Jump to content

Matter/anti-matter asymettry, Dark matter, dark energy and how they relate


jasondoege
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Man it should be obvious. If photons prior to the surface of last scattering cannot reach us. Then obviously there is no possibility for antimatter to seperation from matter. The average density is too flipping high in the early universe.

Please study Cosmology and learn before thinking you can solve it's problems.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

Here is some useful textbooks 

Training (textbook Style Articles)

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf:"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde
http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

I especially  recommend chapters 3 to 5 of last link. In those chapters he describes nucleosynthesis which includes leptogenesis and Baryogenesis (Ie when the matter/antimatter assymetry occurs and CPT which is used to describe it. (CPT. Charge,parity and time = Sackarov condition.)

 

 

Maybe you pointed out some detail that invalidates that conclusion i drew from it, id have to look into it. But like i said in the post you just replied to it does not invalidate my hypothesis. And once again you insult my knowledge of physics in order to discredit any idea have have regarding it. Its like some weird itch specialists have because they cant accept the fact that an outsider can actually have a positive effect on their field. Im gonna rest for now. Im assuming by your comments that you think a small section and not the crux of my hypothesis is false and therefore the whole thing is and that you know how smart i am because you just happen to be that smart and from my level of intelligence youve gleaned that somehow im so dumb that i cant even guess things correctly so its not worth talking to me about my ideas so please stop doing so.

Edited by jasondoege
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is insulting anyone when I am simply pointing out you need to properly understand the topic.

If you don't know Cosmology you cannot fix it. Especially when you don't know any of the formulas or evidence involved.

the term Baryogenesis is a simple example.  It literally describes the matter and antimatter imbalance of baryonic matter.

You could have simply Google'd that term and gotten that answer.

If your going to get insulted everytime I try to explain Introductory level Cosmology to you then we will never have an intelligent discussion of where your idea doesn't make sense. Or work.

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

No one is insulting anyone when I am simply pointing out you need to properly understand the topic.

If you don't know Cosmology you cannot fix it. Especially when you don't know any of the formulas or evidence involved.

the term Baryogenesis is a simple example.  It literally describes the matter and antimatter imbalance of baryonic matter.

You could have simply Google'd that term and gotten that answer.

If your going to get insulted everytime I try to explain Introductory level Cosmology to you then we will never have an intelligent discussion of where your idea doesn't make sense. Or work.

I didnt get insulted when you tried to explain things thats part of the reason im here and its something ive been begging you guys to do. I got insulted when you keep referring to my level of accomplishments in the field as proof that what i had to offer was invalid. Thanks for giving me another word for something i refer to and even answered in my hypothesis.
Im using this forum to see if i understand astrophysics well enough for my hypothesis to be valid or to drop it if someone shows me i dont and its not. You Simply saying i dont therefore it isnt isnt adding any value to the conversation.
If you do not have anything specific youd wish to add then just go on about your business elsewhere. You seem to have an odd desire to have me believe youve discredited my hypothesis thats not based on anything specific that i can an only assume is because of ulterior motives regarding it which im just going to add as another feather in my cap. i feel for you bro.
Its apparent dealing with someone like me is frustrating for you and a shot to your ego about matters on this subject but you need to get over it. You need to fix how you approach information sharing and debate about whats shared because youre slapping science and open discourse in the face with that.
And guess what Einstien was not a physics expert when he revolutionized our understanding of it. He was a mathematician who people regularly tried to discredit that we know we were all very lucky to have an expert even consider and test his ideas.

Edited by jasondoege
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you honestly believe you can simply ignore the comments we are giving you when those comments do in fact call into question the validity of your idea ?

Tell me if a particle cannot travel more than a millimeter without encountering another particle how does matter and antimatter seperate ?

I have given you the mean free path of particles prior to the CMB which is far less than a mm.

Can you not address that question ?

I am only on the first paragraph of your hypothesis. I haven't even gotten to how you believe you solve Galaxy rotation curves for DM.

Lets try another angle of approach ignoring DE what causes the original expansion if matter and antimatter are in equal portions prior to being able to seperate ?

Expansion requires a cause and energy doesn't exist on its own. Can (and dont give me space cubes, space  isnt a substance its simply volume) quantum foam is simply a fancy descriptive for the degrees of freedom of particles residing in space.

can you answer that question ? The Big bang isn't the pop media explosion you see on TV. An explosion radiates outward and has a preferred direction and point of origin.

Evidence shows the universe is homogeneous and isotropic in its expansion  (Google those terms and also Google the Cosmological principle) I would also read the balloon analogy link I provided earlier.

for the record I really don't care what you wish to believe. If you wish to believe pink unicorns waving magic wands filled with pixie dust created the universe then that's your business.  

You not insulting my ego with a bunch of random conjecture with no true physics expressed nor any applicable testable physics to mathematically  prove or disprove your hypothesis. That simply shows me the lack of effort on your part to properly present a model.

It's also not meeting the criteria that is required in the Speculation forum.

 

 

I suggest you review these guidelines.

 Now here is question.

Are you aware our Sun produces antimatter ?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/when-the-sun-gets-violent-it-shoots-antimatter-at-the-earth-9193888/

How does that work with your theory of antimatter galaxies ? When ordinary Stars can and do produce antimatter. Please note we can also detect the difference.

 

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jasondoege said:

To be even more clear i have an iq of 150.

You must be from Papua, New Guinea.
( don't worry about it, you wouldn't understand that either )

Anyway...

19 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

Im going to another place or another person who gives a crap.

So long, and good luck finding someone who cares about your crap.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jasondoege said:
6 hours ago, Strange said:

 

not nice, the center of a donut is in the center of it even if youre inside it.

It is nice because the center of the donut is nowhere inside the donut, i.e. there is no place inside the donut where you can travel to the donut's center of mass.

43 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

Dude just drop it. Im going to another place or another person who gives a crap.

Take your ball and go home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jasondoege said:

Dude just drop it. Im going to another place or another person who gives a crap.

Your choice. There really wasn't anything of substance to your hypothesis.

 Good luck to you. Though I can promise you if your not willing to work on proper modelling no one will listen.

Particularly when you cannot answer questions that can potentially counter your proposal.

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mad For Science said:

It is nice because the center of the donut is nowhere inside the donut, i.e. there is no place inside the donut where you can travel to the donut's center of mass.

Take your ball and go home.

i guess youre saying our universe is a donut and has a center then. and even though this absurd non-fact has no bearing on the crux of my hypothesis lets go ahead and say it invalidates it.

Ive been at home the whole time. And guess what i said id find someone else to do it OR go somewhere else. God you people are so dumb you cant even understand or speak basic english

Edited by jasondoege
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jasondoege said:

Thats a more detailed description of the big bang then i knew.

Does that make you stop and think that perhaps you should fill the gaps in your knowledge before speculating?

8 hours ago, jasondoege said:

you guys are positing extra dimensions which is what i pointed out currently untestable and impossible to visualize so we cannot use them to determine if the merit of my hypothesis is valid.

We are not proposing extra dimensions.

But it is worth noting that if the model required extra dimensions, it would include them whether we could visualise them or not. And, if the current model included extra dimensions, it would be because their effects could be tested.

It is only irrelevant to your idea because you do not have a mathematical model. 

8 hours ago, jasondoege said:

your explanation of why the cmb has not passed(more importantly does not vary) is insufficient.

The only thing that is insufficient is your understanding. (And that is not the basis on which theories are judged.)

If you are interested in understanding it better, then I think the "surface of last screaming" analogy is the best explanation I have seen: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March03/Lineweaver/Lineweaver7_2.html

8 hours ago, jasondoege said:

cmon you guys this spacial dimensions thing you keep bringing up is a strange attempt to discredit my hypothesis by referring to things that cannot be tested known or even visualized.

It is not an attempt to discredit your theory. It is just an attempt to help you understand the current model - the one that works.

(Well, admittedly, if you understood the current theory, you would realise that yours doesn't work and isn't necessary.)

8 hours ago, jasondoege said:

the help i need is refinement which you guys have been giving me a little of. or outright showing its false which im begging you to try to do. What is the purpose for this section of this forum?

We are trying to help you understand some of the basic concepts (like the source of the CMB, the fact the universe is unbounded, etc). That is surely a good thing?

We have corrected the details that are obviously wrong (like the CMB, for example). But most of your idea is so vague and not based on any physics, that it is hard to say much about it ("it is not even wrong" as someone put it).

If the CMB could be explained by matter-antimatter, don't you think someone would have thought of that? But also: it doesn't need an explanation: it was predicted on the basis of well-understood physics. And then discovered, hence confirming the theory. That is how science works.

Quote

ok  i googled the torus. guess what it exists in three dimensional space, has an outside, and is just a freaking donut

Actually, it is still a good example of the point being made (which you seem to have missed). Imagine you are flying around inside a giant torus. Your friends said "we'll meet in the middle" but you have been going round and round for ages and have realised there is no middle.

But you are right, the universe is not a torus. But that's the thing about analogies: they can be useful to make a single point, but don't apply beyond that.

6 hours ago, jasondoege said:

No take your time and think about it. If matter/anti-matter pairs were produced in random directions and separated by spatial expansion you would have randomly defined areas with only matter or anti-matter present in them after the dominant member annihilated its opposite due to their attraction to one another and close proximity. Random means random and that directly correlates to the areas of space dominated by one or the other except by saying that the produced result would be symmetrical

It is possible (if unlikely) that large enough amounts of matter and anti-matter got separated early in the universe and formed separate galaxies, or groups of galaxies. People have considered this possibility. Then, being scientists, predicted what the consequences would be and then tested the idea.

If there were these isolated areas of matter and antimatter then, because the universe is full of gas everywhere (hydrogen mainly; we can measure its presence throughout the universe; as well as it being predicted by the Big Bang model) there would be areas where the hydrogen part of the universe and the anti-hydroegn part of the universe came into contact. Even with the near-vacuum of interstellar hydrogen, there would be interactions and annihilations producing radiation. And radiation of very specific frequencies. People have looked to see if that radiation exists. And no, not in the amounts required to support the original hypothesis. (Although evidence for small amounts of antimatter in unexpected places was found, so that was a nice side effect of the research.)

Here's the thing: any part of your idea that you can make specific enough to test (compare with known physics or known experimental results) will turn out to be false. The rest is too vague to pass judgment on (which does not mean it might be right).

No one is saying you are dumb. But you clearly have some gaps in your understanding. That's fine, we all do. Learning is what makes science interesting. But that makes it hard for you to look objectively at your own idea. Just because it makes sense to you (which it must do, because you made it up to fit in with your level of understanding) doesn't mean that it must be right; or even has any chance of being right.

And your ideas are not being rejected because you are an outsider. But because they don't work. The trouble is, modern physics is so complex that it is pretty much impossible for an "outsider" (and by this, I don't mean someone "outside university" or "outside science"; I means someone who does not have a deep understanding of the subject) to come up with useful ideas or insights. 

I have come across people on science forums who had an initial idea, rather like you, but then decided they needed to learn more in order to develop the idea. After years of self-study of theory and math, they either eventually realise that their idea was hopefully naive (but are happy to have learnt enough to know that) or they have realised they need another decade or two of study to get anywhere near enough understanding.

The problem is, ideas are easy. Anyone can have them Including experts in the field. The difference is that they will do some mental or back-of-the-envelope calculations and quickly realise that 99% of the ideas don't work. The 1% they might take a bit further, discuss it with friends, no a bit more complex calculations and realise that 99% of those don't work, either.And so it goes on.

For example: the CMB. There have been, in the past, very serious cosmologists who doubted the Big Bang model. (There may still be a few.) As the CMB is one of the most convincing pieces of evidence for the Big Bang, they had to try and come up with alternative explanations. There have been lots: matter-antimatter interaction, starlight scattered by dust, and all sorts of weirder ideas. They have all been tested and none of them fit the evidence as well as the Big Bang. But, more important than that, a mode, has to fit all the evidence. It is no good coming up with one explanation for Hubble's law, another one for CMB, another one for the amount of hydrogen and helium in the universe, another one for Olber's paradox, etc, etc. when we have one explanation that explains them all.

 

Sorry, not all related to your idea, but I hope it helps you get a better idea of how science actually works, and why (I'm sorry) your idea is not going to fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jasondoege said:

God you people are so dumb you cant even understand or speak basic english

Tell me is the only defense for your proposal you can come up with ?

 Do you honestly believe this tactic has any chance of convincing anyone your idea is correct ?

 Why dont you instead try defending your idea with some actual physics ? I have given you some resources to get started.

Impress us and provide something viable to work with. So far nothing you have stated in this thread has been convincing.

You will need far greater effort to convince anyone your proposal solves the problems you are attempting to solve.

Though I can pretty much quarantee once you apply the math you will find that your model won't work as you described it. Not with current data in particular.

I know I can I prove with mathematics and current knowledge of the early universe physics that you cannot achieve the matter/antimatter your first paragraph mentions.

I also know your DM proposal isn't viable to solve the Galaxy rotation curve. Yes I can mathematically prove that as well. I can employ Jeans equations for mass distribution for that. For further information on how to solve the Kepler galaxy rotation problem. Study the following 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navarro–Frenk–White_profile

The main feature of the NFW profile is that you need a uniform mass distribution surrounding a spiral galaxy.

 

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All you guys have done is possibly show that one conclusion i drew from my hypothesis is incorrect. If you say outright that you know 100% for sure that initial matter could not have been created this way and point out details that show why not that dont just include because cmbr requires more than that, then i will believe you and remove that conclusion.
But if you cannot see the merit or test ability of the original hypothesis i need to look elsewhere because i am not getting the positive interaction i was looking for that would even include showing the crux of my theory has to be false. I guess you cant see your extremely negative predilections towards this just based on my position as an outsider which i pointed out Einstein even was and had to deal with this same crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

All you guys have done is possibly show that one conclusion i drew from my hypothesis is incorrect. If you say outright that you know 100% for sure that initial matter could not have been created this way and point out details that show why not that dont just include because cmbr requires more than that, then i will believe you and remove that conclusion.
But if you cannot see the merit or test ability of the original hypothesis i need to look elsewhere because i am not getting the positive interaction i was looking for that would even include showing the crux of my theory has to be false. I guess you cant see your extremely negative predilections towards this just based on my position as an outsider which i pointed out Einstein even was and had to deal with this same crap.

The problem is, you don't speak the language; in essence what you're trying to do, is tell a Dolphin how to swim or perhaps more acurately, you're a Dolphin trying to teach us how to walk. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

The problem is, you don't speak the language; in essence what you're trying to do, is tell a Dolphin how to swim or perhaps more acurately, you're a Dolphin trying to teach us how to walk. 

 

These dolphins have consistently shown me repeatedly they lack moderate to advanced logic skills and so have suffered brain damage in the critical thinking area of the brain from being a dolphin their whole life. Its clear to me Im going to have to search long and wide to find a special dolphin that hasnt been affected by this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jasondoege said:

These dolphins have consistently shown me repeatedly they lack moderate to advanced logic skills and so have suffered brain damage in the critical thinking area of the brain from being a dolphin their whole life. Its clear to me Im going to have to search long and wide to find a special dolphin that hasnt been affected by this issue.

Have you ever found a walking Dolphin? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That dude even just linked me to gibberish that says dark matter has kinetic energy. 

Just now, dimreepr said:

Have you ever found a walking Dolphin? 

do they  need to walk for me to talk to them like youre already saying im doing????

Look guys seriously you have no desire to analyze and critique this hypothesis in any meaningful constructive way so just drop it please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

That dude even just linked me to gibberish that says dark matter has kinetic energy.

Well, of course it does. It has mass (because it has a gravitational effect) and it is moving. KE = 1/2 mv2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

do they  need to walk for me to talk to them like youre already saying im doing????

I'm just trying to save your blushes, I was you when I first came here, full of pride in my intelligence and wisdom; since then all I have done is eat humble pie, OK not always, but if you can stomach a slice, it's amazing what you can learn.  

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

Look guys seriously you have no desire to analyze and critique this hypothesis in any meaningful constructive way so just drop it please.

I think you have had some good answers to those parts that a re amenable to detailed analysis. The rest is too vague to comment on.

12 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

lmao. Please guys just drop it im begging you

What makes you think it doesn't have kinetic energy? Or are you now just being contrary for the sake of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2020 at 11:02 PM, Mordred said:

 

Baryogenesis and leptogenesis however is a far far more complicated issue as one must prove an assymetry between matter and antimatter.

There is a certain asymmetry between matter and antimatter. Тhe proton's magnetic and mechanical moment vectors are directed the same way, while the antiproton's vectors are directed in opposite directions.

This should lead to the fact that if the proton and antiproton are close to the event horizon of the black hole, they will have different probabilities of not being drawn under the event horizon.

Edited by SergUpstart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

I think you have had some good answers to those parts that a re amenable to detailed analysis. The rest is too vague to comment on.

What makes you think it doesn't have kinetic energy?

because everybody should know the only way weve been able to detect it is by its "gravitational" effect. Link me to one professional study that shows them firing empty space at things or shows its something theyve had to thrust through with things like voyager. It does not interact with matter in any other way than what i just showed you. this is kindergarden level stuff.

10 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

There is a certain asymmetry between matter and antimatter. Тhe proton's magnetic and mechanical moment vectors are directed the same way, while the antiproton's vectors are directed in opposite directions.

This should lead to the fact that if the proton and antiproton are close to the event horizon of the black hole, they will have different probabilities of not being drawn under the event horizon.

what is a mechanical movement vector? is it something nanobots do lmao

Edited by jasondoege
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

because everybody should know the only way weve been able to detect it is by its "gravitational" effect.

See that "gravitational effect"? that means it has mass. If it has mass, it has kinetic energy. We can calculate the average velocity from the distribution of the dark matter within and around galaxies and hence its kinetic energy.

You seem to have got into a mode of dismissing anything that you don't already know as being wrong, so there seems little point continuing this conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

See that "gravitational effect"? that means it has mass. If it has mass, it has kinetic energy. We can calculate the average velocity from the distribution of the dark matter within and around galaxies and hence its kinetic energy.

You seem to have got into a mode of dismissing anything that you don't already know as being wrong, so there seems little point continuing this conversation.

dont quote me and cut off the blatant points ive made about the same topic. You guys need to drop this now you have almost zero grey matter.

Edited by jasondoege
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

Link me to one professional study that shows them firing empty space at things or shows its something theyve had to thrust through with things like voyager. It does not interact with matter in any other way than what i just showed you. this is kindergarden level stuff.

I don't know what this has to do with kinetic energy.

Are you assuming that kinetic energy is something to do with interacting or hitting things?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.