Can a Universe be Reborn from a Super Massive Black Hole?

Can a Universe be Reborn from a Super Massive Black Hole?

by Ju Boo Lim - Tuesday, 29 October 2019, 11:38 am 

Earlier I posted my answer on the Schwarzschild radius for a black hole for the Sun, Earth and Moon asked in this forum discussion

 I gave the answers as:

1.       The Schwarzschild radius for the Sun = 2,954 metres

2.       The Schwarzschild radius for Earth = 8.869513457 x 10-3 metres

3.       The Schwarzschild radius for the Moon 1.0913 x 10 -4 metres .

Then I worked out the Event Horizon radii also for the other two biggest planets in our Solar System, namely, Jupiter and Saturn

Here are the results:

1.       Schwarzschild radius for Saturn 0.844 metres

2.       The Schwarzschild radius for Jupiter 2.82 metres

But I forgot to mention it is not possible for any planet or star except for a neutron star or stars with at least 5 – 10 solar masses to become a black hole when they burn out their nuclear fuel and began to collapse under gravity

What I wrote there and here are just in theory and only for academic interest based on the equation 2Gm/ c2 where G = gravitational constant, m = mass of the star, and c = velocity of light.

But in practice it is neither possible for our own Sun, nor the Earth and Moon to collapse into a black hole because none of them are massive enough.

Even our own middle-age Sun when it runs out of fuel in another 5 billion years’ time, may just bloat up as a giant red star to engulf the Earth, maybe up to Jupiter. It is just not massive enough to become even a neutron star, let alone a black hole.

But suppose all the 250 billion sun-like stars in our own Milky Way Galaxy and the entire Universe were to run out of hydrogen-helium fuel and collapse in theory, what then would the sizes of their black hole?

Here’s the answer I worked out for theoretical academic interest only

1.       The Schwarzschild radius for the Milky Way 1.7133 x 10 15 metres = 181 light year

2.       The Schwarzschild radius of the Universe 8.911 x 1025 metres = 9,419,661,734 light years

Again, this may not be likely as the individual stars masses are different, and their life spans are also different, and it is highly they will not all collapse together at the same time to become  the most massive and biggest black hole in the future 

But what happens if they do? Will their Schwarzschild radius remain the same?

My feeling is, probably the density would be so enormous that even their supermassive black hole itself may squeeze even further to become just one point as if it was in the beginning before the Big Bang.

Is this possible? If this is possible my feeling is that the Universe can begin another episode of the Big Bang, collapse, Bang again like a Pulsating Universe. Is this possible?

I am not saying my “theory” is correct or possible. I am only asking a question out of academic interest

Thanks for reading

jb lim

Malaysia

The Collapse of the Stars

The End of Stars Forum Discussion

One of the questions I asked during our academic forum discussions on “The End of Stars” was this question

How was that when the critical Chandrasekhar mass limit is reached, the electrons can no longer resist each other and gravity overcomes their electromagnetic repulsion? 

When that happens the white dwarf can no longer be supported and the core collapses further, fusing electrons and protons into neutrons now held up by the mutual repulsion of neutrons to become a neutron star.

My question is how was that gravity which I thought is the weakest of all forces has now become the strongest overpowering even nuclear forces that kept protons and electrons apart.

The best guess I can give is that the mass of the star must be been so enormous, maybe 3 or more solar masses that the product of their masses is so colossal that they overwhelmed the nuclear forces that kept the protons and electrons apart.

I am unsure as I am not a physicist let alone a nuclear physicist. I am just learning fascinating facts in this interesting course.

I really hope Dr. Grant PhD (Astrophysics) can explain to clarify

In Search of Extra Terrestrial Civilization: Flaws in Frank Drake Equation

When I was doing my continuing education course in astronomy from the University of Oxford late this year (2019), we have to have to participitate in countless academic and forum discussions almost everyday before we could complete the course

In one Unit of the couse was one on Astrobiology where under this sub-unit was one on Frank Drake equation. I shall reproduce below this sub-unit:


8.6 The Drake equation


"One of the early advocates of SETI, Frank Drake, created an equation which helps you estimate the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy. To make an estimate you need to know a large number of unknown values – so essentially the equation is structured guesswork. As we learn more about exoplanets and about life, we are able to narrow down some of the numbers, and the equation gives you a feel for how likely you are to ever communicate with aliens.


The equation gives you N, the number of communicating civilisations in the galaxy:

N = R * fp * ne * fl * fi *fc * L,

where R is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy; fp is the fraction of stars with planets; ne is the number of Earth-like planets per Solar System; fl is the fraction of those which evolve life; fi is the fraction of those that evolve intelligent life; fc is the fraction of intelligent lifeforms that develop technology for communicating with aliens; L is the lifetime of a communicating civilisation, in years.


We currently believe that R is approximately 7 stars per year. We are getting more and more data on fp and ne all the time. Whilst fl may be a small fraction, fi and fc may not be, if we think intelligence and communication are consequences of evolution. L is very hard to guess, since we are the best and only example of a communicating civilisation, and we’ve been communicating for less than 100 years!


In 1961, Drake and his colleagues came up with the following estimates for the numbers:

N = 1 * 0.25 to 0.5 * 1 to 5 * 1 * 1 * 0.1 to 0.2 * 1000 to 100,000,000 This gave Drake a value of N in the range 1000 to 100,000,000 communicating civilisations in the Milky Way."
(Source: University of Oxford)

Below was what I replied for the forum discussion

 I am amazed how did Frank Drake come up with his equation when there is no data to work on to substitute into his equation. 

The only world so far we know that has life on it is on this planet Earth of ours. None of the planets, dwarf planets or any other body in our own Solar System has any. So are the many and increasing numbers of exo-planets in other stellar systems being discovered has any.

In the absence on the data of life existence, how is it possible for anyone put some theoretical numbers on his equation to predict the numbers of life as we know it, let alone civilization, or even intelligent civilizations in existence in our Milky Way Galaxy?

At the moment  we just have one point (Earth) to work on. We can’t do very much with just one point or a single data. We don’t even have another number to join two points together to extrapolate anything further.


Whatever cooked-up data we like to substitute into Frank Drake equation, it would  just be guesswork and theoretical. This is just not scientifically real


We can of course put any numbers we like. That’s not a problem, but are they real numbers? Is that statistically correct? In statistics if we want to draw a scientific conclusion we must have as large a population as possible, the larger the numbers, the better to represent a true population.


Maybe we have some idea on R which is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy as discussed in Unit 5, and fp as the fraction of stars with planets (based on the numbers of extra solar planets we have discovered so far as argued in Unit 6).


 Maybe we can even extend the equation to “ne” as is the number of Earth-like planets per Solar System based on habitable planet as discussed in 6.8 on The Goldilocks Zone.


But to go further than that, further away into the equation is a bit difficult. Even if we imagine the closest possibility we can use to substitute into the initial part of the equation, it would just be intelligent guesswork, let alone put in some theoretical or imaginary data into the full equation
We may come out with a result which may be far out from statistical reality on facts and figures
I cannot imagine how Drake and his colleagues in 1961 came up with the following estimates for the numbers as:


N = 1 * 0.25 to 0.5 * 1 to 5 * 1 * 1 * 0.1 to 0.2 * 1000 to 100,000,000 communicating civilisations in the Milky Way?


Even SETI programme with all their arrays of radio telescopes and world-wide citizen search has not shown up any intelligent life this far. 


However, this does not mean there is no other life in this horrendously immense Milky Way Galaxy of ours, let alone in the entire Observable Universe.


Stand Alone World:

For us to believe we are the only world that harbours life on it, is like us standing on a vast, vast seashore of sand, and saying beneath our feet there is only one, and only grain of sand, on which surface teems tiny microbes, while all the other grains of sands as far as our eyes can see over and across the horizon are all sterile


Is that what we believe? Is that a statistically probability? We will be extremely arrogant and haughty to believe this.


What I express here in this forum is just my personal view.

Life in the Universe: By Intelligent Design or by Accident

Life in the Universe:  

By Intelligent Design or by Accident

lim ju boo

Student in Astronomy

University of Oxford

An Astrobiology Forum Discussion

(An extract from numerous academic forum discussions during the course in astronomy) 

I think how life came into existence on Earth or elsewhere in other extra solar planets is very difficult issue for us to comprehend, let alone definitely answer.

We don’t even have a proper definition of life, let alone know what it is or describe it except to define it as something “that reproduces, feeds, respond to stimuli..etc.”

But these are characteristics of life and not life itself

Neither is that presence of life molecules like amino- acids that Miller and Urey created in their experiment, living. We can even do better than what Miller and Urey did by just buying a piece of beef from the grocery shop. But a piece of beef, fish, chicken, mutton sold in the market are not living despite having all the chemical composition that are characteristic of life 

Mystery of Life:

That piece of beef or any other food has all the life-ingredients inside – amino-acids, sugars, biological fluids, vitamins, electrolytes and even the original DNA and nucleic acids all intact. But that piece of beef, chicken, fish...etc. are all dead. They have no life in them.  So where did the life once-upon-a-time in them disappeared?

That “spark of life” whatever it is to define life, has been separated from the chemicals, and chemistry of life as we know it. So there is something very mysterious and unknown residing inside those chemicals of life until it got separated from their physical foot-prints (of life), namely the amino acids, DNA, sugars, electrolytes, biological fluids…etc.

Even the panspermia theory described in Unit 8.4 of this astronomy course that proposes bodies such as comets transporting lifeforms such as bacteria and viruses complete with their DNA taking their hazardous and lengthy journey  through space to seed Earth with life still does not explain how and where life originated.

Neither can we say with certainty life originated on Earth itself from the hydrothermal vent deep in the volcanically active ocean floors where the tectonic plates are. Our question is, how did these life forms appears, or where did it originate?

What causes life-less chemical molecules to suddenly become alive and so became so intelligent as to be able assemble the appropriate molecules and themselves into a brain, arms with fingers so that they can hold objects, eyes and ears to see and hear for their survival, and organs, and systems etc., so that they can function anatomically and physiologically as a living organism?  What or what forces in them made them to be so intelligent? Isn't there an Intelligent Designer and a Programmer behind life

existence?

Our Problem As Scientists:

I think the problem with Science is we try to ignore the presence of a spiritual Creator who pumped the forces of life into these lifeless molecules.

In Genesis of the Bible for instance it clearly says that the LORD God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (Genesis 2:7).

The dust from which man was created represents the life molecules, but it has no life in it, until God breathed into his nostrils to give it life. As scientists ourselves we cannot ignore this. At the same time, we cannot measure life forces, or whatever it is that gives life?

This is understandable, since Science is a systematic study of matter and energy where scientists can see, observe, detect or measure and infer their existence. Anything outside these entities and parameters is outside or beyond Science.

Big Bang vs. Creation 

My question is, why do scientists insist in ignoring the existence of a Spiritual Being as a Creator of all things including the Big Bang? There is nothing wrong with this theory if scientists wish to believe in this account  since it is up to them to go into the details how the Universe was born through His works, since the Bible is not a science book. The Bible is a book on salvation which is far more important to our souls than material knowledge how God created the heavens and the earth through a Big Bang 

There is no rhyme or reason why God need to explain in scientific details to us insignificant mortals especially to the ancient civilizations who have no technical knowledge in science  how He created the  Universe or the heavens, or how He created life on Earth or elsewhere. Does He need to?

He just gave them to us just as a parent provides food to their children without the need for them to explain to their children how food originated, processed, handled and stored or was made before giving it to their children. Does the parents need to?

God created everything for us to use without needing to explain the intricacy how He created or made them. On what compulsion must God? The Bible was written so that we can understand and follow Christ for our eternal life after death. It is  not a science book. to explain about Big Bang or the Big Crunch when the heavens shall be destroyed with fervent heat  as given in 2 Peter 3:10.  

There is absolutely no rhyme, reason or any need for Him to do this as much as a manufacturer of this smart phone I am now using to type this discussion to explain to me the complexities of microchip technology how he manufactured this phone of mine so that I can use it to type and explain.

We are just end-users of smart phones without needing to know the complex technology how smart phones are  design and manufactured – do we? We just buy it, and use it without asking questions.

So is for the creation of the universe or life on Earth or elsewhere in heavens. But if we wish to go into the scientific details on Creation to glorify God and his horrendous work of art we may do so even though our knowledge and understanding are limited

We need not discredit an Intelligent Designer who is far, far above us 


Our Thinking Brain: 


It is up to us to use our thinking brains He bestowed upon us to think how awfully and fearsome His work are. There is no reason why we cannot use this  gift of Science and a brain He gave us to rationalize, to think and to analyze logically so that we can use them to honour and glorify Him.  

Hence, it is up to the astronomers, cosmologists, and  astophysicists to work out the details how God created the heavens,  including using His horrendous power and might to tear apart matter, space and time from a single point into a Big Bang to give rise to  the births of the heavens (galaxies, stars, dust clouds, life and all)


His Eternal Existence:


We must be clear that God is a Spirit and He is eternal. He already existed  even before the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, and His existence is OUTSIDE the dimension of this singularity where matter, space, time and energy are cramped into one single point,  and it was from outside this singularity where He tears apart all matter, space and time to give them all a beginning

He clearly stated that "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end" (Revelation 22:13), the first and the last, meaning He already existed even BEFORE the Big Bang, and He will still be there when "the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up" (2 Peter 3:10).


Doesn't that clearly explain to us  past, present and into the future, His presence existed even before the Big Bang, and it was through this Mighty Explosion  He created,  the heavens and Earth came in existence,  and all materials things that are tangible in the universe came into existence. 

Didn't the psalmist long, long ago tells us “the heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” (Psalm 19 King James Version)

But it is up to us to work out the details how God engineered His creation since the Bible is not a science book. It is a book on salvation which is by far more crucial and important to Him and to us


He has indeed made us so intelligent to think over His handy work so that we can use it to glorify Him.

Life from The Soil:

I have no doubt we are made from star dusts as Scientific America claims

(Ref: https://www.scientificamerica https://www.space.com/35276-humans-made-of-stardust-galaxy-life-elements.html n.com/article/all-sand-on-earth-could-be-made-of-star-stuff/)

And a New Study proves it (Ref: https://www.space.com/35276-humans-made-of-stardust-galaxy-life-elements.html).

But the dusts itself has no life in them. I strongly believe a life force has to be pumped into them for the life molecules to become alive, becomes so intelligent, and able to propagate, feed and multiple to give Earth a wide variety of biodiversity through subsequent Natural Selection as proposed by Charles Darwin in his Origin of Species

This is understandable, since Science is a systematic study of matter and energy where scientists can see, observe, detect or measure and infer their existence. Anything outside these entities and parameters is outside the scope and beyond Science.

I summarize my understanding there is nothing wrong with the theory of Big Bang vs. Creation. To me, as I can see it, Science, Life, and Creation blend harmoniously. There is no contradiction at least to me.

It only tells us “the heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” (Psalm 19 King James Version)

I have no doubt we are made from star dusts as Scientific America claims (Ref: https://www.scientificamerica https://www.space.com/35276-humans-made-of-stardust-galaxy-life-elements.html n.com/article/all-sand-on-earth-could-be-made-of-star-stuff/)

And  a New Study showed the same (Ref: https://www.space.com/35276-humans-made-of-stardust-galaxy-life-elements.html).

But the dusts itself has no life in them. I strongly believe a life force has to be pumped into them for the life molecules to become alive, becomes intelligent, and able to propagate, feed and multiple to give Earth a wide variety of biodiversity through subsequent Natural Selection as proposed by Charles Darwin in his Origin of the Species

This is understandable, since Science is a systematic study of matter and energy where scientists can see, observe, detect or measure and infer their existence. Anything outside these entities and parameters is outside or beyond Science.

I am only expressing the freedom of my thoughts. Other scientists may not agree with me as they may only insist on evidence-based Science. That’s their own freedom of thinking and freedom of speech I respect their views and thinking.

I have my own.

Read also

 “The Mystery of Life”:

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/search?q=mystery+of+life

Jesus First Miracle:

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/search?q=jesus+first+miracle

Yellow balls Found in the Milky Way

WHAT ARE YELLOW BALLS FOUND IN THE MILKY WAY WAY GALAXY



This article is dedicated to Professor Dr Andrew Charles Gomez, a Consultant Otolaryngology          Surgeon from John Hopkins Hospital for his encouragement urging me to complete the last lap of this course in astronomy


by:


lim ju boo BSc  PG Dip Nutri MSc (Food QC) MD  PhD (Med) FRSPH  FRSM

C.Ed Cert Evol.  (June, 2019)  University of Cambridge


C.Ed Cert Astronomy (December, 2019)  University of Oxford

C Ed Cert Forensic Science in Toxicology University of Cambridge


(This paper was written as one of the two  assignments required by the University of Oxford in astronomy which the author has successfully submitted for assessment  on 24 Nov 2019


Introduction:


Yellowballs are a group of approximately 900 compact, infrared sources identified in the Milky Way Galaxy, and were named by volunteers participating in the Milky Way Project (MWP), a citizen science project that uses GLIMPSE/MIPSGAL images from Spitzer to explore these objects


GLIMPSE (Galactic Legacy Infrared Midplane Extraordinaire) is a survey of the inner Milky Way Galaxy and MIPSGAL is a 278 degree Galactic plane survey conducted through the Multiband Infrared Photometer for Spitzer (MIPS) instrument on the Spitzer Space Telescope.


The GLIMPSE/MIPSGAL images are infrared portrait of dust and stars radiating in the inner Milky Way. More than 800,000 frames from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope were stitched together to create the full image, capturing more than 50 percent of our entire galaxy (1)


These images shows areas where stars and yellowballs are formed


In a paper by C. R. Kerton, G. Wolf-Chase, K. Arvidsson, C. J. Lintott, R. J. Simpson et al (2) they showed through a combination of catalogue that cross matched  with  infrared color analysis  that yellow balls are a mix of compact star-forming regions, including ultra-compact and compact H II regions, as well as analogous regions for less massive B-type stars.


H II region is a region of interstellar atomic hydrogen that is ionized.


The resulting MWP yellowball catalogue provided a useful complement to the Red MSX Source (RMS) survey as discussed in C. R. Kerton, et al paper.


In their paper, they highlighted regions of massive star formation, but the selection of objects was purely on the basis of their infrared features, and color in Spitzer images that identifies footprints  of compact star-forming regions shared across a broad range of luminosities, by inference, and by masses.


The authors discussed the origin of their striking mid-infrared appearance, and proposed that future studies of the yellow ball sample will increase our understanding of how massive and intermediate-mass star-forming regions transition occurs from compact to more extended bubble-like structures.


The Milky Way Project (MWP) is one of a collection of highly prolific online citizen science enterprises in the Zooniverse, developed and maintained by the Citizen Science with the partnership of Lintott et al. 2008 (3),  Smith et al. 2011 (4); Fortson et al. 2012. (5)



Spitzer Space Telescope:



The first implementation of the MWP utilized Spitzer GLIMPSE/MIPSGAL images by Benjamin et al. 2003 (6); Mizuno et al. 2008 (7);  Churchwell et al. 2009 (8); Carey et al. 2009 (9) was to study star formation over a third of the Galactic plane through  the categorization of infrared “bubbles”, which are typical of H II regions and their allied photo dissociation regions (PDRs).



Hydrogen Regions:


The PDRs are conspicuous in the  Infrared Array Camera (IRAC) 8 µm band, which traces emission from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), while MIPS images of bubble interiors often show 24 µm radiation, which is likely linked with thermal emission from dust grains within H II regions, such as shown by Watson et al. 2009 (10).


The main task of citizen science volunteers is to use an ellipse-drawing tool to mark the sizes, orientations, ellipticities, and thicknesses of H II region/PDR features. The first data expanded the previous bubble catalogs of Churchwell et al. (11, 12) by nearly an order of a magnitude (Simpson et al. 2012 (13).


Additionally, the MWP citizen science classifications have been used as training sets for learning procedure as suggested by Beaumont et al. 2014 (14).


Demonstrating the serendipitous nature of citizen science efforts, volunteers went beyond their assigned role  and started tagging and discussing, using the MWP ‘Talk’ interface, compact yellow objects (“yellowballs”) in the GLIMPSE/MIPSGAL images soon  after the MWP was opened to the public.


Colour Images:


Colour and compact appearance in the GLIMPSE/MIPSGAL images were  used to depict wavelengths of emissions such as blue for 4.5 µm green for 8 µm and  red to indicate 24 µm and other representative colour scheme.


All in, a total of 928 yellowballs were identified by MWP participants. Most yellow balls appear in three types of environments, namely as isolated objects in filamentary infrared dark clouds (RDCs), along with bright 24 µm point sources that are typically associated with embedded massive proto-stars  (Rathborne et al. 2010 (15); Battersby et al. 2014 (15) which are  clustered at the intersection of bipolar bubbles that have been related with outflows from massive proto-cluster.


These are often perpendicular to filamentary IRDCs; and in bubble hierarchies, frequently along the rims of large bubbles, numerous of which have been connected with known H II regions.


The researchers then used the spatial distribution of yellowballs and cross-matched them with existing


MWP images viewed by volunteers: 


The catalogues of star-formation tracers, and mid- and far-infrared photometry mentioned in C. R. Kerton at al paper showed  that the yellowballs identified in the MWP are a collection of objects tracing a compact, dense phase of massive (O- and B-type) star formation. They mentioned this included a mix of compact and ultra-compact H II regions as well as analogous regions for less massive B stars.


They then examined the origin of the striking mid-infrared appearance of yellowballs and discussed  how they fitted into our current picture of massive star formation.


They then discussed their findings on the association of Yellowballs with Red MSX Sources, the method (photometry) used in the survey, the findings and results in sections


Briefly, what they then showed was the distribution of yellowballs in star forming regions by giving  their  Galactic longitude and latitude along with the distribution of MWP bubbles, and young Red MSX Source (RMS) objects, which have been presented as tracers of Galactic star formation activity (Kendrew et al. 2012 (17); Simpson et al. 2012 (18); Lumsden et al. 2013 (19); Urquhart et al. 2014 (20).


The authors C. R. Kerton and his collaborators then constructed a histogram by dividing the entire range of values into a series of interval and then counted out how many values fall into each interval.
They took the largest bin values and apply offsets so that comparison could be made


Discovery:


What they found was  the yellowball distributions have many similarities with the  Milky Way Project whereby the bubbles  and  radio millimeter submillimeter wavelength (RMS)  object distributions have mean  distribution in Galactic latitude that is slightly below the Galactic mid-plane


In other words, the Galactic longitude and latitude distribution of yellowballs supports the RMS findings in that sources where yellowballs are found is associated with where Galactic star formation is found.


They also looked at the association of Yellowballs with Dense Clumps/Cores
What they did was to use the Virtual Astronomical Observatory (VAO) application topcat (Taylor 2005 (21) to cross-match the list of yellowball positions with the ATLASGAL catalog of compact 870 µm sources


What they found was  that 245 (49%) of the 502 yellow balls were found within the  Bolocam Galactic Plane Survey (BGPS) which is a 1.1mm continuum survey of 170 square degrees of the galactic plane visible from the northern hemisphere.


The   APEX Telescope Large Area Survey of the Galaxy (ATLASGAL) survey encompasses the entire MWP region, and, using the same match distance, the researchers found 524 (56%) of the 928 yellowballs matched with an ATLASGAL compact source. They then listed their comparison in a BGPS and ATLASGAL catalog for identification



They concluded that any contamination from random associations was minimal, and the proximity of yellowballs to regions of dense molecular gas is again consistent with what  would be expected for a population of objects associated with star formation activity.


 They also looked at the association of Yellow balls with H II Regions by performing  a similar analysis to cross-match the yellowball positions with the  Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE)  catalog (Anderson et al. 2014 (22).



They found that 599 (65%) yellowballs have matches with the ATLASGAL, BGPS, WISE-H II region, and RMS catalogs, indicates that the majority of these objects are unambiguously associated with dense molecular clumps and other signposts of star formation.


No yellow balls were associated with any of the evolved star categories in the RMS


Results and Discussion: 


In their discussion the authors concluded that the distinct mid-infrared appearance of the yellowballs in the GLIMPSE/MIPSGAL images used in the MWP is not chiefly due to the rough equivalence of the 8 µm and 24 µm fluxes as mentioned in Section 3 of their paper as this was anticipated for all H II regions, but came about because the emission is spatially coincident. This spatial chance they feel is expected in the early stages of the evolution of H II regions/PDRs.



Simulations predict that large PDRs will form around any initial dust-filled ionized region, and that the maximum size of the PDR, and the time at which the maximum size is obtained, are both relatively insensitive to stellar luminosity (Roger & Dewdney 1992 (23).


They also felt that as the ionized region evolves it is expected to catch-up to the photo-dissociation front resulting in a thin, shocked H I region/PDR surrounding the H II region.


Much of the dust will then be removed from the central portion of the H II region via the action of radiation pressure and stellar winds (Draine 2011 (24), and PAHs will be destroyed within the ionized gas (Giard et al. 1994 (25).


This leads to a clear spatial separation between the F8 emitting region (PAH-rich, PDR) shown as green in the MWP images, and the F24 emitting region (depleted interior hot dust, perhaps resupplied by the erosion of denser clumps in the region (Everett & Churchwell 2010 (26) shown as red in the MWP images in their conclusion.


See my other article on the number of stars in the Universe vs. the amount of sands on Earth here:

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/search?q=sand 

References:


1. http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/images/3341-ssc2008-11a2-GLIMPSE-MIPSGAL-Milky-Way-

2.  C. R. Kerton, G. Wolf-Chase, K. Arvidsson, C. J. Lintott, R. J. Simpson. The Milky Way Project: What are Yellowballs? arXiv.org > astro-ph > arXiv:1502.01388v1

3. Lintott, C. J., Schawinski, K., Slosar, A., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 1179

4. Smith, A. M., Lynn, S., Sullivan, M., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1309

5. Fortson, L., Masters, K., Nichol, R., et al. 2012, in Advances in Machine Learning and Data Mining
for Astronomy, ed. M. J. Way, J. D. Scargle, K. M. Ali, & A. N. Srivastava (CRC Press,
Taylor Francis Group) 213

6. Benjamin, R. A., Churchwell, E., Babler, B. L., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 953

7. Mizuno, D. R., Carey, S. J., Noriega-Crespo, A., et al. 2008, PASP, 120, 1028

8. Churchwell, E., Babler, B. L., Meade, M. R., et al. 2009, PASP, 121, 213

9. Carey, S. J., Noriega-Crespo, A., Mizuno, D. R., et al. 2009, PASP, 121, 76

10. Watson, C., Corn, T., Churchwell, E. B., et al. 2009, ApJ, 694, 546

11. Churchwell, E., Povich, M. S., Allen, D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 649, 759

12. Churchwell, E., Watson, D. F., Povich, M. S., et al. 2007, ApJ, 670, 428

13. Simpson, R. J., Povich, M. S., Kendrew, S., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2442

14. Beaumont, C. N., Goodman, A. A., Kendrew, S., Williams, J. P., & Simpson, R. 2014, ApJS, 214, 3

15. Rathborne, J. M., Jackson, J. M., Chambers, E. T., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, 310

16. Battersby, C., Ginsburg, A., Bally, J., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, 113

17. Kendrew, S., Simpson, R., Bressert, E., et al. 2012, ApJ, 755, 71

18. Simpson, R. J., Povich, M. S., Kendrew, S., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 424, 2442

19. Lumsden, S. L., Hoare, M. G., Urquhart, J. S., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208 11

20. Urquhart, J. S., Figura, C. C., Moore, T. J. T., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 1791

21. Taylor, M. B. 2005, in ASP Conf. Ser. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. P. Shopbell, M. Britton, Csen& R. Ebert (San Francisco, CA: ASP) 29

22. Anderson, L. D., Bania, T. M., Balser, D. S., et al. 2014, ApJS, 212, 1

23. Roger, R. S. & Dewdney, P. E. 1992, ApJ, 385, 536

24. Draine, B. T. 2011, ApJ, 732, 100

25. Giard, M., Bernard, J. P., Lacombe, F., Normand, P., & Rouan, D. 1994, A&A, 291, 239

26. Everett, J. E. & Churchwell, E. 2010, ApJ, 713, 592

The Stars of Heavens vs. Sands on Earth

By:

lim ju boo

C Ed Cert Evolution (June, 2019)

University of Cambridge

C Ed Cert Astronomy (December, 2019)

University of Oxford

How much sand is there on Earth compared to stars in heavens?

This is an eternally perplexing and very difficult question confronting astronomers, scientists, and theologians

This is challenging to this writer who nevertheless shall attempt to answer with God's guidance 

God Revelation to Abraham:

When the angel of the Lord called upon Abraham, he said:

“That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies” (Genesis 22:17)

Now let’s figure out how amazingly accurate and true was that verse  written in the Bible thousands of years ago

In order to verify the truth of this verse, let's check it out much sand are there in the seashores compared to the myriads of stars in heaven

According to several rough estimates there are about 7.5 x 10^18 grains of sand, or seven quintillion, five hundred quadrillion grain in all the beaches and deserts in the world (1)

.

Others put the estimate as 5.6x10^21 grain (2).

Sand, Sand, Sand Everywhere:

However most of the estimates are confined to sands found on seashores and deserts

This writer feels there are actually far more sands on Earth than on seashores  and deserts They are spread out over the surface of Earth not just on beaches and in the deserts.

They are also found on ocean floors and sea beds, in open fields and rivers and in forests...etc.

Let us be very generous about these figures because we are going to match as many of them as possible against the numbers of stars in heavens.

Suppose we assume the layer of sand from all the beaches, sea and ocean beds, to all the deserts on Earth, down to the plains from the mountains, to the agricultural lands and wastelands,  to the roadsides and beyond to wherever sands are found, no matter how little, but collectively over huge area everywhere, including deep in the soil mixed with mud and clay, and just by the road side or outside the driveway outside every house...etc., etc., were to be spread out evenly over the surface of Earth to a very generous layer between 0.5 – 0.8 metres in depth, then the volume of the sand-covered layer will be the volume of Earth minus the volume of Earth below the sandy layers where the rock-beds are.

Layers Over Earth:

These layers probably contain much more sands collectively, and in various sizes over a much larger surface area and volume than all the sands on all the beaches and deserts.

Let us assume we spread out all the sands to cover the Earth's surface area including the ocean and sea beds and over the mountains and plains up to between  a layer between 0.5 m - 0.8 m deep and determine  their volume and numbers.

Let's do our own calculations instead using first principles to revise all other previous calculations done by others.

In order to do that, we need to know the radius of Earth.

The radius of Earth varies between 6,378 km (6,378,000 metres) at the equator to 6,357 km (6,357,000 metres) at a pole. This means its average radius is 6,367,500 km.

However, when only one radius is acceptable, the preferred value according to the International Astronomical Union (IAU), is the equatorial radius defined as 6,378,000 metres  (3).

Let’s take that accepted officially-recognized value for the radius of Earth

Let us now assume  we spread all the sand covering the Earth's surface area including the ocean and sea beds and over the mountains and plain over the surface of Earth up to a thickness  between 0.5 m - 0.8 m deep. 

The Surface Area (A) of Earth 

This is given by:

A = 4πr^2, where r is the equatorial radius of Earth at  6,378,000 metres 

= 5.112 x 10^14 sq. m

Volume of Earth:

Let us now consider the volume of Earth and the volume of sand over the surface of Earth.

The volume (V1) of the Earth defined by this radius would be V1 = 4/3 πr^3 = 1.086781293 x 10^21 cubic metres.

The radius of Earth defined by the layer below sand 0.5 m thick on the surface would be:

 6377999.5 metres.

Its volume (V2) would be 4/3 π x 6377999.5^3 =

1.086781037 x 10^21 cubic metres.

Volume of Sand: 

Hence volume of sand around the Earth 0.5 m deep = Volume of Earth (V1) - Volume of Earth to rock bed (V2) = 2.56 x 10 ^14 cubic metres.

Volume of Earth less 0.8 m =

1.086780884 x 10^21 cubic metre

Hence volume of sand around the Earth 0.8 m deep = Volume of Earth (V1) - Volume of Earth to rock bed (V3) = 4.09 x 10 ^14 cubic metres

Sizes of Sand:

The sizes of sand varies greatly from place to place, from coarse to very fine grains. However, if we take tens of hundreds of random samplings from different locations and depths and average their size to represent a statistical population of sands around the world, this may work out to be about 0.00947mm3 (9.47^-12 cubic metre).

Hence the quantity of sand 0.5 m deep = 2.56 x 10 ^14 cubic metres / 9.47^-12 cubic metre = 2.7 x 10^25 grains  (27 followed by 24 zeros) or 27 quadrillion (UK) or 27 septillion (US)

For 0.8 m deep, the amount of sand = 4.09 x 10 ^14 cubic metres / 9.47^-12 cubic metre = 4.3 x 10^25 grains (43 followed by 24 zeros) or 43 quadrillion (UK) or 43 septillion (US)

Number of Stars in Heavens (Universe):

Now let us look at the stars. When God brought Abraham outside his tent and said, “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them” (Genesis 15:5).

 I believe Abraham was only to count a maximum of between 5,000 - 5,500 stars in the very dark, clear and light pollution-free nights over the wilderness and wide expense over  the deserts even thousands of years ago  since the faintest naked-eye stars visible on the darkest night have an apparent magnitudes of about + 6.5. which is the limit of human visual acuity without the aid of a telescope or a pair of binoculars

Never would Abraham have thought the number of stars in heaven were far, far, far more than he could have counted or believed, let alone number of sands on a seashore

Let’s have a look what modern astronomers with their tens of hundreds of powerful land-based and space telescopes have revealed 

For instance,  in our own Milky Way Galaxy itself there were an estimated of between 100 - 400 billion stars (4), (5) and more than 100 billion planets (6), (7). One billion is 10^9

There are at least 2 trillion (2 x 10^12) galaxies in the observable universe (8), (9).

 Assuming the universe is isotropic, the distance to the edge of the observable universe is roughly the same in every direction. That is, the observable universe has a spherical volume (a ball) centered on the observer (10).

These galaxies are numbered in many galaxies being grouped together into clusters, mega-clusters and super clusters. Their numbers are almost uncountable.

There may be much, much more since we can only observe up to radius of 13.7 billion light years up to the limit of an Observable Universe defined by the Hubble Radius.

There may be much, much more beyond this observable radius where light from galaxies beyond has not sufficient time to reach us

Let us safely assume there may be as much as 3 trillion (3 x 10^12) galaxies all in, each harboring no less than 100 billion (10^11) other planets.

Let’s leave all the extra-solar and stellar planets out, and assume we have at least 3 trillion (3 x 10^12) galaxies within an Observable Universe, each galaxy consisting of a minimum of 400 billion (4 x 10^13 stars) which is 1.2 X 10^24 stars

There are many more larger and super galaxies than our own Milky Way Galaxy, and many of them may be 10 times larger as clusters with at least 40,000 billion stars each, the exact numbers we are unsure.

But let us be conservative to the limits of our telescopes up to the edge of the Universe

This means there may be as many as 1.2 x 10^26 stars within the Observable Radius of 13.7 billion light years of this Universe.

Some older estimates put the numbers as 10^21, but we think there are far more than that  when we have better and better and more powerful  space-orbiting telescopes in place constantly surveying the heavens 

How that work out when we have quadrillions and septillions of  grains of sand on Earth to challenge? How does that match, Earth against Heavens? 

We have calculated that  if the Earth's surface is covered with 0.5 m of sand evenly all over, then there are  2.7 x 10^25 grains

This works out that heaven (Universe) has 4.4 times more stars than there are sands on Earth covering the entire surface of Earth 0.5 m thick.

If we add more sands at 4.3 x 10^25 grains to cover up Earth up to 0.8 m,  this works out to be 1.2 X 10^26 / 4.3 x 10^25 = 2.8 times more stars in heaven than in all the sands on the seashores and deserts and elsewhere covering up Earth till 0.8 metres deep.

Lowering Down the Estimates:

Even if we accept a lower value of 2 trillion (2 x 10^12) galaxies in the observable universe (8), (9), and if we assume each would contain an average of 250 billion stars, this would work out as 5 x 10^23 stars in heaven.

We now confine to the number of grains of sand only to the seashores of the world estimated at 7.5 x 10^18 (seven quintillion, five hundred quadrillion)  (1), this will mean the number of stars out number all the sands in all the seashores of the world by 66,666 times which is an awful lot

Hence whichever way we look at it,  the total amount of stars within the Observable Universe will still greatly overwhelm all the  sands found in this the world.

The Revelation of the God of Moses and Abraham:

When God told Abraham to look up at the sky, it was  about the number of stars in heaven first,  before comparing them with the sands of the seashores as second, as given in the later part of the verse (Genesis 22:17)

This is such an amazing revelation both to Abraham who never knew anything about this thousands of years ago, and even to us as scientists and astronomers in this modern era.

Truly, truly this is awesomely amazing even to me.

God's Scientific Truth is truly amazing!

Glory to God to the Highest to the Ends of His Awesome Creation

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.

His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. (Psalm 19 :1 - 6)

In Gratitude to God to the Highest: 

I pen this article in gratitude to God who has finally led me to the Promised Land of Learning after 40 years wandering in bewilderment and ignorance in Creation. I give my immense tribute to Him as our Creator, in Christ Jesus 


I also thank the Lord for guiding me through this challenging  course in Exploring The Universe till smooth completion without whose steering hands I would not have understood His awe-stunning creation of heaven and earth whose handiwork is far beyond the best human mind to comprehend .


Without His unfailing guiding hands I would never be able to understand

Glory to Him to the highest

(Read my other article on the discovery of yellow balls in the Milky Way Galaxy here):

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/search?q=yellow

Thank you 

References:

1. https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/09/17/161096233/which-is-greater-the-number-of-sand-grains-on-earth-or-stars-in-the-sky

2.  https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/math/how-many-grains-of-sand-are-on-earth-s-beaches?page=all

3. Mamajek, E. E; Prsa, A; Torres, G; et al. (2015). "IAU 2015 Resolution B3 on Recommended Nominal Conversion Constants for Selected Solar and Planetary Properties". arXiv:1510.07674 [astro-ph.SR].

4 "Milky Way". BBC. Archived from the original on March 2, 2012.

5  "How Many Stars in the Milky Way?". NASA Blueshift. Archived from the original on January 25, 2016.

6. Cassan, A.; et al. (January 11, 2012). "One or more bound planets per Milky Way star from microlensing observations". Nature. 481 (7380): 167–169. arXiv:1202.0903. Bibcode:2012Natur.481..167C. doi:10.1038/nature10684. PMID 22237108.

7.  Staff (January 2, 2013). "100 Billion Alien Planets Fill Our Milky Way Galaxy: Study". Space.com. Archived from the original on January 3, 2013. Retrieved January 3, 2013.

8. Conselice, Christopher J.; et al. (2016). "The Evolution of Galaxy Number Density at z < 8 and Its Implications". The Astrophysical Journal. 830 (2): 83. arXiv:1607.03909v2. 

Bibcode:2016ApJ...830...83C. doi:10.3847/0004-637X/830/2/83.

9. Fountain, Henry (17 October 2016). "Two Trillion Galaxies, at the Very Least". New York Times. Retrieved 17 October 2016.

10.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

The Goldilocks Zone of Habitable Planets

TITLE OF FORUM DISCUSSION: THE CIRCUM-STELLAR HABITABLE ZONE:

by

lim ju boo

Student in Astronomy

University of Oxford


CEd Cert (Evolution / Mystery of  Life) May, 2019
University of Cambridge 

The Goldilocks Zone is a zone from a star where water could exist on the surface of an Earth-like planet outside our Solar System, and where the existence of life maybe possible?

Calculations on the Goldilocks Zone:

Given the relative sizes of the Habitable Zones around stars which are relatively 0.25, 0.5, 5 and 10 times the luminosity of the Sun

Applying the equations for the given luminosity of the Sun

R _i = √ (L _star / 1.1)

R ₀ = √ (L _star / 0.53)

R _i = the inner boundary of the habitable zone in astronomical units (AU)

R _o = the outer boundary of the habitable zone in astronomical units (AU)

L star is the absolute luminosity of the star

1.1 is a constant value representing stellar flux at the inner radius (Kasting et al., 1993), (Whitmire et al., 1996)

0.53 is a constant value representing stellar flux at the outer radius (Kasting et al., 1993), (Whitmire et al., 1996)


Examples of Habitable Radius around a star:

0.25 x the luminosity of the Sun, it would 0.47 AU (inner radius), and 0.68 AU (outer radius)

0.5 x the luminosity of the Sun, it would 0.67 AU (inner radius), and 0.97 AU (outer radius)

5.0 x the luminosity of the Sun, it would be 2.13 AU (inner radius) and 0.3.0 AU (outer radius)

10 x the luminosity of the Sun, it would be 3.0 AU (inner radius) and 4.34 AU (outer radius)

AU = Astronomical Unit is Earth-Sun distance

 = 1.495 978 707×1011 metres, or about 150 million kilometres (93 million miles).

However in my personal thinking this may just be a theoretical mathematical-physical concept, because for life to be possible in another planet it is not just the physical Earth-like environment like heat, light and water that are just right, but I think we also need to consider the presence of complex organic compounds in their correct constituents and configurations to start jump life.

Not just the presence of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen to form amino-acids and other organic compounds as in Miller and Harold Urey experiment, but much more complex than that, which is the ability for organic molecules to form DNA which is still not life, but merely the chemical foot-prints of life.

What I strongly believe than just the synthesis of nucleic acids and DNA, is the presence of “the spark of life” (whatever that is residing inside a living body) to “ignite” these chemical substances into life itself in order for any exoplanet or even planets in our own Solar System (other than our own Earth) to give rise to life itself, and continue to support it as on Earth.

Although I don’t mean to show disrespect to these mathematical formulas given by researchers and astronomers, I am only expressing the freedom of my own (scientific) thinking that the Goldilocks Zone is only a zone that may mimic Earth-like physical environments on an (exo)planet such as the presence of water if it is not too near or too far away from a parent star, but does not mean there are life there on these extra-solar planets

I hope I will not be penalized as a student for my independent thinking

Thank you.

References: 

1. Kasting, James; Whitmire, Daniel; and Reynolds, Ray (1993). Habitable zones around main sequence stars. Icarus 101: 108 - 128

2. Kasting, James F. (1996). Habitable zones around stars: An update. In: Doyle, Laurence (ed.). Circumstellar Habitable Zones, 117 - 142. Travis House Publications, Menio Park