Where is the universe hiding its missing mass?(phys.org)
phys.org
Where is the universe hiding its missing mass?
https://phys.org/news/2019-02-universe-mass.html
11 comments
I'm trying to understand your post:
> But you only need look once at the Crab Nebula never to be able to un-see the turbulent flow that would be impossible in a gas at that pressure.
Just what "pressure"? Of what? Where? And near the Crab Nebula (the pictures are amazing) but how is that relevant, related, does correspond to the big flows or whatever of the OP?
> The rule is that a heavy body can have a magnetic field, but it doesn't do much of anything -- certainly not affect the motion of quadrillions of tons of nearby plasma, never mind be affected by them.
In the context of the OP and/or the Crab Nebula, what is the "heavy body"? For the Crab, that is the neutron star or black hole at the center of the nebula? For the filaments of the OP, what is the "heavy body"?
Related, the OP is talking about some really hot gas, difficult to see because it is nearly transparent to visible light. So, why doesn't that gas cool just by escaping photons? And, how did the gas get so hot to begin with? We're supposed to accept that the heat came from some quasars?
> But you only need look once at the Crab Nebula never to be able to un-see the turbulent flow that would be impossible in a gas at that pressure.
Just what "pressure"? Of what? Where? And near the Crab Nebula (the pictures are amazing) but how is that relevant, related, does correspond to the big flows or whatever of the OP?
> The rule is that a heavy body can have a magnetic field, but it doesn't do much of anything -- certainly not affect the motion of quadrillions of tons of nearby plasma, never mind be affected by them.
In the context of the OP and/or the Crab Nebula, what is the "heavy body"? For the Crab, that is the neutron star or black hole at the center of the nebula? For the filaments of the OP, what is the "heavy body"?
Related, the OP is talking about some really hot gas, difficult to see because it is nearly transparent to visible light. So, why doesn't that gas cool just by escaping photons? And, how did the gas get so hot to begin with? We're supposed to accept that the heat came from some quasars?
My apologies, sarcasm can be confusing.
But recall, there is no gas. Plasma doesn't work like gas. In particular, you don't need heat to accelerate ions to relativistic speeds, and plasma doesn't need to be hot to radiate x-rays. It just needs to be, y'know. Accelerated.
But recall, there is no gas. Plasma doesn't work like gas. In particular, you don't need heat to accelerate ions to relativistic speeds, and plasma doesn't need to be hot to radiate x-rays. It just needs to be, y'know. Accelerated.
Title is unfortunate because missing mass is often equated with dark matter. However, as the article itself makes clear, this research is nothing to do with dark matter, instead it is referring to 'normal' baryonic matter that is known to be present but had so far not been identified.
Is quantized inertia still a movement? Last I saw it accounted for the galactic spin without dark matter, which I thought was an ugly plug for an obviously incomplete model.
My impression is that quantized inertia is somewhat of a fringe theory. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
it is, but my impression is that, because the proponent has associated it as a possible explanation for a lot of crazy things like voyager speed anomaly, which we now know is probably due to outgassing, or EMDrive, which is probably measurement error.
On its surface it doesn't seem unreasonable.
On its surface it doesn't seem unreasonable.
When we play a computer game - say a racing game - where is the mass hidden, which pulls the cars downwards?
This matters because the dynamics of plasma flow are punishingly complicated, and the mathematics describing it is intractable. It is complicated in large part because the positive charge carriers are thousands of times more massive than the common negative charges; the electrons respond nimbly to fields, while the nuclei go the other way, eventually, absorbing huge energies, released when charges reunite. The nuclei also collide with any neutral species, frequently ionizing them, slowed by them, but dragging them along.
So, there are few better ways to get oneself ostracized, among astronomers, than to so much as mention "plasma". Every single thing in the sky must be explained entirely with gravitation, which is better-behaved, mathematically, or shock waves, likewise.
But you only need look once at the Crab Nebula never to be able to un-see the turbulent flow that would be impossible in a gas at that pressure.
The rule is that a heavy body can have a magnetic field, but it doesn't do much of anything -- certainly not affect the motion of quadrillions of tons of nearby plasma, never mind be affected by them.