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

[bkadoctaj]

These terms describe concepts that essentially don't function the way things in the material world do. What do you all think they are?

The way I think of it, dark matter (to put it simply) is just the potential of matter to to be in a certain location at a certain moment. This potential represents the possibility that at any moment (especially the moment of observation) there could be matter there. The fact that this potential is timeless (by the very nature of probability) means that something with no real mass can still have gravity. In other words, you have gravity through time, and not just space. What do you all think?

EDIT: Just found a Wikipedia page on "dark energy"... 70% of our Universe is in the "form" of this? haha And we claim to know how the Universe works without knowing a thing about how this stuff works?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

[chiefMOJOrisin]

Well, we really don't know that 70% of our universe is dark matter. We do know that calculations show that the total amount of visible mass in the universe is 70% less than what it should be.

Scientists know how to determine an objects mass from billions of light years away. I have no clue how they do it, but they do. When these scientists calculated all the mass in the universe, the number they got didn't make sense....it was too small.

The universe is there. Its being held together. There is no denying that.

The calculation the scientists came up with couldn't be correct because that little mass wouldn't have enough gravity to keep the universe together.....but it is together. So they theorized that there was invisible matter out there somewhere that could account for the 'missing mass'. I don't know where the term 'dark matter' came from, but it is supposedly the missing matter.




I had a thought the other day that has yet to dribble away....

What if there is another wavelength that we do not know about yet?? I mean, we didn't always know about x-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, etc.

I don't know how it works but I do know that beyond the spectrum of visible light there are other ways to view the cosmos. The electromagnetic spectrum has visible light in the middle. (Roy G. Biv) To the right of the violet is the ultraviolet, x-ray, and gamma ray. To the left of the red is the infrared, microwave, and radio waves.

I wonder if it is possible that there is another part to the spectrum?? If it was possible, maybe thats how dark matter can be seen. Perhaps we could create new technology that allows us to view the previously unknown waves...... wouldn't that be crazy?? Perhaps we cannot see dark matter because it gives off an unknown form of radiation that we do not yet know how to view.

Imagine being the first person to look through a telescope that views objects in a totally new wavelength. Imagine being the first to peek into the cosmos actually see dark matter. What would it look like??

[Smokinscientist]

Originally Posted by chiefMOJOrisin

Well, we really don't know that 70% of our universe is dark matter. We do know that calculations show that the total amount of visible mass in the universe is 70% less than what it should be.

Scientists know how to determine an objects mass from billions of light years away. I have no clue how they do it, but they do. When these scientists calculated all the mass in the universe, the number they got didn't make sense....it was too small.

The universe is there. Its being held together. There is no denying that.

The calculation the scientists came up with couldn't be correct because that little mass wouldn't have enough gravity to keep the universe together.....but it is together. So they theorized that there was invisible matter out there somewhere that could account for the 'missing mass'. I don't know where the term 'dark matter' came from, but it is supposedly the missing matter.




I had a thought the other day that has yet to dribble away....

What if there is another wavelength that we do not know about yet?? I mean, we didn't always know about x-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, etc.

I don't know how it works but I do know that beyond the spectrum of visible light there are other ways to view the cosmos. The electromagnetic spectrum has visible light in the middle. (Roy G. Biv) To the right of the violet is the ultraviolet, x-ray, and gamma ray. To the left of the red is the infrared, microwave, and radio waves.

I wonder if it is possible that there is another part to the spectrum?? If it was possible, maybe thats how dark matter can be seen. Perhaps we could create new technology that allows us to view the previously unknown waves...... wouldn't that be crazy?? Perhaps we cannot see dark matter because it gives off an unknown form of radiation that we do not yet know how to view.

Imagine being the first person to look through a telescope that views objects in a totally new wavelength. Imagine being the first to peek into the cosmos actually see dark matter. What would it look like??

Hey there, I'm a physicist so I will try to explain in simple terms.


All matter will emit blackbody radiation; with the wavelength as a function of temperature. Astronomers can "read" electromagnetic waves from a source that based on the wavelength, determine the temperature, luminosity, etc. We also see shifts in peaks of the spectrum.

For example, say Hydrogen would give us a certain peak at a characteristic wavelength, but when we see this peak on the spectrum of the star/galaxie/etc, it is shifted. Called redshifting, this a a relativistic effect due to the speed of the object moving away.

Now, if your still with me, if astronomists, gather the speeds fo various segments they can analyse, they then can estimate how fast the universe is expanding (which is still somewhat debatable).

But we know from our calculations that the universe is expanding much faster if the matter we get Em waves from are the only gravitaional forces.

In other terms, there is not enough detectable matter to create the current universe (current eucledian model) expanding at this speed. So we are forced to ponder wither this DARK MATTER would account for this.


BY dark matter, scientist are referring to matter that does not emit any electromagnetic waves. This could be attributed to absolute zero kelvin, but no conclusive answer yet.


And for the second part. Yes, the electromagnetic spectra is continuous and goes from wavelength of 0 to infinity.

interesting enough, one of the great paradoxes in the 20th century was called the blackbox paradox. If you wanted to know the energy of any box, you'd integrate over all wavelength. But this calculation gave a results which was infinite. So that any box of whatever temperature had infinte amount of energy.


This paradox was solved with quantum mechanics, where instead of integrating, we need to sum, since energy levels are discrete.

[Liquidtruth]

This post is trying to say what, exactly?

What do I think? I think that gravity is a product of time and we are held in the single moment of its existence. Do I have proof of that? None that I could explain, but quite simply, time is ever present, unending, and non-linear, that alone should explain its nature in my mind/

[chiefMOJOrisin]

Time was created by humans. It is based on earth.

[Key2gb]

Anti-matter is the same as matter...if what we observed in our universe was all anti-matter instead of matter, it would look the same..but matter and anti-matter cannot meet without annihilating each other, which usually only happens (for us to observe) in labs on an extremely small scale...it is also believed that after the Big Bang when particles of anti-matter and matter were released, the rate of matter production was greater than the rate of anti-matter production so when annihilations occurred, it left more regular matter

also to the original post...in regards to the potential for matter to be in a certain location at a certain moment...due to the uncertainty principle it is almost impossible for us to detect exactly where certain particles are while also detecting the time at which they were there...the more accurate one of these factors (time/location)..the more inaccurate the other

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Key2gb

Anti-matter is the same as matter...if what we observed in our universe was all anti-matter instead of matter, it would look the same..but matter and anti-matter cannot meet without annihilating each other, which usually only happens (for us to observe) in labs on an extremely small scale...it is also believed that after the Big Bang when particles of anti-matter and matter were released, the rate of matter production was greater than the rate of anti-matter production so when annihilations occurred, it left more regular matter

also to the original post...in regards to the potential for matter to be in a certain location at a certain moment...due to the uncertainty principle it is almost impossible for us to detect exactly where certain particles are while also detecting the time at which they were there...the more accurate one of these factors (time/location)..the more inaccurate the other

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.

[Smokinscientist]

Originally Posted by Key2gb

Anti-matter is the same as matter...if what we observed in our universe was all anti-matter instead of matter, it would look the same..but matter and anti-matter cannot meet without annihilating each other, which usually only happens (for us to observe) in labs on an extremely small scale...it is also believed that after the Big Bang when particles of anti-matter and matter were released, the rate of matter production was greater than the rate of anti-matter production so when annihilations occurred, it left more regular matter

also to the original post...in regards to the potential for matter to be in a certain location at a certain moment...due to the uncertainty principle it is almost impossible for us to detect exactly where certain particles are while also detecting the time at which they were there...the more accurate one of these factors (time/location)..the more inaccurate the other

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 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.

[bkadoctaj]

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 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.

What is the theory and the assumptions that you don't buy? You got me curious.

[Smokinscientist]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

What is the theory and the assumptions that you don't buy? You got me curious.

Haha its been a quite a few years since. I really don't remember any terms that I could use to point you in the right direction.

It had to do with particle evolution in time and how a anti-matter to matter transition is more probabilistic than vice-versa. This always confused me, since this implies that symmetry is broken if mirror equations yield different results. The presentation was also a bit sketchy; kinda like listening to someone convince you of the String Theory

[Salvial]

Originally Posted by chiefMOJOrisin

Time was created by humans. It is based on earth.

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

[bkadoctaj]

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.

What if actual reality were the IDEAL REALITY? From which all other representations are merely that: representations?

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Smokinscientist

Haha its been a quite a few years since. I really don't remember any terms that I could use to point you in the right direction.

It had to do with particle evolution in time and how a anti-matter to matter transition is more probabilistic than vice-versa. This always confused me, since this implies that symmetry is broken if mirror equations yield different results. The presentation was also a bit sketchy; kinda like listening to someone convince you of the String Theory

Yeah, that's well and dandy, but according to the laws of physics, momentum remains the same unless a force acts upon the object. If the object is in equilibrium, no need for change exists. However, if change is occurring (time is passing, stellar objects are moving, we're thinking, etc.), there must not be a perfect balance. There must be some oscillation.

[Smokinscientist]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

Yeah, that's well and dandy, but according to the laws of physics, momentum remains the same unless a force acts upon the object. If the object is in equilibrium, no need for change exists. However, if change is occurring (time is passing, stellar objects are moving, we're thinking, etc.), there must not be a perfect balance. There must be some oscillation.

Thats why I am very reserved on the whole issue. I'd much rather believe that dark matter stems from the matter/antimatter equality.

[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.