Substitute to Dark Matter?

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

No where in the page does it even suggest that red shift info is encoded into the photon's info matrix. It merely explains two different ways of understanding the relative velocity between the source and destination based on expansion of the Universe.

 

No it doesn't and I am sorry I did not realize that it was a central point in your argument. I haven't really given much thought to the "info matrix" so sorry if I'm bringing this argument off track.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

Originally posted by: Freethinker

No where in the page does it even suggest that red shift info is encoded into the photon's info matrix. It merely explains two different ways of understanding the relative velocity between the source and destination based on expansion of the Universe.

No it doesn't and I am sorry I did not realize that it was a central point in your argument.

Yes the very basis of my argument is that red shift is NOT built into the photon's freq/ info matrix. That a photon is a photon and that each photon does not have a unique red shift encoded into it's matrix. That red shift is merely a function of the source/ destination relative velocities.

 

So now that we have that defined. What do you think about it?

[Tormod]

Tricky to answer - I need to read up on this idea.

[lindagarrette]

Here's a question remotely connected with parts of this thread. How is mass weight measured? I lookied up AMU. In chemistry and physics, it is defined as exactly 1/12 the mass of an atom of carbon-12, the isotope of carbon with six protons and six neutrons in its nucleus. One amu is equal to approximately 1.66 × 10-24 grams. So is there a super tiny scale somewhre that weights carbon atoms? This is not supposed to be a silly question. You already know, I'm looking for a definition of mass.

[BlameTheEx]

linda

 

At a guess they took a cut diamond,smoothed its surfaces to a single layer of atoms, and counted the atoms from side to side of the surface. Diamond is a carbon crystal, so the atoms are in regular formation. At a guess the best of electron microscopes can do the task. You don't need full resolution of a single atom, just some banding from one layer of atoms to the next. Once you have the length of the sides (measured in atoms) its no trick to calculate the total number of atoms. The nice thing about using a diamond is its hardness. Once calibrated it is unlikely to loose many atoms during handling.

[Moonchild]

I think I might as well bring it up in this appropriate string while I still can...forgive me, I have not read every solitary post in this topic, but allow me to introduce the following:

 

The Ekpyrotic Universe model. In this scenario, two branes crash together. The point at which they do so is known as the big bang. Now, here's where it gets interesting: as the branes overlap, the material within the branes begins to coalesce, and spread out in waves. The first wave is of neutrinos and the like, and other forms of radiation. This group expads >c. The next is spacetime, expanding at just over >c, and the rate of accel., as we can see, is increasing. Next formed from the interaction of the two branes is light, travelling at c. The final wave, matter, expands outwards at just under c. Now, as the branes start overlapping and coalescing, dark energy is formed, blocking some matter but pushing the rest onwards. DE can be thought of as crests, and matter is sliding down off those crests. Of course, also as the branes glide onto each other, matter is being formed more rapidly. That would explain the constant creation of matter, and the role of dark energy, and what came before the BB and also what happenned during the BB. Also a consequence of this theory, itdoes not describe one force breaking into four in the inital inflation, rather four forces being created from two interacting branes.

[BlameTheEx]

Moonchile

 

Er. Forgive me, but I have never heard of a brane, nor can I quite understand how neutrinos travel above C, or beyond space-time. I feel that you have summarised something that might just make more sense with the details intact. Any chance of a link to the source of this theory?

 

Strike that. I searched and found an introduction to the Elpyrotic Universe model here: http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/

 

Sounds an interesting concept. Having 2 universes collide as the starting point of our current situation seems preferable to the single point BB. It avoids the black hole problem, and possibly the lack of antimatter. Perhaps after they collided they went there separate ways with ours taking the newly created matter, and the other the antimatter.

 

However what you are proposing seems a tad different. I still need to find an explanation for your adventurous neutrinos.

[Moonchild]

A brane, in my dictionary, is a membranous set of dimensions. In this sense, brane, cosmos and universe are almost always completely interchangeable. However, branes can overlap and coexist. Neutrinos, in one of my earlier theories, are parts of one of the two original colliding branes that overshot the other brane during collision, and lurk at the boundaries of our universe. Because in this sense they'd obey separate physical laws than everything else, they could penetrate our cosmos in the zillions without interacting, though some do. Essentially, neutrinos are a purity of one of the two initial branes. Harnessing these elusive particles could define a great leap in particle physics.

[Tormod]

We have discussed the ekpyrotic cosmological model before, but it was quite a while ago. In a sense, it was the basis of my post where I mentioned that gravity comes from a separate "brane" but influences our own.

[Freethinker]

What experience can we have of "branes"? If branes are promoted as part of the explanation, what experiments do we perform?

 

I don't reject branes, they just seem to be one of the more problematic explanations at this point.

[New Cosmologist]

The "missing mass" problem is really a case of "missing physics," as it is simply the result of failure to accept the possibility that gravitation repels upon the large scale. Please visit the following Web site for a full explanation: http://www.webservr.com/science.

Regards,

New Cosmologist

[BlameTheEx]

Moonchile.

 

Ok. Best as I can understand it, you are proposing your own theory. This is fair place to do so, however we need more. You must define your terms. What do you mean by "purity" for instance? What exactly are the properties you are assuming for your branes, and these neutrinos? How exactly is dark energy formed, and what is its properties? If "neutrinos and the like, and other forms of radiation" expands before and ahead of space-time, what are they expanding into? Without space or time, how can they have a velocity? What evidence does your model explain?

 

If your theory is more complex than alternatives, then to be taken seriously it must explain the evidence better than those alternatives. That is applying occams razor. The more complexity, the more untested assumptions, the less likely it is to be useful. This must be balanced against the positives, of how much it explains. Their are big bonus points for testable predictions, but I don't get any of those myself.

[BlameTheEx]

New cosmologist

 

Are you sure you are not confusing "missing mass" with "dark energy"? The problem of missing mass is that we need sources for more attraction, not repulsion.

[BlameTheEx]

The ekpyrotic model prompts an interesting question. Just how far back can we safely stretch the "Big Bang" model?

 

The normal answer is to the point of the Big Bang itself. No explanation is generally accepted as to why, or how the universe exploded. It is just pointed out that the evidence is explained best by assuming it did. However, there are real problems with a single point explosion:

 

1) The available mass/energy didn't immediately form into a black hole.

 

2) There is a limit to the possible density of Baryonic matter (ordinary matter). Beyond that point the additional mass/energy must have been in the form of exotic particles such as neutrinos, and radiation. All the evidence (and high energy particle beam experiments has given us lots) is that these won't decay into Baryonic matter. At least not without creating an equal quantity of antimatter, and that is conspicuous by its absence.

 

For these two reasons I conclude that we can't safely extrapolate backwards beyond the point when the mass/energy of the universe was too dense to contain the observed Baryonic matter as baryonic matter, or when the universe was too dense not to collapse into a black hole. Beyond those points the BB model denies the evidence, after those points, it explains the evidence quite well.

 

If the universe is expanding, and it did start its present evolution about 14 billion years ago, then I would guess it started from a much smaller, but still finite size, and there was an injection of baryonic matter throughout its volume. Given the background microwave radiation, make that hot baryonic matter.

[lindagarrette]

Maybe before the BB, there was nothing.

[BlameTheEx]

Linda

 

But if there was nothing anywhere, in any universe, dimension, or what have you, what could cause the BB?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

Maybe before the BB, there was nothing.

This is "technically" correct. Based on the observation of the BB, it was the start of "everything, as we know it". It is like the North Pole. If we went "back in time" to the point of the BB, it would be like walking towards the North Pole. There is nothing NORTH of the North Pole. The reference direction of "North" stops making sense once we get to it. We can no longer "go north" once there. No matter which direction we start walking, we are going "away from" the North Pole.

 

Same with the BB, we would go "back in time" (head North) until we came to the BB (North Pole), at which point, we would "move forward in time" (head away from the North Pole) no matter what we did.