October 16, 2016

Supernova – fission explosion? A precursor neutron star?


Cassiopeia A        NASA / JPL/ Caltech

Might one consider any SN1987 precursor star as a predominantly fusion star, as a source of energy; wherein one has gravitational collapse to a critical mass density, and then fission process commencing and predominating? Higher mass element nucleosynthesis would require free neutrons; thus wouldn’t nuclei fission be required?

If there is no detectable precursor star, might this be consistent with just a solo neutron star acquiring additional mass, or internal dynamics leading to run away explosive fission process i.e. supernova? Perhaps an internal/external circulating plasma in magnetic field of such neutron star, and redistribution of energy (magnetic reconnect – entanglement ?), leading to instabilities, such as localized change in neutron density?

What might be consistent with a supernova precursor being a neutron star? Since the supernova database continues to get bigger (including association with most long duration GRB), might one eventually match it to x-ray binary database (Chandra) in order to notice overlap of any SN with planar patch for x-ray binary? Then, if practical, see if a binary star is still there. If present, then might SN have originated from secondary compact object of x-ray binary?

Could one then consider the odds of any such alleged association, by comparing respective x-ray binary and gamma ray burst databases for association; such latter comparison, currently null?

Might another approach to any supernova remnant SNR, be to look for any motion of luminous star very near to SN1987 co-ordinates; within 1/2 arcsecond? That is, SN are anisotropic, as revealed by their effective absence in globular clusters. Therefore would any stellar motion  be evidence of a precursor binary? Also utilize infrared spectroscopy, looking for any remnant object, as elaborated on, below?

Shock waves expanding at 10s of thausands km/sec; whereas stellar natal kick might be at just ~1000 km/sec.? For the latter velocity of any possible surviving star of 1987 SN possible binary, for over 30 years, at a distance of ~165,0oo lyrs, what would be the angular displacement; discernable?

As critical mass density (sufficient for sustained chain reaction)  is reached, might one also have an energy density associated with eventual red dwarf formation? Perhaps the latter not just a remnant, but consistent with a fission process, contributing additionally (or solely) to what we detect as a supernova explosion?

Stars contain an abundance of iron (as per spectroscopy), not unlike earth and stellar nebula. If cosmic rays are predominantly iron nuclei, them might this also be consistent with a supernova fission process, including (mainly?) iron? But where is iron in a SN explosion? One has evidence of nickel and cobalt; both next (in atomic number and weight) to iron in Periodic Table. Are iron nuclei being utilized and consumed as a fissionable fuel in such SN explosion and element synthesis?

Might such considered fission process (perhaps iron doped with .1% uranium?), trigger off a supernova explosion, rather than just being an accompanying process? Might additional energy released be mainly massive neutrinos? In terms of energetics, is most of energy released in supernova explosion from neutrinos? Does fission process generate more neutrinos, as well as heat, than fusion?

Is the energy scale for SN limited to just 2 fermion generations (i.e muons) or might one have higher energy levels associated with fermion mass spectrum? What energy (mass density) scale is associated with (if) neutrino trapping; approximately same as for neutron (nucleon) degeneracy? But less than short duration GRB energy scale?

If higher energy scale, as for fermion mass spectrum, then one would seem to have left over higher generation massive neutrinos. Assuming no decay nor annihilation, and comparatively limited nucleon absorption, might our galaxy (including dark matter halo?), Large Magellanic Cloud, and solar system’s neutrino belt, contain a smaller fractional number of such more massive neutrinos, in addition to electron neutrinos?

Might a supernova explosion description be more than just release of gravitational potential energy, and more than just a bounce off an energy (i.e. mass density) nucleon (?) surface (simulations not consistent with such bounce?); and more than just a fusion process, since fuel has been markedly reduced? Instead might such explosion represent a qualitative and quantitative shift to a predominant fission process, with also perhaps a remnant, suggestive of such switch?

What is the most likely outcome of a supernova – no remnant? Might any database of supernova remnants (SNR) contain a compact object; a significant portion of original massive star? Would a pulsar be part of any such SNR database? Might likelihood of compact object be mass (10-15 solar mass?) dependent? What percentage of neutron stars are pulsars? If there were a supernova remnant, might it be of a lesser mass, such as red dwarf mass?

Or if a neutron star were a SN1987 remnant, then wouldn’t there be central x-ray detection, from strong magnetic field, near infall to magnetic pole? Might one have both a SN precursor neutron star, and also a somewhat lesser mass NS? But would there be sufficient fuel for SN in such scenario?

Could a supernova explosion sometimes leave behind a red dwarf remnant (i.e. SNR) fission star (such as .04 of 4 solar mass precursor), usually detectable only in infrared? Would infrared spectroscopy enable detection of such an object?

For example, might infrared spectroscopy distinguish between heat of expanding gas shell and an interior remnant source? Even if the site of SN1987 is obscured by gas clouds, inter-stellar debris etc., still might infrared spectroscopy reveal an object at SN1987 co-ordinates? Whereas gas clouds, and other diffuse infrared sources, might just reveal a slight non-specific pattern.

Thus would any such infrared spectroscopy detection (and thus revealed object?) seem consistent with the significance of a fission process in initiation of explosiveness of supernova phenomena?

Periodic Table

Chandra images

Theory of core-collapse of supernovae



August 1, 2015

Is a black hole i.e. dark star, thermodynamically porous? Magnetic potential effects?

For black hole gravitational model, one has tipping over of light cones. But in such GRT extensions, this usually is considered just for optical band of electromagnetic spectrum. But what about other parts of E-M spectrum, such as infrared, x-ray, and gamma rays?

In contrast, what about thermodynamics and infrared radiation? That is, heat flows from hot to cold; seeming from interior to exterior of BH. So for former model, one has a certain rendition, which seems markedly different in regards to energy distribution in other models, such as for thermodynamics, and for magnetic field for such BH setting.

Might a mixture of descriptions, gravitational and thermodynamic, seem more descriptive and realistic? But isn`t either BH horizon present or not; or might it not always be physical? Rather does it depend upon the model being referred to?

One has BoyerLinquist co-ordinates, which suggest a singularity at the horizon. However such singularity can transformed away by another co-ordinate choice. Hence such singularity is not physical.

Analogously, by a choice of models, can one transform away the BH horizon construct; hence no longer physical? That is, for thermodynamics modelling, there would appear to be no horizon, since heat flows from hot to cold, and energy density is assumed to be higher for interior.

Another alternative model might be that of magnetic fields. Do all stars likely have magnetic fields internally and externally, including dark stars? And energy can be re-distributed between such internal and external regions via re-connection, which might even be instantaneously, as described by entanglement  concept.

So might a mixture of models be required, in order to give a more realistic description? Might dark star then be a more apt description, in that it allows for more flexibility? High interior mass density, and internal circulation, would seem consistent with extreme curvilinear geodesics i.e. light cones tipping over. However a dark star if designated by horizon concept, reflecting extremes of gravitational potential, might be porous.

For example, mass density of our Sun is sufficient for fusion, with copious neutrino production. Assuming mass density of 4 billion solar mass for galactic BH, then fusion, and copious neutrino production, would seemingly ensue for interior. Then for assumed massive neutrino and internal circulation, and copious kinetic energy, then such neutrinos with curvilinear time-like geodesics would seem confined by gravitational potential i.e. `horizon` of BH. However neutrinos have a magnetic moment; hence not confined? Likewise for baryons?

So a dark star, if designated by horizon concept, reflecting extremes of gravitational potential, would  thermodynamically seem porous to photons; and also to magnetic field energy re-distribution, nd even in part for neutrinos.

Alternatively, could one retain a gravitational model and BH horizon (or just gravitational potential?), yet incorporating thermodynamic egress of energy and quanta, and magnetic field re-distribution of energy, vis a vis entanglement concept, as for short duration GRB (gamma ray burst) model? That is, if such entanglement concept is suitable for short duration GRB, then why not for BH gravitational potential in general? So might a mixture of models be required, in order to give a more realistic description?

January 17, 2015

Comet 67P – a 3-body problem? Model for hot jupiter re-location? Ice. Neutrino belt? Gravitational interactions, or angular momentum transfer, with resultant angular inertia? Cryo-chemistry. Titan’s chemistry?

Might the short period orbit of comet 67P have occurred from momentum transfer with another body, through exchange of angular momentum, relocated to inner aspect of solar system? Likewise for hot Jupiter exo-planet gas giants? But where is Lagrange point for Jupiter and Sun? Why wouldn’t 67P comet continue it’s orbital trajectory into Sun’s gravitational well? It’s as if there were a ‘curvature valley’ ; but where then is the missing mass? Alternatively, might 67P’s current unusual orbit be stable; just the result of historical transfer of angular momentum?

Assuming neutrinos have mass (~.01-.1 ev?), how many neutrinos have been emitted by Sun over ~4.6 Byrs? How much mass equivalent has been loss? What is the number of neutrinos emitted per second x 10^8 sec./yr. x 4.6 Byrs? Electron volts, ergs, joules. 1 ev = 1.6 x 10^-19 J, and 1 kg= 9 x 10^16 J. So what is the accumulative neutrino mass equivalence? Is it gravitationally significant? Also what is the relative total mass, in comparison of asteroid belt, KBO belt, and Oort Cloud?

Might there be significant hidden mass in solar system? Not percentage wise in comparison to Sun, but sufficient to account for some apparent anomalies?

Might there be an inapparent neutrino belt ; would it be near to, or in solar plane? Might not such considered low momentum orbiting massive neutrinos account for apparent anomalous abridged orbit of 67P comet?

In terms of resonance, might such neutrino belt locate to an orbit between asteroid belt and Jupiter, if solar nebula was just out to Neptune orbit? Or might such neutrino belt  circular orbit be beyond Oort cloud, at ~50,000 .i.e. ~.24 lyrs? Hence no gravitational effect; rather just constant speed angular inertia effect? For comparison, Proxima centauri is at ~15,000 AU. Likewise a neutrino belt for all stars, including pulsars and black holes?

Proxima centauri

That is for tappering gravitational field, or for transfer of angular momentum alone, without any tappering model, could such massive clouds, belts, be extremely far out. Might transfer of angular momentum alone, account for orbiting of Oort cloud objects; likewise for Proxima centauri’s far out orbit? Could one desigate such constant speed (i.e. no central force, and thus no Kepler Laws) orbiting, as angular inertia, a result of angular momentum transfer? Hence the greatest extent of our solar system would seem to be from such angular inertia in a flat 3-space, and not from gravitation i.e. no curvature?

E=mc^2 indicates that a small mass contains a lot of energy; conversely, one requires an enormous number of electron volts to result in macroscopic gravitational effect. For example, 1 solar mass of 10^30 kg is estimated to be ~10^66 neutrinos of 1 ev. Also Milky Way mass of 10^12 solar masses would be ~10^78 neutrinos of 1 ev. Would neutrinos still be a dark matter candidate? also see solar neutrino belt neutrino detector details in revised c/p/c 236.

Would cubesats (satellites), together with small volume (1-8 cm^3?) deuterium water, and with Cenrenkov photo detector (or radiation detector?) be of sufficient sensitivity to detect such neutrino belt? Any such increase in radiation would be abrupt; not unlike for electric and magnetic respective potentials; and unlike inverse gravitational potential? Have cubesat orbits encompassing any surmised additional resonance belt(s) for our solar system? Would cosmic cascade pattern be sufficiently different from low momentum neutrino interaction; thus built in comparison control?

Nevertheless would not any ‘curvature valley ‘ requires mass? Perhaps examine the space enclosed by 67P comet’s orbit, but in infrared band; looking for optically inapparent set i.e. ‘cloud’ of small objects with sufficient collective mass to account for such unexpected curvature and resultant short period comet’s unusual orbit.

Instead of focusing on 67P comet’s geodesic, perhaps one could consider entire orbit as a geometric object. Then might one be observing a snapshot of an ongoing process of increasing eccentricity (i.e. further elongation) of such orbit (i.e. geometric object) by gravitational field of Sun? Hence would such comet’s unusual orbit be better understood as an overall geometric object’s changing shape and extent; no inverse cube tidal interactions, nor just inverse change in gravitational potential.

Was such short period comet left over from early solar system? However if it intersected earth’s orbit, then over 4 byrs a collision would have occurred. Reference indicates perihelion of ~1.2 AU ; so no intersection with earth’s orbit. Thus might it’s present orbit and period have occurred earlier, and persisted? Was it originally from KBO region, or further out? Then via angular momentum exchange, would it’s present trajectory seem more reasonable? Would it’s inclination angle of 7 degrees to elliptic suggest a KBO origin? Whereas a higher inclination angle would seem to suggest a wider Oort Cloud origin?

Might infrared spectroscopy (stretching, bending, vibration) of such comet 67P surface ice be consistent with a stronger covalent like hydrogen bond for between water and/or ammonia molecules? Hence consistent with 4 byr old ice, perhaps not unlike so-called alleged sub-surface ancient water Martian rock ice; however a very different more exposed environment. see December 28, 2013 Measuring temperature of space via molecular vibration etc.? Dark Age Cryochemistry?

Do many asteroids not have surface ice, unlike comets? Why? Over 4 byrs might the collision potential (i.e. density) of a set of asteroids be greater than for KBO and Oort cloud objects? Hence more sublimation for heated surface ice for the former? For example, Vista in asteroid belt, is an example of not only early differentiation, but also subsequent collisional history. However Ceres’s composition is largely ice; indicative of greater water abundance for different place and time of formation? Also if a smaller object had an atmosphere, then perhaps originating from sub-surface ice and ongoing ice geysers, not unlike Saturn’s moon Enceladus.

What about Titan’s markedly different hazy (hydrocarbons?) atmosphere? Not from uv effect on methane alone; rather sub-surface extended carbon chain formation (alkanes etc.?) perhaps associated with shearing (frictional temperature increase?) hydro-ice vents with interior conduit surfaces containing metals as catalytic impurities? Or cryo-chemistry from impurities of ice adsorbed on dust grains – slower solid state surface cryo-chemistry? Then sublimation of surface ice, contributing to atmosphere?

For example, if present in Titan atmosphere, where might alkanes carbon chains come from? Perhaps from synthesis of alkyl halides, together with heat, resulting in intermediate radicals, in turn interacting; ending with carbon chain extension? Might there be enough focused light (off ice crystals?), heat, and halogens – chlorine, bromine, or halides on Titan, or in atmosphere? Or perhaps alkylation of ammonia with  methyl halides to give alkyl amine extended carbon chain compounds? Ammonia perhaps, but with presence of halogens or methyl halide water ice impurities? Perhaps utilization of metals, such as lithium and copper, for alkyl chain length extension? Any comparison to possible in situ molecular cloud cryo-chemistry?

More recently ALMA data has been interpreted as spectroscopically indicating C_2H_5CN ethyl cyanide at ~200 km high in atmosphere of Titan, formed supposedly via photochemistry. But where is light intensity coming from? Any N_2 abundance in Titan atmosphere would have a very strong triple bond; likewise for forming CN triple bond. Is such chemistry feasible in Titan’s atmosphere? see reference.

Also is apparent riverine system on Titan suggestive of current, or recent, flowing surface fluid? If flowing ammonia surface liquid; then required comparatively higher temperature range of ~ 195 -240 K.

Titan has an atmosphere; hence enhancement of surface temperature? Liquid hydrogen forms at < 20 K. So for example for surface temperature range of ~50-100 K, then the possibility of surface liquid nitrogen for 63-90 K range , and/or liquid oxygen for 54-77 K range. Perhaps also the possibility of nitrogen oxides such as N0, N0_2, N_20 etc., components of smog for earth’s atmosphere? But triple bond N_2 is of high energy, and thus less reactive. Perhaps ammonia, methyl halide – giving alkyl amines? Nitrogen oxides

A key question would seem to be what is Titan’s surface temperature? For Titan’s surface, for temperature range of 50-100 Kelvin, might one paint a scenario of perhaps frozen ammonia lakes, with liquid nitrogen flowing riverine system, with perhaps in part alkylamine extended carbon chains, as part of assumed hydrocarbon atmospheric mix?

Alternatively, because of nitrogen’s narrow liquid temperature range (63-90 K), might one have a physical phase change homologous to that of water ice/liquid? That is, for example, might one have frozen surface nitrogen with liquid nitrogen beneath for both ‘lakes’ and for riverine system? Analogously so, possibly for oxygen narrow liquid temperature range (54-77 K) for ‘lake’ and riverine system’s ice/liquid phase change? Or possibly a mixture of both, since N_2 triple bond is quite inert, as here on earth.

Would any of this seem consistent with Titan’s surface findings and atmospheric coloration? In addition to surface temperature determination, might one also land cube sat probes on Titan’s ‘lakes’ to see if impact is consistent with solid ice or liquid? Also a probe approaching riverine system, for better imaging and ground penetrating high frequency radar; likewise for ‘lakes’ ?

Alternatively might darken coloration of Titan be similar to Martian darker coloration, more evident from afar? And for Titan, might one have ice crystals in atmosphere, as well as light reflection off icy surface, giving illusory distorted light imagery? Likewise for any Pluto’s blurry discoloration (moving?) imagery, from afar? Or might one have cryovolcanoes spewing out a mineralized fluid (N_2 ?), giving a discolorized ‘Tharsis like’ plateau effect?

In addition to laboratory cryochemistry simulations, for Jovian, Saturnian satellites, and Pluto etc., perhaps one could use orbital reflective  or absorptive spectroscopy; utilizing a low angle ‘limb’ view of, for example,l Triton surface or atmosphere, respectively. Greater brightness of surface and atmosphere from ice crystal reflectiveness?

Might Titan exploration be easier if main spacecraft is firstly put into Saturian orbit; then is gradual catch up with outermost Saturian moon, Titan feasible? Then parallel tracking of Titan; hence avoiding an impossible Titan orbit? Thus a master ship, with cube satellites, to Saturian system’s Titan; with successive release of such cube satellites (6 etc.?) with multiple experiments, and competing teams?

Likewise repeat New Horizon 2 (identical), but crashing into largest KBO, Pluto, of an otherwise very low density Kuiper belt? Incidentally, in comparison of asteroid belt, Kuiper belt, and Oort Cloud, for assumption of ~ same total mass, then for such successive increased volume, thus progressively lower density of objects; assuming some minimal size for objects. All such belts, clouds have very low number density.

Perhaps utilize an array of cube satellites, launched at various times, and at various angular displacements, with greater propulsion for closer to Pluto launch. So perhaps an earlier launch of array of 6 cube satellites would suffice to ensure that Pluto is not missed on a fast fly by.

Planets  Holst  chemistry caveats?

Observations of Icy Universe  [astro-ph.GA] 21 Jan 2015

Kpcosmic ice  astrochemistry lab 691  cosmic Ice laboratory

Ethyl cyanide on Titan: Spectroscopic detection and mapping using ALMA

Blog at