Quark Stars and a New State of Matter?

Alan,

I'm somewhat of the opinion that we don't really appreciate the nature of ordinary matter. Physics seems bent on finding some mystery buried down in the most elemental nature and goes to extremes of smallest, largest and most abstract, but this everyday reality we live in is a balancing act of forces and properties, of which we tend to focus on one side of, or see the two sides as somehow distinct. A good example is the whole Big Bang cosmology, where the universe is a singular vector from beginning to end. What seems to be overlooked is that galaxies are not inert points of reference, but 'space sinks,' which do balance the expansion of the measure of inter-galactic space, resulting in an overall flat space, as is measured. Logically this would imply some sort of cycle and we know radiation expands, while mass contracts and they do emerge from one another. Yet our intellectual model is to focus on the distinctions, rather than the connections, so its a search for what we are missing, but it may be what we are missing is not hiding, we just are not looking at it the right way.

This is something I wrote for another discussion and it was ignored, but it's an idea that keeps nibbling at my brain;

"According to increasingly accurate measurements, the overall universe appears flat, with gravity balancing the expansion. While the space between galaxies appears to expand, these galaxies are not just inert points of measure, but 'space sinks,' collapsing measures of space in proportion to that which expands between them. Given this balance it would seem to me some form of convection cycle, of expanding radiation and collapsing mass, would better explain the entire process, than just the current focus on the expanding inter-galactic medium creates the impression of an expanding universe.

The contraction of mass and the expansion of energy would then constitute opposing directions of time, as structure forms on the perimeters of galaxies and becomes increasingly complex and dense, until apparently collapsing into the center and being ejected out the poles, if not previously radiated away as light. Meanwhile the radiation is constantly expanding away from prior forms and coalescing into new forms. Keep in mind that a clock has two components, the face and hands and they go in opposite directions. To the hands, it is the face going counterclockwise. The form of classic clocks evolved from sundials and the hand(s) originally represented the sun, or conversely, the shadow created by its light, moving around the dial. As such it represented the present, while the marks on the face represent the units of time. So the hands/present moves from past to future units, while these units go from being in the future, to being in the past. Such as energy is constantly manifesting form, expanding in out, until it becomes rigid, then breaking it down and going onto new forms and growing them. So we have these galaxies, composed of physical forms that are constantly coalescing out of more basic forms, expanding out as they accumulate energy and mass, then radiating it away, eventually to where the last of the energy appears to be shot out the poles as cosmic jets. All this energy goes to create the effect of an expanding inter-galactic space.

Gravity, then, is not so much a property of mass, but the vacuum effect of energy coalescing into mass and ever more dense forms after that. Given dark matter cannot be detected, but there is excesses of unexplained cosmic rays on the perimeters of galaxies.

So there are two directions of time. That of the physical present, as the energy, moving onto the future and expansion, while the forms it manifests coalescing and eventually dissolving, ie, going future to past.

Now when we measure something, we convert energy into information, which is form. So in an elemental sense, our very effort of measurement converts energy into mass, that of a stabilized state of the energy."

So, in a sense, matter is stabilized energy and when we measure anything, we have to balance it with another force, so we are creating mass by measuring energy. This then gets to the issue of the 'observer generated' reality.

Sorry I'm wandering off topic, but the brain tends to wander off while I'm doing other things. I think that on a deeper spiritual level, we have some primal sense of this, For example, the primitive assertions that cameras and taking a picture are 'soul stealers.' That some tiny measure of the person takes some of their energy. On a personal sense, I seem ever more suspended in the interpersonal and organic web of consciousness and any thread I pull, causes lots of different effects, so my sense of the material becomes ever more tenuous. It's all about balance.

Regards,

John M

John,

Quite off topic, yes. Your use of the word "mass" means you are subscribing to Einstein's spacetime imv and therefore not too open to non-baryonic candidates for dark matter. There was something that you mention which caught my interest:

"Given dark matter cannot be detected, but there is excesses of unexplained cosmic rays on the perimeters of galaxies."

I have a hunch that strange quark matter at the center of celestial bodies create cosmic rays when two such bodies interact on the plane of their rotation. There's evidence that cosmic rays originate from Jupiter Cosmic rays from Jupiter.

Even from the Earth's core. Take a look at the diagram for terrestrial gamma ray flashes (TGF's)

There's a clue that TGF's have a trigger emanating from the center of the Earth imo:

[Quote]Second, TGFs are strongly concentrated around Earth's equator when compared to lightning.[11] (They may also be concentrated over water compared to lightning in general.)[end quote]

The thinner crust under the oceans would allow the easiest escape route for a mystery pulse escaping the center of the Earth. Bermuda Triangle type mysteries also occur over the oceans - coincidence?

Alan

Here's a recent paper which reads suspiciously similar to the 1982 paper on Jupiter Cosmic Rays linked above:

Global Anisotropies in TeV Cosmic Rays Related to the Sun's Local Galactic Environment from IBEX (Feb 2014)

[quote]Observations with the Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) have shown enhanced energetic neutral atom (ENA) emission from a narrow, circular ribbon likely centered on the direction of the local interstellar medium (LISM) magnetic field. Here, we show that recent determinations of the local interstellar velocity, based on interstellar atom measurements with IBEX, are consistent with the interstellar modulation of high energy (TeV) cosmic rays and diffusive propagation from supernova sources revealed in global anisotropy maps of ground-based high-energy cosmic-ray observatories (Milagro, Asγ and IceCube). Establishing a consistent local interstellar magnetic field direction using IBEX ENAs at hundreds to thousands of eV and galactic cosmic rays at tens of TeV has wide-ranging implications for the structure of our heliosphere and its interactions with the local interstellar medium, particularly important at the time when the Voyager spacecraft are leaving our heliosphere.[end quote]

Alan

John, you said, "According to increasingly accurate measurements, the overall universe appears flat, with gravity balancing the expansion...". Mass until shown otherwise is the source of gravity and expansion implies an increasing radius. One can therefore rephrase your statement as "According to increasingly accurate measurements, the overall universe appears flat, with increasing Mass balancing the increasing radius...". I wrote a paper some years ago, which I am afraid of updating for fear that Moderators may disallow me. In that paper I posed the question: Does the universe have a constant mass during its evolution or has its mass been increasing with its radius? Come to think of it, if the universe is now about 1052kg, was all that mass there right from the beginning? Apart from being unnatural, as Nature tends to do its work gradually unlike we humans, having everything all at once results in theoretical difficulties for the Big bang model, such as "a temperature problem", quite apart from the identified flatness problem which inflationary theory was invented to resolve.

Akinbo

*I make this post here because this blog is categorized under Cosmology, although I know Alan wants nothing but his Strange type of matter discussed! But if the universe is increasing in mass, the initial stable types of matter must have the strongest bonds between them because of the high ambient temperature, but newly forming matter can make do having just gravitational bonds to form stable structures, and so will be more diffuse and less clumpy since current ambient cosmic energy and temperature is about 2.7K.

Alan,

It's not strange if it fits in the larger system. So what you are saying is that at the gravitational center, energy radiates back out. Isn't that emblematic of a vortex? That the energy radiates back out out into the larger system, rather then disappearing into some other dimension?

Akinbo,

My view is that space is unbounded/infinite, so the whole system isn't expanding, rather it is a cycle, effectively a cosmic convection cycle, of energy radiating out and eventually congealing into mass/balanced structure, than inexorably falling back together and heating up, until it breaks down and radiates back out again. It's just they are only looking at the effect of the expansion and not adding in that gravity does cancel/balance out the overall expansion. They use inflation to explain why it appears flat, but that just shoehorns evidence of an infinite universe into a finite model. It's institutional myopia, given the proof is in their own evidence.

Having to keep it short, off to work.

Regards,

John M

John,

I'm saying that there's additional tide raising forces at the center of the Earth from non-baryonic matter interaction on the plane of rotation. I've worked backwards from a novel explanation for both the ice age 100ky insolation-only conundrum as well as the mysterious climate millennial cycle which fits with the 1,800 yr lunar tidal cycle. It's a long story, but as Akinbo points out, that's all I want to talk about right now. Sorry for my obsession but I'm convinced this is a worthy avenue of inquiry, if nothing else. Strange quark matter fits the bill just right.

Cheers,

Alan

Alan,

No prob. I got drawn in by your point about measures of time being affected differently, depending on mechanism and relation to gravity. Sorry I can't be of help, but it's a time thing(s).

Regards,

John M

John,

No problem too. The discussion went a bit off topic by then. I pointed out that pendulum clocks tick or swing more slowly in a lower gravitational field contrary to atomic clocks, which speed up. This is why Einstein's work should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Here's a video of a pulsar jet taken by the Chandra observatory. It shows the corkscrew emission just as described in the "runaway" pulsar above.

Vela pulsar

I can't really see the mystery of the runaway pulsar. It's moving perpendicular to it's jet, yes, but that's what I'd expect.

"Usually, the spin axis and jets of a pulsar point in the same direction as they are moving, but IGR J11014-6103's spin axis and direction of motion are almost at right angles.2

I think it's the more usual movement in the direction of the spin axis which is the real mystery here.

Alan

Reading further about pulsars led me to pulsar glitches:

[quote]A glitch is a sudden increase (up to 1 part in 106) in the rotational frequency of a rotation-powered pulsar, which usually decreases steadily due to braking provided by the emission of radiation and high-energy particles. It is unknown whether or not they are related to the timing noise which all pulsars exhibit. Following a glitch is a period of gradual recovery where the observed periodicity slows to a period close to that observed before the glitch. These gradual recovery periods have been observed to last from days to years. Currently, only multiple glitches of the Crab and Vela pulsars have been observed and studied extensively.

While the exact cause of glitches is unknown, they are thought to be caused by an internal process within the pulsar. This differs from the steady decrease in the star's rotational frequency which is caused by external processes. Although the details of the glitch process are unknown, it is thought that the resulting increase in the pulsar's rotational frequency is caused by a brief coupling of the pulsar's faster-spinning superfluid core to the crust, which are usually decoupled. This brief coupling transfers angular momentum from core to the surface, which causes an increase in the measured periodicity. It is thought that the coupling could be caused by a breaking of the pulsar's magnetic dipole, which would apply a torque to the crust causing a brief coupling between the two parts. [end quote]

I read this as a strange quark matter innercore coupling and decoupling possibility. When a pulsar moves perpendicular to it's jet, then the innermost core has aligned itself with the spin axis. When a pulsar moves in the same direction as it's jet, then the innermost core has swung more dramatically to align itself with the spin axis.

Pulsar schemtaic

Why it is more common for the larger swing is the next mystery to be solved.

Alan

The pix in attachment may explain why a supernova can explode twice; what lies at earth centre; the source of planetary and stellar magnetism; the reason behind celestial bodies spinning on the one hand (which matters more to Alan), and on the other hand (the aspect that matters more to me), why Michelson-Morley type experiments on earth surface are null (isotropy of light speed despite the earth's motion), while in contrast light arriving to observer from beyond the earth shows anisotropy and dependence on observer's motion (like CMBR and the need to correct for observer motion when studying Pulsar light); why the frequency of light should vary vertically with height as if there was a medium varying in density with height; why light grazing the surface of a celestial body should undergo refraction in the process. All these, in addition to resolving why outer lying stars do not escape from galaxies given their high rotational velocities as if galaxies contained more than the observed luminous matter, the major reason why dark matter was discovered in the first place. There may be more that the pix can explain.

AkinboAttachment #1: FQXi_pix.doc

Here's an interesting snippet on the first measurements of the speed of light:

View From Mars Hill: Jupiter key to estimating the speed of light

[quote]So what of this constant rate of light's speed on which the above numbers rely? In our Earthbound lives, light seems to travel extremely quickly, virtually instantaneously. How did we ever accurately determine the speed of light, and what does Jupiter have to do with any of this?

Soon after Galileo pointed his telescope at the heavens and discovered the four largest moons of Jupiter (known today as the Galilean satellites, in his honor), he attempted to measure the speed of light by setting up lanterns on distant hills. Galileo's plan was to flash his lantern and as soon as his assistant on the other hill saw this light, he was to flash his own lantern. Galileo would measure the amount of time between the two flashes and, knowing the distance between the two hills, could then determine the speed at which the light traveled. This crude experiment left Galileo without any conclusions, except that light travels much faster than sound.

Years later, in 1676, the Danish astronomer Ole Roemer observed that the eclipse times of Jupiter's moons correlated to the relative distances between Earth and Jupiter (and its satellites). When Earth was at its closest point to Jupiter, the eclipses occurred earlier than expected; when Earth was at its most distant point, the eclipses were later than expected.

As we now know, light travels too fast to be detected across the short distances of Earth, explaining why Galileo's experiment failed. However, when observed across the much vaster distances between bodies in space, as Roemer had done, the speed is detectable. Roemer used his discovery to measure the speed of light for the first time and prove that light moved at a finite speed. While his estimate was on the low side, due to imprecise estimates of related measurements, he still came up with a fair approximation of the modern accepted value of 186,000 miles per second.[end quote]

Alan,

This may not be your forte. RE: "The null result from the M-M experiment is an interesting point of discussion. It is considered to show that a stationary aether doesn't exist in which light waves travel, analogous to waves on water".

Let's leave the aether out for the moment. The greater importance of the M-M experiment vis-a-vis other experiments indicating on the contrary that earth's motion can influence light arrival times was that an earth-bound medium, not necessarily the aether must be present to explain the discordant light findings. In the absence of such a transparent medium Galilean relativity MUST be abandoned and another type of relativity (Lorentz transformation/Special relativity) MUST take its place. No feasible transparent candidate medium capable of being earth bound to influence earth surface experiments was found until long after the drama of 1887, 1905 and 1916. It was only from about 1932/1933 that a new actor previously unrecognized as a possible member of the cast came into reckoning and in my thinking it has come to rescue Galilean relativity from the strangle hold of Special relativity as the long sought earth-bound medium. See also the references in the pix I attached.

Akinbo

Akinbo,

I read the Wikipedia entry, Michelson-Morley experiment and it's quite clear that until the experiment an aether was widely accepted as the medium for light waves.

Why can't light be Archimedes screw shaped particles moving through space without the need for any medium?

Alan

Akinbo,

my apologies. Yes, I see what you mean now. Einstein's idea of relativity with frames of references *is* groundbreaking, yes. I always think of his thought experiment of someone bouncing a ball on a train. A stationary observer from outside would see the ball move differently to the person who was doing the bouncing.

[quote]Say you're standing on an open-sided rail car tossing a ball up in the air. Even when the train is moving, to you on the train the ball appears to be going up and down. But think about someone standing on the ground watching the train go by. To the stationary observer, because the train is moving, the ball appears to go on a diagonal path. Think about that a moment. If you're looking straight at the ball the moment it leaves the thrower's hand, you would have to move your eyes (or your head) in the direction that the train was moving to keep the ball in the center of your vision. Compare the position of the ball with respect to you when it leaves the thrower's hand with the position at the peak of the toss, and you should see what I mean when I say the motion of the ball is diagonal to the observer on the ground.

Now imagine instead that instead of a ball, the train rider was shining a pencil-beam of light at the ceiling of the rail car. On the train, the beam would appear to go straight up. But to the observer on the ground it would take a movement of the eye or the head in the direction that the train was moving to keep track of the beam of light as it went up to the ceiling. OK, you really wouldn't have to move your head or eyes because the light is traveling so fast, but this is a thought experiment.

Here's where special relativity comes in. Einstein said, "What if the speed of light were a constant no matter what?" In other words, if you shined a light, no matter how fast you were moving, the light traveled at the same speed. That creates a paradox. To the person on the train, the light goes straight up and hits the roof of the rail car. But to the person on the ground, the light goes on a diagonal to reach the roof of the car. The diagonal path of the light is like the hypotenuse of a right triangle, made by drawing a line from your eye to the roof of the car when the light was switched on to the point off to the side where the light hit the roof of the car from your point of view.

And you surely remember from your trigonometry class, that the hypotenuse of a right triangle is longer than the other two sides. So the light must have traveled a longer distance, and traveling a longer distance takes more time. But for the person on the train and the person on the ground, light is moving at the same speed -- but it traveled farther on the train. How can something traveling at the same speed travel along paths of different length and get there at the same speed?

The solution to the paradox, Einstein said, was that for the person on the moving train, time was moving more slowly. Not that it would seem to be moving more slowly to the person on the train, but compared with the speed of time for the person on the ground, it actually would be slower.[end quote]

My point is this: Why does light *have* to have a constant speed no matter what?

His conclusion that 'time' would be moving more slowly on the train doesn't make any sense, especially when we've already worked out that pendulum clocks tick more slowly in a lower gravitational field contrary to faster ticking atomic clocks.

Incidentally, Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say (April 2013)

Alan

Something I just read:

This second following quote is from a letter Einstein sent to Erwin Finley-Freundlich dated August 1913.

[Quote]:"If the velocity of light is only a tiny bit dependent on the velocity of the light source, then my whole theory of Relativity and Gravitation is false". [Unquote]

I just read this too:

[quote]The key logic behind Special Relativity was that Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism looked like exact, universal laws of physics, and their solution gives light waves with a universal speed.[end quote]

The difference here is Maxwell's "universal speed" and Einstein's "constant speed no matter what". Did Maxwell's equations require light to have a "constant speed no matter what"? I assume not.

I can imagine light to be emitted from baryonic atoms at the same speed independently of what atom it is. But I can't imagine time slowing down in a train because a laser beam is used instead of a bouncing ball.

Akinbo,

having read through your last post with more scrutiny, I see where the problem lies. You say "In the absence of such a transparent medium Galilean relativity MUST be abandoned and another type of relativity (Lorentz transformation/Special relativity) MUST take its place." but I believe this to be an incorrect point of view. Just because light rays behave on Earth irrespective of it's 30km/s orbiting the Sun is just the same as if I was kicking a football against a wall northward or to the east. There's no perceptible difference, just like there's no perceptible difference with light. The experiment shows that there is no need for any kind of medium to explain the travel of light imv. There is no need for your hypothesis of dark matter to be the mystery candidate for such a medium.

Incidentally, I didn't realize that it was Galileo who first comprehended relative motion, see Galilean invariance. His idea of someone below decks of a ship on a calm sea not knowing whether the ship is sailing or not is a direct starting point for Einstein's open-sided train. Einstein just introduced the idea of a distant observer.

Alan

Alan,

A logical conclusion of your scenario is that Akinbo is correct.

If you play football on Mars I agree you'll find exactly the same result as on Earth, no directional variation. As speed is only relative, it is then invariant wrt the local background (Earth locally here or Mars locally there) rest frame.

Now position yourself in space at rest in the Barycentric (Sun) frame, half way between Earth and Mars, watching their quite different orbits and speeds wrt your rest frame.

Q1. Is the speed of the balls on Earth and Mars "THE SAME" wrt YOUR OWN rest frame?. ..Q2. Similarly is the speed of a light pulse on Earth the same wrt YOU as on Mars.

The only coherent logical answer involving propagation speed as d/t is of course NO. They vary by the relative speeds of Earth and Mars. Yet light passing by you in your (3rd) rest frame still also does so at c wrt the barycentric frame. (All this fits observations).

The assumption that everything contracts and dilates, and that if you move you can affect propagation speed well beyond your influence, etc, is NOT the only solution.

A logical alternative is if we apply Compton and Raman scattering by the dense electrons populating space, concentrated the bow shocks of all bodies. if all electrons re-emit at the same speed (c in their own rest frame) then all the problems with local CSL are resolved, as are all the astronomical anomalies I refer in my essays.

A dielectric medium does not have to be dense to remain a dielectric medium! The effects just give gentle refraction and speed change 'curved' rather than short sharp ones.

I recalled you'd glimpsed the simple logic of that in my essay discussions. It's unfamiliarity however makes it very easy to forget, which I think you have. Can you see it again now?

best wishes, Peter

Alan,

I, Peter Jackson, Eckard in the main have had a couple of exchanges on the Faster than light blog. We are not 100% in agreement but my position is closest to Peter's. There was also a mention of Galileo's ship hidden away somewhere in the exchanges. I also made some posts on the Testing Reality in Space blog.

The major issue for determination is whether or not movement of an observer can hasten or delay light arrival time. Special relativity says no. Arrival time based on your position at the moment of emission cannot be influenced by your subsequent motion before the light arrives. And surprisingly experiments confirmed this to be true in certain circumstances as with M-M type experiments, the motion of the stationary earth based observer towards or away from incoming light on earth surface does not seem to affect light arrival time. Imagine yourself in the centre of a cross with equidistant light sources at E, W, N, S, since the earth is rotating counterclockwise as seen from the North and also orbiting it is reasonable to expect the light from the East to reach you first and the light from the West to reach you last, but they all reach you at the same time. Why?

However, as you must be aware since you (and Peter J) have much interest in astronomy, exotic stars and pulsars, that your motion influences the pulsar timing measurements and these have to be deducted to obtain the accurate pulsar periods.

Akinbo

*If you don't want to populate your blog you can move the discussion elsewhere on this site where Peter J, Eckard, Pentcho and I have had some exchanges.