Talk:Dark-energy star

message: :merge into dark star''
This discussion is at talk:Dark star#Dark-energy star
:Due to a page move, this is now at Talk:Dark star (Newtonian mechanics)#Dark-energy star. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Dark star]]

message: Does anyone other than Dr. Chapeline use this term? --Wtshymanski 05:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; in public/publications, don't know. - RoyBoy 800 06:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: No, I don't think so, as the speculation is that emission of dark energy would be from the same event horizon, did I get this right? 'Grey hole' might be appropriate?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.252.184 (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Currency of the term

message: 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.
=== From PNA/Physics ===
* Dark energy star - Needs to be overhauled by a physicist familiar with the models involved. As-is, several points in the description are inaccurate (noted in the article's talk page). The model has been published in reputable journals, if I'm remembering which one this is correctly. Still fringe science, for now. --Christopher Thomas 01:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Points needing fine-tuning

message: * Dark energy star - Needs to be overhauled by a physicist familiar with the models involved. As-is, several points in the description are inaccurate (noted in the article's talk page). The model has been published in reputable journals, if I'm remembering which one this is correctly. Still fringe science, for now. --Christopher Thomas 01:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  From PNA/Physics 

message: Points that I find odd in the current write-up:
* The description of how GR treats black holes isn't quite accurate. Infalling objects appear stationary only to distant observers, and this effect is definitely only an appearance. What actually happens depends on how you choose to measure time in the vicinity of the hole, but the infalling object measures itself to have passed through the horizon very shortly after starting to fall, and any form of measurement the distant observer could try would fail to interact with the infalling object despite an image of it being present (you can't bounce a radar pulse off the image, for instance; it's just an image formed by light that took a long time to escape from the point where it was emitted).
* The description of an object "bouncing" after passing through the horizon seems odd, as if there's actually a horizon, it implies a causal disconnection between the regions outside and inside. If I recall correctly, the papers about this type of object described the resulting structure as having a region of very high density outside of where the horizon would be, but no event horizon. However, I'd be more comfortable if an astrophysicist could read the publications and adjust the write-up accordingly (I'm not one).
* More detail on the "stranger effects" due to quantum fluctuations is needed. Most people know about Hawking radiation, but it should be mentioned. I also recall mentions of a fuzziness in the exact location of the event horizon, and of certain situations causing infalling objects to encounter large amounts of matter produced by interactions between the black hole and virtual particles (I'd want to look these up again before claiming they accurately represent mainstream views, though).
** Clarification - I recall references to encountering large amounts of matter _inside_ the horizon, in the vicinity of the Cauchy horizon (as distinct from plowing through Hawking radiation of great intensity when you approach the event horizon from the outside). --Christopher Thomas 06:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to talk page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revised introduction 

message: 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)
replies: text: Having said that a read a bit deeper it the article is rather similar to a gravastar as descibed in its article. Can someone please clarify the differences between the theories please. --LiamE 10:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New dark energy star theory

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
*This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
*If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
*You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
*This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
*This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with THE FOOTNOTE. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add .[?]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 20:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review javascript

message: 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.
:When the very first stars lit up, they may have been fueled by the dark matter that has long eluded scientists. These "dark stars," first born nearly 13 billion years ago, might still exist today. Although they would not shed any visible light, astronomers might detect these invisible giants — some 400 to 200,000 times wider than our sun and 500 to 1,000 times more massive — because they should spew gamma rays, neutrinos and antimatter and be linked with clouds of cold, molecular hydrogen gas that normally would not harbor such energetic particles.
:...Among the main candidates for what dark matter is are WIMPs, or weakly interacting massive particles. One type of WIMP that scientists theorize exists is called a neutralino. These particle can annihilate each other, generating heat. They would also produce quarks and their antimatter counterparts, antiquarks, which would collide to emit gamma rays, neutrinos and antimatter such as positrons and antiprotons.
:The researchers calculated that in the newborn universe, some 80 to 100 million years after the Big Bang, as proto-stellar clouds of hydrogen and helium tried to cool and shrink, annihilating neutralinos would have kept them hot and large. The result might be dark stars, fueled by dark matter instead of nuclear energy as in normal stars. These would have been made up largely of normal matter, mostly in the form of hydrogen and helium, but would be vastly larger and fluffier than the sun and current stars. "It's a completely new type of star with a new power source," said researcher Katherine Freese, a theoretical physicist at the University of Michigan.
:http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/091221-mm-dark-stars.html
In summary:
Current situation: Two articles, and one type of star is simply missing 
* [Dark-energy_star] - deals with the hypothesis that quantum mechanics dictates that black holes do not exist and are instead dark energy stars. The dark energy star is a different concept than that of a gravastar.
* [Dark star] - a theoretical object compatible with Newtonian mechanics that, due to its large mass, has a surface escape velocity that equals or exceeds the speed of light.
* no current article - Neutralino powered super stars created in the early universe.
Proposed renaming
* [Dark-energy_star] - No change - deals with the hypothesis that quantum mechanics dictates that black holes do not exist and are instead dark energy stars. The dark energy star is a different concept than that of a gravastar.
* [Dark star] - Replace all the content!  - Neutralino powered super stars created in the early universe.
* Newtonian black holes or Classical black holes - a theoretical object compatible with Newtonian mechanics that, due to its large mass, has a surface escape velocity that equals or exceeds the speed of light.
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)
replies: text: Did you forget dark matter star for some reason? We already have an article for that concept. Replacing all the content of the dark star article would also be vandalism. 76.66.194.32 (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Due to a page move, the thread is now at Talk:Dark star (Newtonian mechanics)#Uh Oh, New astronomical use for the term Dark Star. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh Oh, New astronomical use for the term Dark Star 

message: 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 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)
replies: text: What might be a useful way to deal with such articles is to redirect them to an omnibus page for alternative or fringe theories of their type, and then have a few words on that page summarizing the idea in question. (I previously did this for a "Planck matter" page, which I redirected to Induced gravity. The phrase "Planck matter" is the invention of one physicist and it has no currency within the field.) Incidentally, I'm not proposing that these omnibus pages would attempt to be comprehensive lists of every alternative theory out there - it's just a way to deal with those theories that do get onto Wikipedia and aren't so obviously crackpot as to warrant immediate deletion. Chapline's theory, for example, made it into New Scientist, so I suppose people deserve to know something about it. But apart from the summary which the page currently provides, they also deserve to know that it's totally obscure and the only person writing about it is Chapline himself. (The article currently says "a minority of physicists" are interested in the idea, which is technically true, but we're talking a very small minority.) So the current page would be redirected to something like Alternative theories of stellar evolution (it looks to me like gravastar would belong there too). Mporter (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

text: If the've been published in scientific literature, and have received at least a little press, I don't see the problem with them being in the encyclopedia. We don't have a page limit, after all. My main concerns would be with material that hadn't passed peer review somewhere, hadn't received any press, or was presented as being mainstream when it wasn't. I'm a bit of an inclusionist that way. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almost no-one is interested in this concept 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dark Energy Measurement 

message: Substituted at 12:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040925044354/http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php to http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I suggest that this article should be merged with the article Generic object of dark energy. Jmc76 (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible merge

message: 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)
thread_title:  event horizon telescope