Remix.run Logo
reactordev 3 days ago

If the theory of abnormal galaxy formation hold up, then the Big Bang was spitting out both simultaneously. Maybe there’s a mathematical “tipping point” for mass where the weight of it crushes the atoms? Resulting in early black holes from abnormal matter… not from a collapse but just from mass being in close proximity. There still so much to learn…

gus_massa 3 days ago | parent [-]

> “tipping point” for mass where the weight of it crushes the atoms?

If you have a material of constant density like water, bananas or rocks, then if you have a ball that is big enough you get a neutron star where all the atoms collapsed in a huge-mega-super-nuclei. (I think the surface may have some normal atoms, and the center may be even more strange.) If the ball is even more big enough you get a black hole. If you use a gas like Hydrogen that has no constant density, the calculation is similar, but more complex.

IANAA, but I expect that the collapse into the black hole does not capture the 100% of the initial mass if the object is a rotating irregular blob, so in this huge cases near the big bang I expect the leftover to form something that looks like a galaxy. And the lack of leftover is what is surprising. (Again, IANAA.)

Except in neutron stars and black holes, atoms are very stable. There are many conservation laws, like the number of leptons (like the electron) and barions (like the proton/neutron) that make it hard to create weird stuff. You can create weird stuff for a very short time, but almost immediately it goes back to normal stuff. As always, there may be some surprise in particle physics, but I don't remember or expect something like this.

IAmBroom 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Except in neutron stars and black holes, atoms are very stable.

Radioactive elements excepted, of course.

And when they get struck by ionizing photons.

So I would rather say: non-radioactive atomic nuclei are stable.

Workaccount2 3 days ago | parent [-]

Radioactive atoms are just unstable atoms shedding energy to until they fall into a stable atom state.

It's not really atoms falling apart into non-atoms.

JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent [-]

To be fair, everything is stable if we restrict ourselves to their stable subsets.

IAmBroom 2 days ago | parent [-]

Exactly. It's like saying baked goods are shelf-stable because they degrade into humus, which is shelf-stable.

reactordev 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Not to quote a 90s New Zealand pop hit but… how bizarre!