Particles Larger Than Galaxies Fill the Universe?
in [Physics]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 17:47 On 7/9/10 3:42 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote: > On Jul 9, 3:39 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/9/10 3:36 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote: >> >>> if there are more neutrinos roaming than even photons >>> and they oscillate their mass >>> dont you think that is significant enough to account >>> for the dark matter when it comes to particles alone? >> >> The observed clumping of dark matter doesn't fit the observed >> properties of neutrinos. >> > > so this cannot be explained with BH dynamics? > do we need to discover a cold dark matter particle? > Most likely.
From: Raymond Yohros on 9 Jul 2010 19:27 On Jul 9, 2:47 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/9/10 3:42 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote: > > > On Jul 9, 3:39 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/9/10 3:36 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote: > > >>> if there are more neutrinos roaming than even photons > >>> and they oscillate their mass > >>> dont you think that is significant enough to account > >>> for the dark matter when it comes to particles alone? > > >> The observed clumping of dark matter doesn't fit the observed > >> properties of neutrinos. > > > so this cannot be explained with BH dynamics? > > do we need to discover a cold dark matter particle? > > Most likely. > why the lhc has not produce this wimps? more and more you see diferent explanations to fit observation. BH have shown to be a very ordinary thing. they can expain dark matter or the origins and structure of any objects in spacetime. r.y
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 19:54 On 7/9/10 6:27 PM, Raymond Yohros wrote: > > why the lhc has not produce this wimps? How do you know the LHC has not produced or detected WIMPS? > > more and more you see diferent explanations to fit observation. Can you provide and example of different explanation to fit an observation you are referring to? > BH have shown to be a very ordinary thing. > they can expain dark matter or the origins > and structure of any objects in spacetime. Dark Matter does not appear to interact with the electromagnetic force, whereas black holes do (in spades).
From: Yousuf Khan on 10 Jul 2010 07:04 On 7/9/2010 11:35 PM, Charles D. Bohne wrote: > On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 22:17:40 +0600, Yousuf Khan<bbbl67(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > >> One of the latest theories postulates that space is nothing more than a >> bunch of qubits in a quantum computer. >> >> Yousuf Khan > > Any names? Links? > Thanks in advance! > C. [gr-qc/0304032] Spacetime at the Planck Scale: The Quantum Computer View http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304032 Yousuf Khan
From: Yousuf Khan on 10 Jul 2010 08:02
On 7/10/2010 12:12 AM, Raymond Yohros wrote: > On Jul 9, 1:21 am, Yousuf Khan<bbb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 7/9/2010 3:19 AM, Raymond Yohros wrote: >> >>> please see my point. i don't mean that there are more neutrinos that >>> photons. what i mean is that there should be more neutrinos TRAVELING. >>> nuclear reactions create proportional (neutrino,photonic) outputs. >>> photons interact alot more with matter so they stay behind. >>> neutrinos keep ridding and ridding. they can be in this planet now >>> and in some other a few minutes later. they are not easy to stop. >>> photons arriving here are used and reused by baryonic matter in >>> all types of processes. >> >> Well, I'm not going to belabour the point, but I definitely did not read >> it that way. Your language is a little confusing sometimes. Sometimes >> it's better to just use point form. >> > > i misspell the word ride. sorry for that! No, no, I got that, but the paragraph itself creates misunderstandings about what you're trying to say. >>>> These particular neutrinos are not like the neutrinos we see today >>>> These ones would be billions of times less massive than today's >>>> neutrinos. And today's neutrinos are already some of the least massive >>>> particles in the universe. >> > > what neutrinos are you talking about? The neutrinos in the original article I posted, the ones that are supposed to be 10 billion light years across by themselves. >>>> Oh, BTW, a neutrino with a wavefunction that's 10 billion light years >>>> can be anywhere within that wavefunction at any instant. That means it >>>> can pop up anywhere within the 10 billion light years instantly. That >>>> means it's way faster than light. >> >>> this does not make any sense! >>> wimps are suppose to be a lot more massive that neutrinos >>> and they do not exist. this are just artifacts to try >>> to coup with observation because of incomplete neutrino >>> understandings. >> >> Welcome to the weird world of quantum mechanics. The speed of light is >> inconsequential to it, since that speed is governed by the laws of >> Special Relativity. When scientists say that we have two different laws >> of physics, a quantum one and a relativistic one, they really mean it: >> they are both laws and they are incompatible with each other. It's like >> states laws vs. federal laws in the United States. But unlike the US >> laws, there isn't a hierarchy where one law takes precedence over >> another, here there's no Supreme Court to adjudicate. >> > > quantum cosmology is like the supreme court and the idea is > to unify this two theories with elegant explanations that make sense > in both the macro and micro realms. Right now, we got two district courts, and no supreme court. If the district courts interpret the laws differently then it's the supreme court's job to resolve the differences. >> Anyways, in QM, particles don't travel through space. They exist in >> space inside a wavefunction, and they just pop up anywhere within the >> confines of the wavefunction without moving through the spaces in >> between. Since they're not "moving" through space, but simply appearing >> and disappearing from space, they don't have to worry about the speed >> limit. >> > > yes, a square motion goes from one value to another without > going through the space in between. a ramp or triangle > its continuos. I don't quite understand what you're referring to here. >> These are among the many rules that scientists already know about that >> can bypass the speed of light. Wormholes and the Casimir Effect are >> other things that can do it. Cosmic Inflation which happened just after >> the Big Bang also expanded the Universe faster than the speed of light. >> > > like the analogy of the folded page. if you move through a shorter > spacetime you can get faster than going all the way around > even at c. That's a wormhole. > but that does not mean that things can move faster that light. If you're bypassing spacetime, then the concept of speed (i.e. traveling from one point in space to another point in a certain amount of time) is rendered meaningless because you're not using time to move over that distance, you're using some other dimension. Yousuf Khan |