Reply To: Proliferation?

[MARK LOFTS]

Dear Pluto,

Yes I agree, most of the mass in our galaxy is plasma though most of it is not the tenuous plasma primarily the subject of plasma cosmology. Rather it is a dense plasma, the material of stars, that for the most part is gravitationally confined. Not all matter is plasma however. If positive and negative charges are bound together in atoms – or exchange only in highly ordered circumstances e.g. electrolytic dissociation – these materials are not plasmas by definition.

Your comment on neutrons in the interior or stars is very important. What we call degenerate matter inside stars is difficult to comprehend because of our lack of ability to mimic it in the laboratory. What I would have to take exception to is the Einstein-dependent theorizing – the idea that black holes or other such imaginary beasties lie in stars or elsewhere in the universe. Hence too John Gribbin’s idea of ‘white holes’ the spontaneous Popping-into-existence of matter in a localized area – a reciprocal relativity-based fantasy to make up for black holes. Rather, the high-energy plasma that we see in the universe is condensing from a more tenuous form widely distributed everywhere. What I am asking is that you consider the dynamics of galactic recession coupled to plasma condensing into new stars and galaxies.

What we actually see in telescopes is far more exciting than black hole speculation. Consider the Hubble picture of a Wolf-Rayet star whose surface temperature is about 70,000K! The image of the star’s surface did not reveal a circle i.e. a spherical object but rather a spiral object. This implies massive electromagnetic forces within the star that dominate even its shape! There is much interesting new physics that could be found here – if we could monitor such stars more closely. This is why I support lunar telescopes rather than another floating-in-space telescope.

I also wonder, Pluto, if, judging by your slang, you are a dinki-di Australian like me?

Yours faithfully

Mark