We Didn't Find 90% of the Universe's Mass... Maybe Because It's Kinetic Energy?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by swan001
As y'all know, we are still wondering why we can detect only 10% of the Universe's mass, and where the heck went the rest - a whopping 90%.

You didn't cite a source for those figures and I never saw those figures before, so no, "we" don't know that.

The figures are variable. Some say 83%, some say as high as 99%(!), as this gentleman here.

www.eclipse.net...

Scientists estimate that 90 to 99 percent of the total mass of the universe is missing matter

as others have said, the velocities are too low to be "relativistic".

And as I have said, the Center black hole is a place where velocities can reach impressive levels. Stephen Hawkin even thinks some particles can, briefly, exceed light speed. These are so energetic they can actually escape this black hole with a little help from uncertainty principle.
Now, how much energy do you think a heavy particle will emit once it's at light speed? And even if this velocity is only .99xc, imagine this same energy multiplied by all that matter around the Central black hole.

I am saying that the mass we can't detect could be conserved in the form of the galactic matter's angular momentum.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Were you talking to me or to Arbritageur?

reply to post by buddhasystem

Thanks. That sounds like a vote for four, sort of, without saying that three is wrong? I guess I need to research the weak force some more.

Originally posted by Ghost375
It's an interesting thought for sure....but I think you're wrong.

I was told by a prominent physicist that perhaps, just perhaps, our theory of gravitation is wrong. So there's not really any missing mass, it's just our equations aren't accurate.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
you posted a quote that said dark matter constitutes 84% of the matter in the universe..
What is it thought that dark matter is?

There's not really any evidence for dark matter. Basically, our observations don't match with what we observed, so someone said, "Well let's just add in this dark matter stuff our observations and call it a day."

Is there some punctuation missing in "our observations don't match with what we observed"? Because our observations do match what we observe, they are one in the same. Maybe you meant to say we don't know how to explain the observations, so we made some guesses.

Regarding the prominent physicist, are you referring to MOND or MOdified Newtonian Dynamics? Or something else? From the MOND wiki:

Beside MOND, three other notable theories that try to explain the mystery of the rotational curves are Nonsymmetric Gravitational Theory proposed by John Moffat, Conformal gravity by Philip Mannheim, and Dynamic Newtonian Advanced gravity (DNAg)

Those are certainly alternate explanations that have been considered, and perhaps still are by some, so I don't know why you said "and call it a day". Nobody is really sure about dark matter, so nobody has called it a day. But even supporters of MOND or similar ideas have to explain observations in the bullet cluster which seem to show the existence of dark matter even if MOND or similar is true:

Weak lensing mass reconstruction of the interacting cluster 1E0657-558: Direct evidence for the existence of dark matter

The observed offsets of the lensing mass peaks from the peaks of the dominant visible mass component (the X-ray gas) directly demonstrate the presence, and dominance, of dark matter in this cluster. This proof of the dark matter existence holds true even under the assumption of modified Newtonian gravity (MOND); from the observed gravitational shear to optical light ratios and mass peak - X-ray gas offsets, the dark matter component in a MOND regime has a total mass which is at least equal to the baryonic mass of the system.

I suppose it's possible someone might show that to be wrong, but maybe you can ask your prominent physicist how he reconciles this paper with what he told you, because if that paper is right, no modified gravity theory I know of can explain those observations without dark matter, or some other component to the theory besides modified gravity. Modified gravity theory just can't explain that by itself, but it does seem to fit other observations.

Originally posted by swan001
www.eclipse.net...

Scientists estimate that 90 to 99 percent of the total mass of the universe is missing matter

That source is 18 years old. I know it's hard to keep up, since cosmology is rapidly evolving with lots of exciting new data, but citing an 18 year old source isn't really even trying.

Regarding the velocities of particles around black holes, wouldn't we see the energy signatures from them if they are traveling that fast?

Black Holes

Some astrophysicists believe that some ultraluminous X-ray sources may be the accretion disks of intermediate-mass black holes.

Quasars are thought to be the accretion disks of supermassive black holes, since no other known object is powerful enough to produce such strong emissions. Quasars produce strong emission across the electromagnetic spectrum, including UV, X-rays and gamma-rays and are visible at tremendous distances due to their high luminosity. Between 5 and 25% of quasars are "radio loud," so called because of their powerful radio emission.

Originally posted by swan001

Therefore, the radius of an atom is more than 10,000 times the radius of its nucleus (1–10 fm),[2] and less than 1/1000 of the wavelength of visible light (400–700 nm).

en.wikipedia.org...

No, it's not air, but it's void.

...and your point was?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by swan001

Therefore, the radius of an atom is more than 10,000 times the radius of its nucleus (1–10 fm),[2] and less than 1/1000 of the wavelength of visible light (400–700 nm).

en.wikipedia.org...

No, it's not air, but it's void.

...and your point was?

Nothing, just sayin'. What was yours?

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by swan001

Therefore, the radius of an atom is more than 10,000 times the radius of its nucleus (1–10 fm),[2] and less than 1/1000 of the wavelength of visible light (400–700 nm).

en.wikipedia.org...

No, it's not air, but it's void.

...and your point was?

Nothing, just sayin'. What was yours?

edit on 14-11-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)

what is void made of?

reply to post by ImaFungi


A void is completely absent of everything - even air. It's a vacuum.

Originally posted by Ghost375
It's an interesting thought for sure....but I think you're wrong.

I was told by a prominent physicist that perhaps, just perhaps, our theory of gravitation is wrong. So there's not really any missing mass, it's just our equations aren't accurate.

It's possible, though a number of specific theories (MOND) have been disproven through recent astrophysical observations. There are some galaxy collisions which are very hard to explain without actual physical dark matter. As a result of observations like these, the case for dark matter is strong.

www.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

A void is completely absent of everything - even air. It's a vacuum.

so is this void the real background of the universe? the background for beyond the physical universe? or was this void created when space-time was created?

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by Ghost375
It's an interesting thought for sure....but I think you're wrong.

I was told by a prominent physicist that perhaps, just perhaps, our theory of gravitation is wrong. So there's not really any missing mass, it's just our equations aren't accurate.

It's possible, though a number of specific theories (MOND) have been disproven through recent astrophysical observations. There are some galaxy collisions which are very hard to explain without actual physical dark matter. As a result of observations like these, the case for dark matter is strong.

www.nasa.gov...

what is it thought that dark matter, dark energy is? where is it thought it comes from/ what is it thought that created it? is it non quantum mechanical? is it non atomic?

reply to post by ImaFungi


Yeah, it seems this NASA paper is confusing dark matter (which is non-radiating matter in space, aka dark nebulas) and dark energy, which is from quantum activity even in total vacuum. Now I am confused: does this NASA paper referring to dark energy or hidden matter?

never mind

I don't think we've accounted for Dark Matter, Tachyons and Bradyons, particles that interact very lightly (but in a crucial way) with others.

What about the difference of consumption between material and dark energy by a black hole?

should read about that too!

black holes hold the galaxy together somehow and science (modern) has not explained it.

Osiris, gravity, etc........ black hole!

from one of my articles:

“All of my investigations seem to point to the conclusion that they are small particles, each carrying so small a charge that we are justified in calling them neutrons. They move with great velocity, exceeding that of light.” – Nikola Tesla, July 10, 1932

TESLA: Particles Exist which travel faster than light.

CERN: Nothing travels faster than light.

“Einstein’s relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king…” ~Nikola Tesla

Originally posted by KhufuKeplerTriangle
I don't think we've accounted for Dark Matter, Tachyons and Bradyons, particles that interact very lightly (but in a crucial way) with others.

I'm not aware of any observation of a tachyon, so this seems to be a meaningless statement.

Osiris, gravity, etc........ black hole!

Yogurt, dill pickles, etc... Healthy diet!

I mean come on, this is word soup.

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Yeah, it seems this NASA paper is confusing dark matter (which is non-radiating matter in space, aka dark nebulas) and dark energy, which is from quantum activity even in total vacuum. Now I am confused: does this NASA paper referring to dark energy or hidden matter?

Where do you see dark energy mentioned in the paper? Where specifically is the part where NASA is "confusing" things?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by KhufuKeplerTriangle
I don't think we've accounted for Dark Matter, Tachyons and Bradyons, particles that interact very lightly (but in a crucial way) with others.

I'm not aware of any observation of a tachyon, so this seems to be a meaningless statement.

Osiris, gravity, etc........ black hole!

Yogurt, dill pickles, etc... Healthy diet!

I mean come on, this is word soup.

Because you are not aware and it has no meaning to you, it has no meaning to anyone else?
Short sight for "buddha" in my opinion.

If your only aim is to attack, attack someone else, please.
This can explodes when touched the wrong way.
___________________________________________________________
cdsweb.cern.ch...

Home > Articles & Preprints > Published Articles > Interaction of Tachyons with Matter
Report number EXT-2002-011
Title Interaction of Tachyons with Matter
Author(s) Tomaschitz, R
Affiliation (Dept. of Physics, Hiroshima Univ.)
In: Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 14 (1999) 5137-5157
Subject category Particle Physics - Theory
Abstract A new interaction mechanism of superluminal particles with matter is suggested. Tachyons are described by a real Proca field with negative mass square, coupled to a current of subluminal matter. The potential of a static point source in this field theory is a damped periodic function with 1/r-decay. We treat this potential as a perturbation of the Coulomb potential, and study its effects on cross-sections and energy levels. In the limit of large impact parameter, the periodicity of the potential has a pronounced effect on the classical cross-section, which gets singular at the accumulating extrema of the scattering angle. In this limit we define the cross-section wave mechanically, by semiclassical rainbow scattering. The impact of the tachyon potential on the energy levels of hydrogen and hydrogenic ions is calculated by means of Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization. Estimates for the tachyon mass (3 keV) and the coupling constant of the tachyon potential are derived on the basis of high-precision Lamb shift measurements.

Email contact: [email protected]
Record created 2002-02-21, last modified 2009-07-29
_____________________________________________________________



Now you've heard.

___________________________________________________________

arxiv.org...

Caustics in Tachyon Matter and Other
Born-Infeld Scalars

Gary Felder
CITA, University of Toronto, 60 St. George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3H8, Canada
E-mail: [email protected]
Lev Kofman
CITA, University of Toronto, 60 St. George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3H8, Canada
E-mail: [email protected]
Alexei Starobinsky
Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics

Abstract: We consider scalar Born-Infeld type theories with arbitrary potentials V (T)
of a scalar field T. We find that for models with runaway potentials V (T) the generic inhomogeneous solutions after a short transient stage can be very well approximated by the
solutions of a Hamilton-Jacobi equation that describes free streaming wave front propagation. The analytic solution for this wave propagation shows the formation of caustics with
multi-valued regions beyond them. We verified that these caustics appear in numerical
solutions of the original scalar BI non-linear equations. Our results include the scalar BI
model with an exponential potential, which was recently proposed as an effective action
for the string theory tachyon in the approximation where high-order spacetime derivatives
of T are truncated. Since the actual string tachyon dynamics contain derivatives of all
orders, the tachyon BI model with an exponential potential becomes inadequate when the
caustics develop because high order spatial derivatives of T become divergent.

BI type tachyon theory with a potential decreasing at large T could have interesting cosmological applications because the tachyon field rolling towards its ground state at infinity
acts as pressureless dark matter. We find that inhomogeneous cosmological tachyon fluctuations rapidly grow and develop multiple caustics. Any considerations of the role of the
tachyon field in cosmology will have to involve finding a way to predict the behavior of the
field at and beyond these caustics.
Keywords: tac.sft.dbr

____________________________________

IGNORANCE IS A CHOICE
IGNORANCE IS PISS

reply to post by KhufuKeplerTriangle


Well, you post a couple of links to theoretical papers, which are in abundance, and so what. What I told you that we don't observe tachyons. We still don't. So I was right, and your post doesn't matter.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by KhufuKeplerTriangle

 

Well, you post a couple of links to theoretical papers, which are in abundance, and so what. What I told you that we don't observe tachyons. We still don't. So I was right, and your post doesn't matter.

If observation determines importance, I hope no one reads your post above

lol

XD

reply to post by buddhasystem


what does it mean for a particle to travel through space in/as a wave? why is it so prevalent that "things" travel as waves? what is the real difference between a particle and wave? and how can one infinitesimal piece of quanta be a wave ( something that assumedly takes up the space of an area larger then a single point of infinitesimal quanta)? does wave signify an attached tail trailing behind an oscillating particle? or does the imagination of a trail just help depict a particles guaranteed travel pattern ( frequency) through space-time?