1612.903?

[Phi for All]

I am looking at science from my point of understanding,

 

A statement that sounds so innocuous and reasonable, until you realize it has kept you from understanding things taught by mainstream science, which is simply the methodology that produces the best current explanations for various phenomena we have. You're tossing the textbooks for your own "point of understanding", when it's clear you've cobbled it together with tenuous strands of misinformation and popsci shallow reasoning. The blueprints are there, you should study them instead of trying to re-write them in crayon.

[Mordred]

There is several details your missing on your idea that dark matter is some element.

 

For example every element has a unique electromagnetic signature. The configuration in an element can be detected via spectography.

 

Secondly higher number elements become increasingly unstable, and will emit radiation.

 

Dark matter has no electromagnetic signature. Every known element however does.

 

Three how would dark matter form early enough to cause large scale structure formation. The early universe stars wouldn't be able to produce enough heavier elements for one of them to be dark matter.

 

Its also evident that you don't understand the process in symmetry breaking in regards to GUT theory.

 

This process doesn't involve elements. It involves the standard model of particles. In an unbound state. As you increase the temperature every element will become increasingly unstable. At high enough temperature hydrogen cannot even maintain a stable configuration.

 

Symmetry breaking occurs at even higher temperatures.

Your personal top quark model was developed in a similar manner as this post if I recall. (Still needs significant work). Unfortunately it's nowhere close to the actual top quark model.

 

Reading over your top quark model you haven't considered any of the conservation rules in particle decay.

 

A top quark cannot decay to a Higgs boson. As you have in your one link.

 

This would violate conservation of isospin, conservation of charge, plus several other conservation violations.

 

At no time did your model detail any of the conservation rules contained in the decays.

 

Here is a useful site. Press on any element and see it's spectral emissions. (Which isn't present with DM)

 

http://chemistry.bd.psu.edu/jircitano/periodic4.html

[sunshaker]

There is several details your missing on your idea that dark matter is some element.

 

For example every element has a unique electromagnetic signature. The configuration in an element can be detected via spectography.

 

Secondly higher number elements become increasingly unstable, and will emit radiation.

 

Dark matter has no electromagnetic signature. Every known element however does.

 

Three how would dark matter form early enough to cause large scale structure formation. The early universe stars wouldn't be able to produce enough heavier elements for one of them to be dark matter.

 

Its also evident that you don't understand the process in symmetry breaking in regards to GUT theory.

 

This process doesn't involve elements. It involves the standard model of particles. In an unbound state. As you increase the temperature every element will become increasingly unstable. At high enough temperature hydrogen cannot even maintain a stable configuration.

 

Symmetry breaking occurs at even higher temperatures.

Your personal top quark model was developed in a similar manner as this post if I recall. (Still needs significant work). Unfortunately it's nowhere close to the actual top quark model.

 

Reading over your top quark model you haven't considered any of the conservation rules in particle decay.

 

A top quark cannot decay to a Higgs boson. As you have in your one link.

 

This would violate conservation of isospin, conservation of charge, plus several other conservation violations.

 

At no time did your model detail any of the conservation rules contained in the decays.

 

Here is a useful site. Press on any element and see it's spectral emissions. (Which isn't present with DM)

 

http://chemistry.bd.psu.edu/jircitano/periodic4.html

Thanks for your reply which I agree mostly with, But I think you may be miss understanding me, I do not see these tables has "elements", To me, these opposing "element tables" represent A Proton/top quarks/anti top quark(universe), and all the particles/quarks within, existing in an "unbound state", they stay unbound until a measurement is taken, ie has in proton proton collisions at Cern. These "higher elements" exist has a potential, within the proton, in an unbound state, higher energy collisions will reveal higher energy particles/quarks/bosons.I expect something next around 1087 GeV.

 

 

 

(Still needs significant work). Unfortunately it's nowhere close to the actual top quark model.

I know this "alternative top quark/proton model" still needs much work.

 

 

[swansont]

Thanks for your reply which I agree mostly with, But I think you may be miss understanding me, I do not see these tables has "elements", To me, these opposing "element tables" represent A Proton/top quarks/anti top quark(universe), and all the particles/quarks within, existing in an "unbound state", they stay unbound until a measurement is taken, ie has in proton proton collisions at Cern. These "higher elements" exist has a potential, within the proton, in an unbound state, higher energy collisions will reveal higher energy particles/quarks/bosons.I expect something next around 1087 GeV.

 

I know this "alternative top quark/proton model" still needs much work.

 

 

Considering atoms exist (i.e. bound states of protons and neutrons) and the quark model has loads of evidence for it, I'd say "needs much work" is an understatement.

[sunshaker]

 

A top quark cannot decay to a Higgs boson. As you have in your one link.

 

The decay of top-quark to light quarks and Higgs boson is an extremely rare process in the Standard Model (SM) framework.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.08661

 

 

Dark matter has no electromagnetic signature. Every known element however does.

Every "KNOWN"?

 

 

Three how would dark matter form early enough to cause large scale structure formation. The early universe stars wouldn't be able to produce enough heavier elements for one of them to be dark matter.

The potential for heavy elements was always here, Heavier elements come into being/created as this universe expands, allowing higher elements to form.

 

 

 

Considering atoms exist (i.e. bound states of protons and neutrons) and the quark model has loads of evidence for it, I'd say "needs much work" is an understatement.

 

 

I have not said that atoms do not exist in bound states of protons and neutrons, I believe a "Proton" has different energy shell/layers, the first shell/layer is where you have most of the standard particles/energies up to 173 Gev, Now with cern turning up the energy proton proton collisions we enter the next shell layer which will realise heavier particle up to 750 Gev, as in the newish 750 gev bump.

 

 

Our universe exists within the Proton, The core of a proton is a Janus point.

To look out to the universe, you only need to look into the proton.

 

[swansont]

I have not said that atoms do not exist in bound states of protons and neutrons, I believe a "Proton" has different energy shell/layers, the first shell/layer is where you have most of the standard particles/energies up to 173 Gev, Now with cern turning up the energy proton proton collisions we enter the next shell layer which will realise heavier particle up to 750 Gev, as in the newish 750 gev bump.

 

 

Our universe exists within the Proton, The core of a proton is a Janus point.

To look out to the universe, you only need to look into the proton.

 

 

You were talking about protons existing in an unbound state. Now you say they are in bound states.

 

You say the proton is a Janus point, which is a Newtonian gravitational conjecture about time symmetry.

 

Gibberish.

 

So it comes down to this: how do you test your idea in a falsifiable way?

[Strange]

Every "KNOWN"?

 

Every element (known or unknown, below 118 or above, stable or unstable, naturally occurring or not) interacts electromagnetically and therefore can be a candidate for dark matter.

 

Also, there is no evidence that atoms above 118 are stable. There are hypothetical "islands of stability" but those are just atoms that may be relatively more stable than others. They would still be very unstable.

[sunshaker]

 

Every element (known or unknown, below 118 or above, stable or unstable, naturally occurring or not) interacts electromagnetically and therefore can be a candidate for dark matter.

 

Also, there is no evidence that atoms above 118 are stable. There are hypothetical "islands of stability" but those are just atoms that may be relatively more stable than others. They would still be very unstable.

There are many interesting theories on "dark atoms",

 

 

Dark matter candidates can appear in the new families of quarks and leptons and the existence of new stable charged leptons and quarks is possible, if they are hidden in elusive "dark atoms".https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.0181

 

 

The next obvious step is dark atoms — two different kinds of charged dark particles that can join together in atom-like bound states. These ideas, it turns out, are fairly compatible with what we know about the dynamics of dark matter in the real universe.http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/03/12/more-messy-dark-matter/

Elements above z92 are very unstable, and tend not to exist naturally(in normal space),

But it does not rule out that they may exist within dark matter, being a constitution of dark matter.

 

 

 

 

 

So it comes down to this: how do you test your idea in a falsifiable way?

 

Something I am yet unsure off in this "present" time,

Perhaps in a few years with higher proton proton collisions, and more sensitive detectors, and better computers to analyze all the data, I may then be able to test my idea in a falsifiable way

Has I believe our universe exists within the proton, it would also mean what we believe has dark matter, will also exist within the proton.

[Strange]

There are many interesting theories on "dark atoms",

 

But they are not made of the same thing as atoms in the periodic table. They can't be because if they were then they would not be "dark".

 

Elements above z92 are very unstable, and tend not to exist naturally(in normal space),

But it does not rule out that they may exist within dark matter, being a constitution of dark matter.

 

No. They cannot be part of dark matter because:

 

1. They interact electromagnetically (i.e. they are not "dark")

 

2. They are not stable (i.e. they do not exist)

 

Has I believe our universe exists within the proton, it would also mean what we believe has dark matter, will also exist within the proton.

 

That is just nonsense.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Strange

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

No model, no falsifiability. This doesn't meet our minimum requirements for speculations.

Please do not reintroduce this topic.