Dark matter and Dark energy

[Dancing David]

I think of late there has been an influx of dark postings, leading to dark energy driving crackpots closer to the forum. We can observe no other postings that could explain it.

That is part of General Woolitivity, the atraction of woo mass is part of the warping of dark woo space time....

 

[Dancing David]

The whole neutrino things is quite fascinating.

We have a massless particle traveling at almost the speed of light, that doesn't interact with matter, except perhaps by the two weakest forces known, and there are a huge amount of them, everywhere, all the time.

Which of course, sounds like dark matter. But they are not considered dark matter because there are not enough of them, and they are really hard to detect, and they change state somehow, turning into other flavors, and it is just about strange.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Solar_neutrinos

Yep we are awash in a sea of neutrinos.

And the weak force is left handed, I think that is just as strange.

The ossicilation of neutrinos is probably not too wierd.

 

[Dancing David]

http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/first_results/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Properties

Neutrinos have mass? Each type has a different mass? So claiming one kind changes into another, isn't that amazing? Where does the mass come from? Where does it go?

Fascinating stuff.

I think that they Go Under the Bed, and aquire it from the Vacum Energy Energy Dust Bunnies but they have to stand in line with all the Virtual Particles to get thier Approved Allotment after they fill out Form 656-JRT :Requisition of Frivolous Mass...

 

[Darth Rotor]

It's conceivable (in principle) that there are some laws of physics which only apply to dark matter and which are not translationally invariant, which would allow dark matter to violate conservation of momentum. But the requirement that those laws be non-translationally-invariant in order to break momentum conservation is absolute. It's a mathematical equivalency, and no self-consistent theory can ever get around it. No ifs, ands, or buts.

So how likely do you think it is that the laws of physics are not translationally invariant? How much consideration and time do you honestly think we need to spend dwelling on that possibility?

I am having trouble grasping this. After one read of the wiki page, I am still in the dark (with the matter ) and will have to try again when I have the time again. Once through with translational symmetry, and translational invariance, I'll ask if there is a simpler explanation, or an analogy that will help out.

At least I understood that we exist in space with dimensions higher than one.

As to the long (thanks robinson) unformatted offering, I will have to look up what a photon is, and try that one again as well. Intriguing set of "if this is true, look what happens!" thought there.

Putting the E into JREF, to include a bit of self E.

DR

 

[Ziggurat]

Once through with translational symmetry, and translational invariance, I'll ask if there is a simpler explanation, or an analogy that will help out.

If you think of what happens to a single individual particle moving through some potential energy landscape, it experiences a force whenever there's a gradient in the potential energy. No gradient, no force, no change in momentum. So the momentum of the particle only changes when the potential energy is different in different locations. The system is not translationally invariant, and so the momentum of the individual particle is not conserved.

But that's just for one particle in a given potential. Potentials don't exist on their own, though: they're caused by other particles, and the interaction is a two-way street. So even though the interaction potential for, say, two particles interacting changes if you move one of the particles, (and hence, that particle's momentum can chane), it makes no difference if you move both of them. That's because the laws of physics are translationally invariant: space is space. So the momentum of the entire system can't change, because there's no net force on it. The only way to introduce a net force on the system without just adding on another system (which in turn creates a larger net system which still has no net force) is to introduce a potential that isn't caused by other particles. But the only way to do that is to make the laws of physics different in different locations.

 

[BeAChooser]

Putting the E into JREF, to include a bit of self E.

As long as E stands for Electricity.

 

[Darth Rotor]

As long as E stands for Electricity.

Or eccentricity.

The only electric universe I am familiar with is the virtual universe powered by electricity, also called the internet. In one galaxy of that univers, far, far away, a cigar smoking, hard drinking, hard living Terran Marshal takes on yet another swarm of the deadly Zerg . . .


@ Zig: thanks for the elaboration. Unless "something" is injecting energy/matter into the universe from outside of it, or is injecting momentum into the system (did I phrase that correctly?) then the momentum is conserved.

By George, I think I've (almost) got it.

DR

 

[DHamilton]

Thanks so much... for editing that.. my first post so.. I overlooked the paragraphing ...my apologies..

Part 1.. It is true that elementary charged particles that are overlapping in the same momentum space... (They have a common de Broglie wavelength that is equal or greater than their interparticle distance... and this is just a fancy way of saying that they are at rest with respect to each other without requiring that they have no relative motion at all but just within the limits of these parameters) must behave opposite to the expectation of Coulomb's Law. One might like to object to this but in reality there exists no data that refutes this and the proper analysis of Maxwell's equations along with known experimental data pretty much wrap this up tight. If you doubt... go ask an expert like say, Ephraim Fischbach at Purdue...

Step 2.. Identifying a gravitational structure as a time-rate gradient structure... is pretty straightforward. Of course, if you've simply been using the word 'gravity' along with its generally null content understanding that most people have then you might not get this. But if you look at my proffered analogy... (the event horizon picture) then it is really pretty straight forward.

Step 3. Given the notion that step one and step two are both true then we cannot but come to the obvious conclusion that a strong gravitational field will produce a strong charge separation effect. No one ever predicted this feature of a gravitational field before...(that I know of).

Step 4. Really..do I have to hold your hand to show you the origin and nature of heavy dark matter then... ? Do I have to lead you by the nose to point out that heavy elements are not born from stellar collision but rather by this HDM gaining sudden access to copious amounts of electrons so that it begins to differentiate into a wide variety of atomic species? Actually, a few years ago when all this occurred to me.. I decided to name this pure neutron proton soup stuff 'Isaacium'... because 'Isaac' in Hebrew means 'laughter of disbelief'... and I was thinking at the time that astrophysicists and cosmologists would surely 'laugh in disbelief if I were to inform them that 'Isaacium' (HDM) forms in rings in the cores of stars and planets...

Surely, you've caught on by now that if 1) is true then the so-called nuclear strong force is a ridiculous fiction... a made up just so story because a whole generation of physicists in the early twentieth century were simply bereft, it seems, of the use of ordinary logic? No point in getting mad at them because they led a couple of generations of physicists astray... I'm sure they were doing the best that they could, that they knew how to do... too bad that it wasn't up to my standards...

Without a nuclear strong force then it seems gluons evaporate back to the fictionware they came from...and quarks get chased back to Finnegan's Wake where they belong... Oh and can we please get the mass resignation of a few thousand PhD University profs who have been slavishly teaching this stuff as if it were true.... I'm sure I'm hoping for too much...;-).

DHamilton

 

[DHamilton]

I'm not reading that unformatted block of text.

Good for you... It wasn't crying out to be read by you, either... It is so wonderful that a lack of effort simply removes the unworthy... but not without a whine... somehow I have to improve my technique so that the removal occurs without a peep of any kind... it is just gone... an unknown vapor... emptiness that came and went... unknown.. can you help out next time and simply say nothing?

 

[arthwollipot]

So many words, so little content...

 

[Belz...]

Good for you... It wasn't crying out to be read by you, either... It is so wonderful that a lack of effort simply removes the unworthy... but not without a whine... somehow I have to improve my technique so that the removal occurs without a peep of any kind... it is just gone... an unknown vapor... emptiness that came and went... unknown.. can you help out next time and simply say nothing?

If you don't accept criticism, don't post.

 

[Belz...]

Step 4. Really..do I have to hold your hand to show you the origin and nature of heavy dark matter then... ? Do I have to lead you by the nose to point out that heavy elements are not born from stellar collision but rather by this HDM gaining sudden access to copious amounts of electrons so that it begins to differentiate into a wide variety of atomic species? Actually, a few years ago when all this occurred to me.. I decided to name this pure neutron proton soup stuff 'Isaacium'... because 'Isaac' in Hebrew means 'laughter of disbelief'... and I was thinking at the time that astrophysicists and cosmologists would surely 'laugh in disbelief if I were to inform them that 'Isaacium' (HDM) forms in rings in the cores of stars and planets...

Surely, you've caught on by now that if 1) is true then the so-called nuclear strong force is a ridiculous fiction...

Tell me, really, how is it that YOU know these things ?

 

[Cuddles]

they are at rest with respect to each other without requiring that they have no relative motion at all

So you think that things can be moving with respect to each other while at rest with respect to each other? That's... interesting.

Step 3. Given the notion that step one and step two are both true

It kind of all falls down there.

No one ever predicted this feature of a gravitational field before...(that I know of).

With good reason.

Step 4. Really..do I have to hold your hand to show you the origin and nature of heavy dark matter then... ? Do I have to lead you by the nose to point out that heavy elements are not born from stellar collision but rather by this HDM gaining sudden access to copious amounts of electrons so that it begins to differentiate into a wide variety of atomic species?

Well, I'd rather you didn't hold my hand while you said that. It might make backing away slowly a little difficult.

I was thinking at the time that astrophysicists and cosmologists would surely 'laugh in disbelief if I were to inform them that 'Isaacium' (HDM) forms in rings in the cores of stars and planets...

Yes, yes they would. This is because it's nonsense.

I'm sure they were doing the best that they could, that they knew how to do... too bad that it wasn't up to my standards...

Considering that your standards appear to be "I made this up one evening, therefore it's true and everyone else is stupid", not being up to your standards is a good thing.

Without a nuclear strong force then it seems gluons evaporate back to the fictionware they came from...and quarks get chased back to Finnegan's Wake where they belong

Actually, no. We can see that various particles, like protons and neutrons, are made up of smaller particles. Whether the force that holds them together is the strong force or something else entirely, the particles will still be there.

Oh and can we please get the mass resignation of a few thousand PhD University profs who have been slavishly teaching this stuff as if it were true.... I'm sure I'm hoping for too much...

If there were any I'm sure we could. Fortunately you don't get a PhD or become a professor by slavishly doing anything, it requires research, usually original research. Don't you think it's just possible that people who have spent their entire lives learning, researching and generally trying to find out how things work might just know a little more than some random who thought he had an idea once?

 

[sol invictus]

Surely, you've caught on by now that if 1) is true then the so-called nuclear strong force is a ridiculous fiction... a made up just so story because a whole generation of physicists in the early twentieth century were simply bereft, it seems, of the use of ordinary logic? No point in getting mad at them because they led a couple of generations of physicists astray... I'm sure they were doing the best that they could, that they knew how to do... too bad that it wasn't up to my standards...

Where are all these nutjobs coming from suddenly??

 

[robinson]

I don't know, but it certainly makes me look better.

 

[Whiplash]

Good for you... It wasn't crying out to be read by you, either... It is so wonderful that a lack of effort simply removes the unworthy... but not without a whine... somehow I have to improve my technique so that the removal occurs without a peep of any kind... it is just gone... an unknown vapor... emptiness that came and went... unknown.. can you help out next time and simply say nothing?

Don't be so defensive now.. It is very hard to read large blocks of text like that.

If you could just remember to hit enter a couple of times after every 3rd or 4th sentence. That'll break it up nicely.

 

[DHamilton]

The better question

Tell me, really, how is it that YOU know these things ?

Sir, I think the better question is that if a person is given to logic and reason and the rational mind and has plenty of basic data.... 'How can you not know these things?"

DHamilton

 

[DHamilton]

So you think that things can be moving with respect to each other while at rest with respect to each other? That's... interesting.

You miss what you want to miss and hear what you want to hear. The basic notion was that if particles are overlapping in the the same momentum space then they can have only that amount of motion that is within the parameters which means they don't have to have no relative motion at all to be considered to be relatively 'at rest'... We could be sitting on the same sofa that was aligned north and south and if you were nearer the equator you'd have more motion with respect to the fixed stars than I would have but few would argue that you and are were not in the general same rest frame.

"It kind of all falls down there."

It's great that your opinion doesn't establish truth.



With good reason.



Well, I'd rather you didn't hold my hand while you said that. It might make backing away slowly a little difficult.



Yes, yes they would. This is because it's nonsense.



Considering that your standards appear to be "I made this up one evening, therefore it's true and everyone else is stupid", not being up to your standards is a good thing.



"Actually, no. We can see that various particles, like protons and neutrons, are made up of smaller particles. Whether the force that holds them together is the strong force or something else entirely, the particles will still be there."

Spoken like a true believer

If there were any I'm sure we could. Fortunately you don't get a PhD or become a professor by slavishly doing anything, it requires research, usually original research. Don't you think it's just possible that people who have spent their entire lives learning, researching and generally trying to find out how things work might just know a little more than some random who thought he had an idea once?

It is just the character of your argument...that you try to argue from authority that invalidates you as a rational thinker. People were making a similar argument for the believers in Ptolemaic astronomy

 

[iantresman]

So you think that things can be moving with respect to each other while at rest with respect to each other? That's... interesting.

.
As d/dt tends towards 0 ? ie. take a photograph of two objects moving relative to one another, they magically appear at rest to one another.

 

[edd]

DHamilton:
There is no good reason to think dark matter forms in rings in stars and planets.
There are very good reasons to think dark matter has nothing to do with protons and neutrons and everyday matter like that.