Re: Have huge stars powered by Dark Matter been discovered?

[John Clark]

On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 11:40 PM LizR  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 ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

lqn










>
>
>
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2023, 23:58 John Clark,  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
>>
>

-- 
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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0e1%2B__qaAx9GAHpLQ%3DsGmrJJBXxkM1WoEd40FeCCrJtA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Have huge stars powered by Dark Matter been discovered?

[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


On Sun, 16 Jul 2023, 23:58 John Clark,  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
> 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> 
>
> 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-list+unsubscr...@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
> 
> .
>

-- 
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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAKzbsNeo4xvZXszAi-ehKHY4%2BdQtNmg8pMMLGN%3Dyxcv9BpJvKw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Have huge stars powered by Dark Matter been discovered?

[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






On 10-08-2023 23:42, Jesse Mazer wrote:

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?

On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 7:58 AM smitra  wrote:


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

On 10-08-2023 01:42, Jesse Mazer 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? 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.'

On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 5:26 PM Lawrence Crowell
 wrote:


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

On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 6:58:19 AM UTC-5 John Clark 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

[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 collapsin

Re: Have huge stars powered by Dark Matter been discovered?

[John Clark]

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 1:03 PM Brent Meeker  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




>
> Brent
>
> On 8/10/2023 12:20 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 10:04 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List <
> everything-list@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 ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> 
> tfc
>
>
>

-- 
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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3BS4S4H6nEcM0%3DTuqqOnZcZT1unb1E8buVbZKKJLU5Zg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Have huge stars powered by Dark Matter been discovered?

[Brent Meeker]

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

Brent

On 8/10/2023 12:20 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 10:04 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything 
List  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




--
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-list+unsubscr...@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 
.


--
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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7aba9347-67b1-42db-c24e-580f8ab22684%40gmail.com.

Re: Have huge stars powered by Dark Matter been discovered?

[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?

On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 7:58 AM smitra  wrote:

> 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
>
> On 10-08-2023 01:42, Jesse Mazer 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? 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.'
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 5:26 PM Lawrence Crowell
> >  wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >>
> >> On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 6:58:19 AM UTC-5 John Clark 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
> >>> [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 

Re: Have huge stars powered by Dark Matter been discovered?

[John Clark]

On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 10:04 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List <
everything-list@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 ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

tfc




>

-- 
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-list+unsubscr...@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.

Re: Have huge stars powered by Dark Matter been discovered?

[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

On 10-08-2023 01:42, Jesse Mazer 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? 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.'

On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 5:26 PM Lawrence Crowell
 wrote:


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

On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 6:58:19 AM UTC-5 John Clark 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
[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 i

Re: Have huge stars powered by Dark Matter been discovered?

[John Clark]

On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 7:42 PM Jesse Mazer  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 ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis


uty

sts


>> 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 y

Re: Have huge stars powered by Dark Matter been discovered?

['spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List]

 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? 
On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 07:02:42 PM EDT, LizR  
wrote:  
 
 Very interesting!

On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 at 23:58, John Clark  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
>
> John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
>
> 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-list+unsubscr...@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.

-- 
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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
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.
  

-- 
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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/230638761.1305510.1691633072976%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Have huge stars powered by Dark Matter been discovered?

[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.'




On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 5:26 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 6:58:19 AM UTC-5 John Clark 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
>> 
>>
>> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
>> 
>>

Re: Have huge stars powered by Dark Matter been discovered?

[LizR]

Very interesting!

On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 at 23:58, John Clark  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
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
>
> 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-list+unsubscr...@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.

-- 
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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
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.

Re: Have huge stars powered by Dark Matter been discovered?

[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 

On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 6:58:19 AM UTC-5 John Clark 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 
> 
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
>
> 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-list+unsubscr...@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.

Re: Have huge stars powered by Dark Matter been discovered?

[John Clark]

On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 4:14 PM 'spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List <
everything-list@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 ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

bii






> \
> 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
> 
>
>
>

-- 
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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1-M6Kszmp3uV8Kum_gwaPFy54Uc2Ex8aF%2B0%3DrWJVp0NQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Have huge stars powered by Dark Matter been discovered?

['spudboy...@aol.com' via Everything List]

 Some have indicated the discoveries of Webb have disproven the Big Bang, and 
the Standard Model. What do you say?
On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 07:58:19 AM EDT, John Clark 
 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

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

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-list+unsubscr...@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.
  

-- 
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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/319725450.559206.1689538460764%40mail.yahoo.com.

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 ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis


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-list+unsubscr...@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.