Mordred Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 No which reactions and particles are stable is a result of temperature, and volume. The term your looking for is thermal equilibrium. Loosely thermal equilibrium means in particles that are in thermal equilibrium become indistinguishable from any other particles in thermal equilibrium. Say you have two protons combine if the temperature is high enough they will quickly decay back to two separate protons from the diproton. With the above different particles drop out of thermal equilibrium at different times. This chronology will help. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe From that list atoms form much later than inflation.
GeneralDadmission Posted February 28, 2015 Author Posted February 28, 2015 No which reactions and particles are stable is a result of temperature, and volume. The term your looking for is thermal equilibrium. Loosely thermal equilibrium means in particles that are in thermal equilibrium become indistinguishable from any other particles in thermal equilibrium. Say you have two protons combine if the temperature is high enough they will quickly decay back to two separate protons from the diproton. With the above different particles drop out of thermal equilibrium at different times. This chronology will help. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe Am following you now but did you see the edit question?
Mordred Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 To accelerate any particle to c with rest mass is impossible. It would require infinite energy
GeneralDadmission Posted February 28, 2015 Author Posted February 28, 2015 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe To describe my modelling of the DM particle from this chronology requires defining the periods from baryongenesis to recombination as reflecting the process within baryogensis. This describes a particle with the energy density of a helium 4 particle travelling at c. I've already supplied you my conclusions on the arrangement of that particles nucleon. To accelerate any particle to c with rest mass is impossible. It would require infinite energy I imagine this is the hurdle that requires a transformation of some sort. I'm not sure whether that exists. To accelerate any particle to c with rest mass is impossible. It would require infinite energy Oh hang on. What was the energy level that helium 4 stabilised at? That should provide all the inference required.
Sensei Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) If helium 4 represents the particle that would require the least energy to accelerate to c, I would measure how much energy that would reguire to begin with. No. Helium-4 is not the easiest particle to accelerate to near speed of light. The easiest is to accelerate electron/positron (CRT televisors were doing it billions of billions times per second, pixel on screen is emitting R,G,B just because millions of electrons hit it and gave it their kinetic energy, which was converted to photons and emitted by screen to us), then proton, then deuterium, then Helium-3 nucleus. then Tritium nucleus, then alpha (Helium-4 nucleus) (assuming we're talking about stable particles, or near stable T) The heavier particle, the harder is to accelerate it (the more energy have to be spend on acceleration). Proton/antiproton is 1836.15 times more massive than electron/positron. And Helium-4 is near 4 times as heavy as proton. Compare speed of sound of gas Hydrogen (H2) and Helium-4 (He) with the same room temperature. Hydrogen has 1310 m/s, while Helium has 972 m/s. Edited February 28, 2015 by Sensei
Mordred Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Better question is where is helium formed. The answer is via fusion in stars. By the way your still confusing dark matter and dark energy. dark matter EoS w=0. Not -1 that's the cosmological constant aka dark energy
Sensei Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Better question is where is helium formed. The answer is via fusion in stars. On Earth it's radioactive alpha decay of heavier elements.
GeneralDadmission Posted February 28, 2015 Author Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Better question is where is helium formed. The answer is via fusion in stars. By the way your still confusing dark matter and dark energy. dark matter EoS w=0. Not -1 that's the cosmological constant aka dark energy Sorry> Terminology mistake. I meant simplest baryonic element that could be accelerated. I'm not confusing DE. The description you supplied represents the physical direction in which baryogenesis progressed. The model I have does that backwards but ina way that stabilises when it hit's helium 3. It takes a different path, one that represents it as a helium 2 particle with the nucleon mass of a 5 nucleon particle with electron neutrinos for shells. The maths of a "5 nucleon energy density in a 2 nucleon mass arrangement" evades me so I'm trying to understand the standard theory comparison. Edited February 28, 2015 by GeneralDadmission
Mordred Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Here is a brief rundown on nucleosynthesis. http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March06/Padmanabhan/Nabhan2.html If you can afford a textbook Weinbergs "First three minutes" is excellent. However here is an older model free textbook. 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 On the latter its chapter 3 the first chapters is GR, Riemann geometry and cosmology chapters. One large aspect we need to work on is your terminology, (scientific) no worries most new posters suffer this problem regardless of native language. I recommend these articles. http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446:"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model Here is a free Special relativity low math book. http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/ However this site has some excellent material as well. In particular your more basic physics fields. http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/ There are three volumes for you this site in particular will step you up to being able to formulate your questions properly. (My signature has other training material) Edited February 28, 2015 by Mordred
GeneralDadmission Posted February 28, 2015 Author Posted February 28, 2015 Thanks Mordred. If I'd just described that sequence first I might have saved myself a lot of drama.
Mordred Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 Lol yep I recommend the feyman lectures first before you step into particle physics
GeneralDadmission Posted February 28, 2015 Author Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) I thought I could avoid particle physics because I was studying vacuum. duh that's pretty funny. studying everything else and not finding the language I needed because the one subject I was avoiding was the one I needed to understand. Edited February 28, 2015 by GeneralDadmission
ajb Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) DM has a -1 vacuum value and normal has a 1 value. What is the value of a vacuum? Edited February 28, 2015 by ajb
swansont Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 I should I just make assumptions from here and not ask questions? That depends. If want to you ask questions, then ask questions. "Gravitational force is associated to vacuum. DM has a -1 vacuum value and normal has a 1 value." is not a question, though. It's a claim, and I want to know what the evidence is behind that claim. "the velocity gravitation force equates to positive vacuum force and the extra force of the massive body is neg-vacuum force." sounds like a model of something. I want details. I want to know what predictions one can make based on this model, so it can be tested. I'm trying to identify which particular maths is used for vacuum I guess. Isotopic balance(which particles are stable) is regulated by vacuum isn't it? What does "regulated by vacuum" even mean?
GeneralDadmission Posted February 28, 2015 Author Posted February 28, 2015 That depends. If want to you ask questions, then ask questions. "Gravitational force is associated to vacuum. DM has a -1 vacuum value and normal has a 1 value." is not a question, though. It's a claim, and I want to know what the evidence is behind that claim. "the velocity gravitation force equates to positive vacuum force and the extra force of the massive body is neg-vacuum force." sounds like a model of something. I want details. I want to know what predictions one can make based on this model, so it can be tested. Ok. Now that Mordred has shown me where to start I'll try to do that for you. What does "regulated by vacuum" even mean? There is better terminology in the nucleosynthesis material that I will familiarise myself with. NOw I'm following the Feynman lectures better. Thanks again Mordred. 1
Mordred Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 No problem, it will probably take some time to properly study the material. Take your time
GeneralDadmission Posted March 1, 2015 Author Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) No problem, it will probably take some time to properly study the material. Take your time Yes the problem with physics is that every fundamental you identify means that the entirety of the material already covered has to be re-evaluated against the new fundamental. I've been doing that with minimal direction toward the pivotal data regarding my modelling. Should be a little simpler from here. "Mordred" may have replaced "christ" in my vernacular. I won't mind if people don't know what "Agradecer Muerte" means when I mutter it in passing. That depends. If want to you ask questions, then ask questions. "Gravitational force is associated to vacuum. DM has a -1 vacuum value and normal has a 1 value." is not a question, though. It's a claim, and I want to know what the evidence is behind that claim. "the velocity gravitation force equates to positive vacuum force and the extra force of the massive body is neg-vacuum force." sounds like a model of something. I want details. I want to know what predictions one can make based on this model, so it can be tested. What does "regulated by vacuum" even mean? It will take considerable time to confine predictables referencing the data supplied. For now I would approach your requirements by discussing the dynamics of length contraction as indicative of how the mass of acceleration is equilibrated. I will compile a short description of this to provide variables to examine and define. Length contraction requires that an accelerating object occupy less physical space from the FoR of the destination. The effect length contraction imposes on arrival time suggests that the accelerating object occupies greater space until it's velocity is equilibrated to that of the destination FoR. This aspect illustrates the vacuum mediation involved and the manner in which EM interference with acceleration is reduced and confined. Edited March 1, 2015 by GeneralDadmission
Sensei Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 GeneralDadmission, if you really want to fill gaps in your knowledge look & read the all articles in Physics History Database. That should keep you busy for the next year or so.
GeneralDadmission Posted March 1, 2015 Author Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) GeneralDadmission, if you really want to fill gaps in your knowledge look & read the all articles in Physics History Database. That should keep you busy for the next year or so. I will take your advice. I supplied the definition of length contraction in the last post in order to discussively define regulation of the mass-value provided through acceleration. It is a complex subject that is easier to define with reference to the conclusions of others. Edited March 1, 2015 by GeneralDadmission
Klaynos Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 A definition of length contraction, and for that matter any model in modern physics, requires maths. O don't see any it's therefore impossible to evaluate for validity.
GeneralDadmission Posted March 1, 2015 Author Posted March 1, 2015 A definition of length contraction, and for that matter any model in modern physics, requires maths. O don't see any it's therefore impossible to evaluate for validity. To do that requires predicting the rest mass of the DM particle.and identifying that it is stabilised as a baryonic element that is mediated by the strong and weak force through the electron neutrino. I'm not sure I would provide the maths of that to a public forum. I've subsequently been confined to raising the questions in regard to defining the value of acceleration mass as opposed to rest mass.
Sensei Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) To do that requires predicting the rest mass of the DM particle.and identifying that it is stabilised as a baryonic element that is mediated by the strong and weak force through the electron neutrino. I'm not sure I would provide the maths of that to a public forum. I've subsequently been confined to raising the questions in regard to defining the value of acceleration mass as opposed to rest mass. You can't provide math for something that's basically made up. Edited March 1, 2015 by Sensei
GeneralDadmission Posted March 1, 2015 Author Posted March 1, 2015 You can't provide math for something that's basically made up. If that is your conclusion I have to ask why you assume the quark configurements maintaining a proton-neutron nucleon should maintain an association only with electrons? Could there not be configurations of Strange/Charm/Top/Bottom that do not interact with electrons? It as simple a question as that. The implications of such a particle are not something I would disclose publicly. I am attemptng to define the conversion of energy equivalencies. Providing such a fascinating statement is commendable but of little value to the exercise.
Sensei Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) If that is your conclusion I have to ask why you assume the quark configurements maintaining a proton-neutron nucleon should maintain an association only with electrons? It's well known that nucleus can make exotic atoms with other negative particle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_atom f.e. with muon- is called muonium: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muonium with pion- pionium: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pionium with anti-proton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiprotonic_helium There is also positronium: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium Could there not be configurations of Strange/Charm/Top/Bottom that do not interact with electrons? It as simple a question as that. The thing is they are extremely fast decaying.. Edited March 1, 2015 by Sensei
Recommended Posts