Anti-matter, dark matter, neutrinos, massless gravity, etc.

[Smokinscientist]

Originally Posted by Arnack

Dark matter, I believe, has been recorded physical. So it's not the 'potential' and it's not anything out of the ordinary. Just a binder of the universe.

Dark matter has not being recorded, hence why it is called dark matter. We get phenomenons which lead to the assumption that dark matter may exist (see my post above).

[Key2gb]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

Is antimatter to matter essentially like 0 to 1 in binary? There really are only 1s, but 0 just is a place holder saying "there could be a 1 here, but there isn't"? Maybe 1 is the only one that actually exists. Basically, I don't think they are the same.

but the 0 is a placeholder whereas antimatter is already occupying a place...there can be nothing there but the antimatter

Originally Posted by Smokinscientist

Anti-matter and matter interaction happens much more than in labs in Switzerland my friend.
Pair production happens all around us. In 1 cm^3 of air, there will probably be more positrons than any calculator on earth can count.

Also, there is semi-empirical proof than entire galaxies are made up of antimatter. These are slowly withering away as the larger "matter" galaxies surrounding are eating it away.

I said for us to observe...antimatter-matter collisions are as much a part of nature as the wind


I too have heard of the theory of matter beating out antimatter from the big bang. However, I am less than convinced, since the equations and results are idealized and many, many assumptions are made. I still hopping for a better explanation to be discovered.

The Big Bang itself is pretty idealized as well, don't you think? Almost all of the math involved with the universe is based on certain assumptions.

[Smokinscientist]

Key2gb:"The Big Bang itself is pretty idealized as well, don't you think? Almost all of the math involved with the universe is based on certain assumptions."


Yes, but we validate those assumption through experiment and similar events in nature. None of these fall into the "great antimatter/matter war of -15 Billion BC". I stated that i dont remember all too well the details, but the current theory involves linear algebra, where a particle is a linear combination of eigenstates.

I find that the problem with this is that in math, we can only differentiate antimatter and matter with -. Through symmetry, all behavior should be the same (probability are taken as squared).So the current theory (which is not accepted in the general scientific community, mind you) involved an assumption that there is a loss of symmetry, and we have to add a restriction to our equations, not as a mathematical consequence, but on a "whim" if you will.

Since we have no prove to show non-symmetry of matter as of yet, as am forced to put this theory in the "skeptic" section of my brain.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Smokinscientist

Key2gb:"The Big Bang itself is pretty idealized as well, don't you think? Almost all of the math involved with the universe is based on certain assumptions."


Yes, but we validate those assumption through experiment and similar events in nature. None of these fall into the "great antimatter/matter war of -15 Billion BC". I stated that i dont remember all too well the details, but the current theory involves linear algebra, where a particle is a linear combination of eigenstates.

I find that the problem with this is that in math, we can only differentiate antimatter and matter with -. Through symmetry, all behavior should be the same (probability are taken as squared).So the current theory (which is not accepted in the general scientific community, mind you) involved an assumption that there is a loss of symmetry, and we have to add a restriction to our equations, not as a mathematical consequence, but on a "whim" if you will.

Since we have no prove to show non-symmetry of matter as of yet, as am forced to put this theory in the "skeptic" section of my brain.

However, deep inside you know that your conclusion does not satisfy you completely.

[chiefMOJOrisin]

Originally Posted by Salvial

You're thinking of our concept and calculations of time. The actual reality of time has always existed and always will.

But then we don't know what time really is. All our ways of recording time are based on earthly movements. A day, year, light year.

Time, itself moves on. But we, as earthly humans technically have no concept of what time really is. How could we??

My question is, if our calculations are based on what we know of time.....how do we really know what it is?? Its just a figment of the mind.....an imaginary line that records what we want.

The universe isn't held down by time. It does what it does. And would have, and will continue to do so without humans. Or any life. Or anything. I'm saying that time is something labeled by humans. So is space-time. It makes sense, to humans. But in reality it has nothing to do with the universe moving on as it should. What if Einstien was never born?

Even time as a dimension, Newtonian time is still a product of man. It would still do what it would without anyone knowing it, or measuring it, or understanding it, or even caring about it. So how could any human totally understand it?? Unless he went to the multiverse and watched another big bang.

[JesusC]

Originally Posted by chiefMOJOrisin

The universe isn't held down by time. It does what it does. And would have, and will continue to do so without humans. Or any life. Or anything.

I'm not so sure about that one. The Universe doesnt exist without life, life doesnt exist without the Universe.

[Key2gb]

Originally Posted by JesusC

I'm not so sure about that one. The Universe doesnt exist without life, life doesnt exist without the Universe.

The Universe is alive

[JesusC]

Originally Posted by Key2gb

The Universe is alive

Maybe, maybe not.

[AlphaQ]

Originally Posted by chiefMOJOrisin

The universe isn't held down by time. It does what it does. And would have, and will continue to do so without humans. Or any life. Or anything. I'm saying that time is something labeled by humans. So is space-time. It makes sense, to humans. But in reality it has nothing to do with the universe moving on as it should. What if Einstien was never born?

You could equally well say: What is space?

Nothing more then words humans use to describe the relations between where we observe various objects to be. Without humans, there is nobody to describe such relations. The problem with defining time is that you almost always end up using the word time in the definition. But the same problem occurs in defining space.

Certainly the concepts of seconds, days and years are human conventions. But the decay rate of a muon is the same as it was before the human species existed.

[Arnack]

Originally Posted by Smokinscientist

Dark matter has not being recorded, hence why it is called dark matter. We get phenomenons which lead to the assumption that dark matter may exist (see my post above).

Oh, my bad then. I could've sworn I saw a special on discovery channel in which they (for the first time) recorded it... they didn't physically see it, but the recorded it. I'll do more research.

[Maitereya]

should be great when we understand these things and can harness their power.

[.ViciouS.]

Originally Posted by Key2gb

The Universe is alive

I agree.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Maitereya

should be great when we understand these things and can harness their power.

Yeah, maybe a common goal of peace could facilitate positive win-win use of this type of technology...

[chiefMOJOrisin]

Originally Posted by JesusC

I'm not so sure about that one. The Universe doesnt exist without life, life doesnt exist without the Universe.

The universe doesn't need intellectual reasoning to be. It just is.



I don't know who said it, but dark matter has not yet been recorded. There have been photos taken from billions of light years away of the earliest (earliest we can get to so far) universe.....these pictures show globs and blobs of what could be determined later as dark matter. Nothing has been proven.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...rk_matter.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...er_030522.html

http://www.space.com/businesstechnol..._radiomap.html

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=xray_cloud_020618_02.jpg&cap=An%20false-color%20X-ray%20picture%20is%20overlayed%20on%20an%20optical %20image%20of%20the%20NGC%204325%20group%20of%20ga laxies.%20The%20cloud%20of%20hot%20gas,%20seen%20i n%20green%20and%20purple,%PICTURE OF 'DARK MATTER'%201.9%20million%20light-years%20in%20diameter%20and%20has%20a%20temperatur e%20of%20about%2018%20million%20degrees%20Fahrenhe it%20(10%20million%20K).%20The%20cloud%20implies%2 0that%20about%2090%20percent%20of%20the%20mass%20i n%20this%20group%20is%20in%20the%20form%20of%20dar k%20matter.

[JesusC]

Originally Posted by chiefMOJOrisin

The universe doesn't need intellectual reasoning to be. It just is.

So you're saying to Universe can exist without any life?

Explain to me how the Universe can still exist without ANYTHING here to recognize it?