Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Missing Matter
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 72 of 104 (494410)
01-15-2009 7:52 PM


bump
Bumping hoping to revive this thread..
I went to school before quarks and dark matter were discovered.
I have no cosmological background.
Some of the theorized candidate particles for dark matter exist at higher energy levels than can be detected by existing colliders
Dark Matter interacts either not at all or very weakly with other matter through electromagnetic, strong or weak forces.
One way of telling would be if the particle that was created was very stable, since Dark Matter doesn't seem to decay.
Do any existing theories predict these particles, or are they expected only from the observations of galaxy rotations?
How does dark matter affect the BB theory? I thought it was particularly sensitive to initial conditions.
Why would it distribute itself differently from visible matter since gravitationally it is equivalent to visible matter?
(Why wouldn't some of it reside in our solar system and be detectable as gravitational anomalies?)
The simple answer is that when you formulate string theory in d space-time dimensions, you obtain an anomaly which destroys the physical characteristics of the theory - however the anomaly contains a factor of (d-10), so when d=10, the anomaly disappears.
Does it disappear for a number of higher dimensions as well, or just for 10?
Are the extra dimensions real(behind the scenes) in the sense that only solutions that end up in our space-time work? Or is there a prediction of some sort of hidden reality that doesn't need to manifest itself in our space-time. (can something real hide in the 6=10-space-time dimensions, and exist apart from our knowledge of it?)
My understanding is that these extra dimensions are not extensive like those of 3D space, is that correct?
(If anybody is familiar with linear algebra, a Hilbert space is just a type of vector space and rewriting things in terms of particle quantities is just choosing another basis for the vector space.)
Does that imply that the basis representing particles is real whereas a different basis would not be real although mathematically possible? Are particles real or does the concept/basis simply make the calculations more tractable?
Does this have anything to do with string theory's 10 dimensions? Are these dimensions necessary to create particles in space-time?
Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Son Goku, posted 03-07-2009 5:14 AM shalamabobbi has replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 76 of 104 (501774)
03-07-2009 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Son Goku
03-07-2009 5:14 AM


Re: bump
Hi Son Goku,
Thanks for all the posts for the cosmological laymen.
I have a rather rambling thought about the chosen basis representation. Is there a way to look for basis representations that might be missed? I am imagining perhaps a computer program that evaluates all possible basis representations and looks for any resulting simplifications that might result. If you were to run it upon a planetary model expressed in x, y, z coordinates, it would spit out r, theta, phi as a basis representation to look at, for example.
I don't know if this makes any sense, as maybe the equations don't involve a large number of variables etc.
I'm just curious if a basis might be found that points to something that *is* particle/field rather than one or the other.
(edit added)
As you can see by the question, I don't understand enough to know if viewing particle wave duality as a single *something* would reduce the rank and create a dependent basis from an independent basis. I am wondering if particle wave classical manifestations are the 'reality' in the ultimate sense or if there might be another viewpoint to replace it, that makes more sense and falls out of the physics. (end edit)
If this is nonsense, feel free to ignore. I don't know much upon the subject.. Thanks.
Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Son Goku, posted 03-07-2009 5:14 AM Son Goku has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024