So I solved dark energy...

Post Reply New Topic

I don't much care for public gratification either but when you have an idea that you shape your entire future around, it would be quite disappointing to discover that someone else has just discredited your ideas. You would still study them, of course, for personal reasons, but you would be studying like Galileo and lose a portion of credibility in the scientific community for obsessing over something that some bigger name has decided untrue. Loseing credibility could quite possibly lead to more restricted access to certain resources. No one wants to loan valuable lab equipment to a 'quack'.
Pardon my use of vague slang terms.

I do continue to speculate for myself (my latest theory being in Nuclear Chemistry) and plan to continue for the rest of my life. I am however jumping out of my skin waiting until I can get in a lab and watch my ideas grow or shrink. For my own curiosity of the natural world, I absolutely need a lab. I live in anticipation of the day I can get my hands on an electron microscope and so forth. My desire to receive formal education IS part of my personal goals. My mind was built for lab work.

i do understand. at 16, you must feel fresh and ready to take on the world (as it were) with a mind such as yours.
i, on the other hand, am old, and am content to die without any major contribution to humanity.

however, laboratories are nowadays mainly used in the field of chemistry and biology (with regard to genetic modifications, and pharmaceutical pursuits)

if one has an idea about physics, then one can program a testing routine on a computer.
i particularly am fond of the fractal philosophy of programming with the various looped inputs generated in the routines plotting a picture in a graphical sense.

an example (i also use color as another dimension in the routines) of a potential big bang about to happen.

i am not prepared to discuss the idea here or to discuss the programming details, because it would take forever.

but if a picture that results from an idea is not a random chaos of multi colored dots, then i know it has merit.

Sorry for the delay, busy busy busy
[quote=“b9”]

i do understand. at 16, you must feel fresh and ready to take on the world (as it were) with a mind such as yours.[/quote]

In some ways that is true, there are not enough hours in the day nor years in the human lifespan to study everything that I wish to study in-depth. When one starts to speculate on any one idea, it inevitably sends the train of thought into the next closely related thing. The endless domino effect of connected ideas and knowing that no one can understand it ALL. In this why I am terrified of the world, a vast and infinite universe where many things are unknowable.

Ahh mandelbrots, takes me back

Claradoon, don't be so sure that everything posted as "science" is genuine science. Anyone can string-together some scientific-sounding words. Ask the guy who made up the technical-language for Star-Trei.



No.

What this guy's saying isn't genuine science.

Michael829

That seems scientists' most popular suggestion. It's been said in various articles, print and Internet, that the evidence seems to be suggesting in that direction.

Michael829

I didn't read much of the thread. Please tell me he's joking.

As one wise man once said (Carl Sagan, I think) "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

evidence can be simply ideas at first that need to be looked into.

you talk about emprical evidence, but that can only be derived from a prior idea of what someone is looking for.

so to me, who is content to remain ignorant, it seems that dark matter is simple subatomic particles that have never joined in to form atoms.

subatomic particles are only detectable by inference , and i believe that in the first few seconds after the local big bang, all particles were subatomic, and some joined in to a group, and others remained free.

most remained free and are still free of attachment, but they still have an entity, so they still have gravity.

what is the ratio of subatomic particles that are bound, to subatomic particles that are unbound.

due to the fact that subatomic particles have a physical entity, and therefore a "mass", then they are breakable back down to pure energy, and all the unbound subatomic particles energy is what dark energy is.

an idea. i do not imagine we are anywhere near being able to verify the veracity of that idea.

Hmmmm....

Loose particles?

Interesting hypothesis.

When the universe was tiny and everything was close together the charged particles all would have pared off to form atoms.

But (a) neutrons have no charge. Maybe there are unattached neutrons flying around the Universe. And (b) there might have been an imbalance in those formative moments after the big bang in charged particle formation. So maybe there were too many electrons and not enough protons. Or vice versa. So after the big pairing off and atom formation conceivably theyre were too many either protons or electrons left over. And the surplus is the dark matter of today.

I dunno. I guess that's possible.

Free (unbound) neutrons decay into protons, electrons and anti-neutrinos. It happens regardless if they are on Earth or in outer space. The half life of roughly 15 minutes has been reported in the literature. In a nutshell, free neutrons are the mother particles of atoms. This process can occur in certain types of atoms that have a large abundance of neutrons to protons in the nuclei leading to beta decay. (I think I understand why this happens by its structure.) The proton formed will stay in the nucleus, while the electron and the anti-neutrino are ejected.

n --> p(+) + e(-) + anti-neutrino; net effect: the atomic weight changes slightly but the atomic number goes up by one.

Neutrons contained within neutron stars are not free electrons due to the large gravity force that prevents their splitting into other particles. This can change if the gravity force comes into contact with another large gravity force (as in another neutron star). The two neutron stars that collided 160 million years ago created gravitational waves and gamma rays that were detected in August of this year on Earth. The kilonova event converted some large amounts of neutrons into heavy metals during the process. However, I think that there were two black holes tied to the neutron stars that ceased to exist upon that event. They may or may not have existed in our dimentionality even. (My guess is higher rather than lower.)

yeah well protons are made of gluons and quarks.

not all subatomic particles became part of system of involvement and they remain unbound and invisible and that's it.

I never said that they did not. However, it is in that particular combination of quarks+gluons that they do undergo a decay process if they are not bound to other charged particles. Even free anti-neutrons have this decay issue. They decay into an anti-proton, a position and a neutrino. I happen to have a good grasp on why that happens. You will not find the real answer in a textbook though.

Sure, there are the potential for lots of subatomic particles to exist in outer-space. I never said that they could not exist there, only that free neutrons have a very finite lifetime before they undergo decay into more particles. On Earth, we are constantly being bombarded by neutrinos as an example of subatomic particles coming from space. It is only when one neutrino comes into contact with it's anti-matter form can we possibly see it. The annihilation event gives off two photons in the visible wavelength (blue).

I think you really need to reread my post because you are misinterpreting what I said...

Boy, do I ever.