured events; red, orbits slow down; blue; orbits increase, you're either slicing through the wave from the front or the back, ..., all objects! we got this
Hyperfuzzy
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2018
Stop making up stuff
Elmo_McGillicutty
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2018
The only singularity that has ever been detected is life. Foolish fairy tale science.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2018
That lost matter exists as filaments of oxygen gas at temperatures of around 1 million degrees Celsius
Erm... I think this is wrong. The filaments are composed of hydrogen, not oxygen (if I'm reading the linked abstract right). The hydrogen is hard to detect because its signal is drowned out in the profusion of Lyman alpha lines.

I think there's only a little bit of O VI (quintuply ionized oxygen atoms) but the lines are a clear marker for WHIM gas. I think there's a lot more hydrogen than oxygen in the WHIM.

However oxygen VII is an absorber of the radiation emitted by this hydrogen and *that* effect can be detected. So the hydrogen is detected 'by proxy'.
I don't think that's quite right. The background is from a QSO; this should be broad spectrum radiation. I think the O VII species creating these X-ray lines is a proxy, but because it is expected to be present in a fixed ratio to the hydrogen, not because one element absorbs another element's radiation.
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2018
This is a pretty big deal, actually. Hopefully we'll get one of our resident astrophysicists on here who can tell us more, and maybe even has direct access to the paper for this article.

There wasn't room to comment further on your post, @anti. I think the first part was right, and the oxygen isn't a major component of the WHIM. But the second part about the O VII absorbing X-rays emitted by hydrogen is wrong.
Urgelt
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2018
The article posited, "The team found the signatures of a type of highly-ionized oxygen gas lying between the quasar and our solar system—and at a high enough density to, when extrapolated to the entire universe, account for the last 30 percent of ordinary matter."

Maybe the problem isn't with finding so much ionized oxygen between one quasar and Earth, but in the extrapolation.

The WHIM shouldn't have that much oxygen in it. But I can imagine variations in detection owing to whatever has been blowing up in the line of sight between a light emitter and an observer.

We have one data point. There are a lot of data points to accumulate before any reasonable person would want to draw conclusions about the missing baryonic mass.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2018
@Urgelt, O VII has had six electrons stripped from it. That's pretty highly ionized. It takes a lot of energy to do that. I don't know what "that much" means in
The WHIM shouldn't have that much oxygen in it.
It's there or it ain't. The article and apparently the paper both indicate that further studies using other QSOs should be made to check the extrapolation, but it's certainly indicative that we see any information at all that indicates the correctness of the Standard Model of Cosmology from this.
Tyrant
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2018
That can't be right, one third of the mass of the entire universe is composed of oxygen filaments?

"That lost matter exists as filaments of oxygen gas at temperatures of around 1 million degrees Celsius"

cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 21, 2018
So they found more plasma, what a surprise!
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 21, 2018
@cantdrive69 thinks plasma is made of black holes. It said so.
Urgelt
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 21, 2018
Da Schneib, extrapolating from a single data point is less indicative than the title of the article suggests, which declares that "Researchers find last of universe's missing ordinary matter."

I'm uneasy with that conclusion, partly because it's an extrapolation from a single data point, partly because it's real, real hard to find quiet black holes, and we're discovering through LIGO and VIRGO that maybe, just maybe, medium black holes aren't as rare as we once thought, and partly because that much oxygen mass begs for an explanation for its genesis that's not exactly provided by standard cosmology.

It's an interesting result, but it's surprising just how eager the researchers appear to be, as portrayed by this article, to reach a sweeping conclusion about the entire universe. It points in a good direction for follow-on research, but conclusions that large seem premature to me.
Ensign_nemo
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2018
This conclusion doesn't make sense from the POV of nucleosynthesis.

The universe is believed to have been created with a mix of stable elements that was mostly hydrogen, with helium as the second most abundant element, and lithium as third most abundant.

"Without major changes to the Big Bang theory itself, BBN will result in mass abundances of about 75% of hydrogen-1, about 25% helium-4, about 0.01% of deuterium and helium-3, trace amounts (on the order of 10−10) of lithium, and negligible heavier elements. That the observed abundances in the universe are generally consistent with these abundance numbers is considered strong evidence for the Big Bang theory."

https://en.wikipe...ynthesis

Stellar fusion is believed to be the source of almost all elements heavier than lithium. But this shouldn't produce ONLY oxygen, it should make other heavy elements ("metals") too. Where did THEY go?

https://en.wikipe...ynthesis
Ensign_nemo
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 21, 2018
The popular article doesn't agree with the abstract of the actual paper: https://www.natur...8-0204-1

It appears that the intergalactic gas is mostly hydrogen, but that oxygen is used as a marker because the hydrogen is hard to detect and the oxygen is easier to detect.

"A theoretical solution to this paradox locates the missing baryons in the hot and tenuous filamentary gas between galaxies, known as the warm–hot intergalactic medium. However, it is difficult to detect them there because the largest by far constituent of this gas—hydrogen—is mostly ionized and therefore almost invisible ..."

"Here we report observations of two absorbers of highly ionized oxygen (O VII) in the high-signal-to-noise-ratio X-ray spectrum of a quasar at a redshift higher than 0.4."

" ... their number ... agrees well with numerical simulation predictions for the long-sought warm–hot intergalactic medium."

"We conclude that the missing baryons have been found."
Ensign_nemo
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 21, 2018
I respectfully advise the author of the article to rewrite the second sentence quoted below to note that the gas is mostly hydrogen, and that the oxygen is used as a marker to locate the gas but is merely a trace constituent of the intergalactic gas:

"In the new research, an international team pinned down the missing third, finding it in the space between galaxies. That lost matter exists as filaments of oxygen gas at temperatures of around 1 million degrees Celsius, said CU Boulder's Michael Shull, a co-author of the study."

This is misleading. The stuff is mostly hydrogen, not oxygen.
Urgelt
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 21, 2018
Thanks, Nemo, for a useful clarification of what's in the actual paper.

So, what happened?

Phys.org didn't write this article. They got it from U Colorado, probably from their press office, where a writer who is not a scientist attempted to summarize the study, and didn't do a good job of it. And so, through what amounts to malpractice, a PR flunky has declared that the missing baryonic matter, a third of the mass of baryonic matter in the universe, is oxygen.

What's sad is that Phys.org didn't attempt to edit the article, or to fact-check it, or to do anything whatsoever except to blast it onto its web site, unquestioned.

Relying on press releases with no filtering at all is a bad look for a science site that wants to be taken seriously.
Ojorf
3 / 5 (10) Jun 21, 2018
Sounds like they could pinpoint where the absorption took place:

"After combing through the data, we succeeded at finding the signature of oxygen in the hot intergalactic gas between us and the distant quasar, at two different locations along the line of sight," says Fabrizio.


antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 21, 2018
. But the second part about the O VII absorbing X-rays emitted by hydrogen is wrong.

Yes, I double checked, and it looks like you're right.

And so, through what amounts to malpractice,

I don't think one could construe this as malpractice. The science journalist (and I, too) just didn't understand the paper. It's vexing but it happens (that's why one should try and read the paper, if possible, not to the PR release)

Heck, I have my own story about that one. We had a TV station making a video clip about the exploration of 3D medical data with a haptic interface. In the final clip that was broadcast the reporter went on and on about how you could not only feel the data but how cool it was that could also *hear* how hard you interacted with the virtual objects - when the latter was only produced by the buzzing of the motors working harder.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2018
Lost matter exists as filaments of oxygen gas at temperatures of around 1 million degrees where black holes at the centre of galaxies are consuming and spitting out huge quantities of gas of a type of highly-ionized oxygen gas lying between quasars and our solar system at a high enough density when extrapolated to the entire universe accounts for the last 30 percent of ordinary matter.

Blackholes eject 50% mass they taking in, out their spin axis.
They have found nothing, Galaxies, stars, quasars and blackholes are simply moving the existing mass around the galaxies.

What do you expect at the University of Colorado Boulder, it is full of Boulders - Stone me, strewth!
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 21, 2018
In the above PR release it immediately sounded funny to me that oxygen should be such a large part of the universe's mass.

From a probabilistic standpoint the low mass number elements should be presented in decreasing order; with hydrogen, helium and a small amounts of lithium and beryllium making up the vast majority of the primordial mass from big bang nucleosynthesis.

That such a heavy element as oxygen should suddenly be so overrepresented (especially in the intergalactic medium which should be relatively pristine compared to elements within galaxies) seemed implausible.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2018
This mass was never lost in the first place where oxygen is created in stars
The plausibility of the theory of the intervening galactic mass as the galaxies are hovering up this mass and have been for 13billion years and oxygen is created in stars.
This mass they are discussing has existed for up to 13billion years where the galaxies are recycling this mass, it was never lost in the first place
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2018
Gorilla's in the Mist
If this is how universities are calculating the missing mass of the universe and replacing it with Oxygen, these universities could increase their fortunes and enrol Silver Back Gorilla's on their campus at specially discounted Gorilla rates!

And I ask you, Oxygen! Of all the molecules to choose from, Oxygen goes hand in hand with spouting hot air!
Scott Wolfenden
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2018
Reading your comments, the Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory as to the origin of the universe. How plausible is the Infinite Wave theory? Does it have any acceptance or possibility of acceptance in the general physics scientific community? Is it something we should be teaching our high school physics students as a plausible theory or as a fringe theory?
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 21, 2018
Scott Wolfenden> Reading your comments, the Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory as to the origin of the universe. How plausible is the Infinite Wave theory? Does it have any acceptance or possibility of acceptance in the general physics scientific community? Is it something we should be teaching our high school physics students as a plausible theory or as a fringe theory?

The Big Bang theory is just that, a theory, so No.
The Big Bang theory could change tomorow with new research and then where would you be!
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 21, 2018

The Big Bang theory is just that, a theory

Not all theories are created equal. Some theories have a plethora of observations to back them up (Big Bang, Relativity, ....), some don't (e.g. String theory) and some can't ever have anything to back them up (which technically aren't theories but beliefs).

The Big Bang theory fits pretty well with what is observed - and no: just because of one observation everything else doesn't immediately go out the window.
In order to supplant a theory one has to have a *better* theory, and that better theory needs no only explain the new observation but also *all* the data that supported the old one.

But, being a crank, you'll never understand that last part.
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 21, 2018
As others have commented, the O VII is just a tracer for H I. The passage of the paper that gives the details of this won't translate well to copy/ paste on here. However, the figures involved for column densities are;
for system 1: O = 7.8 x 10^15 cm^-2, H = 1.6 x 10^19 cm^-2.
for system 2: O = 4.4 x 10^15 cm^-2, H = 0.9 x 10^19 cm^-2.

The traces come from O VII He-alpha absorption.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 21, 2018
..........

This brings the total detected fraction to 61% (+14%, -12%), but still leaves us with a large (39%, +12% -14%) fraction of elusive baryons, which—if theory is correct—should be searched for in the hotter phases of the WHIM. In particular, the diffuse phase at T ≈ 10^5.7 – 10^6.3 K should contain the vast majority of the remaining WHIM baryons, and it is traced by O vii. Optimal signposts for this WHIM phase are then the O vii Heα absorption lines;

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 21, 2018
Gorilla's in the Mist
If this is how universities are calculating the missing mass of the universe and replacing it with Oxygen, these universities could increase their fortunes and enrol Silver Back Gorilla's on their campus at specially discounted Gorilla rates!

And I ask you, Oxygen! Of all the molecules to choose from, Oxygen goes hand in hand with ***spouting hot air!****


Irony, much?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2018
"That lost matter exists as filaments of oxygen gas at temperatures of around 1 million degrees Celsius"

-Hmmmm sounds like plasma power cords. Yup.

But what about all those electrons zipping around all those power cords? They've got to weigh something dont they?

A scientists work is never done.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 21, 2018
And I ask you, Oxygen! Of all the molecules to choose from, Oxygen goes hand in hand with ***spouting hot air!****

FYI: air is mostly nitrogen.
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2018
Reading to much into texts
granville583762> The Big Bang theory is just that, a theory

antialias_physorg> Not all theories are created equal. Some theories have a plethora of observations to back them up (Big Bang, Relativity, ....), some don't (e.g. String theory) and some can't ever have anything to back them up (which technically aren't theories but beliefs).

The Big Bang theory fits pretty well with what is observed - and no: just because of one observation everything else doesn't immediately go out the window.
In order to supplant a theory one has to have a *better* theory, and that better theory needs no only explain the new observation but also *all* the data that supported the old one.

But, being a crank, you'll never understand that last part.

This was not disscusing the viability of the theory antialias_physorg, just not teaching in schools as gospel at the moment antialias_physorg
Nothing more, nothing less
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2018
Gorillas in the Mist and their Oxygen
granville583762> And I ask you, Oxygen! Of all the molecules to choose from, Oxygen goes hand in hand with spouting hot air

antialias_physorg> FYI: air is mostly nitrogen

We have to keep these atmospheric proportions in the right proportions 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide

What is the proportion of the dust in intervening galactic space which is taken up with the proposed Oxygen?
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2018
I'm obviously running low on oxygen
When we add the proposed Oxygen to the existing dust in intervening galactic space by what percentage does this additional Oxygen increase the mass of the intervening galactic space?
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2018
And we have to remember the proposed oxygen in the intervening galactic space is already there, as it has been for 13billion years.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 21, 2018
And we have to remember the proposed oxygen in the intervening galactic space is already there, as it has been for 13billion years.


The oxygen is not proposed. It is detected. Dust is irrelevant. The oxygen is merely a marker that shows that there must be a far larger reservoir of H. I gave the figures above.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 21, 2018
This was not disscusing the viability of the theory antialias_physorg, just not teaching in schools as gospel at the moment antialias_physorg

Would you mind not using google translate? Your sentences are starting to make less (syntactic and semantic) sense than usual.

What is the proportion of the dust in intervening galactic space which is taken up with the proposed Oxygen?

What does that even mean?

I'm obviously running low on oxygen

Yes, I think we can all agree on that one.

by what percentage does this additional Oxygen increase the mass of the intervening galactic space?

The mass is hydrogen. Highly ionized oxygen is the marker by which that hydrogen is detected.
Urgelt
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 21, 2018
Auntie wrote, "I don't think one could construe this as malpractice. The science journalist (and I, too) just didn't understand the paper."

I didn't say 'journalistic malpractice.' In fact I was referring to the PR flunky committing malpractice. PR flunkies are not journalists.

How hard would it be to run the copy past the scientists who wrote the study before releasing it?

The problem with Phys.org isn't journalistic malpractice, but the absence of any journalism whatsoever. They aren't filtering, they aren't reporting, they're just posting unedited press releases. Crap like this gets onto their web site all too often. This isn't how to build a reputable science site.
granville583762
5 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2018
So after all that has been said so far, this Oxgygen has been there, is there, and always will be there - I think I will have to look at this again -
rrwillsj
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2018
U, good point. My suspicion is that this site is a seductively easy to abuse sideshow. A dab of honey to attract the flies. Intended with it's lack of moderation to distract all us cranks and crackpots away from the actual science forums. A filter to cut down on our buffoonery wasting the time of the serious researchers needing to communicate.

An amusing thought, that this site is actually a front for researchers and their students in the Social and Psych Sciences to glean data from the commentators.

Do we flip a bird at the cameras or should we just ignore the whoever is observing from behind that mirrored window?
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2018
So after all that has been said so far, this Oxgygen has been there, is there, and always will be there - I think I will have to look at this again -

You cannot lose matter that is already there as filaments containing oxygen, because these filaments are known filaments where there mass has already been taken into acount, this appears to be socioscientific problem more than a scientific problem?
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2018
This was not discussing the viability of the theory antialias_physorg, just not teaching in schools as gospel at the moment antialias_physorg

Would you mind not using google translate? Your sentences are starting to make less (syntactic and semantic) sense than usual.
What is the proportion of the dust in intervening galactic space which is taken up with the proposed Oxygen?
What does that even mean?
I'm obviously running low on oxygen

Yes, I think we can all agree on that one.
by what percentage does this additional Oxygen increase the mass of the intervening galactic space?

The mass is hydrogen. Highly ionized oxygen is the marker by which that hydrogen is detected.

If you can translate "I'm obviously running low on oxygen" you can translate the question" What is the proportion of the dust in the intervening galactic space which is taken up with the proposed Oxygen?" antialias_physorg
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2018
Another point is the vacuum of space appears to have it mass contained as what can only be described as dust, whether it be collections of hydrogen atoms, oxygen atoms or molecules in nano sized dust particles weightless under acceleration of gravity.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 21, 2018
How hard would it be to run the copy past the scientists who wrote the study before releasing it?

Not too hard. And sometimes it's done. Then again: such pieces are fluff and not really of interest to the researcher him/herself. Or the guy who wrote it thought it was so clear that there was no way he could have misunderstood. (In any case: I can't come up with any kind of reason why the error should be intentional - i.e 'malpractice')

but the absence of any journalism whatsoever. They aren't filtering,

With the number of people they have working for them (what is it? Seven? Nine?) How do you think that should work? Physorg is an aggregation site - they do just that: aggregate from a list of sources. If you want peer reviewed/checked sources then you'll need to go for journals.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 21, 2018
What is the proportion of the dust in the intervening galactic space which is taken up with the proposed Oxygen?"

Oxygen is an element (in this case highly ionized ions). Dust is something entirely different.

Your question makes as much sense as "what proportion of cars are thursdays?"

Another point is the vacuum of space appears to have it mass contained as what can only be described as dust

Vacuum has no mass. What are you babbeling about?

granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2018
Where on earth does the vacuum of space keep its dust but in its vacuum
granville583762> Another point is the vacuum of space appears to have it mass contained as what can only be described as dust,.

antialias_physorg> Vacuum has no mass. What are you babbeling about?

antialias_physorg you are a Star!
You have done it again antialias_physorg, you keep doing it, do I have to translate every little nuance for you antialias_physorg

Another point is the vacuum of space appears to have it mass contained as what can only be described as dust - TRANSLATION - where on earth does the vacuum of space keep its dust antialias_physorg, it keeps its dust in its vacuum, the intervening space between the atoms is a vacuum, the atoms move through the vacuum and the space they are presently occupying is momentarily not a vacuum, but taking the vacuum of space as whole the vacuum of space keep its dust in its vacuum!
Urgelt
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2018
Auntie wrote, "I can't come up with any kind of reason why the error should be intentional - i.e 'malpractice')."

Malpractice does not require intention. Simple incompetence is sufficient. Which is why doctors who make grave errors in their practice of medicine often get sued - proving intent isn't necessary. Proving incompetence will suffice every time.

"If you want peer reviewed/checked sources then you'll need to go for journals."

Science journalism doesn't require peer review. It just requires careful science journalists.

Having *no* science journalists on staff should be regarded as problem for a site purporting to report science.
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2018
jonesdave> As others have commented, the O VII is just a tracer for H I. The passage of the paper that gives the details of this won't translate well to copy/ paste on here. However, the figures involved for column densities are;
for system 1: O = 7.8 x 10^15 cm^-2, H = 1.6 x 10^19 cm^-2.
for system 2: O = 4.4 x 10^15 cm^-2, H = 0.9 x 10^19 cm^-2.

The traces come from O VII He-alpha absorption.

Once the details are extracted and applied to to the mass that already exists in the vacuum of space between the galaxies as "The traces come from O VII He-alpha absorption" this is indication there is considerable mass in this vacuum which has not been previously calculated and when applied to the universe as a whole.....
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2018
Atoms in the dust particles
antialias_physorg > Oxygen is an element (in this case highly ionized ions). Dust is something entirely different

In the vastness of the vacuum of space dust particles stick together for various reasons, and as they grow gravity is a reason, initially ionised ions with electrical charge are attracted to dust particles and with the help off their particle dipole moments, and van de wall forces and ionisation they will stick together.
If these particles did not stick together dust would not form and gravity would not get a hold because of their escape velocities.
Dust is not something entirely different, dust is constructed of the very same atoms you are talking about antialias_physorg, because where do you think the highly ionised particles were residing before they became ionised, they were in the dust particles!
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2018
Now antialias_physorg if you want to say exactly what atoms constitute dust as an internationally agreed definition of intervening galactic dust, the floor is yours!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2018
do you accommodate the change in angular velocities, based on red-shift?

this is a biggy, what are you seeing, correct the image due to how you got it, moving forward, through the field or backward; therefore, the observed is is phase shifted or the angle, or distance moved is not as observed, gosh, silly wabbits

nothing weird going on, children; no monster under the bed
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2018
it's easier if you don't make stuff up, logic, can't find a giffy when ya need a visual
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2018
ya made a goofy 'bout 100 or years ago, anybody seen my hat?
kurtstocklmeir
not rated yet Jun 21, 2018
there are a lot of small galaxies around big galaxies - gas between galaxies can change orbits of stars associated with a small galaxy making it look like there is dark matter in the small galaxy when there is not any dark matter Kurt Stocklmeir
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2018
there are a lot of small galaxies around big galaxies - gas between galaxies can change orbits of stars associated with a small galaxy making it look like there is dark matter in the small galaxy when there is not any dark matter Kurt Stocklmeir

but ...
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2018
"That lost matter exists as filaments of oxygen gas at temperatures of around 1 million degrees Celsius"

-Hmmmm sounds like plasma power cords. Yup.

Wouldn't it be igniting at that temp?

But what about all those electrons zipping around all those power cords? They've got to weigh something dont they?

A scientists work is never done.

At 1/1836th of a proton - yep...
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2018
"That lost matter exists as filaments of oxygen gas at temperatures of around 1 million degrees Celsius"

-Hmmmm sounds like plasma power cords. Yup.

Wouldn't it be igniting at that temp?

But what about all those electrons zipping around all those power cords? They've got to weigh something dont they?

A scientists work is never done.

At 1/1836th of a proton - yep...

with what?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2018
there are a lot of small galaxies around big galaxies - gas between galaxies can change orbits of stars associated with a small galaxy making it look like there is dark matter in the small galaxy when there is not any dark matter Kurt Stocklmeir

but ...

by the way that's how we got here, we threw in a variable for that, now ya gonna create a variable for that; ever think? Maybe we don't understand the variation, at least very little of it? I see a lot of # left out!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2018
# stands for Logic Conferred! Yes?

I'm juz say'n, wheres nonsense removed? Blocked comments? or properly reviewed papers prior to publication, else fire the lot
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2018
1st. Researchers with valid theory don't discover; they expect. Publish only that, that traces back to Euclid; any-other is reconciled!

anyway, nonsense
Urgelt
4 / 5 (8) Jun 21, 2018
WG posed, "Wouldn't it (hot ionic oxygen) be igniting at that temp?"

Huh? Is this a serious question?

Combustion is a chemical reaction between two or more molecules.

Hot ionic oxygen is *very* reactive. But in the spaces between galaxies, oxygen isn't going to come into contact with anything to react with very often. Space is large. Mass density is low.

If you meant the question as humor, you'll have to explain to me why I should laugh.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2018
WG posed, "Wouldn't it (hot ionic oxygen) be igniting at that temp?"

Huh? Is this a serious question?

Combustion is a chemical reaction between two or more molecules.

Hot ionic oxygen is *very* reactive. But in the spaces between galaxies, oxygen isn't going to come into contact with anything to react with very often. Space is large. Mass density is low.

If you meant the question as humor, you'll have to explain to me why I should laugh.

For exactly the reasons you stated.
But since you asked, what about all that hydrogen (+ oxygen=rocket fuel) it's supposed to be a signature of?
(Not to mention - all the alcohol that is scattered around space...)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jun 21, 2018
Da Schneib, extrapolating from a single data point is less indicative than the title of the article suggests, which declares that "Researchers find last of universe's missing ordinary matter."
I agree that the article author is unreasonably optimistic. I have also sent a message to the editors to indicate that the misstatement about oxygen is a problem. So far nothing; they are apparently more interested in clicks than in accuracy. Other than that I make no comment.

partly because that much oxygen mass begs for an explanation for its genesis that's not exactly provided by standard cosmology.
I don't buy that either in the quantities that have been implicitly claimed by the article's author. I think this has been erroneously claimed by the article author and should be corrected. But the paper's author doesn't appear to have made these claims so I'm not sure what you're complaining about.
[contd]
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 21, 2018
[contd]
I suggest you divorce your opinion of the researchers from your opinion of the article author. It's unfair to the paper authors to misrepresent their views based upon the errors of a journalist.
Urgelt
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2018
DS wrote, "I think this has been erroneously claimed by the article author and should be corrected. But the paper's author doesn't appear to have made these claims so I'm not sure what you're complaining about."

I'm not complaining about the paper. I'm complaining about the PR flack at U Colorado writing utter crap, *and* I'm complaining that Phys.org has no filter at all - it just posts PR flack rewrites with no critical attention whatsoever. This is particularly problematic when the paper is behind a paywall; most of us won't see it for ourselves.

A science site should employ at least *some* science journalists and do some fact checking before blasting whatever gets submitted by PR departments onto their web site. Credibility is good.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 21, 2018
And in fact not even a journalist: the article author seems to be a misled copywriter for a university. Perhaps the editors of physorg will take notice.

Credibility is good.
I'm with you there.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2018
And in fact not even a journalist: the article author seems to be a misled copywriter for a university. Perhaps the editors of physorg will take notice.

Prob'ly a temp intern..

Credibility is good.
I'm with you there.

You 2 have established credibility with your critiques...:-)
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2018
And in fact not even a journalist: the article author seems to be a misled copywriter for a university. Perhaps the editors of physorg will take notice.

Prob'ly a temp intern..

Credibility is good.
I'm with you there.

You 2 have established credibility with your critiques...:-)

perfectly exposed nonsense; for me, unworthy, i've gotten worse nonsense from people who disagree with Coulomb and Maxwell over measurements reviewed thorough a magical lens of nonsense; but, this squirming 'bout what was said or not is hilarious!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2018
publish or die, i git it; but, argue with logic, respect, and grace. i'm getting old and honory so forgive me if i get short; i began my "learning" at the same time most of this was exposed; i was a kid; laughed out loud when i read about the gloeon. my basis was + &- and i was sure it was complete;
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Jun 21, 2018
.....but, this squirming 'bout what was said or not is hilarious!


Nobody is squirming. Or can't you read? The article from UC Boulder is inaccurate, as a quick read of the abstract would show. I've read the whole paper, and the article is definitely wrong.
Hyperfuzzy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2018
humor, gave clarity

use modern physics!

lol

Hyperfuzzy
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2018
not knowing what it is; but, know the field, in and out of media; simulators RLC dig, meh; downto to individual motion of q; MSEE!
Hyperfuzzy
2 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2018
the rest cool tools, friendly smart crowd, ya own the world; keep your eye on Elon, he's rebuilding while surfing the energy and transportation market, sats, control, enjoyment! The wave is here!
Hyperfuzzy
2 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2018
this, this is monkeys at a typewriter, speed of light? maybe that's what Musk is doing, +
Hyperfuzzy
2 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2018
all ya need are a few beacons further out; how do you plan to travel further out; hmmm
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Jun 22, 2018
Don't know what you're on, tonight, HF.
But I hope it's not in the water (or my tequila)...
encoded
1 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2018
neutron repulsion is real !!! LMAO
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (11) Jun 22, 2018
Having *no* science journalists on staff should be regarded as problem for a site purporting to report science.

As noted. it's an aggergation site. as such physorg relies on the quality of their sources - in this case probably the website from University of Colorado Boulder. If you plug in any sentence from the article above into google you'll find it all over the web. This article did not originate with physorg.

I'm sure physorg have some people who know a bit of science on the staff, but you can't expect them to have experts in all the sciences and all their super-specific sub-fields. Experts are highly trained and that training doesn't come cheap. What do you think they would pay these people from? They also can't know who writes the stuff on the University of Colorado Boulder website (the researcher? Some PR guy?). They have to trust their sources and in this case the source made a booboo. So what?
RobertKarlStonjek
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2018
An interesting question, which may have been answered already, is by how much would interaction with this intergalactic medium redshift light passing through it?

Interaction will result in scattering, effectively redshifting the light. This additional redshift needs to be considered, if it exists, when calculating the expansion rate of the universe.

Would be interested to hear if anyone knows more on the issue.
granville583762
5 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2018
The status quo
Having *no* science journalists on staff should be regarded as problem for a site purporting to report science

antialias_physorg>As noted. it's an aggergation site. as such physorg relies on the quality of their sources -. This article did not originate with physorg.
I'm sure physorg have some people who know a bit of science on the staff, but you can't expect them to have experts in all the sciences and all their super-specific sub-fields. Experts are highly trained and that training doesn't come cheap

I've been wondering about this problem, if they had the specialist you've listed, they would have to pay them out their phys.org websites and the advertising income and they come at a specialist price, which if they could afford and employed specialists phys.org will be a extremely lonely place for inkly typing and consequently with fewer commentator around results in less income from the adverts which means sackings which I think is the status quo!
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 22, 2018
Scattering doesn't cause redshift. It causes *reddening* which is a different thing.
Urgelt
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 22, 2018
Auntie wrote, "I'm sure physorg have some people who know a bit of science on the staff, but you can't expect them to have experts..."

Auntie, science journalism is a thing. You can learn how to do it. It doesn't require the journalist to be an expert in every field. It *does* require the science journalist to know how to do science journalism.

Having no-one on staff doing science journalism, for a web site purporting to be a journalistic outlet for science, is problematic, no matter how you look at it.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 22, 2018
Auntie wrote, "I'm sure physorg have some people who know a bit of science on the staff, but you can't expect them to have experts..."

Auntie, science journalism is a thing. You can learn how to do it. It doesn't require the journalist to be an expert in every field. It *does* require the science journalist to know how to do science journalism.

Having no-one on staff doing science journalism, for a web site purporting to be a journalistic outlet for science, is problematic, no matter how you look at it.


TBH, in this case, I would say that it isn't their place to contradict a report coming from the institution that produced the paper. You would expect them to get it right. This won't be the only site that printed the PR word for word, I expect. And here's one that uses their own interpretation of the PR, and stuffs it up even worse than the original:
https://www.lives...ole.html
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2018
Don't know what you're on, tonight, HF.
But I hope it's not in the water (or my tequila)...

i reading how everythangs f#cking magic; wish i had a joint, it'd be funnier
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2018
nothing i know changes the wave, waves don't change waves, mess wit u , interference; but, most of the red-shift is due to relative motion; looking at a shifted object, the thangs ya see are also shifted; huh, wonder what if i applied REAL science?
Urgelt
3 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2018
Dave Jones wrote, "TBH, in this case, I would say that it isn't their place to contradict a report coming from the institution that produced the paper. You would expect them to get it right."

That is not how science journalism works. A science journalist does not read a paper, then write a piece which contradicts it.

Instead, a science journalist consults subject matter experts and asks questions until he/she understands the context of the paper and can write sensibly about it. Those experts are often independent of the source paper.

A science journalist has a strong science background and knows how science proceeds. But he/she doesn't have to be a scientist working in the field about which he's reporting. He just has to be careful to be sure heshe knows what the paper means and how it fits into the big picture of that discipline.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 22, 2018
Well, this should bring out the usual group of crazies, deniers and con artists.

Oh, look, already has.....
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2018
Dave Jones wrote, "TBH, in this case, I would say that it isn't their place to contradict a report coming from the institution that produced the paper. You would expect them to get it right."

That is not how science journalism works.
Unfortunately it appears to be how it worked in this case. The article was written by an apparently incompetent science journalist.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2018
Dave Jones wrote, "TBH, in this case, I would say that it isn't their place to contradict a report coming from the institution that produced the paper. You would expect them to get it right."

That is not how science journalism works. A science journalist does not read a paper, then write a piece which contradicts it.

Instead, a science journalist consults subject matter experts and asks questions until he/she understands the context of the paper and can write sensibly about it. Those experts are often independent of the source paper.

A science journalist has a strong science background and knows how science proceeds. But he/she doesn't have to be a scientist working in the field about which he's reporting. He just has to be careful to be sure heshe knows what the paper means and how it fits into the big picture of that discipline.

eh, hasn't worked for the last 100 years; sabbatical
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 22, 2018
Auntie, science journalism is a thing. You can learn how to do it. It doesn't require the journalist to be an expert in every field. It *does* require the science journalist to know how to do science journalism.

So? Science journalists are people too. People make mistakes.
For that matter: Scientists are people too, and make mistakes. Even sometimes in their publications. It happens. Get over it.

A science journalistic piece doesn't matter for...anything. No one is using it to base any kind of future work or decision process off on. It's fluff (personally I like the term 'science-porn' ). It's like what you get in newspapers or on TV news broadcasts about local or world news. none of this is in-depth.
If you really want to *use* the info you go to the source - which in this case is the original paper.
ZoeBell
Jun 22, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZoeBell
Jun 22, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 22, 2018
See also https://www.newsc...found/.. Apparently the observation of intergalactic matter is not so new or even unexpected, as the above article implies.


And what the hell has that got to do with plasma universe woo? You link to an article that says, in the final sentence:

This goes a long way toward showing that many of our ideas of how galaxies form and how structures form over the history of the universe are pretty much correct,


That would be mainstream (i.e real) science theories. Not the plasma woo nonsense.
Hyperfuzzy
1.6 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2018
i think we've always allowed nonsense as a basis; after, Maxwell, think the truth blew every bodies mind. lucky i wuz at a distance, juz watching
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (7) Jun 22, 2018
Da Schneib> Scattering doesn't cause redshift. It causes *reddening* which is a different thing.

The old trap answers to questions fall into, the question was after all, was really reddening, as just as brief a description of scattering, also a brief description of reddening is appropriate as its skimpy journalism is the flavour of the night, then it is truly worth those 5stars!
ZoeBell
Jun 22, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TrollBane
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 22, 2018
"if one uses logic; one removes stupid" Except when it is selective logic that leads to a conclusion contrary to the evidence.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Jun 22, 2018
"if one uses logic; one removes stupid" Except when it is selective logic that leads to a conclusion contrary to the evidence.

How is that logic? You give ingredients for everything and receive in return nonsense soup.
ZoeBell
Jun 23, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gculpex
3 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2018
i think we've always allowed nonsense as a basis; after, Maxwell, think the truth blew every bodies mind. lucky i wuz at a distance, juz watching

Me Too!
RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (9) Jun 24, 2018
@SkyLight, @jonesdave, @RNP, etc.

Reminders:
Consider where many BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of years of galaxies JET material has gone. And in what form. The material in those jets is deconstructed to elementary particles. They reform in deep space as 'new/pristine' hydrogen/helium. They form 'new/young' looking galaxies/clusters. And old estimates of baryonic matter content/proportion was based on old observations which did not even suspect let alone assume any more baryonic matter would be found which was previously undetectable (dark). The ORIGINAL hypothesis FOR DM was for ORDINARY dark matter. So it's not surprising we HAVE BEEN finding MORE ordinary DM, LOTS of it; while no 'exotic' DM found.
And since we are finding the Universe MUCH more 'dusty' than previously assumed when BB 'estimates/interpretations' were made:
...crucial fact EACH dust/pebble has MANY hundreds/millions/billions MORE 'Baryonic nuclei' MASS than Hydrogen/Helium gas nuclei. Do the maths. :)
yep
1 / 5 (9) Jun 24, 2018
That would be mainstream (i.e real) science theories. Not the plasma woo nonsense.


Stupid consensus twat mainstream cosmology is nonsense based on assumtion of black holes, dark matter, and Big Bang the non falsifiable holy trinity of the bullshit religion. It denies logic, physics, and common sense but you believe it because "Authority"...dumb shit.
RNP
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 24, 2018
@RealityCheck.
Consider where many BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of years of galaxies JET material has gone. And in what form. The material in those jets is deconstructed to elementary particles. They reform in deep space as 'new/pristine' hydrogen/helium.


This is one of your most ridiculous claims, displaying your lack of understanding of both astrophysics and particle physics.

The most obvious disproof is from the particle physics point of view; baryon number is not conserved.

From the astrophysical point of view, the most obvious evidence is that the gamma rays that would be produced were any such processes actually occurring are completely absent.

Just because you can imagine something does not make it possible, unless you have actually educated yourself in the relevant subject.

So, again, go and get a proper scientific education before trying to foist your silly ideas onto others.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 24, 2018
What's "deconstructed to elementary particles" mean?

Considering that protons are composite.

Just askin'.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Jun 24, 2018
That would be mainstream (i.e real) science theories. Not the plasma woo nonsense.


Stupid consensus twat mainstream cosmology is nonsense based on assumtion of black holes, dark matter, and Big Bang the non falsifiable holy trinity of the bullshit religion. It denies logic, physics, and common sense but you believe it because "Authority"...dumb shit.


So come on thicko, show us your evidence. Black holes are pretty much confirmed. And will likely have already been imaged. Watch this space. Dark matter can be confirmed by its lensing properties. The BB is confirmed by the CMB. What have you got? Crap made up by idiots like Thornhill? Velikovskian woo? Lol.
granville583762
5 / 5 (6) Jun 24, 2018
@RealityCheck.
RealityCheck>. Consider where many BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of years of galaxies JET material has gone. And in what form. The material in those jets is deconstructed to elementary particles. They reform in deep space as 'new/pristine' hydrogen/helium.


RNP> This is one of your most ridiculous claims, displaying your lack of understanding of both astrophysics and particle physics.

The most obvious disproof is from the particle physics point of view; baryon number is not conserved.

From the astrophysical point of view, the obvious evidence is that the gamma rays that would be produced were any such processes actually occurring are completely absent.

because you can imagine something does not make it possible, unless you have actually educated yourself in the relevant subject.

So, again, go and get a proper scientific education before trying to foist your silly ideas onto others.

Good point - to reality check you have to kow your subect
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 24, 2018
Oy, the thread is predictably filled with anti-scientists that does not accept cosmology and promote ridiculous 'alternatives' (most are not even wrong) and invective when argument is lacking.

So maybe few discussed the article, but the result is neither necessary - has alternatives - nor definite - a point estimate only. A very good article on the whole is here: https://gizmodo.c...26983782

- "Scientists claimed to have found this missing stuff before. Notably, two papers published last year reported the discovery of a filament of hot gas connecting galaxies. A 2014 paper found extra stuff in the halos surrounding galaxies like the Milky Way, which may account for the missing matter in these types of objects."

- ""Usually you would need a larger sample to be confident in the derived mass budget.""

The main point however is that the energy-mass budget of the universe is closing on the accepted predicted value.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (12) Jun 24, 2018
The main point however is that the energy-mass budget of the universe is closing on the accepted predicted value.


Precisely. And the predicted value includes DM. And the simulations that are run that produce this filamentary structure also include DM. And DE.
tallenglish
not rated yet Jun 24, 2018
Given thw WHIM is hot, does this not also prove DM exists as well. Surely normal matter will cool regardless of how hot it was at source (even black hole jets).

Has anyone done research as to why it is warm/hot at all?
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 24, 2018
@RNP:
baryon number is not conserved. ....the gamma rays that would be produced were any such processes actually occurring are completely absent.
That's like saying the LHC-deconstructed (Quark-Gluon etc) material "doesn't conserve baryon number" upon reforming protons etc. And what the hell is that specious "gamma ray" furphy supposed to imply? Are you implying that there is no gamma ray 'background'' now, RNP? :)

@granville583762:
[@RNP], Good point.
No, granville, anyone who actually knows the subject matter knows that RNP hasn't *any* point there; he's grasping at straws now. :)

@Da Schneib:
What's "deconstructed to elementary particles" mean
Like in LHC collisions; matter is deconstructed to Quark-Gluon matter which then reforms into the protons etc. No biggie, mate. :)

@jonesdave:
And the predicted value includes DM.
And the DM is ordinary, electro-magnetically interacting, heretofore 'dark' matter not easily detected until recently. :)

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 24, 2018
PS @RNP, @granville583762, @Da Schneib, @jonesdave.

The following observation points out one reason why non-electro-magnetically-interacting 'exotic' DM cannot exist...
...If 'dark exotic matter' supposedly making up 4/5ths of the universe's matter/mass actually existed, every BH formed would rapidly become 'engorged' with so much mass due to 'direct ingestion' (ie, no EM forces to delay its ingestion, or for it be 'ejected' via 'accretion disc and polar-jet' systems), that there would be *countless more* super/hyper-massive BHs observed all over, and not just within galaxy nuclei....
If you all still support the increasingly falsified (by recent mainstream discoveries/reviews themselves) non-electro-magnetically-interacting 'exotic'-DM speculations, can any/all of you please provide a cogent, reality-based, scientifically/logically tenable counter to that? Thanks. :)
granville583762
4.7 / 5 (6) Jun 24, 2018
Sorry for my reality check RealityCheck
PS @RNP, @granville583762, @Da Schneib, @jonesdave.
The reason why non-electro-magnetically-interacting exotic DM cannot exist
If 'dark exotic matter' supposedly making up 4/5ths of the universe's mass actually existed, every BH formed engorged with mass due to direct ingestion (no EM forces to delay its ingestion or be ejected via accretion polar-jet' systems) there would be countless more hyper-massive BHs observed all and not just within galaxy nuclei
If you all still support the increasingly falsified (by recent mainstream discoveries/reviews) non-electro-magnetically-interacting DM speculations can all of you please provide a cogent reality-based scientifically tenable counter to that? Thanks)

It's not that RealityCheck, it is the scatty way your inkly typing, your idea of molecules returning back to hydrogen sounds interesting as long as half a neutron does not rise from the ashes
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 24, 2018
@granville583762.
It's not that RealityCheck, it is the scatty way your inkly typing, your idea of molecules returning back to hydrogen sounds interesting as long as ...
It's happening at the Large Hadron Collider now, every time the heavy ion/proton collisions 'deconstruct' same to produce quark-gluon plasma that then reforms protons etc. Didn't you know that, mate? Or has the punishment or reward of '1' or '5' from the bot-voting troll gang so easily 'conditioned' your erstwhile objective mind to become an unthinking 'forum zombie' like them? Wake up, granville!.....granville, wake up! :)
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2018
@granville583762.
It's not that RealityCheck, it is the scatty way your inkly typing, your idea of molecules returning back to hydrogen sounds interesting as long as ...
It's happening at the Large Hadron Collider now, every time the heavy ion/proton collisions 'deconstruct' same to produce quark-gluon plasma that then reforms protons etc. Didn't you know that, mate? Or has the punishment or reward of '1' or '5' from the bot-voting troll gang so easily 'conditioned' your erstwhile objective mind to become an unthinking 'forum zombie' like them? Wake up, granville!.....granville, wake up! :)

i juz see a geometrical center of a field; huh!? Field updates? Go play!
granville583762
5 / 5 (6) Jun 24, 2018
RealityCheck> @granville583762.
It's not that RealityCheck...
At the Large Hadron Collider the heavy ion/proton collisions 'deconstruct' same to produce quark-gluon plasma that then reforms protons etc. Didn't you know that, mate? Or has the punishment or reward of '1' or '5' from the bot-voting troll gang so easily 'conditioned' your erstwhile objective mind to become an unthinking 'forum zombie' like them? Wake up)

The rating system has produced foreseen unforeseen consequences, when getting involved in ideas I always backtrack because I don't have theories because they always come and bite you when your theories fall flat. It seems there is always 3quarks how ever hard you pull them apart they exist stably in 3s which is a proton where a neutron is a rearrangement of 3quarks being unstable in isolation hence Bennies half a neutron rising from the ashes
Is this oxygen breaking down to its constituent parts – hydrogen atoms in other words protons?
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 24, 2018
@granville583762.
At the Large Hadron Collider the heavy ion/proton collisions 'deconstruct' same to produce quark-gluon plasma that then reforms protons etc....
...It seems there is always 3quarks how ever hard you pull them apart they exist stably in 3s which is a proton... Is this oxygen breaking down to its constituent parts – hydrogen atoms in other words protons?
No, mate; it's not that Oxygen just observed in deep space that I was talking about 'deconstructing' into quark-gluon plasma 'in situ' there. I speak of the matter in my original point made to RNP etc; and how all those ubiquitous and innumerable galactic etc Black Hole Accretion-Disc-and-Polar Jets Systems are way more powerful than our LHC at 'deconstructing' matter to quark-gluon plasma which later reforms into 'pristine-seeming' protons etc.

I trust you now see that your comments were based on your misunderstanding re that original point I made to RNP etc, granville. :)
granville583762
5 / 5 (6) Jun 24, 2018
Gluon Plasma
RealityCheck> deconstructing' into quark-gluon plasma 'in situ' all those ubiquitous and innumerable galactic etc Black Hole Accretion-Disc-and-Polar Jets Systems 'deconstructing' matter to quark-gluon plasma which later reforms into 'pristine-seeming' protons etc

Blackholes eject half the mass the take in out through their spin axis, no one seems to have said what states this matter is consisting of, because apparently there is a view the quark gluon plasma is still theoretical, that aside blackholes are probably the only star with sufficient gravity to break down protons to quarks and gluon plasma but then the quarks cannot exist in isolation they only exist isolation in 3s as protons
This implies blackholes eject gluon plasma which forms it star forming Fermi clouds as it travel the intervening space the gluon plasma is recreating quarks where by they are reforming in 3s as protons as you describe it "pristine-seeming' protons"
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jun 24, 2018
Protons do not decay in the vacuum of space
RealityCheck:- considering the quark triplets exert 10 times the force of a neutron star inside the proton, a blackhole does not exert that force and their gravity is zero at their centre of mass RealityCheck, where its acceleration force is its light radius and no greater
The quarks require a star able to exert 10 times the force of a neutron star if not greater, where a blackhole is unable to do so and there is no greater star that we know off and protons do not decay in the vacuum of space where gluon plasma is theoretical
Hyperfuzzy
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2018
@granville583762.
It's not that RealityCheck, it is the scatty way your inkly typing, your idea of molecules returning back to hydrogen sounds interesting as long as ...
It's happening at the Large Hadron Collider now, every time the heavy ion/proton collisions 'deconstruct' same to produce quark-gluon plasma that then reforms protons etc. Didn't you know that, mate? Or has the punishment or reward of '1' or '5' from the bot-voting troll gang so easily 'conditioned' your erstwhile objective mind to become an unthinking 'forum zombie' like them? Wake up, granville!.....granville, wake up! :)

i juz see a geometrical center of a field; huh!? Field updates? Go play!

these are, were, and will be, everywhere
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jun 24, 2018
I may be mistaken RealityCheck, but this seems to me to be Obfuscation
RealityCheck:- this is not my idea, I just said I was interested "your idea of molecules returning back to hydrogen sounds interesting as long as half a neutron does not rise from the ashes"
Gluon plasma was mentioned when I said "Is this oxygen breaking down to its constituent parts – hydrogen atoms in other words protons?" and the answer I got "I was talking about 'deconstructing' into quark-gluon plasma" where "quark-gluon plasma which later reforms into 'pristine-seeming' protons"
My question consequently was not answered
And the Oxygen molecule as it is now existing for billons of years in its present location is consequently not breaking down into gluon plasma where quarks form triplets forming "pristine-seeming' protons"
I am used to circular discussions and this applies to ideas also.
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jun 24, 2018
The eternal oxygen molecules
RealityCheck:- A further point you raised was the Large Hadron Collider! Where "It's happening at the Large Hadron Collider now, every time the heavy ion/proton collisions 'deconstruct' same to produce quark-gluon plasma that then reforms protons"
There is no doubt about what happens in the LHC, but we were talking what actually happens in nature in the space between the galaxies, is the same process in the LHC taking place between the galaxies because there is no Large Hadron Collider in the space between the galaxies.
As to what is happening so far to the Oxygen molecules, there appears nothing except they are remaining Oxygen molecules and have been for billions of years and seemingly for billions of years to come
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2018
I may be mistaken RealityCheck, but this seems to me to be Obfuscation
RealityCheck:- this is not my idea, I just said I was interested "your idea of molecules returning back to hydrogen sounds interesting as long as half a neutron does not rise from the ashes"
Gluon plasma was mentioned when I said "Is this oxygen breaking down to its constituent parts – hydrogen atoms in other words protons?" and the answer I got "I was talking about 'deconstructing' into quark-gluon plasma" where "quark-gluon plasma which later reforms into 'pristine-seeming' protons"
My question consequently was not answered
And the Oxygen molecule as it is now existing for billons of years in its present location is consequently not breaking down into gluon plasma where quarks form triplets forming "pristine-seeming' protons"
I am used to circular discussions and this applies to ideas also.

look at your premise; when would this be an observed result?
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (8) Jun 24, 2018
@granville583762.

Slow down! You're mixing up separate discussions. :)

The things I spoke of to RNP etc is the BLACK HOLE ACCRETION DISC AND POLAR JETS that deconstruct matter going into them and THEN being expelled at relativistic velocities into deep space. Once in deep space the material is THEN subject to the usual gravitational/electro-magnetic processes which aggregate it into stars where it is fused into the usual stellar fusion products (including Oxygen).

At NO stage has "proton decay in deep space vacuum" or "deconstruction of Oxygen in deep space vacuum" come into my points to RNP as above. Proton and Oxygen do NOT 'decay' in deep space vacuum, they can only be 'deconstructed back to lesser constituents' by energetic collisions (like those that occur at BH disc-jet systems etc, and also in LHC collider etc).

I also said nothing about what goes on inside BHs! So your comments about that must be for someone else (NOT me) who you were discussing such with.

Ok? :)
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 25, 2018
BLACK HOLE ACCRETION DISC AND POLAR JETS that deconstruct matter
How? By magic? And what about the quarks?

You haven't defined "matter deconstruction" yet. What does this mean?
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2018
RealityCheck> @granville583762. BLACK HOLE ACCRETION DISC POLAR JETS deconstruct matter going into them and THEN being expelled at relativistic velocities into deep space. Proton and Oxygen do NOT 'decay' in deep space vacuum, they be 'deconstructed' by energetic collisions ( at BH disc-jet systems ).

POLAR JETS are these not blackholes where blackholes eject their mass out their spin axis
BLACK HOLE ACCRETION DISC is orbiting matter that is falling into blackholes where the blackhole deconstructs matter ejecting 50% out their spin axis
BLACK HOLE ACCRETION DISC can ionise atoms but it is an accretion disk, the atoms are still falling into the blackhole where the blackhole ejects 50% of the matter falling inside its light radius
BLACK HOLEs do not provide sufficient gravitational force to deconstructed atoms to a gluon plasma (quarks do not exist in isolation)
Quarks in protons exert 10 times the force of a neutron star - blackholes cannot deconstruct protons
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jun 25, 2018
Blackholes and their spin axis and the gluon plasma
RealityCheck> Quark-gluon plasma which later reforms into 'pristine-seeming' protons
This statement relies on BLACKHOLES being capable of breaking protons apart into a GLUON PLASMA
Is their observational evidence of GLUON PLASMA emanating from BLACKHOLES SPIN AXIS?
Or has the gluon plasma emanating from the blackholes spin axis already reformed into the pristine-seeming protons
This is the very definition of Obfuscation, it turned into a gluon plasma but what we can only see is the reformed pristine protons!
RNP
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 25, 2018
@RealityCheck.
That's like saying the LHC-deconstructed (Quark-Gluon etc) material "doesn't conserve baryon
number" upon reforming protons etc. And what the hell is that specious "gamma ray" furphy
supposed to imply? Are you implying that there is no gamma ray 'background'' now, RNP? :)


Of course the LHC conserves baryon number. It is your silly claim that hydrogen and helium are created in BH jets that does not, making it obviously wrong. It would also be funny to see you try andd explain how helium could be formed.

Then, talk about specious! What on earth has the gamma-ray background got to do with it?

If the processes you describe were occurring there would be a localised source of gamma-rays and such sources are not detected.

All your other posts are filled with the same inane drivel, making you one on the worst trolls on this site.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2018
More inkly typing is in order
A little more in the way of inkly typing is in order RealityCheck, this is your idea not mine, as it is not an invention where you would have a reason to be coy, these are known facts and observations in physics and cannot be concealed RealityCheck, so there's no reason to be secretive, because ultimately every one knows this idea as it can easily be found out independently.

Ps I am used to encouraging graduates and professors to be more open and to inkly type except Dr Muhammad Peerally on the closing days he returned regularly to discuss his book with me on blackholes and his interest on my description on their association in my description of them as light radius stars and their role in the cosmic egg, RealityCheck.
So get that pen and parchment out RealityCheck and start inkly typing!
savvys84
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2018
"That lost matter exists as filaments of oxygen gas at temperatures of around 1 million degrees Celsius"

-Hmmmm sounds like plasma power cords. Yup.

Wouldn't it be igniting at that temp?

But what about all those electrons zipping around all those power cords? They've got to weigh something dont they?

A scientists work is never done.

At 1/1836th of a proton - yep...

oxygen is not combustible.
in this case its just plasma
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jun 25, 2018
@RealityCheck.
That's like saying the LHC-deconstructed (Quark-Gluon etc) material "doesn't conserve baryon
number" upon reforming protons etc. And what the hell is that specious "gamma ray" furphy
supposed to imply? Are you implying that there is no gamma ray 'background'' now, RNP? :)

Of course the LHC conserves baryon number. It is your silly claim that hydrogen and helium are created in BH jets that does not, making it obviously wrong. It would also be funny to see you try andd explain how helium could be formed.
Then, talk about specious! What on earth has the gamma-ray background got to do with it?
If the processes you describe were occurring there would be a localised source of gamma-rays and such sources are not detected.
All your other posts are filled with the same inane drivel, making you one on the worst trolls on this site.

inane drivel-worst trolls-silly claim-obviously wrong, As I said Scatty
milnik
2 / 5 (4) Jun 25, 2018
It is easier to understand the structure of the universe than the stupid and illogical theories that return human beings to the level of instincts, and this only makes humans more human beings, without consciousness, intuition and understanding the cause of the phenomenon. The claim of the occurrence of a big burst can be given by people whose consciousness is straight zero and possesses only the body of a human form. All natural programs that understand the true causes of the phenomenon in the universe, these people are erased. They do not understand themselves and how to understand the one who formed them. And you discuss this topic, you accept that there are filaments with oxygen as gases between matter, which these "scientists" found these, and that oxygen seems to have escaped from your brain and you stayed with the head in which the vacuum remains and the rest is just a little bit of virtual particles, by which you make up and see some of your fatamorganes.
milnik
1 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2018
From all these of your discussions about the stupid finds of "scientists," it is evidence that you do not understand the structure of the universe at all, nor do you know what matter, gravity, magnetism, and all of them arise from their interconnection in the universe.
The story of the existence of a great bang, about the spread of the universe, about virtual particles, about engraving waves and the collisions of black holes and the like, are the consequence of the accepted atheistic philosophy that you have adopted because you do not respect the existence of the Spiritual Entity of the universe nor respect the one who formed you. You are not aware that you are automatically punished by the Creator, if you do not respect him, and that's why you are all more dangerous to humanity than you were communists in the eastern countries.
milnik
1 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2018
From your discussions you can see that you do not even know how the matter arises and how, through many processes, the celestial bodies form, as these bodies move. Use Einstein's stupid fatamorgan, that space and time are "tangled up" and make a curved network into which matter is caught, and then gravity arises. Only human idiots can accept this.
 The infinite universe is filled with the Aether substance from which two forms of matter are formed: the "solid state" (3 kg of particles-three quarks and 3 bonds of gluon), with which Aether causes the appearance of gravity and the second "liquid state" of matter (free gluons, which with Aether cause magnetism.
milnik
1 / 5 (3) Jun 25, 2018
From this mixture, magnetists are formed, which are transformed into a series of processes up to the supernova, which, when it explodes, forms gases and from them the celestial bodies (stellar systems). This is a consequence of magnetism, and gravity plays a role in the formation of celestial bodies from these clouds of gas, and converts it into masses (up to the cluster of galaxies) and returns matter back to Aether (black hole). It is a closed cycle of origin and disappearance of matter.
 It's truly amazing to watch and listen to godless claims and scientific blunders !!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2018
It is easier to understand the structure of the universe than the stupid and illogical theories that return human beings to the level of instincts, and this only makes humans more human beings, without consciousness, intuition and understanding the cause of the phenomenon. The claim of the occurrence of a big burst can be given by people whose consciousness is straight zero and possesses only the body of a human form. All natural programs that understand the true causes of the phenomenon in the universe, these people are erased. They do not understand themselves and how to understand the one who formed them. And you discuss this topic, you accept that there are filaments with oxygen as gases between matter, which these "scientists" found these, and that oxygen seems to have escaped from your brain and you stayed with the head in which the vacuum remains and the rest is just a little bit of virtual particles, by which you make up and see some of your fatamorganes.

man has erred,
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jun 25, 2018
'series of processes'; continues to err. Once we mature beyond ego,illogic, and disrespect, well, maybe; pretty sure, ya gotta study logic to be logical

we are not logical; because one is logical, does not create a logical group, esp. within 'whatever' we are
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jun 25, 2018
Only the geometrical center of he electric field, magnetism is derivative! That's it! Logic!

am i being repetitive
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2018
@RNP.
...the LHC conserves baryon number.
So far, so good. :)
It is your silly claim that hydrogen and helium are created...
Who said "created", not me, mate! I said REFORMED (from matter previously deconstructed to quark-gluon plasma). Are we on the same page on that now, RNP? :)
...try and explain how helium could be formed.
Have you no understanding of the complexity/variables involved in such ultra-high energy Galactic-BH-disc-and-polar-jets-systems processes extending over such vast astronomical local/remote distances/cross-section from BH to deep intergalactic space, RNP? Mainstream astrophysicists have for a long time now, why haven't you? There are ALSO myriad PERIPHERAL regions processes, including streaming-plasmoid-fusing of some of the 'reforming' protons/electrons. :)
..there would be a localised source of gamma-rays...
They are entrained/diffused by plasma in/around such activity. Didn't you know that happens with gamma rays in plasma, RNP?
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (6) Jun 25, 2018
@RNP.
the LHC conserves baryon number.
So far, so good. :)
It is your silly claim that hydrogen and helium are created...
Who said "created"? NOT me, mate! I said REFORMED from matter previously deconstructed to quark-gluon plasma. Are we on the same page on that now, RNP? :)
try and explain how helium could be formed.
Have you any understanding of the complexity/variables involved in such vast ultra-high energy Galactic-BH-disc-and-polar-jets-systems processes extending over such astronomical local/remote distances/cross-section from/around BH to deep intergalactic space, RNP? Mainstream astrophysicists have for a long time now, why haven't you? There are ALSO myriad PERIPHERAL regions processes, including streaming-plasmoid-fusing of some of the 'reforming' protons/electrons. :)
there would be a localised source of gamma-rays...
They are entrained/diffused by plasma in/around such activity. Didn't you know that happens with gamma rays in plasma, RNP?
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 25, 2018
@Da Schneib.
BLACK HOLE ACCRETION DISC AND POLAR JETS that deconstruct matter
And what about the quarks?
The clue is in the name of what issues from the highly energetic collisions involved in such processes; ie, quark-gluon plasma.
You haven't defined "matter deconstruction" yet. What does this mean?
What part of the English passage...
...'deconstructed back to lesser constituents' by energetic collisions (like those that occur at BH disc-jet systems etc, and also in LHC collider etc).
...are you having difficulty comprehending, mate? The clue is in the "...energetic collisions ((like those that occur at BH disc-jet systems etc, and also in LHC collider etc). Play your disingenuous 'obtuseness game' somewhere else, DS. :)

granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2018
This does not explain anything as polar jets accelerate ions, not gluon plasma
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Jun 25, 2018
@granville583762.
This does not explain anything as polar jets accelerate ions, not gluon plasma
The correct term is "quark-gluon" plasma, mate. And Fusion Power plants (eg, tokamaks) employ e-m manipulation/control method for their plasma, granville. Nature has been doing that all over, over eons now. I suggest you read up more widely on plasma processes in nature and in the lab, so that you can more easily/better comprehend all the issues/implications arising in discussions about such processes/phenomena, granville. Have fun learning, mate. :)
granville583762
5 / 5 (6) Jun 25, 2018
Ionic plasma or quark gluon plasma
@granville583762.
This does not explain anything as polar jets accelerate ions, not gluon plasma
RealityCheck> The correct term is "quark-gluon" plasma, mate. And Fusion Power plants (eg, tokamaks) employ e-m manipulation/control method for their plasma, granville. Nature has been doing that all over, over eons now. I suggest you read up more widely on plasma processes in nature and in the lab, so that you can more easily/better comprehend all the issues/implications arising in discussions about such processes/phenomena, granville. Have fun learning, mate. :)

You have just said the plasma in fusion reactors is quark gluon plasma.
And I always thought the plasma in fusion reactors was ionised atoms.
Thanks for correcting me on the correct term of fusion reactor plasma as quark gluon plasma RealityCheck.
RNP
3.7 / 5 (12) Jun 26, 2018
@RC
With regard your silly claims above about quark-gluon plasma (QGP) - let me try and explain it to you another way:

The LHC was designed in part to probe QGP effects. Hence it having to be so large - to create two beams, each of energy 7,000 GeV. Such energies are needed because, to create a QGP, the colliding objects must contain enough mass/energy for at least several hundred nucleons (each of mass 1 GeV). E.g. The discovery of QGP was achieved by colliding two lead atoms, giving a total mass >400 GeV. (See https://arxiv.org...6722.pdf )

Regarding QGP being formed in BH jets;
The typical energy in a BH jet is 10 GeV, with the record last I heard of 40 GeV. Such energies are WELL below those at which QGP effects are relevant. So, QGP effects are NEGLIGIBLE in BH jets.

Again, you have again not understood the physics/maths, and are consequently talking nonsense. So, I repeat my entreaty that you do not foist this nonsense on us until you have learned physics.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2018
It is debatable what is correct
Quarks in protons are held together with gluons
Quark gluon plasma exists only at high temperature
Protons cease to exist at these high temperatures
Quarks only exist in 3s as a proton
Quarks do not exist in quark gluon plasma instantly decaying till the temperatures cools sufficiently
Gluons are all that exists at these high temperatures
Gluon plasma exits at these high temperatures
Then we fall down the tree, temperature cools, quarks form; join in threes and hey presto! Pristine seeming protons
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2018
BHs are not invincible
RNP> @RC With regard your silly claims above about quark-gluon plasma (QGP)
The LHC was designed in part to probe QGP effects having to be so large to create two beams, each of energy 7,000 GeV. Such energies are needed because, to create a QGP, the colliding objects must contain enough mass/energy for at least several hundred nucleons (each of mass 1 GeV) The discovery of QGP was achieved by colliding two lead atoms, giving a total mass >400 GeV. (See https://arxiv.org...6722.pdf )
Regarding QGP being formed in BH jets;
energy in a BH jet is 10 GeV, with the record of 40 GeV. Such energies are WELL below those at which QGP effects are relevant. So, QGP effects are NEGLIGIBLE in BH jets.
you have again not understood the physics/maths consequently talking nonsense I repeat my entreaty that you do not foist this nonsense on us until you have learned physics.

My intuition told me BHs are insufficient to create QGP plus the facts
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2018
There is a view; jonesdave, quark gluon plasma just does not exist.
granville583762> It is debatable what is correct
Quarks in protons are held together with gluons
Quark gluon plasma exists only at high temperature
Protons cease to exist at these high temperatures
Quarks only exist in 3s as a proton
Quarks do not exist in quark gluon plasma instantly decaying till the temperatures cools sufficiently
Gluons are all that exists at these high temperatures
Gluon plasma exits at these high temperatures
Then we fall down the tree, temperature cools, quarks form; join in threes and hey presto! Pristine seeming protons

jonesdave> *1 / 5 (1)

This was meant to provide an animated series of events jonesdave as you have diminished your single syllable of a comment of "no" to an even lesser sylable as a simple no and as brief an animated description would have been equally acceptable
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2018
jonesdave; you have proved my point I raised about encouraging graduates and professors to inkly type.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2018
The outcome is BHs are not invincible
And as to quark gluon plasma, the only out come so far is a BH is insufficient to break it apart, which by implication a BH cannot break a proton apart to its constituent quarks, and consequently unable to break a proton down to a quark gluon plasma!
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jun 26, 2018
Gentlemen,
You poorly understand the process of forming matter, going from quarks and gluons to galaxies. Using high vibrations of the Aether substance, which fills an infinite universe, two forms of matter are formed: the "solid" and the "liquid" state of matter. The "solid" state is a 3 quark particle and 3 gluon binders. This condition with Aether causes the appearance of gravity, which has the task of returning matter back to the form of Aether (renewable processes of formation and disappearance of matter.) Another form of matter is the state of energy of matter - the "liquid" state, these are free gluons obtained by annihilation of electrons and positrons. AEHER state causes the appearance of magnetism This is the basis of all possible phenomena in the material energy entity of the universe (MEEU) Particle 3 quark and 3 gluon bonds is not quark gluon plasma Quark gluon plasma is a mixture of 3kg particles and free gluons.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) Jun 26, 2018
These glues form the celestial body as a magnetars.
When the free gluon decays, the positron enters the 3kg particle and proton forms, and when the electron establishes the balance of the energy state of that particle, a hydrogen atom forms.
This is my copyright law and from this I can prove everything that today's science does not understand. Heaven's bodies as star systems arise from gases after the supernova explosion, and when the critical mass and gravity reach, due to gravity, from these star systems, black holes are formed, where the matter is transformed back into the form of Aether from which matter is formed.
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jun 26, 2018
The outcome of the outcomes but not the final outcome
The outcome is BHs are not invincible
As to quark gluon plasma, the out come so far is a BH is insufficient to break it apart, which by implication a BH cannot break a proton apart to its constituent quarks, and consequently unable to break a proton down to a quark gluon plasma!

Now a blackhole has been brought down to earth, where does that leave our pristine seemingly protons!
Seemingly BHs being ultimate in gravitational force in the vacuum of space, it leaves us no further on when the point I raised "Is this oxygen breaking down to its constituent parts – hydrogen atoms in other words protons?" where RealityCheck pointed out the idea was not that, but deconstructing protons into quark-gluon plasma, where they reformed into seemingly pristine protons.
Were no further on with this idea because seemingly, as BHs are now out the picture, were left with no means of deconstructing protons into quark-gluon plasma!
RNP
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 26, 2018
@granvillle
@RealityCheck

........

You have just said the plasma in fusion reactors is quark gluon plasma.
And I always thought the plasma in fusion reactors was ionised atoms.
Thanks for correcting me on the correct term of fusion reactor plasma as quark gluon plasma RealityCheck.


Just in case you were not trying to be funny, the plasma in fusion reactors is NOT a quark-gluon plasma and does not behave in any way like one.

Do NOT believe anything that RealityCheck seems to suggest. He understands almost nothing

granville583762
5 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2018
My sense of humour
@granvillle
@RealityCheck You have just said the plasma in fusion reactors is quark gluon plasma.
And I always thought the plasma in fusion reactors was ionised atoms.
Thanks for correcting me on the correct term of fusion reactor plasma as quark gluon plasma RealityCheck.

RNP> Just in case you were not trying to be funny, the plasma in fusion reactors is NOT a quark-gluon plasma and does not behave in any way like one.
Do NOT believe anything that RealityCheck seems to suggest. He understands almost nothing

It was my sense of humour RNP, RealityCheck left the door open for one of my puns - in his comment "The correct term is "quark-gluon" plasma, mate. And Fusion Power plants (eg, tokamaks) employ e-m manipulation/control method for their plasma" he seemed to imply the plasma in fusion reactors is QGP and I couldn't resist a leg pull.
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jun 26, 2018
Gravity, its Inertial Mass and massless energy
Blackholes consist of protons as triplet quarks held together with gluons
The very gravity that sustains BHs relies on protons
Breaking the triplet quarks any further implies reaching massless energy
Energy is massless, has no inertial mass and no gravity
BHs by definition cannot break mass any further than triplet quarks or the BH will cease to exist as a BH
There is a point that is reached when smaller is no smaller and we cannot defer the question to an even smaller entity!
milnik
not rated yet Jun 26, 2018
@granville583...
Inertial Mass, massless energy, Gravity, explain what are the phenomena, how they originate and what they have in common.
Energy is massless, has no inertial mass and no gravity, you confuse the valid roles of these three phenomena, because you do not even know what gravity is, neither energy nor mass.
Also, you do not know what the black holes are and how they originate and how they act and what their role is. You invoke too many expressions that have nothing to do with each other, if you are thinking of physical laws that are assigned to nature.
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jun 26, 2018
English and its idiosyncrasies
milnik> @granville583...
Inertial Mass, massless energy, Gravity, explain what are the phenomena, how they originate and what they have in common.
Energy is massless, has no inertial mass and no gravity, you confuse the valid roles of these three phenomena, because you do not even know what gravity is, neither energy nor mass.
Also, you do not know what the black holes are and how they originate and how they act and what their role is. You invoke too many expressions that have nothing to do with each other, if you are thinking of physical laws that are assigned to nature.

There is one factor above anything else milnik, you appear to be able to translate my texts unlike antialias_physorg who is a Cambridge graduate can not as easily translate my texts
All though are views conflict you have a better understanding of English and its idiosyncrasies than antialias_physorg, milnic.
RNP
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 26, 2018
@granville
RNP> Just in case you were not trying to be funny, the plasma in fusion reactors is NOT a quark-gluon plasma and does not behave in any way like one.
Do NOT believe anything that RealityCheck seems to suggest. He understands almost nothing


It was my sense of humour RNP, RealityCheck left the door open for one of my puns - in his comment "The correct term is "quark-gluon" plasma, mate. And Fusion Power plants (eg, tokamaks) employ e-m manipulation/control method for their plasma" he seemed to imply the plasma in fusion reactors is QGP and I couldn't resist a leg pull.


That's fine, and I do I appreciate sarcasm. But I think it inadvisable to use it in a forum where people that do not appreciate the science can be,and are already being, misled.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jun 26, 2018
@granville
RNP> Just in case you were not trying to be funny, the plasma in fusion reactors is NOT a quark-gluon plasma and does not behave in any way like one.
Do NOT believe anything that RealityCheck seems to suggest. He understands almost nothing


It was my sense of humour RNP, RealityCheck left the door open for one of my puns - in his comment "The correct term is "quark-gluon" plasma, mate. And Fusion Power plants (eg, tokamaks) employ e-m manipulation/control method for their plasma" he seemed to imply the plasma in fusion reactors is QGP and I couldn't resist a leg pull.


That's fine, and I do I appreciate sarcasm. But I think it inadvisable to use it in a forum where people that do not appreciate the science can be,and are already being, misled.

huh?
granville583762
5 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2018
@granville
RNP> Just in case you were not trying to be funny, the plasma in fusion reactors is NOT a quark-gluon plasma and does not behave in any way like one.
Do NOT believe anything that RealityCheck seems to suggest. He understands almost nothing
my sense of humour RNP, RealityCheck left the door open for one of my puns - in his comment "The correct term is "quark-gluon" plasma, mate. And Fusion Power plants (eg, tokamaks) employ e-m manipulation/control method for their plasma" he seemed to imply the plasma in fusion reactors is QGP and I couldn't resist a leg pull


That's fine, and I do I appreciate sarcasm. But I think it inadvisable to use it in a forum where people that do not appreciate the science can be,and are already being, misled.

huh?

Infintely better than expletives any day and incase you had not noticed Hyperfuzzy, it was RealityCheck that was doinging the misleading, you have to read the whole text Hyperfuzzy, not in isolation
granville583762
5 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2018
What have we just done Hyperfuzzy and co, now everybody who uses a science forum will be misled including RealityCheck, we cannot discount the misleading from being mislead including myself who is constantly being misled, that I have to constantly backtrack to unravel myself from whatever nonsense that has dug its grappling hooks in me, fortunately I have good scientific instincts tempered with common sense.
But as I said, Infinitely better than expletives any day
But looking at the texts and counter texts, I still think we have texturally confused our selves!
We are all hyper fuzzed Hyperfuzzy, what a brilliantly appropriate name.
granville583762
5 / 5 (6) Jun 26, 2018
@granville583762.
It's not that RealityCheck, it is the scatty way your inkly typing, your idea of molecules returning back to hydrogen sounds interesting as long as ...
It's happening at the Large Hadron Collider now, every time the heavy ion/proton collisions 'deconstruct' same to produce quark-gluon plasma that then reforms protons etc. Didn't you know that, mate? Or has the punishment or reward of '1' or '5' from the bot-voting troll gang so easily 'conditioned' your erstwhile objective mind to become an unthinking 'forum zombie' like them? Wake up, granville!.....granville, wake up! :)

- RealityCheck, I donot have any theories as they come back and bite you when your theories fall flat -
If you are confused RealityCheck, am backtracking!

granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jun 27, 2018
jonesdave; you have proved my point I raised about encouraging graduates and professors to inkly type.

use the rating system appropriately, when 2*or below leave your advisory advice as 2* and above is what its intended use is for as 1* has effectively become a star the equivalent of an alternative of not actually leaving expletives, well looking at it that way jonesdave it has a useful use even if it was never an intended use.
RNP
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 27, 2018
@Hyperfuzzy
@granville
RNP> Just in case you were not trying to be funny, the plasma in fusion reactors is NOT a quark-gluon plasma and does not behave in any way like one.
Do NOT believe anything that RealityCheck seems to suggest. He understands almost nothing


It was my sense of humour RNP, RealityCheck left the door open for one of my puns - in his comment "The correct term is "quark-gluon" plasma, mate. And Fusion Power plants (eg, tokamaks) employ e-m manipulation/control method for their plasma" he seemed to imply the plasma in fusion reactors is QGP and I couldn't resist a leg pull.


That's fine, and I do I appreciate sarcasm. But I think it inadvisable to use it in a forum where people that do not appreciate the science can be,and are already being, misled.

huh?


Thank you for the "huh?" comment, Your lack of understanding says it all!
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 27, 2018
@RNP.
The typical energy in a BH jet is 10 GeV, with the record last I heard of 40 GeV. Such energies are WELL below those at which QGP effects are relevant. So, QGP effects are NEGLIGIBLE in BH jets.
You provide a perfect example of excessive compulsive math-turbation 'blinding' the math-turbator with GIGO. :)

Seriously,@RNP, you must be the only person alive who hasn't understood just how VAST, VIOLENT the SYSTEMS of accretion-disc-and-polar-jets around ACTIVELY feeding galactic nucleus BLACK HOLE regions ARE!

Your limited/averaged 'analysis' misses the wider picture/processes: mass-energy densities and collisional rates are ASTRONOMICAL, EXTREME in various parts of these vast systems!

Not to mention ONGOING extremely energetic collisions happening all along/at 'ends' of jets from systems ejecting such humongous quantities of energy/matter across millions/billions of light-years into deep space between galaxies.

Stop math-turbating. Start thinking/understanding. :)
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Jun 27, 2018
@Hyperfuzzy
@granville
RNP> Just in case you were not trying to be funny, the plasma in fusion reactors is NOT a quark-gluon plasma and does not behave in any way like one.
Do NOT believe anything that RealityCheck seems to suggest. He understands almost nothing


It was my sense of humour RNP, RealityCheck left the door open for one of my puns - in his comment "The correct term is "quark-gluon" plasma, mate. And Fusion Power plants (eg, tokamaks) employ e-m manipulation/control method for their plasma" he seemed to imply the plasma in fusion reactors is QGP and I couldn't resist a leg pull.


That's fine, and I do I appreciate sarcasm. But I think it inadvisable to use it in a forum where people that do not appreciate the science can be,and are already being, misled.

huh?


Thank you for the "huh?" comment, Your lack of understanding says it all!

huh?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Jun 27, 2018
@RNP.
The typical energy in a BH jet is 10 GeV, with the record last I heard of 40 GeV. Such energies are WELL below those at which QGP effects are relevant. So, QGP effects are NEGLIGIBLE in BH jets.
You provide a perfect example of excessive compulsive math-turbation 'blinding' the math-turbator with GIGO. :)

Seriously,@RNP, you must be the only person alive who hasn't understood just how VAST, VIOLENT the SYSTEMS of accretion-disc-and-polar-jets around ACTIVELY feeding galactic nucleus BLACK HOLE regions ARE!

Your limited/averaged 'analysis' misses the wider picture/processes: mass-energy densities and collisional rates are ASTRONOMICAL, EXTREME in various parts of these vast systems!

Stop math-turbating. Start thinking/understanding. :)
.

WHAT AN IDIOT.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 27, 2018
Hint to the idiot RC; mate. you are thick as p1gsh1t, eh? Just stop, yes? You are making yourself look even dumber than most of us know you to be. Correct? Just go away, and take a science degree. And stop making a tit of yourself on here.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 27, 2018
@jonesdave.
WHAT AN IDIOT.
Steady on there, jonesy! RNP may be a self-blinded math-turbator, but he is NOT an idiot! [ See what I did to your 'emotional-troll excreta' there, mate? :) ]

Now...
...you are thick as p1gsh1t, eh? Just stop, yes? You are making yourself look even dumber than most of us know you to be. Correct? Just go away, and take a science degree. And stop making a tit of yourself on here.
No no no, jonesy! RNP is NOT "...thick as p1gsh1t...".

[ At least RNP attempts to address the points made (irrespective of the correctness or not of his attempts); but YOU, jonesy, just demonstrated yourself to be what you said of others, by your above additional irrelevant stream of 'emotional-troll excreta' from someone seriously "...thick as p1gsh1t..." himself. Or are you 'posting under the influence' again? Either way, not a good look for you, mate.]

Stop 'emoting', jonesy. Start calmly thinking/understanding, mate. :)
RNP
3.2 / 5 (9) Jun 28, 2018
@RealityCheck
Seriously,@RNP, you must be the only person alive who hasn't understood just how VAST, VIOLENT the SYSTEMS of accretion-disc-and-polar-jets around ACTIVELY feeding galactic nucleus BLACK HOLE regions ARE!


This is clearly untrue and is obviously an attempt at obfuscation.

Firstly, I have just told you how powerful the jets are from direct measurement. Here is a relatively recent paper that proves my point ( https://arxiv.org...4702.pdf )

Then, your previous posts were very specifically about the jet. So, suddenly introducing the
accretion disk when you realise you have lost the argument is just a pathetic attempt at obfuscation by moving the goal posts. Besides, hydrogen and helium are not formed in large quantities in the accretion disc either!

I will waste no more time on you, as you are clearly incapable of carrying out a reasonable scientific discussion.

Go back to school and stop pestering the adults.
granville583762
5 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2018
The reality of a blackhole and QGP
granville583762> Protons do not decay in the vacuum of space
RealityCheck:- considering the quark triplets exert 10 times the force of a neutron star inside the proton, a blackhole does not exert that force and their gravity is zero at their centre of mass RealityCheck, where its acceleration force is its light radius and no greater The quarks require a star able to exert 10 times the force of a neutron star if not greater, where a blackhole is unable to do so and there is no greater star that we know off and protons do not decay in the vacuum of space where gluon plasma is theoretical

All that has been theorised concerning blackholes from Penrose to Hawking, this vital point (10 times the neutron pressure and more) is lacking in discussion because in the begging where the cosmic egg is very similar in many ways to a blackhole, if at it seems a blackhole cannot break a triplet quark this implies blackholes don't contain QGP!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2018
Charge is all; necessary and sufficient; therefore, an added force of nature gravity is unnecessary; thus gravity is illogical, QED
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 28, 2018
@RNP.
your previous posts were very specifically about the jet. So, suddenly introducing the accretion disk...
Please drop the lame tactics, mate. My posts in THIS thread were specifically pointed to 'ejection of matter into deep space'. BUT 'jets' are the final stage of the acceleration/ejection systems involved. And I have already long and often specifically pointed to those SYSTEMS of accretion-disc-and-polar-jets for YEARS, @RNP; did you miss it all?..eg:

https://phys.org/...rse.html
Consider: RECYCLING by Novae, Supernovae, Neutron Star, stellar-mass/supermassive/hypermassive Black Holes; via their accretion disc/jet system processes.
and
Hi torbjorn_b_g_larsson.:) Read my post to Phys1 above. Then consider the high energies and quark gluon plasma and fusions and deconstructions going on in the disc-jets systems alluded to.
You're ignoring full context, due to your 'ignoring' me. Not my problem, RNP. :)
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2018
@RNP.

Please read/see for yourself just how far behind me/mainstream your knowledge base/consequent ill-informed assertions/objections, are:

https://phys.org/...rce.html

Re gamma rays produced in/by such energetic accretion-disc-and-polar-jet 'systems':
Gamma radiation provides information on how the 'power plants' in supermassive black holes work,..

...neutrinos can reveal the mechanisms for particle acceleration of the proton beam in the densest environments that EVEN HIGH-ENERGY GAMMA-RAYS MAY NOT ESCAPE.
[capitalizing mine]

And re range of EM radiation from such regions/processes:
...coincident measurements from other instruments, including optical, radio, and X-ray telescopes.

...globally marshal telescopes to make a discovery using a variety of wavelengths...
And along with 'radio wavelength' EM will be MICROWAVE EM, some of which will be in "CMB" spectrum range!

So please catch up, @RNP et al. :)
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jul 13, 2018
.. be in "CMB" spectrum range!

So please catch up, @RNP et al. :)


We have no published data for large anti-matter collisions nor the type of accelerators defined by massive collections of charge. All naturally possible; but, those generated by intelligence?

Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Jul 13, 2018
Make sure your observations are temporarily corrected, speed=+/-infinity; c= Lambda Nu; two diff. things; speed = Lambda_Initial/Measured_Period; then. -INFINITY <= V < = INFINITY Therefore Speed is unbounded!

Since, observed implies an accelerated stream of galaxies then no magic

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.