![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This discussion is at talk:Dark star#Dark-energy star
Does anyone other than Dr. Chapeline use this term? -- Wtshymanski 05:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It seems like the article is describing what is commonly called a White Hole MikeMorley 15:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC) The latest Analog Science Fiction Science Fact pulper has an article on it. 67.68.67.165 03:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I've put a link to this article on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Physics, to reflect the "needs attention" template on the article itself. Hopefully this will bring in more editors to contribute.
Points that I find odd in the current write-up:
An excellent start, but could use more fine-tuning.-- Christopher Thomas 01:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Having read both entries and several linked pages, I am still unclear as to the distinction. Are these simply alternative names for a single concept? If so, would it not be advisable to merge the two entries?
"Chapline theorized that a phase transition in the phase of space occurs at the event horizon"- whats a phase of space (or am I reading this incorrectly)? "As there is no singularity to evaporate, Hawking radiation may not exist in this model of black holes." - A singularity is not required for Hawking radiation. All that is needed is a horizon. eg: see http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0106111. However, I'm not sure there is a horizon. My understanding is that collapse of matter halts before the outer surface of the matter falls over the horizon radius (certainly true for a gravastar, I'm now reading to see if a gravastar is a dark star - I'm pretty sure they aren't since they have been invented by different authors). Therefore one would not have Hawking radiation. Don't merge. But the articles need major rebuilding: both are very ambiguous on the differences. Steve Max 16:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
A dark energy star is an alternative explaination to black holes in which instead of entering the star, matter is converted into dark energy. A gravastar however is a different explaination in which matter enters the star but, unlike a black hole, space keeps the matter from collapsing into a singularity. Instead the matter is compressed to a high density in the center of the star. In a black hole matter collapses into a singularity in the center of the black hole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.213.78.130 ( talk • contribs) on 19:13, 24 May 2006.
Hi all, hypothetical speculations for possible compact objects which could avoid invoking the black hole concept which troubles so many (including some astronomers) is a legitimate topic, since this is genuine if controversial topic in the research literature. However, please try to make it clear in the first paragraph when a speculation is regarded as dubious by the majority of physicists, as is the case with gravastars. IOW, please make every attempt to keep discussion of both black holes, neutron stars, and possible other kinds of compact objects as fair and accurate as possible with regard to current scientific status. I don't want to get into Chapline et al. right now (but see recent discussion in sci.physics.research), but I took the time to try to slighly modify the introduction to better suggest the speculative status of gravastars. Even editors who feel that black holes are equally speculative should not suggest that they are not the mainstream explanation for observed black hole candidates (in fact, very few would even be as careful as I am to sometimes refer to black hole candidates rather than simply black holes). --- CH (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
This makes for an excellent read... New Scientist Article. From my reading of that the dark energy star is a completely different beast to the gravastar or dark star which some people seem to equate it with - it should end any confusion. -- LiamE 10:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
<div class="references-small"><references/></div>
.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 20:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion at Talk:Dark star |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
We need to rename and reorganize these articles: there is a third astronomical term, "Dark Star". At the moment, the Dark star article is not well-named - as in physics and astronomy classes the term "dark star" is not commonly used for Newtonian black holes. That article needs to be renamed "Newtonian black holes", or something like that. Then, we should use the title "dark star" for this newly hypothesized category of super-huge star, powered by neutralino interactions.
In summary: Current situation: Two articles, and one type of star is simply missing
Proposed renaming
Let's start discussing this. We now have two articles with similar names, for three types of astronomical objects. This is confusing not only to lay readers, but even to scientists. I have placed these same comments on the Talk:Dark star page. RK ( talk) 16:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
|
This thread is duplicated across two pages. I'm archiving this copy, so that we can centralize discussion at Talk:Dark star#Uh Oh, New astronomical use for the term Dark Star. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 07:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I wish there were some way I could say that in the article, but the comment would be reverted for sure. You can see here [1] just one basic reason why people aren't interested in Chapline's model - it allows faster-than-light effects.
It is a sociological fact about theoretical physics that there are always people pushing ideas which no-one else is interested in and which never amount to anything. I don't just mean amateurs with websites; there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of academic physicists around the world who have a favorite private idea, and who write series of papers across many years developing the idea, and hardly anyone even reads the papers. A significant fraction of the theory papers which appear on the famous arxiv.org site have this quality. They get onto the archive because the author is in academia - and usually that means they have done good or at least competent science at some point in their career. Chapline, for example, worked on superconductors.
Anyway, another sociological development is that sometimes a paper or a concept is lifted out of this obscurity by science journalism. Garrett Lisi's theory of everything was a big example a few years ago, but really, there are several examples each year now. A further twist is that some of these ideas which achieve media success then become popular among the many iconoclastic amateur physicists who are busy on dozens of web forums trying to overthrow relativity, quantum theory, string theory, or whatever. And another minor aspect is that Wikipedia pages get created for some of them.
It is true, of course, that obscure ideas do sometimes get discovered or reinvented many years later. But mostly it never happens. So here is the problem. There are probably many many physics articles on Wikipedia just like this one, namely, they present a speculative concept advanced by just one or two people, and there is nothing to indicate to a lay reader just how obscure and ignored the idea really is. Especially if the advocates of the idea start editing the page themselves! Mporter ( talk) 09:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Unless my basic understanding of the term Dark energy is flawed, no one has been able to measure it. Dark Energy is a theory about unexplained phenomenon in Cosmology, hence "Dark". So the statement, "Dark energy is invisible to the human eye; however, it can be tracked with difficulty by gamma-ray astronomy." seems wrong to me on many levels. I put in a citation needed tag, but I think this statement needs more help than that. Silve Slade ( talk) 18:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dark-energy star/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
The concept of dark energy star is possibly not published in any standard journal.So we need not give importance to it. |
Last edited at 00:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 12:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dark-energy star. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that this article should be merged with the article Generic object of dark energy. Jmc76 ( talk) 18:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
didn't the imaging of the black hole with the event horizon telescope make the likelyhood of the first reference not very likely? the reference literally says "I don't think we'll see a black hole at all in the image next year, they almost certainly don't exist" 50.89.4.155 ( talk) 12:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This discussion is at talk:Dark star#Dark-energy star
Does anyone other than Dr. Chapeline use this term? -- Wtshymanski 05:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It seems like the article is describing what is commonly called a White Hole MikeMorley 15:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC) The latest Analog Science Fiction Science Fact pulper has an article on it. 67.68.67.165 03:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I've put a link to this article on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Physics, to reflect the "needs attention" template on the article itself. Hopefully this will bring in more editors to contribute.
Points that I find odd in the current write-up:
An excellent start, but could use more fine-tuning.-- Christopher Thomas 01:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Having read both entries and several linked pages, I am still unclear as to the distinction. Are these simply alternative names for a single concept? If so, would it not be advisable to merge the two entries?
"Chapline theorized that a phase transition in the phase of space occurs at the event horizon"- whats a phase of space (or am I reading this incorrectly)? "As there is no singularity to evaporate, Hawking radiation may not exist in this model of black holes." - A singularity is not required for Hawking radiation. All that is needed is a horizon. eg: see http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0106111. However, I'm not sure there is a horizon. My understanding is that collapse of matter halts before the outer surface of the matter falls over the horizon radius (certainly true for a gravastar, I'm now reading to see if a gravastar is a dark star - I'm pretty sure they aren't since they have been invented by different authors). Therefore one would not have Hawking radiation. Don't merge. But the articles need major rebuilding: both are very ambiguous on the differences. Steve Max 16:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
A dark energy star is an alternative explaination to black holes in which instead of entering the star, matter is converted into dark energy. A gravastar however is a different explaination in which matter enters the star but, unlike a black hole, space keeps the matter from collapsing into a singularity. Instead the matter is compressed to a high density in the center of the star. In a black hole matter collapses into a singularity in the center of the black hole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.213.78.130 ( talk • contribs) on 19:13, 24 May 2006.
Hi all, hypothetical speculations for possible compact objects which could avoid invoking the black hole concept which troubles so many (including some astronomers) is a legitimate topic, since this is genuine if controversial topic in the research literature. However, please try to make it clear in the first paragraph when a speculation is regarded as dubious by the majority of physicists, as is the case with gravastars. IOW, please make every attempt to keep discussion of both black holes, neutron stars, and possible other kinds of compact objects as fair and accurate as possible with regard to current scientific status. I don't want to get into Chapline et al. right now (but see recent discussion in sci.physics.research), but I took the time to try to slighly modify the introduction to better suggest the speculative status of gravastars. Even editors who feel that black holes are equally speculative should not suggest that they are not the mainstream explanation for observed black hole candidates (in fact, very few would even be as careful as I am to sometimes refer to black hole candidates rather than simply black holes). --- CH (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
This makes for an excellent read... New Scientist Article. From my reading of that the dark energy star is a completely different beast to the gravastar or dark star which some people seem to equate it with - it should end any confusion. -- LiamE 10:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
<div class="references-small"><references/></div>
.
[?]You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 20:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Centralizing discussion at Talk:Dark star |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
We need to rename and reorganize these articles: there is a third astronomical term, "Dark Star". At the moment, the Dark star article is not well-named - as in physics and astronomy classes the term "dark star" is not commonly used for Newtonian black holes. That article needs to be renamed "Newtonian black holes", or something like that. Then, we should use the title "dark star" for this newly hypothesized category of super-huge star, powered by neutralino interactions.
In summary: Current situation: Two articles, and one type of star is simply missing
Proposed renaming
Let's start discussing this. We now have two articles with similar names, for three types of astronomical objects. This is confusing not only to lay readers, but even to scientists. I have placed these same comments on the Talk:Dark star page. RK ( talk) 16:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
|
This thread is duplicated across two pages. I'm archiving this copy, so that we can centralize discussion at Talk:Dark star#Uh Oh, New astronomical use for the term Dark Star. -- Christopher Thomas ( talk) 07:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I wish there were some way I could say that in the article, but the comment would be reverted for sure. You can see here [1] just one basic reason why people aren't interested in Chapline's model - it allows faster-than-light effects.
It is a sociological fact about theoretical physics that there are always people pushing ideas which no-one else is interested in and which never amount to anything. I don't just mean amateurs with websites; there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of academic physicists around the world who have a favorite private idea, and who write series of papers across many years developing the idea, and hardly anyone even reads the papers. A significant fraction of the theory papers which appear on the famous arxiv.org site have this quality. They get onto the archive because the author is in academia - and usually that means they have done good or at least competent science at some point in their career. Chapline, for example, worked on superconductors.
Anyway, another sociological development is that sometimes a paper or a concept is lifted out of this obscurity by science journalism. Garrett Lisi's theory of everything was a big example a few years ago, but really, there are several examples each year now. A further twist is that some of these ideas which achieve media success then become popular among the many iconoclastic amateur physicists who are busy on dozens of web forums trying to overthrow relativity, quantum theory, string theory, or whatever. And another minor aspect is that Wikipedia pages get created for some of them.
It is true, of course, that obscure ideas do sometimes get discovered or reinvented many years later. But mostly it never happens. So here is the problem. There are probably many many physics articles on Wikipedia just like this one, namely, they present a speculative concept advanced by just one or two people, and there is nothing to indicate to a lay reader just how obscure and ignored the idea really is. Especially if the advocates of the idea start editing the page themselves! Mporter ( talk) 09:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Unless my basic understanding of the term Dark energy is flawed, no one has been able to measure it. Dark Energy is a theory about unexplained phenomenon in Cosmology, hence "Dark". So the statement, "Dark energy is invisible to the human eye; however, it can be tracked with difficulty by gamma-ray astronomy." seems wrong to me on many levels. I put in a citation needed tag, but I think this statement needs more help than that. Silve Slade ( talk) 18:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dark-energy star/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
The concept of dark energy star is possibly not published in any standard journal.So we need not give importance to it. |
Last edited at 00:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 12:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dark-energy star. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that this article should be merged with the article Generic object of dark energy. Jmc76 ( talk) 18:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
didn't the imaging of the black hole with the event horizon telescope make the likelyhood of the first reference not very likely? the reference literally says "I don't think we'll see a black hole at all in the image next year, they almost certainly don't exist" 50.89.4.155 ( talk) 12:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)