1. Sub Quantum Echo Particles...(SQEP's) & Sub Quantum Echo Particle Kinetic Resonance Flux

[Imagine Everything]

11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Here is a couple of lists

http://www.cmat.uni-halle.de/~hsl/PoM-files/Symbols.pdf

https://archive2.iupap.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/A4.pdf

In the last article it mentions two symbols used in multiplication however when it comes to vectors those same symbols has another usage.

 

a⃗ ⋅b⃗ 

 

The dot in this case isn't multiply but is the dot or inner product of two vectors (used for linear relations.)

 

a⃗ ×b⃗ 

 

This is the cross product of two vectors (will involve angles and rotations)

A simplified link showing the dot and cross product.

 

https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/vectors-dot-product.html

Thank you very much Mordred, Thank you very much Studiot for everything you have posted and anything you both (and maybe others?) might post in the next fortnight.

I'll say this the right way this time, I'm going to take 2 weeks to try and learn more and reread everything that has been posted here so far and hopefully a lot more of the links. My desktop is almost full up now lol

I don't think I will get it all but some of it will make more sense by then.

I will still be looking at this post for any other information, replies you might make. But I won't post anything for these 2 weeks.

I will be back on Sunday 20th October. More than likely with more questions

 

'See you' in a fortnight, take care.  May good karma come your way

 

 

Edited October 6 by Imagine Everything
another typo

[studiot]

2 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

'See you' in a fortnight, take care.  May good karma come your way

Well we will be going to Cornwall at the end on next week so till later in the month

 

But thank you for the very useful responses an please look in later tonight as I have a drawing about the swinging weight for you.

I believe you said some while back that you were a  'draftsman' and 'on the scale'. Both of these are helpful to us to help you.

I think in pictures, rather than words so even 60 years ago in school and now with my typing my brain is streets ahead of my writing fingers as you may have noticed from my many mistakes and sometimes jumbled words.

 

@Mordred

The correspondence Principle.

I hadn't thought of that, very good to introduce to our friend +1.

I was going to introduce the corespondence between Mendeleyev and the standard model however.

[Imagine Everything]

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well we will be going to Cornwall at the end on next week so till later in the month

 

But thank you for the very useful responses an please look in later tonight as I have a drawing about the swinging weight for you.

I believe you said some while back that you were a  'draftsman' and 'on the scale'. Both of these are helpful to us to help you.

I think in pictures, rather than words so even 60 years ago in school and now with my typing my brain is streets ahead of my writing fingers as you may have noticed from my many mistakes and sometimes jumbled words.

 

 

I will thanks Studiot, I don't think I ever called myself a draftsman or 'on the scale', sorry, I'm neither.

Maybe I wrote something badly again that sounded like or implied that to you. I apologise if I did.

Take care , 'see you' in 2 weeks.

[studiot]

18 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

I will thanks Studiot, I don't think I ever called myself a draftsman or 'on the scale', sorry, I'm neither.

Maybe I wrote something badly again that sounded like or implied that to you. I apologise if I did.

Take care , 'see you' in 2 weeks.

OK it was someone else, there was a lot going on in the last couple of weeks.

 

Anyway here is the sketch.

 

Hopefully it is not to rough for you.

 

As you can see the teacher had laid an iron rod across to stools and hung an iron weight (the sort you find in a market where they weigh sides of beef and sacks of potatoes) in the middle.

 

The weight was very large compared to the knot on the bandana so when he first struck the weight it hardly moved.

Gradually as he kept striking the weight and he got into a rhythm the weight swung further and further , taking a couple of seconds to comple one swing.

 

Now the important thing to consider here is when the weight is struck.

If the weight is struck as in A when it is moving away from the knot the stike will be less hard.

If it is struck in the same position but when the weight is moving towards the knot the strike, as in B,  it be less effective and the swing will be slightly impeded.

If the weight is always struck in the same place at the top of the swing as in C then it will receive the maximum impetus or impulse.

So it is important to strike at the right time in each swing.

 

This situation is called resonance.

 

As you can see each time the weight is struck a small packet of energy is transferred to it.

 

A better name for strike is applied force (note I have slipped in the word impulse here)

 

We can examine these in a great deal more detail.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mordred]

I can work with this and tie it into system states. I will have time to work out a format to include Correspondance Principle.

Edited October 6 by Mordred

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

I can work with this and tie it into system states. I will have time to work out a format to include Correspondance Principle.

My next bit will have that maths I mentioned.

That will include numbers, scalars, vectors, constants and variables, functions and equalities.

That will make it easier to talk about state variables, vectors etc.

Edited October 6 by studiot

[Mordred]

Sounds good I will wait on your next installment and work with the math you post to limit added confusion

[CosmicDreamer]

The true beauty of science is I guess that whatever our skill level we all at some stage in our lives have questions and want to make sense of things or yearn for the answers, sometimes to questions that we didn’t even know existed or needed asking.
 

This thread fills me with so much curiosity and joy and also complete bewilderment at times. 

[Mordred]

2 hours ago, CosmicDreamer said:

The true beauty of science is I guess that whatever our skill level we all at some stage in our lives have questions and want to make sense of things or yearn for the answers, sometimes to questions that we didn’t even know existed or needed asking.
 

This thread fills me with so much curiosity and joy and also complete bewilderment at times. 

 A good forum where their members are willing to help those who truly wish to learn can often be underrated. This forum has numerous members with excellent skill levels that when someone wants to learn there is plenty of members willing to help out.

[studiot]

Hello @Imagine Everything I suppose you are coming towards the end of your self imposed break, but that you have been keeping an eye on things here. I am pretty sure @Mordred has been doing that as well.

So it is time to crack on with my little bit of maths, always trying to connect it to some simple physical use or example.

I will start with numbers and functions.

So what is a number ?

Well consider 5, V, O  they all represent the number five in english, latin and arabic respectively.

I say represent because they are symbols they are not the number itself.

That's good because there are (at least) four different uses for those symbols.

 

First and oldest use they represent a count. eg a count of 5 oranges. Usually counts are whole numbers.

 

Secondly and most commonly they represent a value. Values may be any number whole or fractional. Eg 3.14159...

 

Why do we make this distinction ?

Well you may have five and a half oranges, but a clock does not tick 5 and a half times. It ticks five times or six times.

 

A more important distinction is that you can't do arithmetic with counting numbers.

Well you can sometimes add say five oranges and three oranges to get eight oranges. But five oranges divided by 3 oranges makes no sense whatsoever.

Thirdly we have numbers which denote the order of something. First, second, third, fourth and fifth etc.

Once again you cannot do arithmetic with these numbers  - adding first to fifth makes no sense.

Fourthly they can be used as a label.

This is different from the ordering or ordinal numbers which have a fixed order. For example the first runner home in a race may have the number fifty-three on his back, the second may have number one and so on.
In fact in general order is not required with labelling, but may be useful as below.

 

Now for the first three types of number it is convenient to always arrange them in the same order. It is also convenient to arrange numbers as labels in the same order as for some purposes eg the lines of latitude on a map.

 

For the most part we use the value representation.
This allows us to perform basic comparison operations on numbers.

These basics operations are

Equality

Greater than

Less than

Identical to

 

Note I have distinguished between equality and identical to for example

The value of (3 times four) is equal to the value of (2 times six) but the two expressions are not identical.

A mathematical expression is a meaningful combination of numbers and symbols.

These comparisons lead us naturally on to 'functions' , constants, variables and proportionality.

Over the last few nights the minimum temperature outside my house has been 8^o 6^o 5^o 4^o

 

I will stop there for tonight.

You will be glad to learn that I am not intending to go through all the different classes of number like positive, negative, real, imaginary, odd, even as there are a great many. However in passing I will observe that there are many pairings of these types.

 

[Imagine Everything]

On 10/14/2024 at 10:40 PM, studiot said:

Hello @Imagine Everything I suppose you are coming towards the end of your self imposed break, but that you have been keeping an eye on things here. I am pretty sure @Mordred has been doing that as well.

 

Hey Studiot. Mordred,

Hope you're well.

Thanks for posting this, I spent the first week studying, re reading and was going to use the 2nd week to look at your math types.

That did not go so well tbh.

I looked at scalar a couple of times but hmm, I have a very noisy music playing neighbour that prevented this quite a bit.

I was also trying to read Newton Gravity vs Einsteins Relativity but loud music.....

Anyway, I have made I think (hope) some progress, just not entirely on the maths side.

Can I see interger values as whole numbers & half intergers as fractions?

Is that a simple way of seeing it?

 

 

On 10/14/2024 at 10:40 PM, studiot said:

So it is time to crack on with my little bit of maths, always trying to connect it to some simple physical use or example.

I will start with numbers and functions.

So what is a number ?

Well consider 5, V, O  they all represent the number five in english, latin and arabic respectively.

I say represent because they are symbols they are not the number itself.

That's good because there are (at least) four different uses for those symbols.

First and oldest use they represent a count. eg a count of 5 oranges. Usually counts are whole numbers.

Secondly and most commonly they represent a value. Values may be any number whole or fractional. Eg 3.14159...

Why do we make this distinction ?

Well you may have five and a half oranges, but a clock does not tick 5 and a half times. It ticks five times or six times.

A more important distinction is that you can't do arithmetic with counting numbers.

Well you can sometimes add say five oranges and three oranges to get eight oranges. But five oranges divided by 3 oranges makes no sense whatsoever.

Thirdly we have numbers which denote the order of something. First, second, third, fourth and fifth etc.

Once again you cannot do arithmetic with these numbers  - adding first to fifth makes no sense.

Fourthly they can be used as a label.

This is different from the ordering or ordinal numbers which have a fixed order. For example the first runner home in a race may have the number fifty-three on his back, the second may have number one and so on.
In fact in general order is not required with labelling, but may be useful as below.

 

Now for the first three types of number it is convenient to always arrange them in the same order. It is also convenient to arrange numbers as labels in the same order as for some purposes eg the lines of latitude on a map.

 

For the most part we use the value representation.
This allows us to perform basic comparison operations on numbers.

These basics operations are

Equality

Greater than

Less than

Identical to

 

Note I have distinguished between equality and identical to for example

The value of (3 times four) is equal to the value of (2 times six) but the two expressions are not identical.

A mathematical expression is a meaningful combination of numbers and symbols.

These comparisons lead us naturally on to 'functions' , constants, variables and proportionality.

Over the last few nights the minimum temperature outside my house has been 8^o 6^o 5^o 4^o

 

I will stop there for tonight.

You will be glad to learn that I am not intending to go through all the different classes of number like positive, negative, real, imaginary, odd, even as there are a great many. However in passing I will observe that there are many pairings of these types.

 

I think I kind of understand what you're saying.

I did manage to look at some 'simple' examples of math sums but it got a bit confusing the more I read.

It was something like

1  +  1  =  2

-1  +  -1 =  -2

-8  +  -6 = -14

8  +   6 =  14

-8 +  +6  = -2

I admit I got a bit lost when they started using brackets.

You wrote:

Note I have distinguished between equality and identical to for example

The value of (3 times four) is equal to the value of (2 times six) but the two expressions are not identical.

 

So...

-2  +  -9 =  -11        &       -4  +  -7   =  -11                                  equal but not identical.

 

Would it be better to describe my previous post as:  an Integer is a count & a half integer is a value?

As I thought before I took 2 weeks 'out', I do indeed have some questions.

If non gravitational objects are expanded due to expansion, could Dark Matter be the 'blackshift' of Dark Energy?

If the electron field has electrons, could there be a dark energy field with dark electrons?

(I can't think of a better word for the dark energy equivilent of electron)

And if so, these dark electrons can't be affected by the Higgs field, completely massless?

Could dark energy be thought of as the mediator between gravity and dark matter?

And lastly for now, if (and it seems to be) everything is paired, should there be a pairing for Einsteins E=mc2?

I have a lot written down as to why I am thinking the following (relating atm strongly to Virtual particles), but perhaps a pairing for E=mc2 could be

DE=mlc3

DE = Dark Energy

ml = Massless  

c3 = Speed of light tripled

I say tripled because the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light if I remember correctly.

I dare say I'm not writing this properly but perhaps enough to help you understand how (badly? or incorrectly?) I'm trying to see it.

I have more questions but I'll stop there for now.

Thanks

 

Edited October 20 by Imagine Everything

[studiot]

Quick response. 

I didn't do negative numbers - or many other types.
I did just enough to open the door to my next bit which is half prepared and hopefully will help with many of the technalities Mordred is putting up.

I'm glad you picked up on my 'difference between equality and identity'

This and my other number operations, including inequalities,  will be fleshed out a bit next.

But remember that my goal is not to make you a good calculator  -- Others will already have crunched the numbers for you.

2 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

Can I see interger values as whole numbers & half intergers as fractions?

Is that a simple way of seeing it?

Yup that's good enough.

 

 

2 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

That did not go so well tbh.

I looked at scalar a couple of times but hmm, I have a very noisy music playing neighbour that prevented this quite a bit.

 

We will come to scalars next.

 

 

Welcome back.

😀

 

Edited October 20 by studiot

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

 

Can I see interger values as whole numbers & half intergers as fractions?

Integer numbers are whole numbers, fractions is a rational number 

3 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

 

If the electron field has electrons, could there be a dark energy field with dark electrons?

There are actually peer reviewed literature on a dark particle sector that includes this possibility though for the time being lacks any observational evidence 

[Imagine Everything]

On 10/2/2024 at 1:11 PM, Mordred said:

Good article I enjoyed reading it as well though I've always enjoyed anything written by Sean Carroll. +1.

In regards to particles being field excitations we have a pinned thread covering @StringJunky has a link to an excellent Sean Caroll 

In this thread in his first post of the thread it's an excellent lecture you may enjoy.

 

PS you will note the lecture video will coincide with the article posted by Studiot.

Very interesting and very helpful, thx Mordred.

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Integer numbers are whole numbers, fractions is a rational number 

There are actually peer reviewed literature on a dark particle sector that includes this possibility though for the time being lacks any observational evidence 

Also, wow. Maybe I have seen 'something' after all in my idea. Time will tell I guess

Edited October 20 by Imagine Everything

[studiot]

OK so scalars.  I am going to use a different kind of fraction called decimal fractions as I am trying to avoid more complicated numbers such

Every night I jog 1 mile for exercise. Or I jog 1.6 kilometres.

The point is that the magnitude of the distance I run is the same whether I measure it in miles or kilometres.

That is why I used value not magnitude for my first use of numbers.

Two different numbers for the same magnitude.

In fact we can convert mile to kilometres by multiplying by a scale factor  or scalar.

Kilometres = 1.6 x miles.

In this case the scalar is a scalar constant, which means it is always 1.6.

In this use of a scalar we call it a coefficient of the distance.

Coefficients can be much more complicated than a simple numeric multiplier, but they always multiply the quantity of interest.

 

Speaking of quantities, remember I quoted some temperatures outside my house ?

Well I have drawn a graph of these for a few days.  Fig 1

The graph has two axes conventionally called the X and Y axes.
The Y axis give a daily figure for the temperature and the X axis tells us which day we are talking about.
This was why I asked if you understood graphs.
So please tell me if this is understood.

In order to describe the physical quantity 'temperature' I require only to quote a single value on any one day.

A physical quantity that require only one piece of information or magnitude to specify it is also called a scalar.

So temperature is a scalar.

But this time it has a different value on different days or it varies from day to day.

So we call it a scalar variable

Further we call  temperature the dependant variable since its value depends upon the day.

We call the day the independant variable since we can pick choose any day to suit us.

This graph represents a function which connects a dependant variable to an independant variable.

In Physics the independant variable is very often time and is also called the running variable.

 

 

The function is

The whole graph, including the dependant and independant variable axes and the plot of every value.

The relationship between the dependant and independant variables is given by a table of values in the first case, but more commonly it is given by a formula or rule as in Fig 2.

 

 

 

 

Fig 3 takes us back to temperature again.

Here I am showing a plan view of a bucket of water into which I have stuck a hot poker.

The concentric  circles show contours of decreasing water temperature away from the central poker, just as we discussed contours before.

A field is an region of space, like the bucket of water, where we can assign a quantity value to each and every point in it.

In this case it is a temperature field and since temperature is a scalar it is a scalar field.

 

Going back to distance, my nightly run goes around local paths at random. So it only has the magnitude of 1 mile.

London is 150 miles east of me.

This distance value has a second part  - east, which specifies a direction.

Quantities that have two parts are called Vectors.

Most physical vectors have a magnitude and a direction.

So distance can be a simple scalar as in my jogging, or it can be a vector as in the distance to London.

You will come across other quantities that lead a double life like this such as velocity.

In some circumstances we can place a vector at every point in some region of space, like with the temperatures in the bucket.

Suprisingly such a placement is called a vector field.

I have shown one such vector field in fig 4 concerning the flow of water in a river.
The magnitudes of the flow (ie water speed) are given by the lengths of the arrows and the arrows themselves show the direction of flow.
This sort of flow when everything is smoothly in step is called laminar flow and shows speed variation from top to bottom.

Fig 5 shows what happens over a rough bed. The water turns turbulent and though the overall flow is still left to right, the water now moves up and down and sometimes even backwards as shown by the arrows. Also the even gradation of water speed is lost.

 

Any questions ?

 

[Imagine Everything]

Yes, can you explain fig 2 to me please, I don't quite understand what I'm seeing.

Why doesn't fig 2 need numbers or days?

Is magnitude the same as Integer?

Thanks

Edited October 20 by Imagine Everything

[studiot]

10 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

Yes, can you explain fig 2 to me please, I don't quite understand what I'm seeing.

Why doesn't fig 2 need numbers or days?

Is magnitude the same as Integer?

Thanks

Fig 2 is just a function between numbers.

The X axis is the independant variable and the Y axis records the value of the function which is

The square root of x squared.

I was going to do more but it is a purely numeric example of a function.

So no days no temperatures all non physical.

 

Since I used value as a general term that includes many things that have a value, but not necessarily a numeric one, I use magnitude as a purely numeric value.
That allows the value of a vector to include both the value and the direction and for us to do different appropriate actions with each.

[Imagine Everything]

Can you also explain the Y= /X please?

Is the squared root of x squared simply 7?

x squared is 49? so the root is 7?

Told you I'm bad with maths lol

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

Can you also explain the Y= /X please?

Is the squared root of x squared simply 7?

x squared is 49? so the root is 7?

Told you I'm bad with maths lol

Don't worry, this is really good as these little things (like the brackets) are reallyhelping to gauge how to present my material.

Note I said that fig 2 is an example of  a function that is given by a mathematical expression or formula, unlike fig 1  which is a function given by a table of corresponding values.

This was the important part.

I slipped in the brackets in the text to find out what would happen if you saw them,
The same with the square root symbol you obviously recognised.

 

The whole V shaped plot is the function, not just any particular value.

Remember you can pick any value on the X axis or the independant variable and find out what the value of the function is by reading it off on the Y axis. As with fig 1 the axes form a necessary part of the function.

If you are interested the posh mathematical names are:- the X axis is the domain and the Y axis is the co-domain

In this case the square root of x squared is of course x for positive x and -x for negative values of x.

 

These two graphs are also meant to lead back to 5the things you can do with numbers expanded which is for next time.

Fig 2 especially was only  a very small part of the overall post.

How did you get on with fields etc?

[Imagine Everything]

Thanks Studiot,

 

It seems that perhaps even my basic maths skills aren't much good with the information you keep kindly giving me, I wonder if I might ask you to explain a bit more of them to me through private messages and then perhaps test me.

I say that because otherwise this thread might convoluted with my maths learning lol.

As for the fields, yes (I loved it )I think I got on quite well understanding it and I wonder if what I was saying in my very badly termed original post was actually referencing a field that doesn't seem to have been talked about yet, at least, so far I haven't seen it but I guess that might not mean much.

I find it fascinating that we and everything else are merely packets of energy tied together via the higgs field (and others) very simply put.

If I understand it correctly. I now see particles as various bumps within and part of different fields that exist.

It's like a whole new world lol.

Very very interesting

Also I think my understanding of protons, electrons and neutrons is a little better too. Though I need to learn more about the heavier quarks & electrons etc. Up, down, charm, strange, top, bottom etc

 

I have a burning question that perhaps you, Mordred and or maybe others might be able to answer.

Even when I think of the process (which I don't pretend to totally understand) that makes things, if I say, reverse engineered a person back to atoms and then back to nucleas and then back to quarks and even then back to the energy fields that makes us from the get go, where does the information we seem to be created with come from?

What I mean is, our brains are constantly doing things in the background that we don't consiously make happen, breathing, heart beating, hearing, turning things the right way up for us to see them etc...

My cat seemed to know instantly how to use a litter tray when she was a kitten. How did she know to do this?

If everything is chemistry created, what or where does this initial information come from?

Like a bios in a computer but obviously we're not computers?

When we're born, or at some point in our development, we seem to just know certain things.

How do quarks know what to become? How do virtual particles know what to become or how to influence electrons etc to become part of what they then themselves become and so on and on?

Does science have an answer for this or is it possible I might have tripped over what I refer to atm as The Information Field? Full of all those lovely quantum hairs

Sorry, it's the same question but with different analogies

 

Also, I think it was you who said that see things as pictures when you think about stuff, I'm the same. I have this crazy idea rattling around in my aging brain from the very tiny, all the way through to the universe itself and it's so difficult to put it into words

However, I am already leaps ahead of what I know now than when I first tried to explain it here so thank you for that

And you Modred  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 20 by Imagine Everything
added stuff & typo

[Mordred]

Glad you find field treatments enlightening and enjoyable as far as why all electrons for example are identical no matter you examine them or any particular particle type. 

We simply do not the reason for that we simply know all evidence shows that..

As far as what particles can be created from a given scatterring process those involve several conservation laws. Conservation of baryon number, flavor, color, isospin, lepton number, energy, momentum 

Particles don't know what to become it's more a case of the consequence of those above laws as to what particles being created is possible due to the scatterring process involved.

[Imagine Everything]

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

Glad you find field treatments enlightening and enjoyable as far as why all electrons for example are identical no matter you examine them or any particular particle type. 

We simply do not the reason for that we simply know all evidence shows that..

As far as what particles can be created from a given scatterring process those involve several conservation laws. Conservation of baryon number, flavor, color, isospin, lepton number, energy, momentum 

Particles don't know what to become it's more a case of the consequence of those above laws as to what particles being created is possible due to the scatterring process involved.

So it would be seemingly quite random then.

Anything that can be, will be kind of thing, but homogeneous and isotropic?

Perhaps more of a certain field/particle in a more particular area/object?

If I remember what I read the other day about chemical atoms bonding with similar chemical atoms.

Alike attracts/creates alike?

Just a thought, has anyone stuck a container on the outside of a space craft to fill it with dark matter/space for studying?

Edited October 21 by Imagine Everything

[Mordred]

29 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

So it would be seemingly quite random then.

Anything that can be, will be kind of thing, but homogeneous and isotropic?

Well let's take an example a particle accelerator accelerates say protons to collide with other protons.

Those collisions produce other other particles but you don't really know what you will end up getting. The best you can predetermine is the probabilistic  likelyhood of which particles will get produced. 

Homogeneous and isotropy may or may necessarily apply you can have inhomgeneous and anistropic configurations as well it depends on the fields involved.

29 minutes ago, Imagine Everything said:

 

Just a thought, has anyone stuck a container on the outside of a space craft to fill it with dark matter/space for studying?

Impossible space is simply a volume not a substance spacetime is just a volume where time is given dimensionality of length through the interval (ct) 

DM is far too diffuse in mass density and we don't even know what comprises DM to begin with

Edited October 21 by Mordred

[Imagine Everything]

22 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Well let's take an example a particle accelerator accelerates say protons to collide with other protons.

Those collisions produce other other particles but you don't really know what you will end up getting. The best you can predetermine is the probabilistic  likelyhood of which particles will get produced. 

Homogeneous and isotropy may or may necessarily apply you can have inhomgeneous and anistropic configurations as well it depends on the fields involved.

 

Interesting, can I think of this as predertimined probabilistic randomness creation tested with logical scientificaly proven theorised methods?

 

22 minutes ago, Mordred said:

DM is far too diffuse in mass density and we don't even know what comprises DM to begin with

Thanks Modred,  it was just a thought and also kind of helps me in a way..I think...maybe..hmm lol

Edited October 21 by Imagine Everything

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Imagine Everything said:

Just a thought, has anyone stuck a container on the outside of a space craft to fill it with dark matter/space for studying?

Actually not a bad thought at all.

I don't know enough cosmology to know where one might go looking for dark matter it may just be too far away.

 

There was a Ray Bradbury Book entiltled

The Golden Apples of the Sun

Which had a similar idea but to gather solar material to start a fusion reactor.
This was known to be really not practicable even then.