Quark Stars and a New State of Matter?

Princeton physicist Ed Witten conjectured that the true ground

state of matter (in the sense of the lowest energy per particle) consists of a

mixture of roughly equal numbers of up, down, and strange quarks, with enough electrons thrown in to ensure that this soup is electrically neutral. Scientists have never demonstrated this conjecture to be true, and don't have

evidence that stars made of such matter ("quark stars") exist. And I don't believe they ever will demonstrate it to be true, nor will they find Quark Stars. Why? Because the binary digits of 1 and 0 must surely be the ground state or lowest possible energy level - not only of matter but also of space-time.*

* Hidden variables is an interpretation of quantum mechanics which is based on belief that the theory is incomplete (Albert Einstein is the most famous proponent of hidden variables) and it says there is an underlying reality with additional information of the quantum world. Their identification would lead to problems having exact, instead of merely probabilistic, outcomes - and could also restore a reality that exists independently of observation ("Quantum" by Manjit Kumar - Icon Books 2008, p.379) I suggest the hidden variables composing this reality is the binary digits. According to Einstein, gravitation is the warping of "empty" space - it is not empty but is filled with quantum fluctuations (a quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy at a point in space, and could be the result of switching a binary "one" to a binary "zero" [or vice versa]). Fluctuations could then be called virtual particles by physicists.

In this scenario, how would mathematics (the system of binary digits is base-2 maths) be converted into the physical universe? Through the use of what I call Digital String Theory (gravity would be united with the electromagnetic force if gravitation and electromagnetism are both products of a mathematical foundation to the universe). Let's borrow a few ideas from string theory's ideas of everything being ultimately composed of tiny, one-dimensional strings that vibrate as clockwise, standing, and counterclockwise currents in a four-dimensional looped superstring. We can visualize tiny, one dimensional binary digits of 1 and 0 (base 2 mathematics) forming currents in a two-dimensional program called a Mobius loop - or in 2 Mobius loops, clockwise currents in one loop combining with counterclockwise currents in the other to form a standing current. Combination of the 2 loops' currents requires connection of the two as a four-dimensional figure-8 Klein bottle. This connection can be made with the infinitely-long irrational and transcendental numbers. Such an infinite connection translates - via bosons being ultimately composed of 1's and 0's depicting pi, e, в€љ2 etc.; and fermions being given mass by bosons interacting in matter particles' "wave packets" - into an infinite number of Figure-8 Klein bottles, which are "subuniverses" composing the one and only universe (and there is only one set of the laws of physics). Binary digits fill in gaps and adjust edges to fit surrounding subuniverses {vastly simplified, this is similar to manipulation of images by computers). Slight "imperfections" in the way the Mobius loops fit together determine the precise nature of the binary-digit currents (the producers of gravitational waves, electromagnetic waves, the nuclear strong force and the nuclear weak force) and thus of exact mass, charge, quantum spin. Referring to a Bose-Einstein condensate, the slightest change in the binary-digit flow (Mobius loop orientation) would alter the way gravitation and electromagnetism interact, and the BEC could become a gas (experiments confirm that it does).

So there's no such thing as a quark-electron mixture forming Quark Stars. But there is a mixture of 1's and 0's forming matter, energy, forces, and all space-time. The formation of binary digits that most resembles stars, or masses of perhaps billions of stars, would be that part of space-time called Black Holes. Black holes aren't composed of matter but do have mass because they are meeting-places and "sinks" for the gravitational currents flowing in and between galaxies.** They possess charge because the universe's mathematical foundation unites gravity/spacetime with electricity/magnetism (see the paragraph about Digital String Theory). Since it has mass, a black hole can naturally possess the 3rd property of holes viz. spin.

** Suppose Albert Einstein was correct when he said gravitation plays a role in the constitution of elementary particles (in "Do Gravitational Fields Play An Essential Part In The Structure of the Elementary Particles?" - a 1919 submission to the Prussian Academy of Sciences). And suppose he was also correct when he said gravitation is the warping of space-time. Then it is logical that 1) gravitation would play a role in constitution of elementary particles, and their mass, and also in the constitution of the forces associated with those particles, and 2) the warping of space-time that produces gravity means space-time itself plays a role in the constitution of elementary particles, their mass, and the forces. Matter can be thought of as "coherent space" that is bound by forces.

Hi Rodney,

and thank you for taking an active interest in this thread discussion. I agreed with your opening paragraph until I read:

"Princeton physicist Ed Witten conjectured that the true ground state of matter (in the sense of the lowest energy per particle) consists of a mixture of roughly equal numbers of up, down, and strange quarks, with enough electrons thrown in to ensure that this soup is electrically neutral. Scientists have never demonstrated this conjecture to be true, and don't have evidence that stars made of such matter ("quark stars") exist."

On the contrary, there *is* evidence that strange quark stars exist. The recent New Scientist article "Quark Stars: How Can a Supernova Explode Twice?" (subscription required) talked about by Zeeya at the introduction of this thread describes how two teams are citing a series of double supernova events as indicators of neutron to quark star formation.

The Ouyed's team paper is here:

Explosive Combustion of a Neutron Star into a Quark Star: the non-premixed scenario

The Pagliara's team paper is here:

Combustion of a neutron star into a strange quark star: The neutrino signal

............

Here's the opening paragraphs of the recent New Scientist article:

[quote]Quark stars: How can a supernova explode twice? 09 December 2013 by Anil Ananthaswamy, Magazine issue 2946.

What do you get when you melt a neutron star? An unimaginably dense lump of strange matter and a whole new celestial beast.

ON 22 September last year, the website of The Astronomer's Telegram alerted researchers to a supernova explosion in a spiral galaxy about 84 million light years away. There was just one problem. The same object, SN 2009ip, had blown up in a similarly spectacular fashion just weeks earlier. Such stars shouldn't go supernova twice, let alone in quick succession. The thing was, it wasn't the only one, the next year another supernova, SN 2010mc, did the same.

One of the few people not to be bamboozled was Rachid Ouyed. "When I looked at those explosions, they were talking to me right away," he says. Ouyed, an astrophysicist at the University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada, thinks that these double explosions are not the signature of a supernova, but something stranger. They may mark the violent birth of a quark star, a cosmic oddity that has only existed so far in the imaginations and equations of a few physicists. If so they would be the strongest hints yet that these celestial creatures exist in the cosmic wild.

The implications would be enormous. These stars would take pride of place alongside the other heavenly heavyweights: neutron stars and black holes. They could help solve some puzzling mysteries related to gamma-ray bursts and the formation of the heftiest elements in the universe. Back on Earth, quark stars would help us better understand the fundamental building blocks of matter in ways that even machines like the Large Hadron Collider cannot. [end quote]

Alan,

Top candidate for the major component of dark matter? I don't think so.

Quark matter existing at the center of the Earth? Certainly, very possible!

Here is my thinking. Let us assume there are 3 or 4 forces of nature, 'gravitational', 'electromagnetic', 'strong' and you can add the 'weak' force all depending on the feature possessed by a particle, i.e. mass, charge, flavor, color, etc. Some of these particles have both mass and charge, some have both mass and flavor, some have mass alone, etc but mass appears common to all particles. I think it quite reasonable that particles exist which have mass alone and have no other property like charge, flavor, color, etc?

Now have a really, really big room full of particles of various features, noting that mass and therefore gravity is common to all. At an earlier time, assume these particles are evenly distributed. Knowing the heirachy and strength of the different forces, what will you expect in the future when you look into the room?

This is what I will expect, the attractive forces will result in clumping of the particle distribution into some initial large clumps or clouds of dust (you may call them early galaxies, early stars, early planets as the case may be depending on size). This initial clumping must be initiated mainly by that feature common to all, i.e. gravity. Subsequently, I will expect a secondary phase of clumping, that is, further clumping within a primary clump initiated by those particles which have further means of attracting each other, e.g. by having charge or flavor. The strength of the forces should have a role to play in this secondary phase, such that the particles with the strongest attraction forces between them come to reside in the core, while the next in strength forms an outer core and those least in strength in terms of attraction have no choice but to hover mainly in the atmosphere forming a medium gravitationally bound to the star or planet as the case may be. If this conjecture is reasonable, then there is already experimental proof of the existence of dark matter, i.e. matter having no other property like flavor or charge; matter that is transparent to light; matter that interacts almost exclusively in a gravitational way and can thus be bound to planets with its density naturally enhanced nearer the planetary surface and less dense further away from planet centre; matter that cannot form more complex and larger sized structures and particles due to absence of features like flavor and charge. In Nature the simplest is usually the more abundant than the more complicated, hence my proposal that this is the major component of dark matter, not ruling out that quark matter may lie at the core of planets or stars being highest in heirachy among the fundamental forces and therefore the most stable in the furnace-like environment where most of these structures are forged.

Even in the unlikely case that a planet, Earth can be so special as to be initially made of baryonic matter, i.e. particles having charge or flavor but never mass alone, in the billions of years of galactic wandering in the abundance of mass-only particles, would some of these not become gravitationally bound to Earth? See 1, 2,3,4,5 for speculations in this regard. It is my opinion that known and already conducted experiments have actually taken this topic beyond the realm of speculation.

Akinbo

Akinbo,

I greatly appreciate your agreement that the possibility of strange quark matter existing at the center of the planets and stars is worthy of consideration. But let us remember that science only has a theoretical guide to the gravitational workings of strange matter with other strange matter. Strange matter could easily be anisotropic, not having an equal gravitational field in all directions. Therefore we should use the term "mass" with caution, because this term is linked to the equation which states that *all* matter exerts a gravitational field *equally* in all directions. With the existence of strange quark matter within the planets and stars, this is no longer a given 'fact'.

Furthermore, the assumed initial "clumping of gas and dust" into stars and planets doesn't make intuitive sense. This phenomenon simply doesn't happen in everyday life. It has only been mathematically calculated by Stephen Hawking, who's reputation after the denouncement of 'black holes' is in question. Wouldn't it make more sense for strange quark matter to be the *seed* of formation of the planets and stars with a much higher gravitational influence?

Also, the calculated weight of the Earth via the Cavendish Experiment would also be violated by the existence of super dense strange quark matter at the center of the Earth. This figure would be greatly underestimated, which means that all other calculated weights of planets and stars are also flawed.

It's a very far reaching prospect that strange quark matter does indeed reside at the center of the Earth.

Hi Alan,

Thanks for providing the info in all those websites. However, they don't appear to be presenting what I'd call evidence. To me, evidence is proof. The websites you listed speak of hints, progress, possible connections and strong indications - these things are certainly worth taking attention of, but they are not proof. There is a definition in my dictionary that says evidence is indication that an idea is correct, or support for an idea. Maybe you used this less rigorous interpretation that strong indications are evidence? The scientists you mention may possibly be proved right - but they may possibly be proved wrong. So it's a smart idea for readers of this page to leave their minds open to other ideas (such as the ones presented later on in my original post).

Hi again Alan, Speaking of ideas "presented later on in my original post)", could I add to that post's final paragraph (using some lines from my entry in FQXi's 2014 contest - "NEW PHYSICS SUGGESTS DARWIN'S ORIGIN OF SPECIES IS INCOMPLETE, AND THAT GODLIKE HUMANITY WILL EMERGE" (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1977) -

In the 19th century, Scottish mathematician and physicist Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism into electromagnetism (3). Einstein's equations say that in a universe possessing only gravitation and electromagnetism, the gravitational fields carry enough information about electromagnetism to allow the equations of Maxwell to be restated in terms of these gravitational fields. This was discovered by the mathematical physicist Rainich (1886 -1968) (4). England's Penrose has argued that the gravitational fields, if known everywhere but only for a limited time, do not contain enough information about their electromagnetism to allow the future to be determined, so Einstein's unified theory fails (5).

Let's slightly adapt a 1919 paper by Einstein (6) to conclude gravitation actually forms particles of matter. If he was also correct about gravitation being the warping of space-time, it is logical that both gravitation and the warping of space-time that produces gravity would form elementary particles, their masses and the forces (nuclear and electromagnetic) associated with those particles. Therefore, time is unified with the gravitational field, which produces electricity and magnetism (the electromagnetic field - see WHY IS GRAVITY WEAK?) If time is unified with the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, the gravitational fields are not known for only a limited time but do contain enough information and Einstein succeeded, just as Wheeler and Misner claimed (8).

This overcomes the 50-year-old objection to Einstein's Unified Field which was put forth by Penrose. Physicists also argue that a unified theory must now address the strong and weak nuclear forces in the atom, as well as dark matter and dark energy. All of these subjects will be dealt with.

Alan,

If our cosmology is correct that the beginning had a high ambient energy with temperature subsequently cooling, the strongest bonds will stabilize first. It is therefore accepted by many that quarks must have become the first stable structures in the universe's thermal history long before atoms, molecules, etc. Having said that, is it inconceivable that fundamental particles exist having just mass alone, without charge, flavor or color? If it is not inconceivable, will they not be the simplest possible matter particles even if we leave the issue of their abundance is speculative?

After quarks may have formed the "seed" as you speculate, what about the outer coverings of the seed? My own speculation is that the skin of the "fruit", even if not the fleshy part, has a content of those simplest possible particles. Can this proposal be tested by an insect on the fruit through the conducting of light experiments on the surface of the fruit, such as the Michelson-Morley and Sagnac types and comparing these with light experiments above the fruit's surface? What will be the outcome of such experiments for a fruit floating about in space?

Akinbo

Akinbo

Rodney,

The evidence for quark stars isn't just confined to the anomalous double explosions of supernovae:

Quark Star Plays Role in New Theory for Brightest Supernovae

[quote]Super-luminous supernovae, which produce more than 100 times more light energy than normal supernovae and occur in about one out of every 1,000 supernovae explosions, have long baffled astrophysicists. The problem has been finding a source for all of that extra energy.

University of Calgary astrophysicists Denis Leahy and Rachid Ouyed think they have a possible source ? the explosive conversion of a neutron star into a quark star.

.........

Leahy and Ouyed's computer models suggest a quark-nova explosion would account for the extra energy observed in super-luminous supernovae. The properties they found in their simulations matched up with those of three of the most luminous supernovae to date: SN2006gy, SN2005gj and SN2005ap.

"In theory, when a neutron star converts into a quark star it releases a lot of energy and it produces something that looks like a supernova explosion in terms of energetics," Leahy said during a presentation of the results today, here at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society (AAS).[end quote]

Akinbo,

I agree with the idea that at the beginning quarks would have become the first stable structures. This therefore implies that strange quarks would have been formed. The you mention "mass" again! How do we know that gravity is equal in all directions from these initial quark structures? We don't. You've just assumed that they all do by using that 'm' word. What is the mechanism of gravity at the beginning? Are you assuming Einstein's spacetime 'fabric'? This idea doesn't fit with the very solid findings of quantum mechanics and therefore should be treated with skepticism imv. I have a common sense mechanism for gravity, which both Newton and Einstein didn't. Why not consider a particle as the force carrier? What shape would a particle need to be to create a force of attraction when it interacts with another in it's path?? Why doesn't the force carrier simply push the secondary particle further away instead of pulling it towards the direction from which it cam from??

Alan

Hi Alan,

I read that interesting article, and I do see now that the researchers are definitely on the right track. The article states, "Other explanations for the bright supernovae are possible, the researchers say". I think these "other explanations" reveal that the scientists are going in the right direction but have failed to go far enough. As the article says, "Quarks are considered to be the tiniest elementary particles that form the building blocks for protons and neutrons, which in turn form atoms." The term "tiniest elementary particles" appears to mean "the ground state or lowest possible energy level". And according to my original comment on this page, "the binary digits of 1 and 0 must surely be the ground state or lowest possible energy level". Admittedly, this explanation probably sounds more unusual than the notion of quark stars. But I believe my previous explanations answer every question more than satisfactorily. In the end, my explanations lead back to black holes instead of quark stars. And black holes, while as unusual as my ideas, are scientifically accepted while the article points out that quark stars are still just theoretical.

Akinbo,

Strange quark matter is considered to be a unbounded, unlike baryonic matter, so is more like a fluid. I propose that in the beginning high speeds of rotation created "gravitational magnetism" of strange quark matter but not within baryonic matter. High energy spinning strange quark matter would 'line-up' to give a stronger emission of gravitons on the plane of rotation compared to it's axis of rotation. This higher than average gravitational force then becomes the seed of formation of celestial bodies. This is the familiar shape of a disc with twin jet emission from the spin axis.

How Stellar Death Can Lead To Twin Celestial Jets

[quote]Astronomers know that while large stars can end their lives as violently cataclysmic supernovae, smaller stars end up as planetary nebulae -- colorful, glowing clouds of dust and gas. In recent decades these nebulae, once thought to be mostly spherical, have been observed to often emit powerful, bipolar jets of gas and dust. But how do spherical stars evolve to produce highly aspherical planetary nebulae?[end quote]Attachment #1: 1_exotic-quasar.jpgAttachment #2: rotten-egg-nebula.jpg

Alan,

I think it premature to speculate whether or not gravity is equal in all directions without elucidating its mechanism. Same with the proposed origin of "gravitational magnetism", although I sometimes wonder the source of the earth's magnetic field.

To answer some of the questions you posed would require knowing what space is, that is, whether in some sense, it is 'substantial' or merely 'relational', which is still part of the century old debate between Newton and Leibniz, which in modern times is the debate whether space is discrete or continuous.

Then your question, "Why not consider a particle as the force carrier?" and the subsequent posers suggest that the 'common sense' mechanism to explain attraction with force particles is faulty. Photons like gravitons are also used as force particles.

For example, I just put a light source underneath my wooden table and the light does not pass through because the table top is opaque. But when I put a magnet under the table top, I was able to move a metallic object on top of the table. How did the force particle, in this case a photon pass through? My own line of thinking favors the substantivalist position at the present time based on the cumulative logic and experiments we are aware of. You can google 'substantivalism' after reading about different theories of space here. Follow the arguments and logic but please replace the modern day 'space-time' with 'space' anywhere you see it! You may also take a look at some of the arguments in my 2013 FQXi essay in this regard and the comments with other community members that followed.

Akinbo

Akinbo,

Let me explain to you the common sense mechanism of how gravity works. Let's consider a particle as the force carrier. Object A exerts a force of attraction on Object B. How can a particle emitted from Object A achieve this effect? I propose that the force inducing particle is in the shape of a spinning Archimedes Screw. See attached:

Animation of Archimdes Screw

Imagine that the entire spinning screw is moving to the bottom right of the screen at half the speed of it's rotation. If this particle then interacts with Object B, then a force of attraction is applied, which can be represented by the red balls in the animation. The force carrying particle spins at twice the rate of it's lateral movement. This is the common sense model of the spin-2 boson. Do you see the mechanical simplicity of what I'm trying to convey??

Alan

You're right, Alan. We have differing opinions. When a person has a certain view, it's always possible to find support for that view. For example, I wanted to find out more about Stephen Hawking's recent statements about black holes. So I typed "hawking black holes" into Google, and the first thing my eye saw (even though it was partway down the page) was "Why Hawking Is Wrong About Black Holes" by Brian Koberlein, an astrophysicist and physics professor at Rochester Institute of Technology.

http://www.universetoday.com/108870/why-hawking-is-wrong-about-black-holes/

He says, "What I've presented here is a very rough overview of the situation. I've glossed over some of the more subtle aspects. For a more detailed (and remarkably clear) overview check out Ethan Seigel's post on his blog Starts With a Bang! Also check out the post on Sabine Hossenfelder's blog, Back Reaction, where she talks about the issue herself - ending with "In summary, nothing has changed in our understanding of black holes due to Hawking's paper. ."

You have your definite views ... I have mine. Time will determine who's correct.

I see your explanation. It is simple but it appears unnatural and it is inconsistent. Why do I say inconsistent? Attraction force also exists between opposite electric charges and between unlike magnetic poles. In the particle-as-force carrier proposals, these are said to be 'photons'. Firstly, in what way then will the photon be spinning to cause attraction in some cases and repulsion in other cases? Secondly, across a boundary that is opaque to light, electromagnetic repulsion and attraction can be effected, how did the force carrying particle pass through? Thirdly, according to Newton's third law, the particles must have a momentum, how can they?

You may belong to the 'space as nothing but a relation between things' school, which is why you find such ad hoc mechanisms to explain fundamental forces attractive. Newton, who was more of a substantivalist, could not also proffer any mechanism ('hypothesis non fingo'). But in the substantivalist view, space is to be listed as a content of the universe in its own right and its nature must then have some bearing on the behavior of electric, magnetic and gravitation fields.

So while I can buy your quark proposal, I will not buy the particle as force carrier mechanism even for a penny :)

Akinbo

Rodney,

In your own view of black holes, how do clocks behave near them?

Akinbo,

Not even for a penny? :-) I'm saying that all fundamental particles have the same sort of spinning Archimedes structure. The photon and electron are similarly shaped. I'm assuming that the graviton is the smallest mechanical particle. The photon and electron are bigger.

Repulsion is achieved by a spin direction opposite to it's handedness. A right-handed clockwise spinning particle as well as a left-handed anti-clockwise spinning particle will induce a force of attraction. A right-handed anti-clockwise spinning particle as well as left-handed clockwise spinning particle will both induce a force of repulsion.

I believe space is a vacuum with particles traveling through it. This is a standard scientific view of many I believe.

I have simply put a common sense simulation model of how boson particles 'carry' force.

Alan

Hi Rodney,

Yes, people become entrenched in their views. As you say, time will tell.

Cheers,

Alan

Strange quark matter is also credited with being able to explain another celestial anomaly:

Could Quark Stars Explain Magnetars Strong Magnetic Field?

[quote]Magnetars are the violent, exotic cousins of the well known neutron star. They emit excessive amounts of gamma-rays, X-rays and possess a powerful magnetic field. Neutron stars also have very strong magnetic fields (although weak when compared with magnetars), conserving the magnetic field of the parent star before it exploded as a supernova. However, the huge magnetic field strength predicted from observations of magnetars is a mystery. Where do magnetars get their strong magnetic fields? According to new research, the answer could lie in the even more mysterious quark star...[end quote]