...no problem. I'd be very interested in hearing from and expert in the field. Thanks!
I am not an expert, but I am interested in theories related to the universe.
It's my understanding that the early universe had slightly more matter than antimatter.
After matter and antimatter collided and "annihilated" each other, what remained was the current visible matter that comprises our current universe.
The problem I have is that I also understand that energy is neither gained or lost..just transformed. Therefore, this "annihilation" must have transformed this matter and antimatter into a different form of energy or matter.
My thought is that this "annihilation" may have resulted in sub-particles that do not interact with light but retains its gravitational properties and I was just interested to see if this "theory" is consistent with the observations of experts in the field.
Actually, many of the things you said stand up to the science. During the process annihilation (in most cases), photons are produced. And the process is also reversible - gamma radiation (high energy photons), can separate again into a positron electron pair. So your point about transformation is the key, I think.And dark matter and dark energy, for many years, has bothered me tremendously. I know that there is a lot of science that backs up it's existence - in fact, that it exists in large proportions compared to visible matter and energy. I know the math works out, but I still consider it a place-holder for something we haven't quite figured out yet. I also thought that about the Higgs Boson, and we actually discovered it in July, so I may not be the greatest visionary when it comes to this sort of thing.I am have long accepted that the human mind will evolve to comprehend things as they are discovered, and that as of today, I there are a a lot of things my(meaning my species really) brain hasn't evolved to understand because it doesn't have the building blocks to make sense out of some things - like a singularity, infinity, Dark Matter/Energy, etc. But I'll only be satisfied when I have totally exhausted my ability to comprehend it. I also have tremendous respect for most of the worldwide scientific community. All that being said, I have a hard time with the "fudge factor"... the stuff that makes up 95% of our entire universe (70% Dark Energy 25% dark matter)... the number that works in our calculations is simply a couple of real "things" that happen to be things that cannot be seen and can be measured by what's "left over" when we do our calculations. I picture a prominent physicist giving a lecture (I won't use names, because there are some of whom I am not at all fond!)...."Oh, what's that? We just found out that by using the prevailing theories in physics and the associated math, our answers are 95% off? Sure, I can explain that. That must be - um, is the - the elusive dark matter I theorized a few years ago. Of course those numbers are off because now we know that... whispers - what number did you say?... we know that 95% of everything is invisible." "I'm sorry... prove it? look at the math... I'm not sure how you expect me to prove something exists when it's invisible. But If you look here at this seep sky image of the cosmos, what color do you see the most of? And black is... YES... DARK!Ok. When you look out there, even very deeply - and I spend a good amount of time assisting in the classifying galaxies from The Sloan Digital Site Survey and the Hubble Space Telescope - There is a lot of "black"... even with the hundreds of thousands of galaxies that we may identify in an area no bigger than a couple of degrees - there's plenty of darkness to go around... not only what I perceive when I look at those images, but in the light years of distance of depth that I'm peering into. So there is no doubt in my mind that there is dark out there. And based on evidence I see of gravitation lensing just through my own research, (and as rare as they are, I've discovered dozens of them over time) particularly near distant elliptical galaxies, it's clear that we don't "see" everything that makes up to total.But is it OK to just call it dark matter and dark energy so the formulas still work?Anti-matter has mass just like it's matter counterpart... could some of that so called dark matter actually be antimatter? Now that we've confirmed the existence of the Higgs Boson particle - the one particle that gives mass to everything in the universe - so that we now know it's not technically correct to talk about a "particle" as "having mass", since it's a different particle that provides that characteristic. Does this mean that at a quantum level, we may be able to measure more than one characteristic of a given particle without making it impossible to carry out additional measurements? Because the mass comes from a different particle! Since I haven't been able to fully wrap my brain around how the Higgs mechanism works, I can't actually answer that. And it's one thing to have a theory about such a particle floating about for a couple of decades.... at that point it could be true, untrue, or only part of the answer... But since it's no longer just theory, I have to accept it to be true. What implications does this have on, well, everything? It's a pretty huge find (no pun really intended since it is considered now the only "massive" particle).Doesn't that sort of turn all of this on it's head?And finally, the area is probably as ripe for creative theories as ever. So, although I started by saying no - I don't see anything in your theory that is inconsistent with factual physics (of which I am aware). We are able to create anti-matter under controlled conditions (CERN does it routinely). So we do know that anti-matter exists, and we do know what happens when you collide it with matter - that energy and possibly different matter emerges. I see no reason why some or most of the matter from certain collisions couldn't be dark matter and/or dark energy. It is an interesting question. Because if dark matter and energy are real things, should there at least be some results "missing" at some point with some collisions? The standard model only has four dimensions - so if something is "missing" it still has to be here somewhere. Even if it were to jump to another dimension as String Theory might suggest, they have their own little "fudge factor". All (11-26) dimensions have to be um, "compactified" to fit into the four we know about.That's brings me to a point where I get aggravated... whenever (mostly in computer/internet) someone makes up a silly word to justify saying it's something different, I have to either figure it out or tune it out. The word "compactified" dimensions... making 22 more dimensions, but making them have to fit into the original 4... it makes me, at the least "frustrated". And since I can't fall asleep with my head spinning and smoking, I have to stop there for now. Compactifying. "Look at all these dimensions... holy $#$%! Our math has 26 of them! (Polyakov's equation)." "Hey, Polyakov, people aren't going to buy that idea... they are only used to seeing four dimensions. How are they going to believe in 26?" "Oh, don't worry, I took care of that... part of my theory is called "compactifying", it was one of the few words I could make up that hadn't already been taken. Basically it means, anything that doesn't make logical sense... we just take all that and stuff it back into the stuff that is logical, and then tell people, it's OK if it doesn't seem to make sense... but what you need to understand is that we've compactified it all and put it in our 4 dimensional world which you do understand. And if it exists in our four dimensional world, then we are certain it exists because it's right here. And if it's right here, then it's easy for you to understand. See... that's the beauty of compactifying." On that note... to bed.Mike
Hi Mike...I understand your frustration. I find the more complicated theories get the more they are likely to be wrong. The simplest answers are usually the best answers.
There seems to be a tendency to build models that suit current observations, but models are just tools to assist in understanding. Though models may suit current and past observations, they may fail to explain future observations and this will tend to be more likely the more complicated the model.
Can I send you a couple of short documents (2 pages total) that put my "theories" into context?
I sent them via WikiSend: 875318 and 167904
Yes...I wrote them because I needed to have an explanation that made sense to me and I wanted to have these "theories" documented so that they could be tested (and possibley debunked) by those who know more about these subject than me.
Critical feedback would tend to send me back to the "drawing board" with a little better understanding and a challenge to enhance these "theories".
I appreciate your feedback.
Hi Michael…I sent a reply yesterday, but I don’t see it on the website…not sure what happened.
Basically, I want to thank you for your time, your thoughtful answers, and your patience. I very much appreciate your feedback.
With regard to the universe, I just want to clarify what I tried to convey in the document I sent to you.
I believe current observations of an apparent accelerated expansion can be explained with an analogy of tossing a hand full of marbles up into the air.
The marbles that go the highest will appear to be accelerating away from the vantage point of those marbles below. The marbles below will appear to be accelerating away from the vantage point of those marbles above. From a vantage point of a marble somewhere in between, it would appear that the marbles above and the marbles below would be accelerating away (as in the current observations made with regard to the expansion of our universe). This would be true until gravity overcame these marbles.
With regard to time, if time is just a useful concept without any physical properties, then theories related to space-time would eventually prove to be wrong.
With regard to entangled particles, I’m at a complete loss. I can only speculate that entangled particles could actually be (and I’m stepping-out on a limb…) the same particle viewed from two separate dimensions.
Whatever the truth about the universe may be (with regard to everything), I suspect that we (as a species) do not have the ability to comprehend it in its entirety; but, even though we may never be able to understand the truth the attempts to do so is an interesting and fascinating venture.
I neglected to say that the marbles analogy for the expansion of the universe was my argument against "Dark Energy".
FYI: I updated my paper on the Theory of the Universe, partially based on your feedback. I uploaded the document to WikiSend. Its reference number is XXXXX
September 20, 2012:
If you're interested, here's an argument against Relativity of Simultaneity. See WikiSend file 295158.