RE: Heating up neutron stars with dark matter
I see, thanks for the clarification. All a big mystery to me, a bit like wizards of old wielding magic but you probably won't see it that way although complex mathematics might as well be spellcraft to those who ain't versed in it. I have read the craziest theories, among others one were , as the concept of time starts with the big bang (there is no framework before that) it would be (in theory) possible that half of everything was shot backwards in time from that moment but on all other accounts i have only read that time points forward only under any circumstance. Even once an article on how some supreme genius had succeeded (probably also in theory and math) to somehow propell data/information to the future but that it wouldn't be possible to do the same backwards either, which in essence came down to time travel might be possible but not to the past
... in theory :) 5am i should probably give it a rest , thanks for the reply
This is correct. Strictly speaking, the "before big bang" is undefined. Note that there are as well alternative cosmologies without a big bang.
correct
moving up in the world ... that moji's way too big ,duh. So i assume how the proto-mass (for lack of the professional term) containing all information that's present in today's universe got there will be undefined as well, although probably plenty of theory about it.
Alternate cosmologies without a big bang ? I'm gonna have to look up some than but im guessing big-bang is the most widely adopted or maybe the base to work with although im not sure where those fields cross over as that adresses the macro-cosmos while your fields address the micro (or more like the quantum) cosmos. It's a whole lot to oversee but if i'm not mistaken the behaviour of physics doesnt completely comply at macro/cosmic or micro/quantum levels ?
:p
around here every sentence turns out to morph into a question mark
hmm ....
Thanks :))) -> consensus ... i thought with the matter the gaps in the universe would be filled but then still about 70% is missing ? = lol , we're living in swiss cheese , most interesting, thanks !!!
The current standard model of cosmology is the Lambda-CDM model, wherein the Universe is governed by General Relativity, began with a Big Bang and today is a nearly-flat universe that consists of approximately 5% baryons, 27% cold dark matter, and 68% dark energy.
ssaa .. so while i'm here , and with that i'll leave it for this reply sorry for the extras (here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_galaxy_problem )
Is it ... possible that ahem , the observable universe (being potentially only a microscopic sample of the whole so to speak) is a bit of a statistical anomaly compared to the huge (or maybe infinite?) part we can't observe from down here in the backyard of this single galaxy and that this just makes it look like 90% is missing while this is just a weird pocket (pardon the lack of technical language i hope i expressed my concern somehow :)
with this i'll move up my reply section, thanks for all the info so far !!
Dwarf galaxy problem
The dwarf galaxy problem, also known as the missing satellites problem, arises from a mismatch between observed dwarf galaxy numbers and numerical cosmological simulations that predict the evolution of the distribution of matter in the universe. In simulations, Dark matter clusters hierarchically, in ever increasing numbers of halo "blobs" as halos' components' sizes become smaller-and-smaller. However, although there seem to be enough observed normal-sized galaxies to match the simulated size distribution, the number of dwarf galaxies is orders of magnitude lower than expected from simulation.