Have huge stars powered by Dark Matter been discovered?

[John Clark]

As early as 2012 scientists predicted that the Hubble telescope would see something they called a "Dark Star".

Observing supermassive dark stars with James Webb Space Telescope

They theorized in the early universe Dark Matter, whatever it is, must've been much more densely concentrated than it is today, and if Dark Matter particles are their own antiparticles as many think then their annihilation could provide a heat source, they could keeping star in thermal and hydrodynamic equilibrium and prevent it from collapsing. They hypothesized something they called a "Dark Star '', it would be a star with a million times the mass of the sun and would be composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium but with 0.1% Dark Matter.  A Dark Star would not be dark but would be 10 billion times as bright as the sun and be powered by dark matter not nuclear fusion.

Astronomers were puzzled by pictures taken with the James Webb telescope that they interpreted to be bright galaxies just 320 million years after the Big Bang that were much brighter than most expected them to be that early in the universe, a recent paper by the same people that theorized existence of Dark Stars claim they could solve this puzzle. They claim 3 of the most distant objects that the Webb telescope has seen are point sources, as you'd expect from a Dark Star, and their spectrum is consistent with what they predicted a Dark Star should look like. With a longer exposure and a more detailed spectrum, Webb should be able to tell for sure if it's a single Dark Star or an early galaxy made up of tens of millions of population 3 stars.  

Supermassive Dark Star candidates seen by JWST

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

3vy

[spudb...@aol.com]

Some have indicated the discoveries of Webb have disproven the Big Bang, and the Standard Model. What do you say?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv02R9uavpw5wXxn_gepp7X_tx%3DQR-RR6KqgiJpebikbpA%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 4:14 PM 'spudb...@aol.com' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Some have indicated the discoveries of Webb have disproven the Big Bang, and the Standard Model. What do you say?

The existence of the Big Bang is on very firm ground and I don't think the Web telescope is going to change that, although it will certainly  change the details. The evidence for cosmic inflation is also pretty good but perhaps a bit less strong than it was five years ago.   

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

bii

 

\

[Lawrence Crowell]

One weakness with this idea is it depends upon WIMP theory. This is where the DM particles are weak interacting and Majorana. They are their own anti-particle as a result annihilate themselves. The problem is that detectors means to find WIMPS have come up with nothing. DM appears to exist, but it may not be a weakly interacting particle or WIMP.

LC 

[LizR]

Very interesting!

[Jesse Mazer]

Does the idea that colliders should have already found WIMPs depend on the "naturalness" idea at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalness_(physics) which requires supersymmetric particles at those energies in order to solve the "hierarchy problem", or are there independent reasons to think that if WIMPs existed they should already have been found? I've read that those who endorse the string theory "landscape" idea see anthropic fine-tuning as an alternative to naturalness and thus didn't predict that supersymmetric particles would likely be found at LHC energies, for example Leonard Susskind's 2004 paper at https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0406197v1 said the following on pages 1-2:

'If the Landscape and the Discretuum are real, the idea of naturalness must be replaced with something more appropriate. I will adopt the following tentative replacement: First eliminate all vacua which do not allow intelligent life to evolve. Here we need to make some guesses. I’ll guess that life cannot exist in the cores of stars, cold interstellar dust clouds or on planets rich in silicon but poor in carbon. I’ll also guess that black holes, red giants and pulsars are not intelligent.

'Next scan the remaining fraction of vacua for various properties. If the property in question is common among these “anthropically acceptable” vacua then the property is natural. By common I mean that some non-negligible fraction of the vacua have the required property. If however, the property is very rare, even among this restricted class, then it should be deemed unnatural. Of course there is no guarantee that we are not exceptional, even among the small fraction of anthropically acceptable environments. It is in the nature of statistical arguments that rare exceptions can and do occur.

Michael Douglas has advocated essentially the same definition although he prefers to avoid the use of the word anthropic wherever possible, and substitute “phenomenologically acceptable”. We have both attempted to address the following question: Are the vacua with anthropically small enough cosmological constants and Higgs masses, numerically dominated by low energy supersymmetry or by supersymmetry breaking at very high energy scales [8][7]? In other words is low energy supersymmetry breaking natural? My conclusion–I won’t attempt to speak for Douglas–is that the most numerous “acceptable vacua” do not have low energy supersymmetry. Phenomenological supersymmetry appears to be unnatural.'

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e8e41a06-7e91-4ac2-a636-b7481ffd1398n%40googlegroups.com.

[spudb...@aol.com]

How, would a dark star function? If we found one, in actuality, could we somehow construct a fusion reactor that runs on dark energy. I used to read that axions, a hypothetical particle was the driver of dark matter, energy, flow? Sup? 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAKzbsNcqg-D7PeRr2-_LD-iH9iR40YHqVDh-ob75djhry6%2BqPA%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 7:42 PM Jesse Mazer <laser...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Does the idea that colliders should have already found WIMPs depend on the "naturalness" idea at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalness_(physics) which requires supersymmetric particles at those energies in order to solve the "hierarchy problem", or are there independent reasons to think that if WIMPs existed they should already have been found?

When the LHC was being built most physicists thought when completed it would find the least massive member of the supersymmetric family (the most obvious candidate for a WIMP particle, a.k.a.Dark Matter)  almost as soon as it was turned on, but it would take much longer to find the Higgs particle. It didn't turn out that way. The LHC found the Higgs over 10 years ago but since then it hasn't found even a hint of Supersymmetry. However Supersymmetric theory is very tweakable, it's easy to add a few bells and whistles so that the least massive supersymmetric particle is just a tad too heavy for the largest particle accelerator in the world to produce, and when a larger machine is made and still sees nothing you can just tweak the theory again. Physicists feel that being that tweakable makes a theory ugly because it violates "naturalness" which is really just a special case of Occam's Razor. By contrast Einstein's General Theory Of Relativity has been called the most beautiful theory in physics because it is very difficult to add or remove anything in it without the whole thing collapsing, and yet it remains wonderfully consistent with all existing experimental results.

Although still a leading candidate Supersymmetric particles are not as popular an explanation for Dark Matter as they were a few years ago, but the rival Axion Theory is gaining popularity.

>  in order to solve the "hierarchy problem"

Even if super symmetric particles are found and even if they are proven to be the source of Dark Matter it won't solve the hierarchy problem. Why is the electromagnetic force between 2 electrons 10^42 times stronger than the gravitational force between them? Why is the "Weak Force" 10^24 times stronger than gravity? There's something special about the number zero and the number one, but what's so special about 10^42 and 10^24? Nobody knows.  

> I've read that those who endorse the string theory "landscape" idea see anthropic fine-tuning as an alternative to naturalness and thus didn't predict that supersymmetric particles would likely be found at LHC energies, for example Leonard Susskind's 2004 paper at https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0406197v1 said the following on pages 1-2:

'If the Landscape and the Discretuum are real, the idea of naturalness must be replaced with something more appropriate.vI will adopt the following tentative replacement: First eliminate all vacua which do not allow intelligent life to evolve.

String Theory postulates over 10^ 500 landscapes that have fundamentally different physics than our own, the trouble with using anthropic reasoning is that some, perhaps many, of those 10^500 worlds may contain stable structures constructed out of things radically different from anything we have ever seen or even theorized about that are nevertheless able to process information.  And if something can process information it has the potential to be intelligent. And I believe if something is intelligent it is conscious. But what is the likelihood any form of life that bizarre actually exists?  I don't think anybody knows enough to even make an educated guess about that except to say the probability is greater than zero and less than one.

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

uty

sts

[smitra]

A more model independent argument (which does have loopholes) goes as
follows. The weaker WIMPS interact with themselves and with baryons, the
sooner after the Big Bang they decouple, leading to a higher present-day
abundance. Then with the present-day abundance fixed, this implies
limits on the parameters describing WIMPS. And it becomes more and more
difficult to accommodate for WIMS with smaller and smaller small
cross-sections. But dark matter that has extremely weak interactions and
self-interactions would never have been in thermal equilibrium, which is
a possible loophole out of this no-go argument.

Saibal

>>> [1]

>>>
>>> They theorized in the early universe Dark Matter, whatever it is,
>>> must've been much more densely concentrated than it is today, and
>>> if Dark Matter particles are their own antiparticles as many think
>>> then their annihilation could provide a heat source, they could
>>> keeping star in thermal and hydrodynamic equilibrium and prevent
>>> it from collapsing. They hypothesized something they called a
>>> "Dark Star '', it would be a star with a million times the mass of
>>> the sun and would be composed almost entirely of hydrogen and
>>> helium but with 0.1% Dark Matter. A Dark Star would not be dark
>>> but would be 10 billion times as bright as the sun and be powered
>>> by dark matter not nuclear fusion.
>>>
>>> Astronomers were puzzled by pictures taken with the James Webb
>>> telescope that they interpreted to be bright galaxies just 320
>>> million years after the Big Bang that were much brighter than most
>>> expected them to be that early in the universe, a recent paper by
>>> the same people that theorized existence of Dark Stars claim they
>>> could solve this puzzle. They claim 3 of the most distant objects
>>> that the Webb telescope has seen are point sources, as you'd
>>> expect from a Dark Star, and their spectrum is consistent with
>>> what they predicted a Dark Star should look like. With a longer
>>> exposure and a more detailed spectrum, Webb should be able to tell
>>> for sure if it's a single Dark Star or an early galaxy made up of
>>> tens of millions of population 3 stars.
>>>

>>> Supermassive Dark Star candidates seen by JWST [2]
>>>
>>> John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis [3]

>>>
>>> 3vy
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e8e41a06-7e91-4ac2-a636-b7481ffd1398n%40googlegroups.com

>> [4].

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3LvD%3DBUJH8hNeWGbM6p%2BSfriLZr3JP82PiUbGKaxqUg%2BA%40mail.gmail.com
> [5].
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/422/3/2164/1043351?login=false
> [2] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2305762120
> [3] https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis
> [4]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e8e41a06-7e91-4ac2-a636-b7481ffd1398n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=footer
> [5]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3LvD%3DBUJH8hNeWGbM6p%2BSfriLZr3JP82PiUbGKaxqUg%2BA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

[John Clark]

On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 10:04 PM 'spudb...@aol.com' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> How, would a dark star function? If we found one, in actuality, could we somehow construct a fusion reactor that runs on dark energy.

Even the universe doesn't know how to make a Dark Star anymore, it could do it 13 billion years ago but conditions were very different back then. However I have my own looney idea about how to create unlimited energy.  There is no way to turn the symbol "9" into a "p" if they remain in the 2 dimensional plane, however if you lift the 9 into the third dimension and flip it over and then put it back the 9 becomes a p. And if you could lift a three-dimensional right handed glove into the fourth spatial dimension and flip it over and put it back you would turn a right handed glove into a left handed glove, except that the glove would probably now be made of antimatter and would explode with the force of an H bomb as soon as it came in contact with regular matter. String theory postulates that there are 7 additional spatial dimensions in addition to the three we are familiar with, if just one of those extra dimensions is large enough to accommodate an atom and a way can be found to flip it over without using too much energy then we could produce virtually unlimited amounts of energy with matter antimatter collisions.

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

tfc

[Jesse Mazer]

Any links on this argument? If we do assume that dark matter is made of WIMPs and that they *were* approximately in thermal equilibrium not long after the Big Bang, does the argument imply an upper limit on the collider energy needed to observe them, because WIMPs at higher energies than this limit would be inconsistent with cosmological observations about dark matter?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e5e58252046554ec5b898c274b90ba76%40zonnet.nl.

[Brent Meeker]

Just flip electrons.  They're point particles as far as we know.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1S5NJqux_5zUb3qoarsYw-sEZ_my-M77US8_0sWPF%3DtA%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 1:03 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just flip electrons.  They're point particles as far as we know

I would prefer to do it with a neutral atom, doing it with a charged object would produce complications; the law of the conservation of electrical charge would be violated because the antimatter version of the negatively charged electron is the positron, and it's positively charged.  

John K Clark   See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

pce

[smitra]

See page 11 section A: "Cold Thermal Relic" of this paper:
https://arxiv.org/abs/0709.3102

As pointed out there, the mass of the particle then drops out of the
estimate of the cross section. And as pointed out in section C:
"Supermassive relics", if the mass is more than 240 TeV then it cannot
be a thermal relic.

Saibal

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3%2BrCP1-eY-KdT1JAeUTRNxU7xt3gDAZ8nSHosh6a%2BVvHg%40mail.gmail.com
> [1].
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3%2BrCP1-eY-KdT1JAeUTRNxU7xt3gDAZ8nSHosh6a%2BVvHg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

[LizR]

I don't suppose this could be one of them?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2023/webb-reveals-colors-of-earendel-most-distant-star-ever-detected

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv02R9uavpw5wXxn_gepp7X_tx%3DQR-RR6KqgiJpebikbpA%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 11:40 PM LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't suppose this could be one of them?

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2023/webb-reveals-colors-of-earendel-most-distant-star-ever-detected

No. Earendel has the spectrum of a type B star and is about 1 million times brighter than the Sun, the only reason even the James Webb telescope is able to see it is because due to a lucky accident a very massive galaxy is between us and that star and has magnified it several thousand times by gravitational lensing. However Earendel may be an example of a population 3 star that astronomers have been seeking for decades; a first generation star that is composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium and no metals.

By contrast a Dark Star, if one exists, would have a spectrum closer to that of a type G star like the sun but be at least 1 billion times brighter; it would be so bright it would be hard to tell the difference between it and an entire galaxy that was so distant it was almost a point source in our telescopes. 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

lqn

 

On Sun, 16 Jul 2023, 23:58 John Clark, <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote:

As early as 2012 scientists predicted that the Hubble telescope would see something they called a "Dark Star".

Observing supermassive dark stars with James Webb Space Telescope

They theorized in the early universe Dark Matter, whatever it is, must've been much more densely concentrated than it is today, and if Dark Matter particles are their own antiparticles as many think then their annihilation could provide a heat source, they could keeping star in thermal and hydrodynamic equilibrium and prevent it from collapsing. They hypothesized something they called a "Dark Star '', it would be a star with a million times the mass of the sun and would be composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium but with 0.1% Dark Matter.  A Dark Star would not be dark but would be 10 billion times as bright as the sun and be powered by dark matter not nuclear fusion.

Astronomers were puzzled by pictures taken with the James Webb telescope that they interpreted to be bright galaxies just 320 million years after the Big Bang that were much brighter than most expected them to be that early in the universe, a recent paper by the same people that theorized existence of Dark Stars claim they could solve this puzzle. They claim 3 of the most distant objects that the Webb telescope has seen are point sources, as you'd expect from a Dark Star, and their spectrum is consistent with what they predicted a Dark Star should look like. With a longer exposure and a more detailed spectrum, Webb should be able to tell for sure if it's a single Dark Star or an early galaxy made up of tens of millions of population 3 stars.  

Supermassive Dark Star candidates seen by JWST

3v