Overdensity of Discrete X-ray Sources in Outer Galactic Halos

On Monday, November 5, 2012 8:37:08 AM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:

Here is a new paper from today's arXiv.org posting.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.3372

The authors argue that their research suggests that "at least some old [globular clusters of the Milky Way galaxy] could have hundreds of stellar-mass black holes at present. Since nearly all of our BHs are single, our prediction is consistent with the small number of BH XRBs detected in clusters to date."

Given that there are ~300 GCs in the MWG, this new research points to a substantial population of isolated stellar-mass black holes that had not been identified before. A relatively "small" population, but the actual numbers are as yet unknown and I like the trend.

Robert L. Oldershaw

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.” - A. Einstein

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

The authors argue that their research suggests that "at least some old
[globular clusters of the Milky Way galaxy] could have hundreds of
stellar-mass black holes at present. Since nearly all of our BHs are
single, our prediction is consistent with the small number of BH XRBs
detected in clusters to date."

Given that there are ~300 GCs in the MWG, this new research points to a
substantial population of isolated stellar-mass black holes that had not
been identified before. A relatively "small" population, but the actual
numbers are as yet unknown and I like the trend.

At least some, so not all. Let's be generous and say half. Hundreds?
Let's say 500. So, 500*300/2 = 7500. 7500 among a population of at
least 100 billion stars is a substantial population? Stellar-mass black
holes are a known end-product of stellar evolution, so no surprise here.

On Friday, November 16, 2012 2:13:59 AM UTC-6, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
[...]

Given that there are ~300 GCs in the MWG, this new research points to a substantial population of isolated stellar-mass black holes that had not been identified before. A relatively "small" population, but the actual numbers are as yet unknown and I like the trend.

Sorry Robert, microlensing observations are pretty clear about what the bulk of the dark matter population isn't. Which is to say "it isn't black holes".

The literature is extremely clear on this, regardless of how much straw grasping you do.

If you disagree, feel free to produce a sample calculation of what fraction of dark matter could be accounted for using your latest guess.

[Mod. note: let's say a hundred stellar mass BHs in each of the 300
GCs; so that's 30,000 stellar-mass BHs. So, in accounting for the dark
matter, that's, roughly, 30,000 solar masses down, 999,999,970,000 to
go... -- mjh]

On Friday, November 16, 2012 4:49:58 PM UTC-5, Eric Gisse wrote:

Sorry Robert
---------------------------------------------
[Mod. note: let's say a hundred stellar mass BHs in each of the 300
GCs; so that's 30,000 stellar-mass BHs. So, in accounting for the dark
matter, that's, roughly, 30,000 solar masses down, 999,999,970,000 to
go... -- mjh]
------------------------------------------------------

The journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step.

I predict that at least a trillion stellar-mass black holes will be discovered in our galaxy, to go along with the at least a trillion planetary-mass objects discovered by Sumi et al.

Why have microlensing teams discovered the planetary-mass population, but have yet to see no more than a tiny fraction of the stellar-mass population? I cannot answer that. I can only assume that some systematic error in the assumptions regarding the velocity distribution, or the spatial distributions, or some unknown unknown have led to incorrect conclusions.

[Mod. note: presumably you also acknowledge the possibility that you
might be wrong? -- mjh]

--

I am well aware that I am way out on a limb on this issue, but it is DSR's most definitive prediction and I expect to be fully vindicated. Like I say, the trends seem propitious, so I think I will calmly wait another decade or so.

Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity

“The next great awakening of the human intellect may well produce a method of understanding the qualitative content of the equations.” - Richard Feynman

In article , Phillip
Helbig---undress to reply writes:

At least some, so not all. Let's be generous and say half. Hundreds?
Let's say 500. So, 500*300/2 = 7500. 7500 among a population of at
least 100 billion stars is a substantial population? Stellar-mass black
holes are a known end-product of stellar evolution, so no surprise here.

Sorry, should be 75,000. Still not substantial.

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:59:20 PM UTC-6, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
On Friday, November 16, 2012 4:49:58 PM UTC-5, Eric Gisse wrote:



Sorry Robert

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

[Mod. note: let's say a hundred stellar mass BHs in each of the 300

GCs; so that's 30,000 stellar-mass BHs. So, in accounting for the dark

matter, that's, roughly, 30,000 solar masses down, 999,999,970,000 to

go... -- mjh]

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



The journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step.



I predict that at least a trillion stellar-mass black holes will be discovered in our galaxy, to go along with the at least a trillion planetary-mass objects discovered by Sumi et al.

Too bad the possibility has been conclusively excluded, especially because it would have been discovered far earlier than the planetary-mass objects.




Why have microlensing teams discovered the planetary-mass population, but have yet to see no more than a tiny fraction of the stellar-mass population? I cannot answer that. I can only assume that some systematic error in the assumptions regarding the velocity distribution, or the spatial distributions, or some unknown unknown have led to incorrect conclusions.

Unbelievable.

The deflection of light via a gravitational lens is directly proportional to its' mass. The fact that low mass lensing objects are discovered while objects that are a factor of ten thousand larger are NOT detected doesn't seem to concern you at all.

I love the notion that it has to be some sort of "systematic error". Do you even know what that means? There have been something like a half dozen *different* microlensing collaborations over the years that have searched for ultracompacts.

Spatial distribution? They search the entire LMC plus a good chunk of its' halo. I've given you the references that show the grids they use. You arguing that it is a "spatial distribution" issue indicates you don't have much of an idea.

Velocity distribution? You've never been able to quantitatively explain what you mean, or show a viable model that accounts for your claims.

You are wrong, and this is as much of an admission as we are ever going to get.

Can you finally move on now?

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

I predict that at least a trillion stellar-mass black holes will be
discovered in our galaxy, to go along with the at least a trillion
planetary-mass objects discovered by Sumi et al.

Note that this is not a falsifiable prediction, i.e. if less than a
trillion have been discovered at any one time, you can always say "they
haven't been discovered yet". Note that DSR has made definitive (your
words), testable, falsifiable predictions, e.g. electron substructure.
These have been falsified. By definition, a theory has been falsified
if a definitive prediction has been falsified.

If you have some sort of revised version of DSR which is essentially the
same but predicts no electron substructure, or on a scale not yet
accessible (as the original prediction predicted structure on a scale
not accessible then), then you are moving the goalposts, something you
have repeatedly criticized in other theories.