GeneralDadmission Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) I wasn't going to post this as a thread but instead of finding a way to forget the idea I've found one that might be plausible. I would have posted this in the Speculation thread but thought it at least deserved some critical review. The proposal is that nuclear detonation in a gravitational FoR produces a dark-matter micro-bh by transferring charge to mass. Rather than provide speculations regarding kinetic energy, time dilation and charge I would propose the following thought experiment? What would be produced if a falling nuclear detonation were entirely magnetically contained? I take no offense if this is moved to the Speculation thread Edited February 19, 2015 by GeneralDadmission
Strange Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 What would be produced if a falling nuclear detonation were entirely magnetically contained? Ignoring the practicalities ... nothing would happen. The amount of mass-energy within the radius of the containment would not change. Therefore no black hole. You would either have to increase the amount of mass-energy so that the radius of the containment was less than the Schwarzschild radius, or somehow squeeze all the material into a size smaller than its Schwarzschild radius. This has nothing to do with free fall or dark matter. Many of your questions seem to be full of misconceptions. For example: by transferring charge to mass. Do you mean electric charge? Where is that coming from? What does "transfer to charge to mass" mean?
GeneralDadmission Posted February 19, 2015 Author Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) Ignoring the practicalities ... nothing would happen. The amount of mass-energy within the radius of the containment would not change. Therefore no black hole. You would either have to increase the amount of mass-energy so that the radius of the containment was less than the Schwarzschild radius, or somehow squeeze all the material into a size smaller than its Schwarzschild radius. This has nothing to do with free fall or dark matter. Many of your questions seem to be full of misconceptions. For example: Do you mean electric charge? Where is that coming from? What does "transfer to charge to mass" mean? I guess I'd be proposing another radius that was associated to DM. My understanding of DM is that it is in a highly charged state and non-directional. For the exercise this would provide charged non-rotating micro-bh's that would be stable till the extra charge/time dilation is dissipated. By magnetically contained I did not mean absorbed but reflected and compressed. Edited February 19, 2015 by GeneralDadmission
Strange Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 I guess I'd be proposing another radius that was associated to DM. The density of dark matter (especially this far from the centre of the galaxy) is incredibly low and would have no effect. My understanding of DM is that it is in a highly charged state and non-directional. It isn't charged because, as far as we can tell it doesn't interact electromagnetically. I don't know what "non-directional" means. It is not homogeneously distributed, if that is what you are thinking (it is denser towards the centre of the galaxy).
GeneralDadmission Posted February 19, 2015 Author Posted February 19, 2015 The density of dark matter (especially this far from the centre of the galaxy) is incredibly low and would have no effect. It isn't charged because, as far as we can tell it doesn't interact electromagnetically. I don't know what "non-directional" means. It is not homogeneously distributed, if that is what you are thinking (it is denser towards the centre of the galaxy). The wiki description I read regarding cosmic rays described these as 'non-directional'. This would match the state I would expect DM matter to be found in, though DM would exist either in chemical compostions that have decayed from a BB or as relatively shortlived highly charged non-rotating micro-bh's produced in gravitational collapse events.
Strange Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 The wiki description I read regarding cosmic rays described these as 'non-directional'. A link would be useful. But cosmic rays have nothing to do with dark matter. (But they are reasonably isotropic, as far as I know.) This would match the state I would expect DM matter to be found in, though DM would exist either in chemical compostions that have decayed from a BB or as relatively shortlived highly charged non-rotating micro-bh's produced in gravitational collapse events. Dark matter cannot exist in chemical compositions as it does not interact electromagnetically. People have searched for the decay of micro black holes (from their Hawking radiation) and found no sign of them.
GeneralDadmission Posted February 19, 2015 Author Posted February 19, 2015 A link would be useful. But cosmic rays have nothing to do with dark matter. (But they are reasonably isotropic, as far as I know.) Dark matter cannot exist in chemical compositions as it does not interact electromagnetically. People have searched for the decay of micro black holes (from their Hawking radiation) and found no sign of them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray I suspect DM doesn't interact with normal matter electromagnetically because it's time dilation is superimposed on ours so that it is travelling in front of our light cone. I initially considered limiting DM to elements with extreme escape velocities. If DM exists in front of normal matters present moment it might interact with itself electromagnetically creating chemical components.
imatfaal Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 ! Moderator Note This should be in speculations. Take a moment to read the rules and guidelines to posting of that forum please.
Strange Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 I suspect DM doesn't interact with normal matter electromagnetically because it's time dilation is superimposed on ours so that it is travelling in front of our light cone. We regularly measure the electromagnetic effects of particles which are travelling at near light speed. Also, the evidence suggests that dark matter is not moving at relativistic velocities. I initially considered limiting DM to elements with extreme escape velocities. Escape velocity is a function of mass and distance, so this statement doesn't make much sense.
swansont Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 My understanding of DM is that it is in a highly charged state DM only interacts gravitationally, so no, it is not charged.
GeneralDadmission Posted February 19, 2015 Author Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) DM only interacts gravitationally, so no, it is not charged. You've got some have you? I have indicated I suspect DM is only limited to gravitational effects with normal matter. We regularly measure the electromagnetic effects of particles which are travelling at near light speed. Also, the evidence suggests that dark matter is not moving at relativistic velocities. Escape velocity is a function of mass and distance, so this statement doesn't make much sense. Helium and other elements are known as elements with escape velocity in relation to our atmosphere. ! Moderator Note This should be in speculations. Take a moment to read the rules and guidelines to posting of that forum please. I have no problem if it is moved. Since I intended a discussion on DM I thought it might be acceptable. Edited February 19, 2015 by GeneralDadmission
Strange Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 I have indicated I suspect DM is only limited to gravitational effects with normal matter. . It is limited to only gravitational effects. It has no charge. By definition.
GeneralDadmission Posted February 20, 2015 Author Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) It is limited to only gravitational effects. It has no charge. By definition. How is that determined? I assume DM's state resembles that of a superfluid. If DM is sufficiently separated from normal matter by time dilation it would be more likely to be without angular momentum and it's effects than to be devoid of charge as a field. Edited February 20, 2015 by GeneralDadmission
Strange Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 How is that determined? Because if it had charge then it would interact electromagnetically. It doesn't (hence the name "dark"). I assume DM's state resembles that of a superfluid. If DM is sufficiently separated from normal matter by time dilation it would be more likely to be without angular momentum and it's effects than to be devoid of charge as a field. And colourless green sheep dream furiously. 1
GeneralDadmission Posted February 20, 2015 Author Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) We regularly measure the electromagnetic effects of particles which are travelling at near light speed. Also, the evidence suggests that dark matter is not moving at relativistic velocities. I have assumed that DM, at rest, is not moving at relatavistic velocities. DM as a field would be without angular momentum pressure. Where did all the BB helium go? I assume it exists at the periphery of the universes EM field as whatever elements might form at a low mass high velocity superfluid-like state. I speculate that the sudden dissipation of mass in a chain reaction without inertia might exert a cavitation on the vacuum that disrupts the DM field in a manner that produces a DM micro-bh that dissipates by gaining angular momentum drawing it into normal matters time dilation. These seem fair enough assumptions to make. If they are definably incorrect against recorded data I would appreciate clarification rather than condescension and ridicule . I never claimed to study this stuff in more than my spare time. And colourless green sheep dream furiously. I didn't grow up in the country or new zealand so sheep references go over my head. Edited February 20, 2015 by GeneralDadmission
swansont Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 If DM is sufficiently separated from normal matter by time dilation it would be more likely to be without angular momentum and it's effects than to be devoid of charge as a field. Perhaps you could explain this? I can't make an sense of it. How does one "separate…by time dilation"? Why would it not have angular momentum? What does that have to do with charge? I have assumed that DM, at rest, is not moving at relatavistic velocities. You can always assume something in an inertial frame is at rest. Motion is relative. Where did all the BB helium go? AFAIK observations of it are consistent with theory, so it didn't "go" anywhere.
GeneralDadmission Posted February 20, 2015 Author Posted February 20, 2015 Perhaps you could explain this? I can't make an sense of it. How does one "separate…by time dilation"? Why would it not have angular momentum? What does that have to do with charge? You can always assume something in an inertial frame is at rest. Motion is relative. AFAIK observations of it are consistent with theory, so it didn't "go" anywhere. I'll put on a coffee and think of the best way to cover these questions. My vocabulary isn't polished on physics.
Phi for All Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 My vocabulary isn't polished on physics. Understood. Much like Strange's vocabulary when he mentions sheep.
GeneralDadmission Posted February 20, 2015 Author Posted February 20, 2015 Understood. Much like Strange's vocabulary when he mentions sheep. lol Answering his questions on the other thread has pooped me a bit. Might not be able to convince swansont the universe is stirred not shaken till I've slept on it.
GeneralDadmission Posted February 21, 2015 Author Posted February 21, 2015 (edited) Perhaps you could explain this? I can't make an sense of it. How does one "separate…by time dilation"? Why would it not have angular momentum? What does that have to do with charge? One word each. Density. Isotopicality. Confinement. You can always assume something in an inertial frame is at rest. Motion is relative. Relative to? AFAIK observations of it are consistent with theory, so it didn't "go" anywhere. If ST accepts the correspondence of geodesics to quantum trajectories that would be accurate. That paper states that it does not define the nature of DM. My initial assumption would be that defining DM's state only requires identifying a helium isotope that mirrors the symmetries of oxygen. My next step is to research known and theoretical helium isotopes. Edited February 21, 2015 by GeneralDadmission
swansont Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 One word each. Density. Isotopicality. Confinement. Throwing a buzz word out as an answer is not an explanation. Relative to? Precisely. Motion is always relative to something else. If ST accepts the correspondence of geodesics to quantum trajectories that would be accurate. That paper states that it does not define the nature of DM. My initial assumption would be that defining DM's state only requires identifying a helium isotope that mirrors the symmetries of oxygen. My next step is to research known and theoretical helium isotopes. That paper? What paper? You haven't linked to any paper. "correspondence of geodesics to quantum trajectories" looks like word salad — there's no meaning behind this, no connection to the discussion. Just some terminology strung together.
GeneralDadmission Posted February 22, 2015 Author Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) Throwing a buzz word out as an answer is not an explanation. Precisely. Motion is always relative to something else. That paper? What paper? You haven't linked to any paper. "correspondence of geodesics to quantum trajectories" looks like word salad — there's no meaning behind this, no connection to the discussion. Just some terminology strung together. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314009381 This paper. I'll sketch out the explanaiton linking the 'buzz words' I provided in answer to your questions. I did not want to complicate the discussion by leaping too far ahead. Perhaps you could explain this? I can't make an sense of it. How does one "separate…by time dilation"? Why would it not have angular momentum? What does that have to do with charge? Firstly I am assuming that DM's state is isolated just prior to re-ionisation. A simple analogy would be that it is a form of helium isotope that entered a solid-state phase coupled to another isotopic element that resembles hydrogens relationship with oxygen. It is the crystallisation of this element that constricts spatial expansion to a vacuum differential. Just prior to reionisation DM's spacetime evolved tangentially to ours. ie; it's escape velocity puts it's state beyond the reach of the photonic field, possibly only interacting with the neutrino field. This elements state might be described as perfectly ionized. It would subsequently define the boundaries of the universes electromagnetic field post reionisation. Perfectly ionized is intended to describe this elements internalisation of charge. In essence it would be an element so cold it exists at a temperature below zero kelvin and at the extremities of the universes vacuum. From DM's FoR the universe would appear perfectly homegounous and isotropic. I assume this would imply that it's state remains tied to the CM of the universe and does not encounter the intermission of AM. As a tangentially confined spacetime DM's field resistance eliminates or confines photon absorption from within the trajectories of normal matters EM field. This might be balanced with a neutrino deficit that as a mechanism might paint the DM field's element as a chemical capacitor component that governs the gravitational components of the universe. For the purpose of this thread I will refer to this supposirhetorical DM element as Won't-Gra-Boxygen or WGB. As the field-state that provides DE observations,,,,,,, Unundulation Can't take these things too seriuosly. Edited February 21, 2015 by GeneralDadmission
Strange Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 A simple analogy would be that it is a form of helium isotope that entered a solid-state phase coupled to another isotopic element that resembles hydrogens relationship with oxygen. Why oxygen? Helium is inert. So how is it supposed to form a molecule with another element? (Assuming that is what you mean by "resembles hydrogens relationship with oxygen") And how does it stay in a solid state in the hot early state of the universe? This elements state might be described as perfectly ionized. What does "perfectly ionized" mean? Lost all of its electrons? Then how does it couple to another element? (especially in a solid state) Perfectly ionized is intended to describe this elements internalisation of charge. What does "internalisation of charge" mean? In essence it would be an element so cold it exists at a temperature below zero kelvin and at the extremities of the universes vacuum. How could it be below 0K, when that is the coldest temperature possible? And how could it be that cold when the early universe was hot and dense? And, as the universe was hot and dense, where is this vacuum you refer to? As a tangentially confined spacetime DM's field resistance What is "tangentially confined spacetime"? What is "field resistance"? What is a "chemical capacitor"? Do you have any evidence or testable predictions? Or just a never-ending buzzword soup?
GeneralDadmission Posted February 22, 2015 Author Posted February 22, 2015 Why oxygen? Helium is inert. So how is it supposed to form a molecule with another element? (Assuming that is what you mean by "resembles hydrogens relationship with oxygen") And how does it stay in a solid state in the hot early state of the universe? What does "perfectly ionized" mean? Lost all of its electrons? Then how does it couple to another element? (especially in a solid state) What does "internalisation of charge" mean? How could it be below 0K, when that is the coldest temperature possible? And how could it be that cold when the early universe was hot and dense? And, as the universe was hot and dense, where is this vacuum you refer to? What is "tangentially confined spacetime"? What is "field resistance"? What is a "chemical capacitor"? Do you have any evidence or testable predictions? Or just a never-ending buzzword soup? Forgive the construction of intermediary terms. I'll attempt to limit the time you will have to wait for an explanation.
swansont Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314009381 This paper. I'll sketch out the explanaiton linking the 'buzz words' I provided in answer to your questions. I did not want to complicate the discussion by leaping too far ahead. I agree, we should definitely not leap ahead. There's plenty to hash out here. That paper says nothing about Helium, nor any specifics about how DM interacts. (not to mention that it's based on Bohmian QM) Firstly I am assuming that DM's state is isolated just prior to re-ionisation. A simple analogy would be that it is a form of helium isotope that entered a solid-state phase coupled to another isotopic element that resembles hydrogens relationship with oxygen. All thing you have to provide evidence of, or some model that can be tested. The first being that DM can be ionized. It is the crystallisation of this element that constricts spatial expansion to a vacuum differential. Just prior to reionisation DM's spacetime evolved tangentially to ours. ie; it's escape velocity puts it's state beyond the reach of the photonic field, possibly only interacting with the neutrino field. Strange has covered most of this. Put me down as asking the same things. In addition, explain how it's possible for anything to outrun light?
Recommended Posts