Critical Test for the Big Bang and Discrete Fractal Paradigms

On Feb 15, 6:44 am, "Kent Paul Dolan" wrote:

I read that the Hubble
suffered some major breakdown just short of
its expected lifespan.

The main imaging camera, called ACS, failed.
An older camera, the WFPC2, still remains in working
condition, but it is less sensitive than ACS.

What I want to know is, what was lost in terms
of expected data that would have been settling
or lending support/dismissal to some proposed
solutions of some of the "big questions" here?

What was "upcoming" that is now "indefinitely
delayed"? Are other, planned tools going to
provide this data later, or are we "back to
square one" in some cases?

Most proposals to take images with HST
called for the ACS. Since it has failed, the
Space Telescope Science Institute has put out
a second call for revised proposals. Astronomers
who were planning to use the ACS to take images
of the faintest sources (which are in many ways
the most important for cosmology) will probably
change their projects, since WFPC2 can't reach
those same faint objects.

On Feb 15, 12:11 pm, "Stupendous_Man" wrote:


This is a brief monthly update on the dark matter enigma/search and
relevant publications on the critical test that is the subject of this
thread.

1. A natural question is: if the Galaxy has a huge population of
ultracompact objects, why don't we see them? Perhaps we do, but we
don't know it yet. In astro-ph/0702578 the authors discuss X-ray
emission results for M32, which are similar for M82 and the MWG. There
is low-level X-ray emission in observed galaxies; in the case of M32
the authors report that "these results strongly suggest that weak
discrete X-ray sources ..." are the origin of this emission. They
hypothesize that the discrete sources are white dwarfs, CVs and ABs,
but that is mainly because these classes of objects are the only ones
we know about. However, weak X-ray and gamma ray emission is what you
would expect from discrete ultracompact objects accreting small
amounts of matter from the ISM. GLAST has the potential to enlighten
us, so to speak, and should be launched in Oct of 2007.

2. In astro-ph/0703125 the authors mention that "several thousand
microlensing events have been discovered". Why have we not seen
comprehensive graphs displaying histograms of the event time scales,
and even more importantly graphs showing estimated mass functions?
With so many events, the large uncertainties in mass estimates must be
whittled down somewhat and I would think that the results would be
very important for dark matter research, SMF research, planet
searches, etc. Does such a comprehensive analysis exist, but I do not
know how to find it? Are there problems with such an analysis? What
gives??

3. I just read that a new putative globular cluster has found within
about 4 kpc of the Galactic center, and near the disk. Seems like a
very nice target for microlensing surveys!

Thoughts on the questions above would be appreciated.

Robert L. Oldershaw

1. A natural question is: if the Galaxy has a huge population of
ultracompact objects, why don't we see them? Perhaps we do, but we
don't know it yet. In astro-ph/0702578 the authors discuss X-ray
emission results for M32, which are similar for M82 and the MWG. There
is low-level X-ray emission in observed galaxies; in the case of M32
the authors report that "these results strongly suggest that weak
discrete X-ray sources ..." are the origin of this emission. They
hypothesize that the discrete sources are white dwarfs, CVs and ABs,
but that is mainly because these classes of objects are the only ones
we know about. However, weak X-ray and gamma ray emission is what you
would expect from discrete ultracompact objects accreting small
amounts of matter from the ISM.

Do the math, please. Estimate the luminosity of an isolated neutron
strar or black hole which accretes material from the ISM. Start with
the density of the ISM and the velocity of the compact object through
it. Figure out the amount of mass per second (or year, or whatever)
falls onto or near the compact object. Compute the gravitational
potential energy lost by this material as it falls onto the object,
and then assume some fraction of that energy is converted into
X-rays. What luminosity do you get? Out to what distance would
we be able to detect such sources?

Once you can show that it is plausible for the X-ray background
to come from such compact objects, everyone will listen more
carefully to your other ideas.

2. In astro-ph/0703125 the authors mention that "several thousand
microlensing events have been discovered". Why have we not seen
comprehensive graphs displaying histograms of the event time scales,
and even more importantly graphs showing estimated mass functions?
With so many events, the large uncertainties in mass estimates must be
whittled down somewhat and I would think that the results would be
very important for dark matter research, SMF research, planet
searches, etc. Does such a comprehensive analysis exist, but I do not
know how to find it? Are there problems with such an analysis? What
gives??

Most of the microlensing events have (probably) been noticed by
the MACHO and OGLE groups. Go read their recent papers. Go to their
web sites. The OGLE group has a very strong track record of making
their data available to all. Spend a few weeks tracking it down.

3. I just read that a new putative globular cluster has found within
about 4 kpc of the Galactic center, and near the disk. Seems like a
very nice target for microlensing surveys!

Indeed. Perhaps you should apply for time on a big telescope
to do it.

On Mar 17, 5:16 pm, "Stupendous_Man" wrote:
1. A natural question is: if the Galaxy has a huge population of
ultracompact objects, why don't we see them? Perhaps we do, but we
don't know it yet. In astro-ph/0702578 the authors discuss X-ray
emission results for M32, which are similar for M82 and the MWG. There
is low-level X-ray emission in observed galaxies; in the case of M32
the authors report that "these results strongly suggest that weak
discrete X-ray sources ..." are the origin of this emission. They
hypothesize that the discrete sources are white dwarfs, CVs and ABs,
but that is mainly because these classes of objects are the only ones
we know about. However, weak X-ray and gamma ray emission is what you
would expect from discrete ultracompact objects accreting small
amounts of matter from the ISM.

Do the math, please. Estimate the luminosity of an isolated neutron
strar or black hole which accretes material from the ISM. Start with
the density of the ISM and the velocity of the compact object through
it. Figure out the amount of mass per second (or year, or whatever)
falls onto or near the compact object. Compute the gravitational
potential energy lost by this material as it falls onto the object,
and then assume some fraction of that energy is converted into
X-rays. What luminosity do you get? Out to what distance would
we be able to detect such sources?



In Astrophysical Journal 322, 34-36, 1987 I reported my estimates,
which I believe were in the 10^24 to 10^28 ergs/sec range. Surprised?
Maybe you should read that paper. Two things are important to mention
he (1) very large populations with these levels of X-ray luminosity
do not appear to violate current observations and (2) my estimates
were based on the models of other astrophysicists publishing in about
1986. Their models, and my estimates, might be need to be re-evaulated
based on theoretical progress in the intervening years.



Once you can show that it is plausible for the X-ray background
to come from such compact objects, everyone will listen more
carefully to your other ideas.

Well, I certainly appreciate your optimism, but they did not listen in
1987 and I do not think they listen now either, *unless the population
is detected*. Then they will probably say they predicted such a result
all along.



2. In astro-ph/0703125 the authors mention that "several thousand
microlensing events have been discovered". Why have we not seen
comprehensive graphs displaying histograms of the event time scales,
and even more importantly graphs showing estimated mass functions?
With so many events, the large uncertainties in mass estimates must be
whittled down somewhat and I would think that the results would be
very important for dark matter research, SMF research, planet
searches, etc. Does such a comprehensive analysis exist, but I do not
know how to find it? Are there problems with such an analysis? What
gives??

Most of the microlensing events have (probably) been noticed by
the MACHO and OGLE groups. Go read their recent papers. Go to their
web sites. The OGLE group has a very strong track record of making
their data available to all. Spend a few weeks tracking it down.



But why would no one have done the obvious and publish simple and
comprehensive histograms of the time scales and mass estimates? Now
that so much data exists, it is a no-brainer. Surely the data
summaries must exist somewhere (unpublished?), and hopefully someone
will save me "a few weeks" of frustration a steer me to them. Or
create them, if no one else has.



3. I just read that a new putative globular cluster has found within
about 4 kpc of the Galactic center, and near the disk. Seems like a
very nice target for microlensing surveys!

Indeed. Perhaps you should apply for time on a big telescope
to do it.


Dream on. As an uppity maverick with a subscription to Science News as
my credentials, they would probably not even let me wash dishes in the
commisary! But seriously, there are limited areas where I can
potentially contribute something, and many other areas where I totally
rely on others to do *their* thing. The days when an Einstein could do
just about everything by himself are long gone (and even he would have
had very serious troubles without the 3 increasingly important things
done for him by Grossman, and then of course there was Minkowski,
Planck, Lorentz, Poincare, Faraday, Maxwell, Riemann,..., I guess
science is a communal effort and always has been) .

Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

1. A natural question is: if the Galaxy has a huge population of
ultracompact objects, why don't we see them? Perhaps we do, but we
don't know it yet. In astro-ph/0702578 the authors discuss X-ray
emission results for M32, which are similar for M82 and the MWG. There
is low-level X-ray emission in observed galaxies; in the case of M32
the authors report that "these results strongly suggest that weak
discrete X-ray sources ..." are the origin of this emission. They
hypothesize that the discrete sources are white dwarfs, CVs and ABs,
but that is mainly because these classes of objects are the only ones
we know about. However, weak X-ray and gamma ray emission is what you
would expect from discrete ultracompact objects accreting small
amounts of matter from the ISM.

Do the math, please. Estimate the luminosity of an isolated neutron
strar or black hole which accretes material from the ISM. Start with
the density of the ISM and the velocity of the compact object through
it. Figure out the amount of mass per second (or year, or whatever)
falls onto or near the compact object. Compute the gravitational
potential energy lost by this material as it falls onto the object,
and then assume some fraction of that energy is converted into
X-rays. What luminosity do you get? Out to what distance would
we be able to detect such sources?

In Astrophysical Journal 322, 34-36, 1987 I reported my estimates,
which I believe were in the 10^24 to 10^28 ergs/sec range. Surprised?
Maybe you should read that paper.

Thanks for the reference. I have just read the paper. It does not
provide any estimates for the luminosity of an isolated compact object
accreting material from the ISM.

2. In astro-ph/0703125 the authors mention that "several thousand
microlensing events have been discovered". Why have we not seen
comprehensive graphs displaying histograms of the event time scales,
and even more importantly graphs showing estimated mass functions?
With so many events, the large uncertainties in mass estimates must be
whittled down somewhat and I would think that the results would be
very important for dark matter research, SMF research, planet
searches, etc. Does such a comprehensive analysis exist, but I do not
know how to find it? Are there problems with such an analysis? What
gives??

Most of the microlensing events have (probably) been noticed by
the MACHO and OGLE groups. Go read their recent papers. Go to their
web sites. The OGLE group has a very strong track record of making
their data available to all. Spend a few weeks tracking it down.

But why would no one have done the obvious and publish simple and
comprehensive histograms of the time scales and mass estimates? Now
that so much data exists, it is a no-brainer. Surely the data
summaries must exist somewhere (unpublished?), and hopefully someone
will save me "a few weeks" of frustration a steer me to them. Or
create them, if no one else has.

I am not going to track the data down for you. Perhaps someone
else reading this thread will.


3. I just read that a new putative globular cluster has found within
about 4 kpc of the Galactic center, and near the disk. Seems like a
very nice target for microlensing surveys!

Indeed. Perhaps you should apply for time on a big telescope
to do it.

Dream on.

Well, I was trying to help you, but your reply isn't polite.
I'm not going to help you any more.

Perhaps there is a reason few people are stepping up
to work with you.

Good luck.

On Mar 18, 10:02 am, "Stupendous_Man" wrote:

Thanks for the reference. I have just read the paper. It does not
provide any estimates for the luminosity of an isolated compact object
accreting material from the ISM.

If you go to www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw and click on "Selected
Papers", then click on Paper #2, then go to section 2.5 "The Enigmatic
Dark Matter", the X-ray estimates for the 0.145 solar mass population
are given (10^26 to 10^29 ergs/sec for disk and halo locations) and
there is a reference to my original published calculations (based I
think on an ApJ paper by Heygi et al?).


But why would no one have done the obvious and publish simple and
comprehensive histograms of the time scales and mass estimates? Now
that so much data exists, it is a no-brainer. Surely the data
summaries must exist somewhere (unpublished?), and hopefully someone
will save me "a few weeks" of frustration a steer me to them. Or
create them, if no one else has.

I am not going to track the data down for you. Perhaps someone
else reading this thread will.

Or maybe explain why it has not been done.



Well, I was trying to help you, but your reply isn't polite.
I'm not going to help you any more.


I treat others with the same respect, or sarcasm, that they offer to
me. Nothing in my most recent post was intended to be offensive and
neither was it any more or less polite than your preceeding post.
Perhaps you feel that there is some unexplained reason that you should
receive preferential treatment.

I do believe that science is a communal activity, and should ideally
be based on cooperation rather than competition. But I also strongly
believe in Galileo's famous dictum about the "authority of a thousand"
and the "humble reasoning of a single individual".

To end on an empirical note (since that is what science is all about);
readers might want to take a look at astro-ph/0702621 at www.arxiv.org.
This preprint describes a "tantalizing hint" of populations of gamma
ray emmiters in the bulge and halo of the Galaxy. Very preliminary,
but interesting. GLAST may pull back the veil enough for a first look
at the putative populations.

Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

wrote:

2. In astro-ph/0703125 the authors mention that "several thousand
microlensing events have been discovered". Why have we not seen
comprehensive graphs displaying histograms of the event time scales,
and even more importantly graphs showing estimated mass functions?
With so many events, the large uncertainties in mass estimates must be
whittled down somewhat and I would think that the results would be
very important for dark matter research, SMF research, planet
searches, etc. Does such a comprehensive analysis exist, but I do not
know how to find it? Are there problems with such an analysis? What
gives??


Thoughts on the questions above would be appreciated.

Robert L. Oldershaw

Zeroing in on your number 2:

Is it a matter of funding?
Who is supposed to do such work?
Is there a coordinated effort to do such?
Could it be that such uch work is expensive
in terms of man-hours and computer resources
and is considered secondary (expendable)
relative to other space programs?

Richard

In article ,
" writes:

If you go to www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw and click on "Selected
Papers", then click on Paper #2, then go to section 2.5 "The Enigmatic
Dark Matter", the X-ray estimates for the 0.145 solar mass population
are given (10^26 to 10^29 ergs/sec for disk and halo locations) and
there is a reference to my original published calculations (based I
think on an ApJ paper by Heygi et al?).

Do you think that Omega = 0.3 (approximately) is in objects of 0.145
solar masses? If so, then can you explain why high-redshift QSOs do not
show the expected microlensing signal?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A man does not attain the status of Galileo merely because he is
persecuted; he must also be right.

---Stephen Jay Gould

On Apr 2, 2:43 am, (Phillip Helbig---
remove

Do you think that Omega =3D 0.3 (approximately) is in objects of 0.145
solar masses? If so, then can you explain why high-redshift QSOs do not
show the expected microlensing signal?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--=AD----
A man does not attain the status of Galileo merely because he is
persecuted; he must also be right.

---Stephen Jay=
Gould



I think you should explicitly explain what you mean by "the expected
microlensing signal".

What specific assumptions go into the calculation of "the expected
microlensing signal"?

Do you assume a homogeneous distribution of stellar-mass dark matter
objects? If so, you are merely setting up a "straw man" so that you
can easily knock it down.

Assuming that the distribution of the stellar-mass dark matter objects
roughly follows the distribution of luminous matter, what exactly (in
numbers and units) is "the expected microlensing signal" that you are
referring to?

And regarding the dark matter distribution, how do you explain the
fact that Richard Massey and his team at CIT find very surprising
results in their 3D map of the dark matter that are in contradiction
with CDM predictions?

Here's a quote from Massey: "The first thing that strikes me is the
voids. Vast expanses of space are completely empty." CDM proponents
have traditionally argued that the particle-mass dark matter should be
spread out much more homogeneously than luminous matter. The SSCP
( www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw ) predicted that the stellar-mass dark
matter should roughly follow the luminous matter. Looks to me like
nature is trying to tell us something, and fudging the CDM hypothesis
once again until it is forced to agree with observations seems like a
dubious strategy, from the point of view of science anyway.

Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu~rloldershaw
...=2E............................................ ...........................=
...=2E....................................

"Why should one not be able to live contentedly as a member of the
service personnel in the lunatic asylum? After all, one respects the
lunatics as the ones for whom the building in which one lives exists.
Albert Einstein

In article ,
" writes:

I think you should explicitly explain what you mean by "the expected
microlensing signal".

What specific assumptions go into the calculation of "the expected
microlensing signal"?

Do you assume a homogeneous distribution of stellar-mass dark matter
objects? If so, you are merely setting up a "straw man" so that you
can easily knock it down.

QSOs are very far away. If the nearby distribution is not somehow
magically correlated with the QSO position, than homogeneity is a
reasonable assumption.

Assuming that the distribution of the stellar-mass dark matter objects
roughly follows the distribution of luminous matter, what exactly (in
numbers and units) is "the expected microlensing signal" that you are
referring to?

Even in this case, averaged along the line of sight to a QSO, the
distribution should be homogeneous.

And regarding the dark matter distribution, how do you explain the
fact that Richard Massey and his team at CIT find very surprising
results in their 3D map of the dark matter that are in contradiction
with CDM predictions?

Just because something else is in conflict with CDM predictions doesn't
mean that your theory, which is also in conflict with standard
predictions, must be right.