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.