Dark Energy Found Stifling Growth In Universe.

w_d_w · Dec 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We can only hope.Btw, welcome to SDC. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Thanks, yev.</p><p> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If the universe could convert a negative particle to a positive particle on a whim, then it would essentially be able to create it's own mass from combinations of particles, correct?</p><p> </p><p>I guess the better question to ask is what would happen if we had the ability to make hydrogen, or any other molecule, turn into it's opposite? Posted by w_d_w</DIV></p><p>Can I get some thoughts on that last post I made? This has been bothering me since I thought of it this morning.</p><p> </p><p>Will </p><p> </p>

DrRocket · Dec 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Let's, for a moment, imagine the universe to be an S shaped object overlayed over itself and never ending. That S goes on forever, basically, up and down. If that was the sense, then the multiverse would be connected, black holes would leak from the opposite universe to us (or the ones above and below us in that S) and things would flow evenly. The problem I find is that the curves of the S (assuming that S represents the multiverse) would have to be comprised of a material that had absolutely no charge, negative or positive or neutral, or some sort of transformer that converted the particles flowing through our universe into their opposite for the next universe to remain stable.</DIV></p><p>This is sufficiently imprecise that it is difficult to provide comments.  What do you mean by this S that "goes on forever, basically, up and down" ?  If this thing were connected to something other than the universe, in a causal manner, then it would be part of this universe because of the ability to influence it.  If not, then what is the implication for physics in this universe ?  If things, or information, flows between universes then they are really just parts of one universe.  In any case there there is no evidence for any such behavior.</p><p>The reference to material that has "absolutely no charge, negative, positiv, or neutral ..." also fails to make sense.  What do you mean by a "material" when talking about the composition of space-time ?  The vacuum ?  And what do you mean by no charge when you exclude neutral charge, which is no charge in definition that is in use in physics ?  Also what do you mean by converting particles to "their opposite" ?  Particles converted to their antiparticles ?  Why would such a conversion be required for stability ?  What do you mean, precisely, by stability in this context?</p><p>[QUOTE} I went farther into explaining that, then I noticed something you said and erased it all.   "It tells us in the distant past this region, which we call universe, may have been filled with 'neutral' mass."  With you saying that it made me think about what we're not considering when it comes to negatives and positives and neutrals. If we were in the sense of electricity, we could convert that negative to a positive, or that neutral to a negative, etc, given certain equipment.</DIV></p><p>This is also quite vague.  What is "neutral mass" ?  Do you mean electrically neutral ?  By what possible means do you intend to convert electrical chage to something else ?  What basic physics do you have in mind ?  Why are you focused on the electric force and not on the other fundamental forces ? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Let's then remember that we haven't explained dark mass or dark energy, let alone the black hole leaking information thing. Instead of acting as if they were multipliers in expanding our galaxy, what would happen if we applied something as simple as cell-reproduction theory to that level.</DIV></p><p>No we have not explained dark matter or dark energy, but we do know that that the issues that led to creation of the hypotheses of dark matter and dark energy involve gravitational effects.  What is a "multiplier" with respect to the issue of expansion?  There is no expansion of the galaxy, one an apparent expansion of the universe, as manifested in the space outside of not only galaxies but also local groups of galaxies.  Dark matter has nothing to do with that expansion.  Dark matter is required to explain the apparent lack of matter sufficient to provide the gravity necessary to hold galaxies together in light of observed rotational rates.</p><p>Why do you think "cell-reproduction theory" is relevant ?  How would it be applied ?  Cell reproduction is a chemical phenomena and hence is in principle explainable using the physics of the electromagnetic force.  But the expansion of the universe is an enigma in terms of general relativity, which has no bearing on the theories germane to chemistry.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> What would happen if those factors that we can't explain were actually converting particles to the charge the entire universe needed more of? </DIV></p><p>What does this mean ?  What determines the "need" of the universe in terms of charge?  So far as is known, and there is quite a bit of evidence to support this, the universe is electrically neutral on all but the smallest scales. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not figuring out your flow very well, but you and I may be onto something in how the universe is placing mass that it should be running out of.   If the universe could convert a negative particle to a positive particle on a whim, then it would essentially be able to create it's own mass from combinations of particles, correct? I guess the better question to ask is what would happen if we had the ability to make hydrogen, or any other molecule, turn into it's opposite? Will   <br />Posted by w_d_w</DIV></p><p>You are not alone in not being able to figure out the other poster's notion of flow.</p><p>Changing electrical charges, even if it were possible, has nothing to do with creating mass.  What do you mean by the opposite of a hydrogen atom ?  Do you mean an anti-proton combined with a positron ?  It you could create such stuff in quantity/ store it, and control the release of it you have a readily available source of very high quality energy.   If could not store and control it you would have one hell of an explosion, and you would wipe out the planet (at least the planet).  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Dec 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks, yev. Can I get some thoughts on that last post I made? This has been bothering me since I thought of it this morning. Will   <br />Posted by w_d_w</DIV></p><p>Ok you have some comments.  </p><p>I think that perhaps you might also want to do a little studying and get some more background in basic physics.  There are signs of some misconceptions in your earlier post.</p><p>If you would indicate what your background is in mathematics and science then I can tailor the recomendations to that background.  Lacking that information at the moment I will take a stab at some useful books:</p><p>Fundamental of Physics by Haliday, Resnick and Walker is a good freshman level physics text.  It does require calculus, but any good physics requires calculus since calculus was actually invented to explain mechanics.</p><p>The following books are for a general audience and require virtually no mathematics.  All are written by serious physicists:</p><p><em>The First Three Minutes</em> by Steven Weinberg</p><p><em>Dreams of a Final Theory </em>by Steven Weinberg</p><p><em>The Discovery of Subatomic Particles</em> by Steven Weinberg</p><p><em>The Elegant Universe</em>  by Brian Greene</p><p><em>The Fabric of the Cosmos</em> by Brian Greene</p><p><em>Black Holes and Time Warps; Einstiein's Outrageous Legacy</em>  by Kip Thorne</p><p><em>The Inflationary Universe</em> by Alan Guth</p><p><em>The Character of Physical Law</em> by Richard Feynman</p><p><em>The God Particle </em>by Leon Lederman</p><p><em>A Brief History of Time</em> by Stephen Hawking</p><p><em>The Emperor's New Mind</em>  by Roger Penrose</p><p><em>The Quark and Jaguar</em>  by Murray Gell-Mann</p><p>This last book is intended for a general audience but uses a great deal of very sophisticated mathematical concepts and is probably very difficult for anyone with a great deal of mathematical sophistication -- <em>The Road to Reality, A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe</em> by Roger Penrose. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kg · Dec 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Einstein's application of the cosmological constant was to provide for a static universe.  Discussions of that notion are pretty much dead, and it is difficult to find information about that formulation.  But based on energy densities it appears that the current cosmological constant is about 70% of Einstein's.  It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the use of the cosmological constant is completely empirical and simply is applied to matched the expansion as inferred from observations.   <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>It seems like Einstein was quite close the the current cosmological constant compared to local quantum field theory! </p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant  <strong>"...If the universe is described by an effective local quantum field theory till the Planck scale, then we would expect a cosmological constant of the order of <img class="tex" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/2/1/f214d335d74c0262a3dd5886141b7997.png" alt="M_{
m pl}^4" />. As noted above,</strong> <font size="2"><strong>the measured cosmological constant is smaller than this by a factor of 10</strong></font><sup><font size="2"><strong>120</strong></font> <strong>"</strong></sup></p><p><sup><font size="2">It almost sounds like universe is expanding at a certain rate plus inflating at a rate that would allow for a static state in a non expanding universe.  Does this mean anything?</font></sup></p><p><strong></strong><br /><br /> </p>

BoJangles · Dec 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It seems like Einstein was quite close the the current cosmological constant compared to local quantum field theory! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant "...If the universe is described by an effective local quantum field theory till the Planck scale, then we would expect a cosmological constant of the order of . As noted above, the measured cosmological constant is smaller than this by a factor of 10120 "It almost sounds like universe is expanding at a certain rate plus inflating at a rate that would allow for a static state in a non expanding universe.  Does this mean anything?  <br />Posted by kg</DIV><br /><br />hrm that's interesting, because i thought Einsteins omega was just -1 or 0, or simply was just a fudge to keep the universe static (If that is the right terminology). Anyway thats my 2 cents, now ill go read the link and ejumacate myself 

</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Dec 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It seems like Einstein was quite close the the current cosmological constant compared to local quantum field theory! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant "...If the universe is described by an effective local quantum field theory till the Planck scale, then we would expect a cosmological constant of the order of . As noted above, the measured cosmological constant is smaller than this by a factor of 10120 "It almost sounds like universe is expanding at a certain rate plus inflating at a rate that would allow for a static state in a non expanding universe.  Does this mean anything?  <br />Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>I don't understand your last sentence.</p><p>Basically the situation is this.  One can predict a cosmological constant from considerations of the quantum vacuum, that provides for a negative pressure factor in the stress-energy tensor of general relativity.  That negative energy term or cosmological constant results in a prediction of an acclerating expansion of the universe.  In fact a cosmological constant in the "standard" lambda CDM model of cosmology is used to match the observed accelerated expansion.  The big problem is the energy associated with the quantum vacuum in the best available quantum field theories exceeds the value required to provide the cosmological constant associated with observed expansion rates by 120 orders of magnitude.  That is an absurdly large error.  </p><p>The bottom line is that if one uses the best available quantum fiel theory and the best available theory of gravity (general relativity) we mispredict the observed expansion by a ridiculous amount.  We don't know what is really going on and a reasonable explanation will take a significant improvement in our understanding of the most fundamental laws of physics.</p><p>Physics as a science is a work in progress.  There is much research yet to be done.  I doubt that it will ever be complete. We progress as a series of successive approximations,  The current approximations are very good.  But not good enough.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

w_d_w · Dec 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is sufficiently imprecise that it is difficult to provide comments.  What do you mean by this S that "goes on forever, basically, up and down" ?  If this thing were connected to something other than the universe, in a causal manner, then it would be part of this universe because of the ability to influence it.  If not, then what is the implication for physics in this universe ?  If things, or information, flows between universes then they are really just parts of one universe.  In any case there there is no evidence for any such behavior.The reference to material that has "absolutely no charge, negative, positiv, or neutral ..." also fails to make sense.  What do you mean by a "material" when talking about the composition of space-time ?  The vacuum ?  And what do you mean by no charge when you exclude neutral charge, which is no charge in definition that is in use in physics ?  Also what do you mean by converting particles to "their opposite" ?  Particles converted to their antiparticles ?  Why would such a conversion be required for stability ?  What do you mean, precisely, by stability in this context?<br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The S is easy to explain. I see the universe as never ending, but fail to understand why. We are expanding, but what are we expanding into? I'm not applying any kind of fact to this thought, because there is none. This is me digging into speculation bigger than the universe. The S structure, I think, would be one of many possible ways that the multiverse could exist. If that multiverse were in the form of an S, on a scale larger than our universe, then the curvature in the S would have to consist of a material (be it a vacuum that contains our vacuum or paper confetti that Jesus scattered around before we started this big story, whatever) that had absolutely no charge for our universe to be able to flow the way we see it today. By flow, I mean enlarge itself. Our universe is expanding at an increasing rate, correct?</p><p> </p><p>I think I may have confused you with my electrical - mass statement. Still again, we are in my realm of speculation, so try and keep up. When I consider chemistry, I see that molecules can combine to create new structures. We can create water by combing the right amount of hydrogen with the right amount of oxygen, etc. H and O become H2O. When we create Ozone today, it's normally done by electrocuting oxygen so that it bonds with a 3rd O and becomes O3. When we clone things, we zap a cell with electricity and force it to take on another cell. This is all broad, but still, electricity can play a role in combining of bare elements of our universe. So, we see lightning in our atmosphere. That lightning naturally produces Ozone in our atmosphere, which naturally cleans our planet. There again, we're creating something by electricity, but the reality we live in is doing it for us.</p><p> </p><p>Is it possible that our universe is taking that a step further? Could the universe itself be altering the chemical makeup of what we can see and understand to form things it may be lacking in other areas? For instance, if a nebula was forming a star and that star needed more hydrogen than was available, could the universe know (yes, I know where you're going to take that, so don't) that it needed that hydrogen, and convert some other abundance to hydrogen?</p><p> </p><p>When I was refering to electricity, I got wrapped up too much in my own field. When I say opposite, I mean that loosely. There is no opposite to hydrogen, I realize, but could that bare element be changed into something else?</p><p> </p><p>I think the best way to think of this is by creating a new Periodic Table of the Elements in your mind. Only this time, we're not using Oxygen, Hydrogen, etc, but we're using Quarks and Gluons... the things that make up the things that form that hydrogen. Could the universe manipulate matter on that scale so as to be able to create it's own, different object?</p><p> </p><p>I think, if memory serves, the reason for me asking is that the current theory is that our universe is expanding at an increasing rate and that there was a set amount of mass in this universe to begin with. If that's the case, then the universe is expanding to it's own peril. I just can't get past the fact that this perfect plan that's unfolding in front of us can have a flaw that huge.</p><p> </p><p>I guess I'm just trying to see past that. I may be confusing you guys, and I may be completely off what I thought I read a few weeks back. I tend to do that sometimes because I read too much.</p><p> </p><p>I hope I clarified what I meant a little.</p><p> </p><p>Will </p>

DrRocket · Dec 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...I tend to do that sometimes because I read too much. I hope I clarified what I meant a little. Will <br />Posted by w_d_w</DIV></p><p>I think you ought to read a few of the books that I listed earlier. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kg · Dec 23, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I don't understand your last sentence....Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />I'm glad I'm not the only one that gets in over their head real quickly when it comes to trying to understand this cosmology stuff.

derekmcd · Dec 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm glad I'm not the only one that gets in over their head real quickly when it comes to trying to understand this cosmology stuff. <br /> Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>It's not a matter of being in over ones head in this case.  It is a matter of the poster not conveying his thought in a coherent manner using terminologies the rest of us might understand.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

w_d_w · Dec 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We don't know what is really going on and a reasonable explanation will take a significant improvement in our understanding of the most fundamental laws of physics.Physics as a science is a work in progress.  There is much research yet to be done.  I doubt that it will ever be complete. We progress as a series of successive approximations,  The current approximations are very good.  But not good enough. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>That's where I'm going with my theory. This is the problem that faces me in reading those books. I may gain a better understanding of what we currently understand, but my speculation is outside of those fields, or at least I think they are. I'm not sure we've ever discussed or covered whether or not it's possible for quarks to change to something other than what they are. In this doomsday theory with the LHC, one of the main arguments was that we may release exotic particles into our atmosphere. I believe those are strangelets, referred to here:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If the strange matter hypothesis is correct and a strangelet comes in contact with a lump of ordinary matter such as Earth, it could convert the ordinary matter to strange matter By Wikipedia </DIV></p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangelets <-- Look under "Dangers"</p><p> </p><p>If this were the case, then the reality we accept every day would be able to, in essence, change a specific piece of matter into something completely different.</p><p>This:</p><p>http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/astro/universe/universe.asp</p><p>Is the current theory, if I'm not mistaken, on how the universe formed and is expanding. My problem with that is that I'm refering to the particles smaller than photons.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>According to quantum chromodynamics, a real photon can interact both as a point-like particle, or as a collection of quarks and gluons, i.e., like a hadron. By Wikipedia</DIV></p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-like_particle </p><p>A point-like particle, if I understand correctly, is nothing more than a way of saying that a particle takes up no space. The only definition we're left with is that a photon is a collection of quarks and gluons, like a hadron.</p><p>This is where I break into my theory. If a strangelet can combine with any form of matter and change it into something completely different, then the particles we know today can be altered, as well as the makeup of larger scale combinations, such as the elements we see today (hydrogen, helium, oxygen, etc). In this sense, the universe would have the ability to create something it lacked, therefore never being able to run out of mass and proving that our universe is an open universe. I can't prove that, though, because I don't fully understand the numbers nor the physics behind it.</p><p> </p><p>This is, however, my working theory.</p><p> </p><p>Maybe that clarified things a bit.</p><p> </p><p>Will </p>

DrRocket · Dec 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's where I'm going with my theory. ...This is where I break into my theory. ... however, my working theory. Maybe that clarified things a bit. Will <br />Posted by w_d_w</DIV></p><p>You are in WAY over your head.  Before you can formulate reasonable hypotheses on your own you need to understand the existing theories, their real meaning, their limitations and their implications.  In short, you need to learn a lot more physics.  You might start with some of the books that I listed earlier.</p><p>You need to get enough solid physics under your belt to be able to distinguish between proven theories, hypotheses and fantasy.  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Dec 25, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are in WAY over your head.  Before you can formulate reasonable hypotheses on your own you need to understand the existing theories, their real meaning, their limitations and their implications.  In short, you need to learn a lot more physics.  You might start with some of the books that I listed earlier.You need to get enough solid physics under your belt to be able to distinguish between proven theories, hypotheses and fantasy.  <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Before thinking "outside the box", one must learn what is going on inside. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

MeteorWayne · Dec 25, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Before thinking "outside the box", one must learn what is going on inside. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />That is a very succinct summary in one line of what Dr Rocket and others often explain in more detail.</p><p>We need to make up a sign we can post when needed

</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

michaelmozina · Dec 26, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's where I'm going with my theory. This is the problem that faces me in reading those books. I may gain a better understanding of what we currently understand, but my speculation is outside of those fields, or at least I think they are. I'm not sure we've ever discussed or covered whether or not it's possible for quarks to change to something other than what they are. In this doomsday theory with the LHC, one of the main arguments was that we may release exotic particles into our atmosphere. I believe those are strangelets, referred to here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangelets <-- Look under "Dangers" If this were the case, then the reality we accept every day would be able to, in essence, change a specific piece of matter into something completely different.<br /> Posted by w_d_w</DIV></p><p>I guess my primary doubt about this idea comes from the fact that an average coronal mass ejection kicks out a lot more energy than LHC will ever use in it's lifetime.  It seems to me that if exotic matter was going to be created from simple particle collisions, it would probably also happen in those multi-million degree coronal loops and CME events.    </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

derekmcd · Dec 26, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I guess my primary doubt about this idea comes from the fact that an average coronal mass ejection kicks out a lot more energy than LHC will ever use in it's lifetime.  It seems to me that if exotic matter was going to be created from simple particle collisions, it would probably also happen in those multi-million degree coronal loops and CME events.    <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Energies of a single particle collisions in a CME pale in comparison to particle collisions created by particle accelerators. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

DrRocket · Dec 26, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I guess my primary doubt about this idea comes from the fact that an average coronal mass ejection kicks out a lot more energy than LHC will ever use in it's lifetime.  It seems to me that if exotic matter was going to be created from simple particle collisions, it would probably also happen in those multi-million degree coronal loops and CME events.    <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>More EU nonsense ?  This is completely out of context, and just plain silly.  </p><p>At 1,000,000 K the average thermal energy of a particle is about 129 ev.  In the LHC, particles are accelerated to 7,000,000,000,000 ev.</p><p>You transparent attempts to inject EU idiocy into every physical discussion are boorish.  This latest one is beyond the pale.  The energies involved are 9 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE lower than what is contemplated in particle physics experiments.</p><p>EU is not hard science.  There is a reason that the discussion is limited to forums that cater to pseudoscience, and fantasy.  Please keep it there. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Dec 26, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>More EU nonsense ?  This is completely out of context, and just plain silly.  At 1,000,000 K the average thermal energy of a particle is about 129 ev.  In the LHC, particles are accelerated to 7,000,000,000,000 ev.You transparent attempts to inject EU idiocy into every physical discussion are boorish.  This latest one is beyond the pale.  The energies involved are 9 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE lower than what is contemplated in particle physics experiments.EU is not hard science.  There is a reason that the discussion is limited to forums that cater to pseudoscience, and fantasy.  Please keep it there. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/~reames/gsfc3.html</p><p>This link states that protons in a CME can be accelerated up to 20 GeV.  I've also read that particle collisions in CME and flares can create antimatter, so high energy collisions are taking place.  Just not nearly as highly energetic as colliding two hadrons at 7 TeV (which, sadly, we haven't seen yet).  Even if we use the Tevatron as a comparison, it's still not close by 2 orders of magnitude.</p><p>I don't think MM was trying to inject EU theory here.  Just making a poor comparison.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

DrRocket · Dec 26, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/~reames/gsfc3.htmlThis link states that protons in a CME can be accelerated up to 20 GeV.  I've also read that particle collisions in CME and flares can create antimatter, so high energy collisions are taking place.  Just not nearly as highly energetic as colliding two hadrons at 7 TeV (which, sadly, we haven't seen yet).  Even if we use the Tevatron as a comparison, it's still not close by 2 orders of magnitude.I don't think MM was trying to inject EU theory here.  Just making a poor comparison. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>High energy in a CME is possible, but not from the the thermal energy MM points out in his "million degree" statement, which is his rather standard means of introducing EU nonsense disguised as a discussion of the well-known coronal heatin problem </p><p>So what is the source of that energy ?  Why, of course the Lorentz force.  So we are again headed back to the release of energy from magnetic fields and magnetic reconnection.  Here we go again.</p><p>Note.  That anticipated LHC collision evisions two hadrons at 7 Tev each, for a total energy in the collision of 14 Tev.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

yevaud · Dec 26, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I guess my primary doubt about this idea comes from the fact that an average coronal mass ejection kicks out a lot more energy than LHC will ever use in it's lifetime.  It seems to me that if exotic matter was going to be created from simple particle collisions, it would probably also happen in those multi-million degree coronal loops and CME events.    <br /> </p><p>Posted by <em>michaelmozina</em></DIV></p><p>Agreed completely with DrRocket.  That was terribly poor science at best.</p><p>A Proton-Proton collision is a chancy event at best.  The cross-sections of a particle are important.  These high-energy collisions are measured in units called <em>Barns</em>; one <em>Barn</em> is about the diameter of a Uranium atom.  That of a Proton is about 40 <em>milli-Barns</em>.</p><p>Now even under the tightly controlled and directed conditions of the LHC, the probability of a Proton-Proton collision is about 10<sup>-22</sup>.  The only reason a significant number of collisions can take place sufficient for the purposes of high-energy particle physics is that the beam diameters are quite narrow compared to a CME (despite the ferocious number of Protons emitted), that there are two beams precisely aimed at each other, that the particles are in clumps. and the sheer number of potential collisions per/second (several thousand crossings).  Overall, it's somewhere around 600,000,000 possible each second.  And of those, only a fraction will produce anything of interest for the guys at the LHC, or Fermilab, or any othersimilar place you may mention.</p><p>All far different conditions than as with a CME.  You're talking the difference between a sprinkle head spraying water outwards, and two machineguns aimed dead at each other.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

michaelmozina · Dec 27, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>More EU nonsense ?</DIV></p><p>OMG!  What the heck is your problem DrInquistion?   </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> This is completely out of context, and just plain silly. </DIV></p><p>Your personal need to take every sentence I write out of context and to manipulate everything into an opportunity to bash something you don't know anythiing about is plain silly.  I'm tired of you trying to "spin" everything I say into a opportunity to for you make more false claims about something I'm not even allowed to mention here.  For goodness sake, this is now getting childish and this is nothing by hypocritical nonsense.   I have some direct comments to you that I'll save for the other forum DrRocket, but I absolutely protest this ridiculous dredging up of EU theory that you keep doing in post after post after post.  IF you'd bothered to actually read the Nobel prize winning scientists work, you wouldn't sound so ridiculous.  You obviously don't have a clue what that theory is about, or anything about it because you won't bother to educate yourself.  Stop trying to manipulate the moderates DrRocket.  It's getting old now.  I think that's the third post in a row now to me that you've used as a personal crusade against a theory you've never bothered to even read.  Your ignorance is self imposed and your manipulation of my statements is unethical. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Dec 27, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Agreed completely with DrRocket.  That was terribly poor science at best.<br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>That's all it was, at worst case it was a naive statement on my part.   Give me a break, not everything I say is a "conspiracy" yevaud. </p><p>I hear you about the differences in energy states but IMO, all that extra energy is going to do is result in a faster (and more complete) break down of protons into subatomic particles.  Rhessi observe neutron capture signatures from coronal loop activity suggesting P-P or other types of fussion can occur inside a coronal loop.  Rhessi also observe also gamma ray emissions from positron-electron anihillation.  These are definitely "high energy" collision events. </p><p>As for the rest of DrRocket's rant, it's just an obvious and blatent attempt to manipulate my statements in an effort to get you to play the role of executioner in his little "burn the heretic" melodrama yevaud.  It's getting old to have him take every statement of mine out of context and go off on an EU rant. Why is he constantly being allowed to break exactly the same rules I'm being forced to abide by?  Why can he mention EU theory (derogatorily) in every post when I can't even mention it, or anything even remotely associated with the idea? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Dec 27, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/~reames/gsfc3.htmlThis link states that protons in a CME can be accelerated up to 20 GeV.  I've also read that particle collisions in CME and flares can create antimatter, so high energy collisions are taking place.  Just not nearly as highly energetic as colliding two hadrons at 7 TeV (which, sadly, we haven't seen yet).  Even if we use the Tevatron as a comparison, it's still not close by 2 orders of magnitude.I don't think MM was trying to inject EU theory here.  Just making a poor comparison. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I believe that article was written before the January 20th, 2005 event, but I agree, there is a very large different in the energy states.  I guess the collider experiments you pointed me towards a few months ago between positron and electrons and the subatomic pariticles that were found in the types of colliisons, and the other collider experiments that have been done thus far, would lead me to believe that any sort of proton collisions we might observe in LHC would most likely result in a powerful shower of subatomic particles, not some new form of matter.  Then again, that's why I suppose the LHC experiments since I'm only "guessing" based on what I've seen thus far in less energetic collisions.</p><p>I do in fact hear you about the differences in energy states.  I stand corrected.  FYI I appreciate the fact that someone around here is willing to have a regular conversation without manipulating my statements.  Thanks. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

derekmcd · Dec 27, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I believe that article was written before the January 20th, 2005 event, but I agree, there is a very large different in the energy states.  I guess the collider experiments you pointed me towards a few months ago between positron and electrons and the subatomic pariticles that were found in the types of colliions, and the other collider experiments that have been done thus far, would lead me to believe that any sort of proton collisions we might observe in LHC would most likely related in a powerful shower of subatomic particles, not some new form of matter.  Then again, that's why I suppose the LHC experiments since I'm only "guessing" based on what I've seen thus far in less energetic collisions.I do in fact hear you about the differences in energy states.  I stand corrected.  FYI I appreciate the fact that someone around here is willing to have a regular conversation without manipulating my statements.  Thanks. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Within those shower of particles, they hopes are to find forms of matter that have yet to be detected.  I wouldn't necessarily consider them "new".  If we can create them in an accelerator, it is quite likely they have existed previously.  Keep in mind that these showers of particles are not always smaller that the proton themselves.  The whole point of accelerating the proton to speeds nearing C is to add energy (mass) to them in hopes that within the shower of particles they will find more massive particles than the original particles they started with.  The Higgs boson, should it exist, is much more massive than a proton, IIRC. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

michaelmozina · Dec 27, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Within those shower of particles, they hopes are to find forms of matter that have yet to be detected.  I wouldn't necessarily consider them "new".  If we can create them in an accelerator, it is quite likely they have existed previously.</DIV></p><p>In essense, that was the point I was trying to make with the CME comment.  I would expect that nature would have already created such particles by some means or another.</p><p>I do certainly hear your  arguement about the OOM differences in energy states,  I'm just inclined to believe that what will occur is what occurs in other particle collider experiments, namely the breakdown of protons into other (probably already identified) subatomic particles.<br /><br />Then again the whole reason I support the LHC experiment is because there is much we still do not know about nature, and particle physics theory still remains "incomplete" as it relates to observing and verifying the existence of the Higgs Boson. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

Dark Energy Found Stifling Growth In Universe.

w_d_w

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

kg

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

w_d_w

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

kg

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

w_d_w

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

yevaud

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page