white dwarfs & black dwarfs

[MJoseph315]

I’ve found that most of the people on this forum subscribe to an eternal universe without a beginning, yet according to mainstream astronomers and astrophysicists, white dwarf stars are supposed to cool into black dwarfs, but no black dwarfs have even been observed; mainstream scientists explain that this is because the universe is not old enough for any white dwarfs to have cooled into black dwarfs. How do we explain the absence of black dwarfs within the framework of a universe without a beginning?

[ExpEarth]

I have the answer to that, at least in theory. It relates to a process in nature that I have written a lot about, that I call the Hubble luminosity. It suggests that the internal gravitational energy of a mass or a system of masses, U is steadily being converted to photons and heat at the rate L = -UH , where H is the Hubble constant. This process seems to reverse the general flow of gravity. You can think of it this way. Suppose that U actually consists of electromagnetic energy in a different, 'hidden' form. It is being converted to 'real' photons at the same rate that photons lose energy by the Hubble redshift.

You are correct that white dwarfs should cool down to black dwarfs in the standard description, but the Hubble luminosity prevents this from happening. The white dwarf and neutron stars are much brighter than theory can explain. That's why astrophysicists invent so many arcane processes to heat them up.

The Hubble luminosity is also the key to a black hole universe, as the energy released inside a black hole prevents it from collapsing to a singularity. It acts as a form of Einstein's cosmological constant lambda. The Hubble luminosity also explains plate tectonics in a different way.

Here is a paper I wrote about it and the figure in it:.

HubbleRedshift.pdf

Does the Hubble Redshift_Figure_1.pdf

[HanDeBruijn]

@ExpEarth .

Does the Hubble redshift flip photons and gravitons? Yes, but not quite, in my opinion.
Photons exist but gravitons do not. And IMO the Hubble redshift should be replaced by the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
Or, as it is properly stated in the paper: photon energy, chiefly in the form of CMBR photons.
There is a lot in your proze I can agree with, but producing eloquent English is not my gig, so I would like to jump to one of the formulas.

$$ U \equiv -\frac{GM^2}{R} $$

where $U$ is the internal gravitational potential energy [ .. ] A proposal, which is underpinned by many physicists is a factor $2$ different from yours. Theory is found in Self Energy Field. It is formula (13) times $c^2$ with different symbols and a space coordinate going to infinity.

$$ U \equiv -\frac{GM^2}{2R} $$

However, even with that factor $1/2$ the double logarithmic (!) plot in your Fig. 1 wouldn't show much difference, due to its enormous scale.

Whatever. My own theory has been inspired by yours. A final version of it is found in Penzias and Wilson doubted CMB as Big Bang relic and now 3/3 complete in Let there be CMB.

[Francois-Zinserling]

@MJoseph315 I agree with @ExpEarth above.
We just have to find another source of heat that solves this problem.

I found this reasonable explanation of heat dissipation, but still amazed at the slow decay and the timescales involved:
White dwarfs are "dead cinders"

However, if the surface of an object in outer space remains 'hot', it means there must be a continous feed of heat and energy from inside, like e.g. a star. In the case of a star it can be understood because the process of heat generation continues. A white dwarf has ceased fusion activity, yet radiates almost as high a temperature as an active star and the cooling effect takes billions of years. My mind tells me it should cool down rapidly (relative of course, to my cup of tea), but it is not the case.

My opinion thus there is another source of heat we have yet to identify. Gravity certainly checks the box.

[RedshiftDrift]

How do we explain the absence of black dwarfs within the framework of a universe without a beginning?

In addition to the above answers, there are many more reasons why we don't observe them.

1. "Black Dwarfs" are theoretical objects, they probably don't exist since we have not detected them.
2. "Black Dwarfs" cannot be detected easily since they are black.
3. As with any other object in the universe, "Black Dwarfs" collide with other objects and the energy of the collision is emitted as light. Supernovae type 1A are the result of white dwarfs colliding with a star, so "Black Dwarfs" could disappear through similar collisions.

Given enough time (and there is always enough time in a static cosmology) heat will have enough time to dissipate and objects will have enough time to collide and be recycled into light and hydrogen.

[RedshiftDrift]

Indeed the endpoint of fusion (and fission) is iron, as it is the element with the lowest energy (see graph). Iron is present in space in the form of dust. We constantly see iron meteorites fall into the Earth's atmosphere, but it is difficult to see iron in space because it absorbs very little light.

Light released by stars is redshifted by electrons in the intergalactic medium (IGM). The energy lost by the photons heats up the electrons to temperatures reaching $10^{11}$ K. This high temperature ($10^{11}$ K $\rightarrow 9$ MeV/particle) is sufficient to give any particle an energy of $9$ MeV to produce, through fission, the lighter elements on the left-hand side of the graph up to hydrogen.

The process is:

• Fusion inside stars produce heavy elements, liberating $9$ MeV per particle and emitting it as light,
• fission in the IGM, heated by redshifted starlight, converts iron and all matter (even "black dwarfs"...) back into hydrogen,
• hydrogen accumulates in the IGM and eventually collapses to form new stars and galaxies. Energy and matter are completely recycled.
• The cycle continues over hundreds of billions of years... no "beginning of the universe" is necessary.

We know there are high-energy particles in deep space, high-energy physics in the IGM is no surprise at all.

I copy below an earlier message (edited for clarity) from the forum about the high temperatures of plasmas in space and why that precludes the so-called "heat death of the universe".

Subject: Re: [Tired-Light - ACG] temperature
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 04:54:02 +0000
From: Sahil Gupta via Tired-Light - ACG <tired-light.cosmology at gaggle.email>
Reply-To: Tired-Light - ACG <tired-light.cosmology at gaggle.email>

Ah I'm getting a clearer idea of what you've been saying all along.

Locally around a star is dust (of some density) at $2.7$ K. Local Microwave Foreground.
Then the medium interstellar (less dense) is $10-20$ K.
Then circumgalactic and cluster intergalactic (less less dense) is $10^7$ K.
Then supervoids (less less less dense) is $10^{10}$ K.

Also, what do you make of so many galaxies having a similar power/area to the Microwave Radiation (mentioned in a previous thread)? Must it be that the incident power/area from a star's LMF is near equal to the star's flux?

Sahil Gupta

On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 8:02 PM Louis Marmet via Tired-Light - ACG [email protected] wrote:

Sahil,
I do get your argument about redshift and Bremsstrahlung, but could you explain in another way what's wrong with the default expectation?
There's nothing wrong with the default expectation, but gravitational heating and optical heating are two very different processes that work under very different conditions.

• Gravitational heating takes its energy from the potential created by a self-generated concentration of mass. As matter moves toward a lower potential it acquires kinetic energy [i.e. cars driving on the highway] and collide with matter that's already there to produce a thermal velocity distribution and a high temperature. However, the cooling mechanism is via blackbody emission, which is proportional to the temperature to the fourth power = $T^4$. Once matter is glowing hot, a lot more energy is required to increase its temperature further. That's why the hottest star and even the accretion disk of an AGN doesn't go much above 100000 K.

• Optical heating takes advantage of all that radiation generated by stars (the cosmic optical background). The cooling rate is proportional to $T^{1/2}$ and is lower at low density, so high temperatures are priviledged in the lowest density plasmas. Because pockets of intersteller gases are much larger than stars, their gravitational potential is much weaker. Therefore gravitational heating provides less heat per unit mass than optical heating in a low density gas.

• When magnetic fields are present, a complicated process can produce 'cold' and 'hot' plasmas, as Eric explained. Quasars produce plasma jets at "T" $&gt; 10^{11}$ K, while cold neutral atoms at "T" $&lt; 10$ K can exist within a plasma current (like driving in Norway, fast and no collisions!)

Of interest is that these processes make any temperature distribution unstable for neutral matter and plasmas. Energy always flows between different systems (stars, galaxies, voids, gas clouds, IGM, clusters, etc.) either as neutral matter, photons or plasma currents, there is no isolated system and thermodynamic equilibrium is never reached.

For that reason, the "heat death of the universe" is not a valid argument against a static cosmology.

Regards,
Louis

[MJoseph315]

Louis, yours and Sahil’s hypotheses on fission occurring in the IGM is interesting, but is there any evidence that you can point to that supports the existence of this process?

[MJoseph315]

Even if this process could induce fission in the IGM, I doubt it would induce fission in extreme stellar objects like black dwarfs.
I also don’t see how it would affect solid stellar objects like meteorites and planets.

[RedshiftDrift]

These processes are known and measured by nuclear physicists. Take this partial list of reactions with hydrogen and isotopes:

$^2_1D + ^3_1T$ → $^4_2He$ (3.52 MeV) $+ n^0$ (14.06 MeV)
$^2_1D + ^2_1D$ → $^3_1T$ (1.01 MeV) $+ p^+$ (3.02 MeV)
$^2_1D + ^2_1D$ → $^3_2He$ (0.82 MeV) $+ n^0$ (2.45 MeV)
$^2_1D + ^3_2He$ → $^4_2He$ (3.6 MeV) $+ p^+$ (14.7 MeV)
$^3_2He +^3_2He$ → $^4_2He + 2 p^+ +$ 12.9 MeV
$^3_2He + ^3_1T$ → $^4_2He + p^+ + n^0 +$ 12.1 MeV
$^2_1D + ^6_3Li$ → $2 ^4_2He +$ 22.4 MeV
$^2_1D + ^6_3Li$ → $^3_2He + ^4_2He + n^0 +$ 2.56 MeV
$^2_1D + ^6_3Li$ → $^7_3Li + p^+ +$ 5.0 MeV
$^2_1D + ^6_3Li$ → $^7_4Be + n^0 +$ 3.4 MeV
etc.

Since every reaction is reversible, it's a matter of using the energy available in the hot IGM to produce the lighter elements from the heavier ones. For example, using some reactions above one can see how beryllium, lithium and energy are transformed into the lighter elements tritium and deuterium:
$^7_4Be + n^0 +$ 3.4 MeV → $^2_1D + ^6_3Li$
$^7_3Li + p^+ +$ 5.0 MeV → $^2_1D + ^6_3Li$
$^2_1D + ^6_3Li$ → $2 ^4_2He +$ 22.4 MeV
$^4_2He$ (3.52 MeV) $+ n^0$ (14.06 MeV) → $^2_1D + ^3_1T$

These reactions have been studied for all elements, so the process of using energy and heavy nuclei to produce the light nuclei is experimentally confirmed.

Extreme stellar objects like black dwarfs and rocks are bound together by gravity and electric forces, which are both very weak forces compared to the nuclear force (see table below). High energy particles easily eat away at rocks and black dwarfs in the same way the air from the atmosphere causes ablation of the surface of a meteor (i.e. it burns up and disappears).

[RedshiftDrift]

"Cosmic nuclear fission seen for 1st time in 'incredibly profound' discovery"
https://www.space.com/nuclear-fission-neutron-stars-heavy-elements-gold
Now they are starting to see fission of heavy elements in space. With more sensitive detection, the fission process I describe above will be confirmed observationally. 👀

[carlosbelcech]

Black dwarfs could be a fraction of elusive dark matter. Is to say, maybe we can not detect these objects.

[bgreenman]

We don't know,so far these objects or fragments of them haven't been discovered

[Francois-Zinserling]

'Black Dwarfs' may not be so easily detected, but there are plenty of 'Brown Dwarfs' around.

Here is another temperature anomaly.
Wait. How can this brown dwarf be hotter than our sun?

My next question would be how can the White Dwarf be hotter than our sun? A White Dwarf is only the remaining hot core of a 'used to be sun' not unlike our own. IOW not e.g. a blue star.

Considering that a white dwarf has ceased fusion, and lost its outer layers, and is in the process of cooling down, how does it still radiate hotter than our sun?
Not only that; now it radiates at $1/r^2$ away and the surface of the Brown Dwarf is also still hotter than our sun.

There is the argument that radiation takes M-years to exit the object, but this is starting more to look like a fudge to me. If it takes that long to exit, the exponential drop-off curve must be huge.

[bgreenman]

Paul LaViolette's writins might have an answer

[ExpEarth]

@Francois-Zinserling The brown dwarf in their study is not a good example for illustrating intrinsic heating in brown dwarfs, as it is orbiting a white dwarf. White dwarfs have very high luminosities, which can be accounted for using the Hubble luminosity equation. The brown dwarf here has a much higher surface temperature in the side facing the star than in the side facing away. This shows it. To study the brown dwarf luminosities, you need to use more isolated stars.

@bgreenman Paul LaViolette had an equation for intrinsic heating of stars and planets that looked identical to my Hubble luminosity equation, L = UH , but in his equation H referred to the thermodynamic term. In my equation H is the Hubble constant. My equation predicts the luminosities far better than his.

Check my graph from earlier in this thread!

[MJoseph315]

No offense, but Paul Laviolette’s ideas about ‘intrinsic heating’, ‘continuous creation’, and planets gradually transforming into stars seem a little too outlandish to me.

[bgreenman]

Maybe with the availability of supercomputers and AI programs we could try to simulate various theories aboout the internal processes of white dwarfs, until a satellite can't be launched thats in an orbit farther out in the solar system

[khuramonline]

What if our Earth is a black dwarf?

[bgreenman]

Possibly not, since their have been many exoplanet discoveries, unless we find evidence of unknown solar system history

[carlosbelcech]

First assumption, these objects are undetectable.
Second assumption, our galaxy can be young.

[bgreenman]

I Agree With the first,the Second i'm not sure

[ExpEarth]

@RedshiftDrift

Louis, I'm surprised that you would have the light elements being recreated in space, when the easier route is for them to be made inside supermassive black holes (SMBHs). There is more than enough energy inside those to blast the heavier elements apart and there is evidence of the protons being returned back to space in jetting processes. This was part of Arp's model, right?

[HanDeBruijn]

The formulas as presented in previous replies have a common characteristic, namely a(n upper) bound for the gravitational acceleration:

$$ g = 2\pi G \rho R $$

That's why I've been asking for values of the radius $R$ and mass density $\rho$ of the jet/drain. Answer by @sahil5d

to your questions, I don't know.

So I've made up a few values myself. A reference is: What's the theoretical maximum density of a galaxy?

c := 299792458; # lightspeed
y := 31556926; # seconds in a year
ly := c*y; 
M := 6*10^42; # mass of milky way
V := 3.3*10^61; # volume of milky way
R := 52850*ly; # radius of milky way
G := 6.6743*10^(-11);
rho := M/V; # mass density
g := evalf(2*Pi*G*rho*R);

The outcome is $g = 38 \times 10^{-9}\mbox{ }m/s^2$ , which is about 400 times larger than the value of $10^{-10}\mbox{ }m/s^2$ as previously calculated by us. But not large enough, I think.

Does it suck or does it blow?
Problem is that we don't know!

[RedshiftDrift]

The researchers track "knots" in the stream [...] https://science.nasa.gov/missions/hubble/hubble-video-shows-shock-collision-inside-black-hole-jet/

It's not clear which way the knots are moving. What I see are a bunch of blobs moving one way that look like shocks waves caused by the medium moving the other way. - I am still not convinced by the jet explanation.

Some might dispute that, which is fair, but keep in mind that a supernova explodes matter at ~ .1c, and a neutron star jet travels at ~ .4c https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.18135, so larger-object higher-speed ejections are plausible.

Supernovae don't explode for the millions of years required to form long jets. - I am still not convinced by the jet explanation.

[sahil5d]

In your hypothetic drain, what is the velocity of particles toward the galactic center?

And don't forget about the core of NGC 4261 https://esahubble.org/images/opo9227b, when you said "accretion doughnuts... have never been seen directly".

And don't forget about Cygnus A. The 2 fluffy things are incompatible with the drain hypothesis.

Given the Cygnus A plumes, I think one has to reject your drain hypothesis and amend or also reject your centrifuge hypothesis.

[HanDeBruijn]

And don't forget about Cygnus A. The 2 fluffy things are incompatible with the drain hypothesis.

Sorry @sahil5d , I don't see why.

[sahil5d]

Draw the arrows the other way, place the 2 images side by side, and that would help you see and compare.

Also, look at this portion
.

If this were a drain and a drain caused by gravitational force, this cloud part couldn't exist. The cloud part would be moving leftward and downward not rightward.
If this were a drain and a drain caused by magnetic force, this cloud part couldn't exist. The cloud part wouldn't be flowing rightward.

In other words, if this were a drain, the cloud part would not be hanging out leisurely by the stream part.

Meanwhile, if this were a jet stream and the jet hit the intergalactic medium and then there was a shock and plume formation, this cloud part could exist, and exist leisurely by the stream part.

[bgreenman]

We still don't know the processes for objects other than stars, that lead to creation of heavier elements. We might need new physics concepts to explain these processes.

[ExpEarth]

@HanDeBruijn

Here from Wikipedia, we see he argued for an AGN involvement. While Arp may or may not have favoured black holes, their inclusion in the standard AGN depiction links Arp's model to black holes.

Arp argued that the redshift was not due to Hubble expansion or physical movement of the objects, but must have a non-cosmological or "intrinsic" origin, and that quasars were local objects ejected from the core of active galactic nuclei (AGN).

[bgreenman]

Correct concept that should be tested

[ExpEarth]

On the topic of black holes, there is a new paper by Roy Kerr, the guy who invented the Kerr metric for rotating black holes. He is now saying that rotating black holes do not have a singularity. There is a story about it by Ethan Siegel. Siegel is usually unreliable, as we know, but this one is worth reading: https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/singularities-dont-exist-roy-kerr/

I saw a recent story where there was proof given that the SMBHs have a very fast rotation, but I can't find it now.

[bgreenman]

Roy Kerr's idea should be tested

[HanDeBruijn]

“Singularities don’t exist,” claims black hole pioneer Roy Kerr. Yeah sure. The picture below says it all.

[ExpEarth]

Point granted! And when you look at the preprint of Kerr's new paper, you actually see that his rebuttal of the singularity idea involves really ideas related to light propagation in black holes that are so abstract as to be almost incomprehensible. No surprise they have been uncontested all this time!

Here is another image of the dark energy star with torus shape. Nothing in the middle and it looks like one of Eric Lerner's plasma models, doesn't it?

[bgreenman]

Roy Kerr might be right that there is no singularity. Has anyone been trying to look for ehite holes using JWST Or Eurpe's Euclid?

[ExpEarth]

Getting back to the starting point of this thread, the idea that white dwarfs should cool over time to black dwarfs, it seems the mainstream is altering their position on this. Here is a new study where they go to great lengths to show how cooling could be almost indefinitely delayed. Here is the story: https://scitechdaily.com/eternal-flames-unraveling-the-mystery-of-delayed-white-dwarfs/ and a quote from it:

Researchers discovered why some white dwarfs remain luminous for billions of years: a core process where lighter crystals rise and denser liquids sink, balancing the energy and maintaining surface brightness.

In my own model, discussed earlier in this thread, the white dwarf luminosities are more easily explained using the Hubble luminosity equation.

[mikehelland]

It seems pretty obvious to me that black dwarfs make up the invisible matter in galaxy halos.

Is that what everyone else thinks too?

https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/educators/galaxies/imagine/dark_matter.html

They consider brown dwarfs, and neutron stars, but black dwarfs fit the bill better.

Here's a source that (briefly) mentions the possibility:

https://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/essay.html

[Francois-Zinserling]

I think otherwise.
If 'DM' is supposed to be 85% (15% is 'normal'), then any hidden 'normal' matter could not stay that well-hidden. Not that much of it, I would think.

My thinking is the equations are wrong. Fundamentally there is something we have not grasped yet. F = GMm/r^2 is already known as a limited solution, but then so is General Relativity because it also needs DM to work.

• In my own opinion, G is a variable (vector, even) simplistically said. Long story short, as an example; at the edge of a galactic disk G pointing inward (to centre) is strong but gets weaker further into the disk. Right through the plane of the disk until weakest pointing outward at the opposite edge of the disk. Vector in, vector out; Result is maximum net vector G pointing inward at the edge. The centre thus appears to be more massive than it is. I can explain this better if someone wishes.
• MOND gets it right for some cases, but without an underlying explanation. In my opinion that's just fudging things until they fit.
• There are other good models that don't require DM.

The end-result will likely be: No DM required.

[HanDeBruijn]

In my own opinion, G is a variable [ .. ] ; at the edge of a galactic disk G pointing inward (to centre) is strong but gets weaker further into the disk.

Almost, but not quite. Here comes a rather complicated formula for calculating rotation curves of spiral galaxies, as copied from MOND = UAC.

$$ \boxed{v^2(r) }= \frac{(G.W)}{V^2.L} \int_0^1 \left[ 2 \int_0^\pi \frac{\left[(r/R)-\cos(\phi)\right],d\phi}{\left[(r/R)^2-2(r/R)\cos(\phi)+1\right]^{3/2}} \right] (r/R)\rho(R)dR \mbox{ } \boxed{\sim {\bf (G.W)}} $$

Here $G$ is the gravitational constant, $V$ is the reference velocity of a star in the galaxy, $L$ is the radius of the galaxy and $W$ is its total mass - turning $G.W/(V^2.L)$ into a dimensionless constant. Especially take notice of the term $G.W$, which is the Standard gravitational parameter of the galaxy.
If one theory says that there is a Variable Mass $W$ and another theory says that the gravitational constant G is a variable, then that makes no difference for the term $G.W$. And so, in this respect, the theory by @HanDeBruijn is equivalent with the theory by @Francois-Zinserling, provided that $G(r)$ is linear as a function of the distance $r$ to the center of the galaxy.

[MJoseph315]

If Black Dwarfs were the invisible matter in galaxy haloes, I imagine they would leave some telltale signs that would make them easier to detect, such as regions of higher gravity that are easier to pinpoint through their effects on other objects, or regions with very little light. The fact that, to my knowledge, these regions have not been detected, makes Black Dwarfs being Dark Matter very unlikely.