Dark matter...

I find it interesting that physicists, and astronomers alike, are attempting to use graceful mathematics to chase this pursuit. Only thing is, how can you say that it is "missing", and needs to be accounted for somehow, when Hubble pointed it's lens at an "empty" patch of sky, and after a very long exposure, found thousands of galaxies?

 

It's not that it's missing, they just don't know where it's at. Like the Missing Link, they know it exists, they just can't find it.

 

roflmao

"They just can't find it" touched me on the funybone.

If they can't find it, why are they trying to make it up?

 

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Don't know why this "dark matter" can be just lumps of rock, died out suns or even black holes/rifts.

 

Astonomers normally don't make things up. They have a good idea if something exists or not. They couldn't find it simply because it doesn't emit light or radiation, a bit like a black hole. However, it looks like they have found it.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070515_dark_ring.html

 

Personally I think Dark Matter and its cousin Dark Energy are just the epicycles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle)of the 21st Century.

 

OK, so what they found is normal. clumped, incongruent debris, similar to an asteroid belt, on a galactic level?

The way they touted it, I got the impression it was some strange particle we haven't discovered yet.

The oddest hypothesis I have heard is string theory. Is it so wrong for space to be empty?

I bet if they took string theory, and blended it with some quantum force theory, they might define gravity.
Pretty math to explain a force, not tangible matter.

Then again, I may have no clue...

 

Personally I like to think its because we don't understand gravity properly,adding of the dark matter and energy is just a way to cheat the numbers,another favourite is inventing extra dimensions for gravity numbers to leak off into.

Understanding the higgs thingy will be a big step forward

 

Why do we need more than five dimensions anyway? Except perhaps a variable 6th.

 

Totally agree with you Rikky. For once....:-D

 

Matter has it's antimatter. Light has it's dark. And somewhere in a parallel universe, the whole universe just turned into a large pink flower. And in another universe, a red flower. etc etc etc.

 

Understanding the Higgs Boson is the same as understanding dark matter. They are both thought to exist, but are difficult to prove. You can't say science has invented dark matter to help make the sums of the forces of gravity add up, yet assume that the Higgs Boson exists when it is in fact as evasive as dark matter and is being used to explain inconsistencies in particle mass.

 

Who can't say?I can if I want to :-D Its my personal opinion as stated at the beginning of the paragraph and I'm gonna say it again.:-D

I don't think dark matter exists is the quantities stated,I don't think there are upwards of 10 dimensions as predicted by string theory that gravity leaks off into and I'm 50/50 on the god particle.

Suck on it:-D

 

Sorry, poor wording. I didn't you personally. Well, I did. :-D
The universe is expanding. Galaxies are moving away from each other. Yet something is causing them to collide with one another. If it's not dark matter, which emits neither light nor radiation, something with a huge mass is providing the gravity to draw these galaxies together. If not dark matter, then what?

Nobody claims there are upwards of ten dimensions. The tenth dimension (theoretically) contains all infinite possiblities in all infinite time lines in all infinite universes. Copernicus was ridiculed when his theory of a nongeocentric universe was published. He knew he would get some heat from his peers and the church, and was on his deathbed before his theories were published. At the time, his work was seen as far fetched, even diabolical. But he was right. So, why not ten dimensions? I keep an open mind on things that aren't impossible. We just can't prove the theories, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Same goes for the God particle. I wasn't saying it doesn't exist, rather that parallels can't be drawn on dark matter and the Higgs Boson. They both have to be proven.

I'm sucking on nothing, don't know where it's been.

 

lol now your giving me a lecture on being open minded:-D Stephen Hawking is open minded but he still personally thinks the universe will end in a big crunch,lecture him.

Everyone has an opinion why can't I?Leave me alone:cry:cry:cry

 

Speaking of the bugger, Discovery is running a series about his work right now as I type.

 

I am so sorry. :-o I flushed the dark matter down the toilet Sunday morning. I hope I have not impeded any scientific investigations. :-D

 

No that's just poo.

 

Right, I'm not going to apologise, Rikky. Last time I did that, I got a verbal kicking. rolleyes
I'm not lecturing you on open mindedness. I keep an open mind, me. That is a personal observation, not a reccommendation to you. You are far too intellectual to make suggestions like that to. I'm not against you having an opinion. My opinion is different to yours, that's all.

Hawking thinks the world will end in a Big Crunch? Nonsense. The man is deluded. The Universe is open. Everybody knows that.

You know that you can't be left alone. You need the stimulus of needling and badgering and harassment. You are a hassle junkie. You'd be boring if you were left alone. It ain't gonna happen, Gadge. Sorry. :-D

 

For the sake of argument let's qualify the first five dimensions.

1:Height
2:Width
3epth
4:Time
5istance

Now after that it's confusing. I say that 6 is variable and changes from one reality to another. Anything after that is a parallel universe. 7 is us, reality. Our sixth is simply non-existant. That means that anything that's ever been written, or will be written or otherwise created not only is possible, but exists. Need say the Force? That's Dimension 6. Need magic? 6.

 

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension#In_physics

Distance? Do you mean line-integrals along a fractal edge or surface?

When measuring the length of the Spain/Portugal border neither country could agree on its length. It turns out that one side was measuring the curves and undulations of a very winding border. In other words trying to measuring the length of a fractal line, which in theory would be inifinite. This is despite the distance between the physical ends being finite "as the crow flies". Of course it might be a drunken crow, in which case they couldn't care less how long the Spain/Portugal border is! :-D However, there is a time discontinuity across this border...

 

There are only four dimensions in that list - Distance is just a measure of how far along the X,Y and Z and axes you've travelled. In other word you listed Space and Time.

 

Having had the discussion before, I wish I could remember the arguments for it precisely.

Call it Space, call it Distance, the name is totally immaterial. Distance is a reference to the space between point A and point B. If Distance were not it's own seperate dimension, then travel between those two points would be instant. I could simply be across the room by wanting to be there, instead of having to 'cross the distance'. I could step from my house in Michigan to the surface of the moon, instead of requiring a ship to 'cover the distance'. Yes, distance is very much a dimension.

 

I have always found my attention focused on "black holes" for the discrepancies. Quite the misnomer, like calling the hot terminal of a battery (+) positive, when in actuality it is negatively charged. We haven't got a handle on gravity, and who knows, maybe the Higgs Boson, which may be made up of Z particles, like quarks make up protons, is it at the heart of a quantum singularity. I'd love to know for sure. When you squish enough protons together, what DO you get?

 

Yup gravity (Einstein's general theory of relativity) and Quantum Mechanics lack compatibility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Gravity

A sun. Protons would fused together to form helium. Squished protons or perhaps a proton plasma, which then converts via fusion. Maybe even one of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_star

 

Good one about the sun. And yes, hydrogen is a metal at those pressures, and when enough of it in it's molten state is compressed it goes critical. Thereby a fusion reaction is initiated.

What I'm thinking is, we go way past element, what are we up to now #115 or so, and when you keep on adding protons, and some neutrons to the mix, what's the heaviest particle you are going to create?

Will eventually a proton behave like a quark, thereby it creates a heavier particle and the properties of the protons disappear, much like a quark is not recognizable unless a proton is split.

That's the track I'm on here.

Sometimes I think that the "quantum singularity" is the Universe's .zip program.

 

It leads me to wonder how many protons are in your average black hole.

Maybe none, so to speak. That might be what we are missing. That particle's gravitational properties. As it could become "more than the sum of it's parts".

 

LOL

Complete and utter rubbish.

Distance is based on a formula. In three dimensional space each point has its co-ordinate defined by (a,b,c). So the distance between two points (with the second at (d,e,f)) is Sqrt((a − d)^2 + (b − e)^2 + (c − f)^2).

 

Well your tracks lost me:-D "EDIT But thats not hard." What do you mean by a Quantum singularity? As Maxwell said a singularity can't be quantified due to the density and gravity becoming infinite as you approach the Z point.

 

quantum singularity a.k.a. black hole.

Check this article out, seems we may need revision after all.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/supernova_prog.html

Maxwell's work, while brilliant, was done many moons ago.

What I'm basically saying, is that the core of a "black hole" is a different, heavier particle, made of condensed protons.

 

Yeah, I spaced. I'm wrong on that synonym.

 

There are no particles at the centre of a black hole,everything has been crushed out of existence,all that's left is a region of space where the universe as we know it comes to an end.

I still have hard time accepting this,even though everything has been squashed out of existence the Mass of the black hole stays the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_singularity_(fiction)

 

I think they're reaching REALLY, REALLY, REALLY far with that one. To suppose that it is compressed out of existence just boggles the mind. If matter is crushed out of existence, the "supermassive" black hole that keeps our galaxy from flying apart would not be the size it is. At least you would think...

I guess we should stick with the nomer of black hole, even though it's really just an overgrown star.

It would seem to me that it very well may have the power to convert matter into energy.

 

There's still something there though believe it or not a black hole has magnetic poles like the earth,certain types of high energy radiation and charged particles can escape from the black hole along the the magnetic field lines,this is known as Hawking radiation,so the mass stays the same as before the collapse and the magnetic poles stay the same.

Its believed black holes will slowly lose all their mass in the form of energy through this process and just evaporate,the ultimate fate of the universe.

Sorry for rambling if ya know all this:-D I love this stuff...

 

So do I, ramble on! And, if our galaxy has been around for as long as it has, I think the eventual crunch would outpace the evaporation of the black holes, but that's just my hypothesis.

I've always looked at the black holes as well, sort of like a cosmic vaccuum cleaner. We really don't know just how powerful an explosion the Big Bang really was for sure, so I think we really need to lose that maligned word "theory" on a few should be hypotheses. How can we know for sure just when we should be "slowing down"?

Math is an elegant language, but just like words, it can be manipulated by the best silver tongues out there!!!

P.S. Now that I'm thinkin' about it, when it lost mass to a certain point, wouldn't it "re-ignite" (i.e., allow photons to escape) into a light bearing, massive star?
And maybe even go (super)nova?

 

Y'know, I was thinking this morining how a Helium atom loses a little of itself, and the sun shines like it does. I would think that the creation of a heavier particle would operate on the same principle, and the output would be higher band radiation.

The sun won't evaporate, at least, no hypothesis or theory says so, so what makes a black hole so special that it would violate such an established principle?

 

You just proved my point. Distance is the dimension in which those two points are located. All you're arguing is a name.

 

Heigth, width, and depth are distance measurements.

The distance terminology you describe is relative to navigation and three dimensional mapping coordinates. Not a physical expression of dimensions. To add it would be in a round about way, kind of duplicitous.

 

The heaviest particles are likely to be elements are in the Island of Stability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability

 

None, as they evaporate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_evaporation

 

So what they believe is, that stars won't "evaporate", even though they condense matter, and engage in a nuclear fusion process.

However, because of exponentially higher pressures, the radiation emitted by a black hole will cause it to "disappear" by becoming pure energy of an intensely high wavelength?

I don't buy the silver tongued math...

If all the matter in the universe were to become energy, then how do you explain the existence of matter in the beginning? It just doesn't wash.
Everything in nature has cycles. The Universe should be the exception?

 

This measurement of distance is only true if you are measuring a straight line in 3-dimensional Euclidian space. It doesn't apply in curved space either positive/spherical or negative/Riemannian. Nor does it apply in fractal spaces, e.g., line-integrals. The terminology of the word "distance" is somewhat an overloaded word, especially when mathematicians re-use it in non-Euclidian contexts.

 

Are you being deliberately obtuse? (And, no, I'm not saying you're an angle of greater than 90 degrees). Let's make it really simple. Pick just one spatial dimension, say X. Put two points somewhere along that dimension and the distance between those two two points is a number of arbitrary units between those points. You could set the arbitrary unit to be an orange. So if the distance between the two points was one orange then according to your definition an orange is a dimension!!

Are you sure you're not just confusing what a physicist calls a "dimension" - as in Space and Time and "dimensions" when someone talks about the dimensions of an object as in feet and inches.

 

Not too get off topic, but they have done experiments regarding time using atomic clocks in orbit. That is, the rate of radioactive decay changed, so they claim time slows down.

I have a different explanation.

The fact that the physical conditions of the environment the Rubidium exists in has changed, i.e. gravitational force exerted upon it, and the velocity it is traveling at.

Could the reduced gravity of being in orbit be the culprit, not the perception of time?

What if we left our relative perception of time out of the equation?

 

Isn't that the same thing according to Mr Einstein?

 

Einstein's theories claim that time itself slows as you approach the speed of light, so you basically end up in a sort of static bubble isolated from the rest of us. Therefore, you would age normally in the state you are in, while a significant amount of time passed for everyone outside of your bubble, so to speak.

 

No, I'm not being obtuse.

No, the orange is not a dimension, it's simply a method of measuring the dimension between them. It is a dimension because you're moving through it constantly, just like time. And like time, it has to be measured in abstract by the location of points contained within the first three dimensions. Travel through it is then defined by how much of the fourth it takes to move from the first set of co-ordinates to the second.

 

The universe is the example not the exception I'm not sure where you have got the idea that there is no energy to matter conversion or vice versa,energy and matter are exactly the same thing in different forms.

E=MC2. Energy is equal to the amount of mass or matter multiplied by the speed of light squared

In the beginning just after the big bang there was no matter just pure energy,as the universe cooled the first particles began to emerge and clump together,during their lifetime they will be converted from one form to another an incalculable number of times.

 

Well, me thinks you are a bit premature on that reasoning. Your other comments are bang on.:cool Let's see what the CERN folks have to say first!