0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
It is most definitely not peculiar that galaxies and globular clusters contain high density vrty heavy objects(black holes) at their centres it is to be expected they are the condensation nuclei on which such large scale structures form.
Black holes clearly seem to a one way route to somewhere else but at the moment no one is brave enough to simulate what happens with the processes that we know and understand just inside the event horizon as black holes are collapsing and just run to this mathematical end game of an infinite density infinite energy "singularity".
I don't think Black holes have infinite density. For me, they're just a giant lump of quarks and leptons held together with a whole lot of bosons. The electrons surrounding the atoms get smacked on the nucleus by gravity to stay charge-neutral, which vastly reduces the size of 1 atom, and thus vastly increases it's density, but not to infinity. I consider a black hole as being some sort of QGPThis is probably oversimplified or even wrong, so I'm happy to read the arguments why my vision of a black hole is incorrect.PS: If in the future we discover that quarks are made up of even more basic building blocks, I'll change my black hole vision to a giant lump of that new stuff.
I was a bit crypic at the beginning here.The reason why I was angry about me positing the existence of particles with a non-zero dimensionality is because when you really work out the dimensions of particles, electrons have infinite energy when you make them pointlike. When R=0 your energy [tex]E=\infty[/tex] infinity. I will write the equations out which determine the classical radius and what happens when you reach that limit in a moment. The point was that if today we infinities lurking behind particles which exibit behaviour as fundamental particles, then something seems awry, as it was put recently. I'd say quantum mechanics has settled with the easiest solution for particles physics and have ended up with one of the worst messes it could entertain today, even with our best theories, it seems, none of them are even close to a unififed understanding. It seems something fundamentally is wrong with our picture of the subatomic world and maybe even the cosmological since both are to be unified.
We have established that holding our Galaxy together is a vast amount of Dark-matter.
Quote from: Airthumbs on 08/04/2012 16:02:22We have established that holding our Galaxy together is a vast amount of Dark-matter. No, I don't think it has been established as there is no proof. It has been suggested as a means of solving a problem that has another (to my mind far simpler and therefore more likely) solution.
Quote from: MikeS on 13/04/2012 08:26:09Quote from: Airthumbs on 08/04/2012 16:02:22We have established that holding our Galaxy together is a vast amount of Dark-matter. No, I don't think it has been established as there is no proof. It has been suggested as a means of solving a problem that has another (to my mind far simpler and therefore more likely) solution.Are you prepared to make a hypothesis on what that might be? I only ask because it sounds like you might have an alternative solution in mind...