pgp_protector
Noted strange person
- Dec 17, 2003
- 51,890
- 17,791
- 57
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What would happen if an anti-proton came in contact with a neutron?
What would happen if an anti-proton came in contact with a neutron?
If I've just written a load of gibberish, just say so, I have think skin!
Dark matter is inferred to exist because galaxies spin faster than they should, implying there's more mass, but we can't see it, so it's dark - hence, dark matter.Kind if a question but more something to ponder.
I'm effectively a layman when it comes to physics and science but with a developing amateur interest and deep regret that I didn't pursue an education in science in my school days.
It's something that I thought of when watching a documentary on the acceleration of the expansion of the universe and really the lack of understanding we currently have. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it may be put down to dark matter??
I may have seen the same documentaryWhat if there's another explanation. What if, our four dimensional universe is the product of a super massive shockwave of a star going supernnova within another 5 dimensional universe and the increase in expansion is that shockwave getting further and further away from the resultant black hole within that 5 dimensional universe and therefore escaping it's gravity. Thus removing the need for an explanation of the acceleration of the expansion.
He's right. Objects falling into a black hole experience tremendous time dilation and length contraction to an outside, such that you never see them actually hit the centre - they get slower and slower, flatter and flatter, forever.I think I've read somewhere that it's hypothesized that if an object were to fall into a black hole, from the outside observer, an image of that object would be preserved forever in 2D on the event horizon. I think it may have been Neil Degrasse Tyson who said it.
But this doesn't solve the problem. Ripples from a collision travel at the speed of sound in that medium; they don't accelerate. But the expansion of the universe is accelerating - why? Where's the energy coming from? The 'm-brane collision' hypothesis explains the origin of the universe and why it's expanding... but not why it's accelerating.
Momentum doesn't work that wayI'm imaging the universe as a bubble or balloon expanding away from the remnant of that collision, a really really big black hole say. The universe would be the rubber of the balloon, the inside of the balloon would be outside of our universe. The universe has a certain amount of outward momentum. As it expands, it gets further and further away from the black hole so it has less gravity pulling on it and therefore the momentum can takeover and accelerate the expansion.
Well, it's not that they would seem to accelerate, they would accelerate. But the problem of energy yet remains: increasing the radius of a balloon linearly needs more than a linear input of energy. You need an exponentially larger input of air, and an exponentially stronger force to combat the reactive elastic of the balloon's material.I take your point about momentum but fixed point in space element is exactly what you would see if our universe were expanding as a balloon. If you were to draw a grid of dots on a balloon and blew it up the further away from each other they would get. The bigger the bubble got, the quicker they would seem to move from each other giving the illusion of acceleration.
Sure - the universe could be a 3D volume expanding into 4D space, just as a balloon is a 2D surface expanding into 3D space. But then 4D topology gets involved and it's not quite as simple as looking at 3D space and drawing an analogue. Adding an extra spatial dimension, and having an even number of dimensions, makes things behave all sorts of weird (no solar systems, for instance!).The expansion from a fixed I was talking about would mean the fixed point would be outside of the universe (the rubber of the balloon); or right in the centre of the balloon if you get me?
Well, it's not that they would seem to accelerate, they would accelerate. But the problem of energy yet remains: increasing the radius of a balloon linearly needs more than a linear input of energy. You need an exponentially larger input of air, and an exponentially stronger force to combat the reactive elastic of the balloon's material.
In general terms, to exponentially increase the surface (or volume, in the case of the universe) requires an exponential increase in the energy needed to do the expanding.
Sure - the universe could be a 3D volume expanding into 4D space, just as a balloon is a 2D surface expanding into 3D space. But then 4D topology gets involved and it's not quite as simple as looking at 3D space and drawing an analogue. Adding an extra spatial dimension, and having an even number of dimensions, makes things behave all sorts of weird (no solar systems, for instance!).
It violates no law of physics. A system can accelerate so long as it is given energy. We don't know much abut this energy, hence the term 'dark energy'. But there's no violation of any law of physics - it's just energy from an unknown source. Maybe it's extra-universal. Maybe it's hyper-dimensional.Yes, that is the problem with not just expansion, but accelerating expansion. The energy input must be increasing, violating all the known laws of physics.
I'm sorry, but who are you to tell people what field of study they should be interested in?The other problem is theorists seem to have nothing better to do than dream of extra dimensions, wormholes, etc, etc, when they need to be worring about the thigs we take for granted yet have no clue as to how they really work.
I just saw this article:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7485/full/nature12954.html
Magnetic monopoles have been observed. What will that result in?
I would add that if the condensate is acting as a moving 'conductor', in a magnetic field, ordinary induction might explain the polar charge build up on the condensate. Like I said, I wouldn't read too much into a single paper just yet.
The article I read implied it wasn't magnetic monopoles that were discovered (which would be monumental, even if, as you say, we'd only a minor change to EM laws), but that they were able to simulate one with a BE condensate. Which is still pretty cool.If it's ultimately shown to be true, it would result in minor changes to Gauss's laws.
It's hard to say much since I haven't read the full paper yet, but looking at the images of the condensates, it's looks to me like the whole condensate has taken on a type of polar "charge", with red and green regions representing different charge states in the condensate, with a blue "ring" representing a more neutral region separating them. They show several images of the condensate "ball" (for lack of a better term) from several angles, and that's kind of what it looks like to me anyway. I wouldn't jump to a lot of hasty conclusions yet based on one paper, but it's an interesting paper, and thanks for posting it.
The article I read implied it wasn't magnetic monopoles that were discovered (which would be monumental, even if, as you say, we'd only a minor change to EM laws), but that they were able to simulate one with a BE condensate. Which is still pretty cool.
The original article that I saw and linked said that they observed the "controlled creation" of Dirac Monopoles in a BE condensate. To be fair I could read only the abstract:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7485/full/nature12954.html
This article said that they "emulated" monopoles:
Bose-Einstein condensates used to emulate exotic magnetic monopole | Ars Technica
The remnants became the Sun, planets, moons, and asteroids. Evidence exists in the ratio of elements that exist in the solar system: we have uranium, after all.New Question:
What evidence is there left of the star that spawned our sun and solar system.
The asteroids are another; that they have the same material, ratios, ages, etc, confirms the nebular hypothesis.I understand that our sun is not large enough to create sub ferrous elements so the existence of heavy elements must be one. Are there any others?
Not to my knowledge.Also what do we know about it and has anyone given it a name?
Unknown, though it's thought our sun is a 3rd generation star.If the universe is just over 13 billion years old and the earth about 4.5 billion years old what would roughly be the timescale of this star's existence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?