Aleš 

I did the reading on this and my question is sceptical-rhetorical rather than inquisitive.  I take careful note that we have not actually observed this cosmic phenomenon and that it is a hypothesis rather than a reality.

The universe is populated by more hypotheses than physical objects, wonderful!

It's very simple, Barry.

"Boson stars are descendants of the so-called geons of Wheeler, except that they are built from scalar particles instead of electromagnetic fields.  If scalar fields exist in nature, such localized configurations kept together by their self-generated gravitational field can form within Einstein’s general relativity.  In the case of complex scalar fields, an absolutely stable branch of such non-topological solitons with conserved particle number exists.

"Our present surge stems from the speculative possibility that these compact objects could provide a considerable fraction of the non-baryonic part of dark matter. In any case, they may serve as a convenient “laboratory” for studying numerically rapidly rotating bodies in general relativity and the generation of gravitational waves."

https://cds.cern.ch/record/343300/files/9801063.pdf

From the site address, I expect much of this has come out of data from the Hadron Collider, and is clearly part of modern efforts to identify and quantify gravitational fields, and try to understand the real nature of dark matter.  Fascinating, if you have the time to try and understand the multidimensional nature of the universe as physicists now see it.  But this all appears to be dependent on whether or not one more hypothesised 'field' actually exists.

I'm still waiting for firm confirmation that time travel is possible, at least at the sub-atomic level.  And for advice on the practical applications to which this can be put. 

Thank you very much Dr.Turner for invitation, but this topic is out of my domain, hope you full success in your academic life.

Emad

Aleš 

I did the reading on this and my question is sceptical-rhetorical rather than inquisitive.  I take careful note that we have not actually observed this cosmic phenomenon and that it is a hypothesis rather than a reality.

The universe is populated by more hypotheses than physical objects, wonderful!

I did some research on this Boson star question; horribly afraid that there is some evidence out there that Bosons can exist independently of matter - that being the “particulate” aspect of EM or any Energy transfer wave.  A conglomeration of those particles would count as a Boson Star.  The five answers before me seem to agree with some of my conclusions, but I am not sure the arguments they used for those conclusions match or contest mine.

There is no evidence for a “Boson” star.  We can certainly not produce a Planck||Quantum level vacuum here on Earth, so it is unreasonable to say that it exists in Space.  An ideal Boson Star would be the “Cosmic Egg||CE” that hatched into a Big Bang||BB – though we have no observational evidence of that Egg, it remains a very theoretical postulate.

There are three very straightforward arguments against a Boson Star: the only way it could form would be if the escape velocity exceeded light speed[c].  I have published a paper called A Relativistic Escape Velocity Maximum of Light Speed at:

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=68063

It argues that Relativistic effects would slow the gravitons in Stellar bodies and that would never happen.  Very directly it reasons (from Einstein's General Relativity theory) that while “pure” energy could not escape because the Relativistic distortions would slow ALL Bosons.  But the star would not be able to keep matter contained because that matter could eventually acquire enough energy to escape.  Any atomic particles would decay into hydrogen (or at least lower Atom Number Elements) because of the slowdown of Gluons and the continual absorption of energy carried by Higher energy particles.  The lower the atomic number of the atoms, the faster they go at any given temperature.

The final arguments against a Boson star are from my point above – we have never produced a Planck level vacuum, so we can’t say absolutely that “Bosons” even exist in a pure energy state.  Our entire Local Universe is filled with hydrogen at close to a vacuum state, but not a Planck||Quantum one.  There are three pieces of evidence for this, though two of them disagree with present day theory.  The first one (that does jibe with current theory) is the continual formation of new stellar objects in varying sizes and scales.  We do not watch them form, but we do see various stages of stellar evolution all around us.  Those objects would not form if there were a Planck level vacuum.  The other two arguments are detailed in my paper Frequency Decay through Electromagnetic Radiation Absorption and Re-Emission by Inter-Galactic Dark Matter as an Alternate Explanation for the Hubble Constant at:

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=67680

Establishment thought is that the Hubble Constant comes about because of an expanding Universe.  But the question of how that Universe de-expanded to form a beginning CE is never answered.  An alternate explanation would be the red shift that comes about whenever an EM signal passes through any medium at all – that’s why the Sun is so red as nighttime approaches.  If there is a medium, there isn’t anywhere in the medium that could be pure Bosons.

The third and final argument is the absolute evidence that there is Hydrogen throughout our reality: the CMB.  Establishment theory is that it is the 2.725 degree Kelvin hydrogen signal that is a leftover from the BB.  An alternate explanation would be that 2.725K is the temperature of the very disperse level of Hydrogen throughout our reality.  That would jibe with the fact that the CMB is not the smooth curtain of EM that it is simplistically sold to be.  There is some variation, though it is minimal.  That doesn’t jibe with the smooth event the BB was supposed to be.  There are some that argue that too.  The BB is still a very contested theory, even by those that support the concept, leaving aside those that challenge its existence at all.

Sorry for my strait answer... it's nothing but a not acceptable low level idea ! The end of a star is either a supernova (the Chandrasekhar limit), or, when exceeding the Chandrasekhar limit many times and finally exceeding the next limit (lets call it the Barkholz limit) to become a variable star.  There is no such thing as a Black Hole... I am still working with the presentation of a corrected Newtonian theory of gravity that connects exact with the basic theory of the hydrogen atom as delivered by Niels Bohr...

Elementary fermions are elementary modules because they constitute all other modules and modular systems inclusive stars and intelligent species. In this sense, elementary bosons are not elementary modules. Modularization does not work for bosons. So, why would boson stars exist?

Elementary fermions are generated by stochastic processes, which own a characteristic function. Modules are also generated by stochastic processes, which own a characteristic function. The characteristic function acts as a displacement generator. So, at first approximation, the modules move as a single unit. The characteristic function of a composed module equals the superposition of the characteristic functions of its components. Thus the characteristic function binds the components into the module. The characteristic function equals the Fourier transform of the location density distribution of the hop landing location swarm of the generated module. Thus the binding can be classified as spectral binding.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_Project