Dark matter and tachyon gravity

[alkalin]

ContraCommando,<br /><br />Thanks for this clarification on current BB notions. But the one I find in most disagreement is your remark about Gamow. The information I have is that he calculated something like 20 degrees K, and there were others that calculated an even higher number. So was there a mistake with the position of the period in his number? Gamow was very good in literary writing and sold his ideas rather easily to the press.<br /><br />Another issue would be the Johns Hopkins studies. The distant larger galaxies do not exhibit an early age within them. How to explain? But wait, cosmologists still add their own flavor to the Hubble findings?<br /><br />And you are right about DM within our galaxies. It is inferred due the spin velocity of a galaxy. But the nature of it is yet to be discovered, although certain clues have been discovered yet discounted by the ‘experts’.<br />

 

[contracommando]

<font color="yellow">The information I have is that he calculated something like 20 degrees K,</font><br /><br />Yes, that’s actually true. Here’s how I’ve heard it. Gamow realized that with his era’s level of technology it would be quite some time before his idea could be tested (CMB layer at 1-5 K). So later, he modified the prediction using an incorrect assumption (he then predicted it to be near 50K). Fred Hoyle, while Gamow was driving him around, made Gamow aware of an obscure paper written by Andrew McKellar, that proved that the CMB temperature cannot exceed approximately 3 degrees Kelvin above absolute zero. In this paper, McKellar measured the spectra of specific carbon radicals floating in interstellar space and used their density to calculate their temperature at around 2.3 K above absolute zero . So, even before Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson confirmed the CMB layer in the mid ‘60s, indirect estimates of its properties had already be done, with a fair amount of precision, as early as 1941. <br /><br />Also, there are many theories about what dark matter is, and no one is sure which is the correct model (Modified Newtonian dynamics - which modifies Newton‘s laws, Axion particles, the super partner of the neutrino, gravity from another universe, etc). All we can do is infer its existence; so far no one has actually detected a DM particle - anyone who did would win a Nobel prize. <br /><br />P.S. I apologize if I was too harsh on you, sorry <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />

 

[scull]

<i>"Theoretical physicists have postulated tachyons, which would be particles that travel faster than light but cannot travel slower than light or exactly the speed of light."</i><br /><br />Besides travelling faster than light, it's also a requirement for tachyons to <i>always</i> travel backwards in time.<br /><br />

 

[newtonian]

Yevaud - Why do you believe tachyons do not exist? I prefer to consider all the possiblities until the truth is proven.<br /><br />Why do you feel tachyons would be massless?<br /><br />Different matter does not mean zero matter.<br /><br />I understand, of course, that we do not currently fully appreciate the gravity of the matter.

 

[newtonian]

ContraCommando - Why do you conclude all dark matter moves slower than light?<br /><br />Do you consider inflation theory may be correct wherein our universe may have expanded faster than light for a time?<br /><br />Tachyons may emit light but this light may be beyond our light cone bcause the emission would be by faster than light matter.<br /><br />Understand I am asking a question - not proposing a theory.

 

[newtonian]

zeke12 - Hi back. Sorry for the slow response - I have been really busy.<br /><br />I believe the law of conservation of matter and energy is accurate, and that our unvierse was created by cause and effect using intelliognetly directed energy which was converted into matter.<br /><br />And, perhaps other forms of energy and matter we have not yet detected. <br /><br />Since matter can be converted into energy and energy into matter, in this way matter can create matter - but the mass would remain the same.<br /><br />However, observable mass could change - e.g. dark matter to visible matter, etc.<br /><br />Perhaps this is behind the appearance and disappearance of virtual particles in "empty" space.<br /><br />As for cause of expansion, such as dark energy, Isaiah 40:22 indicates God is stretching out our heaven and it is certainly reasonable to conclude that He may be using plural forms of invisible energy as well as invisible matter.<br /><br />Genesis 1:1 uses created in past tense - not a continual creation. However, other verses do show new creations occur - so while our unvierse had a point of origin it may indeed have some continual creation.<br /><br />There is considerable evidence of recycling in our universe.<br /><br />One example is the reheating of the IGM (intergalactic medium).<br /><br />BTW - while the universe is stretching out, we are in a huge, massive, local area with thousands of galaxies which are gravitationally bound.<br /><br />I suspect, and hence thread theme, that faster than light expanding matter beyond our visibility horizon is influencing the observable universe by a sort of domino effect, causing acceleration of expansion.<br /><br />In short, trying to catch up with tachyons, or at least ordinary matter expandiing faster than light.

 

[newtonian]

TrisCo - Interesting idea. Multiple universes are likely.<br /><br />(1 Kings 8:27) . . .But will God truly dwell upon the earth? Look! The heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens, themselves cannot contain you. . .<br /><br />If indeed our universe (heaven) is but one of many universes (heavens) within a much larger universe (heaven of the heavens), then there certainly can be effects from these other universes, or the much larger universe we would be expanding within.<br /><br />Some astronomers (e.g. Loeb) have hypothesized that our universe may already be interacting with another universe beyond our visibilidty horizon.<br /><br />Anything is possible - NO!<br /><br />There are certain accurate observations we have to go on which limit the possibilities.<br /><br />But many things are possible and it is good to keep an open mind until things are proven.<br /><br />Thank you for the ideas you posted.

 

[newtonian]

George_W - See my above post.<br /><br />So, what do you think is more likely - any ideas???

 

[newtonian]

scull - Are you sure? I was under the impression that tachyons travel forward in time?<br /><br />Is your conclusion based on the theory of relativity?<br /><br />Compare the Newtonian (not mine) idea of instantaneous gravity which would not go back in time - or at least faster than light gravity.<br /><br />FTL does not equal backwards in time - conmpare FTL inflation and expansion models.

 

[scull]

Newtonian-- From my own reading they travel backwards in time.... <br /><br />Here's what John Gribbin says:<br /><br />"At first sight, the special theory of relativity seems to forbid faster-than-light (FTL) travel. If you start out moving slower than the speed of light and go faster and faster, time runs more and more slowly until, at the speed of light itself, it comes to a stop. You can't go any faster, because the speed of light itself is an impenetrable barrier -- if you try to increase your speed any more, there is no time left in which to make the increase. But just on the other side of that barrier, according to the equations, lies a bizarre counter-clock world. There, if you are moving at just over the speed of light, time runs very slowly backwards. There is a certain logic to this -- after all, if time runs slower as you approach the speed of light, and stands still at the speed of light, then it must run backwards ('slower than standing still') above the speed of light. The faster you go, in the tachyonic world, the more rapidly time runs backwards -- and the more energy of motion such a particle has, the slower it goes (that is, adding energy always pushes a particle closer to the speed-of-light barrier, from either side of the barrier). So as a tachyon <i>loses</i> energy it goes faster and faster, rushing backwards in time as it does so. Amazingly, this bizarre possibility was first put forward just <i>before</i> Einstein published his special theory of relativity. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Arnold Sommerfeld (who had been a <i>Privatdozent</i> at Gottingen University, but was then a professor at the Technical Institute in Aachen and went on to gain fame in Munich as a pioneer of quantum theory) realized that Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism required FTL particles to speed up as they lost energy. He published this conclusion in 1904; since the special theory, published in 1905, is also largely based on Maxwell's theory, it is no real

 

[zeke12]

Hi Newtonian. Thanks for your post. <br /><br />Its interesting to hear a religious perspective on things. I find it hard to believe however, that a book over a thousand years old can hold the answers to the scientific questions of the modern day. Its easy to quote a pretty ambiguous piece of text from the bible and attach some significance to it; the bible (and koran for that matter) actually tells us very little - if anything at all - about science. And let us not forget how the church held up science for many hundreds of years, burning at the stake any so called "heretics" who dared to suggest anything that was counter to the teachings of the bible. I think it important that science be kept distinct from religion; the principals of science are based purely on what is observable; religion is often based on mystism and the occult, and - in the Christian and Muslim religions, at least - the recorded words of an etherreal being. And with so many different religions and their associated viewpoints on life and creation, its impossible to determine who's right and who's wrong without looking at the observable world.

 

[alkalin]

Zeke12,<br /><br />I feel there is no conflict between religion and science, but how can one say that in this day when so many in science and religion seem to argue otherwise? It is where you place the search for truth. Make a distinction between facts of reality, and theory, which means how we try to put it together to make sense of many issues of reality, those facts that do not change.<br /><br />Light only travels at c, see. So it gets to us to tell what’s going on after an event already has happened that we yet do not know about, unless you see more than me, which I doubt. Events happening traveling at c from us only appear to stand still, an illusion. Light is funny that way. It is the signal, the conveyer, the information transferor to us of an event. Time in all this is an illusion due to our conditioned thinking of sequence of events.<br /><br />Based on this, tachies would not travel back in time because there is no such thing. We would see them traveling back in time just as they would see us traveling back in time due to signal delay from us to them. (But only with the current time dilation equation we use, so is this a flaw in our math?)<br /><br />What we understand is of course the realm of math, but math is not the ultimate examination of the universe. Do we count on imagination to have the ultimate math relations, and hopefully then they explain everything, once we understand them? <br /><br />But wait, didn’t we perfect our math in what, about 50 years ago, so now we have the perfect view of the universe? There are a few ideas and things that have changed since then.<br /><br />There are non-math questions also, in case you are not aware, such as cause and effect.<br /><br />

 

[contracommando]

<font color="yellow">ContraCommando - Why do you conclude all dark matter moves slower than light? </font><br /><br />Because, on average, DM is several times more massive than ordinary matter. Anything that has mass must move at a speed slower than light - this, and the equations that verify this, have be tested in the laboratory to extreme accuracies (ex: electrons have mass, and therefore have never been accelerated to light speed in particle accelerators 99.99...%). <br /><br />If tachyons exist (they probably don’t) they would have to be mass-less in order to even achieve light speed.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Do you consider inflation theory may be correct wherein our universe may have expanded faster than light for a time?</font><br /><br />That may be correct (although there are other competing models, Eupyrotic for example) because, unlike matter, space can expand at faster than light speeds. In 2007 (not sure of the exact date) a satellite system named LISA will be launched; it will measure gravity waves from the big bang and may potentially verify or disprove the theory - the big bang predicts large gravity waves, whereas the Eupyrotic model predicts smaller gravity waves. <br /><br /> <br /><font color="yellow">Tachyons may emit light but this light may be beyond our light cone because the emission would be by faster than light matter.</font><br /><br />This would violate relatively and Maxwell’s laws of electromagnetism (which have be confirmed with extreme exactitude), as well as other things. The consistency of the speed of light is a cornerstone of relativity - from this Einstein predicted time dilation (also confirmed) and Lorentz contraction. When traveling at light speed a photon ages zero. If something traveled faster than light, then it might regress - or travel backwards in time; this violates the principle that useable information cannot travel faster than light. Example: in a distant and far off part of the uni

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">If something traveled faster than light, then we might be able to devise an experiment that would allow us to observe it before it happened (ex: gravity travels at exactly light speed, if gravity traveled any faster then we could build a gravity detector to observe a supernova before it actually happened….like predicting the future).</font><br /><br />Ludicrous.<br /><br />If something travelled faster than the speed of sound, it wouldn't hear words that weren't spoken yet. It would hear it when the waves intersect the space craft from the front. If we travel at Mach 10 for one year, does that mean we can hear words that will be spoken 9 years into the future? That is not right sir.<br /><br />Each event happens at a particular location. Sir, when light from supernova reaches a million planets, that does not mean the supernova happens a million times. It happens a long time ago at a particular place and time. You cannot look at something that hasn't happened. And when you see it, the event has already occured. You cannot hear something that hasn't been said, even if you break the speed of sound.<br /><br />The notion that we must travel into the future to break the speed of light, is partially wrong. We may experience FTL in the form of spaceship time dilation. This is really the slowing down of the ship's components and slowing of all the human brains due to the generation of an accelerated ship within the fields of space. That is what Relativity says. In this sense, we percieve events outside the spaceship in an accelerated way.<br /><br />Velocity Time dilation = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)<br /><br />If v />c, then velocity time dilation is a complex number.<br /><br />Where you have an accelerating box the Total Time Dilation is:<br /><br />Time dilation = sqrt(1-gh/c^2)*sqrt(1-gh/c^2) = 1-gh/c^2<br /><br />When it stops accelerating, time dilation is:<br /><br />Time dilation = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

 

[contracommando]

<font color="yellow">If we travel at Mach 10 for one year, does that mean we can hear words that will be spoken 9 years into the future? That is not right sir.</font><br /><br />No sir, never said that. And your analogy is also incorrect: Mach 10 is hardly light speed. At slower than light speeds, you still age forward in time, although at a slower rate relative to a friend on Earth. Whereas one can “speed up” time around them relative to their perspective, they cannot communicate that information to the past relative to where they started. <br /><br />Rf = (( 1 - (v/c)^2))^ 1/2 <br /><br />Rf = relative to a friend….you age slower the faster you move.<br />½ = the square root of the entire equation, I couldn’t find the symbol on the keyboard<br />C= speed of light<br />V= traveler’s velocity<br /><br />Notice that when V=C the number equals 1 (1/1^2 is one)…..1 minus 1 equals 0. Therefore, at light speed no time passes for the photon relative to the observer. At this point, all the photon’s energy is devoted to moving through space and none is left over for motion through time. When V is greater than C, then the objects age in the opposite of before, allowing information to travel faster than light, which is impossible. Also, objects with mass can never reach light speed because their mass approaches infinity as they do. <br /><br />Example: consider and object that is moving in one dimension. As it races from start to finish (line A is the motion and perpendicular line B is the finish) two seconds elapse. Now lets move in 2 dimensions (sideways - line C , to line B…B is also 2 and forms the base) and lets assume that the motion between the two forms a right triangle. Then C is greater than A - the time it takes to complete the same travel takes longer under the Pythagorean theorem, (8)^½ is 2.828 (because, in physics the energy of motion is split between multiple dimensions…..and one of time). As V gets closer to C, the triangle deforms, with C approach

 

[trisco]

Now if I could just convince my satellite ISP to use tachyons to send information instead of lightwaves I could play onlines games with negative LAG! LOL just joking guys. Would that mean I could finish a game before I even started? HHMMMM