Gee whiz, I was taught science should be curious. Oh, well, that’s the way the cookie crumbles.
Instead of using cookies, you should have used super stiff baby promethian mini isolators! 😉
If you mention one of my products names again I’ll consider putting you in for Associate Shill.
Tremendous progress being made at system7 Physics Laboratory in solving the problems of the Universe!
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science...d-model-of-particle-physics-explained/7670338
I am currently working on that most peculiar of particles, the Neutrino!
Chapter 8: Every Neutrino has its day.
Subchapters:
Neutrinos Everywhere.
Neutrino Knowledge.
Finding Neutrinos.
The problems with Neutrinos.
Oscillating Neutrinos.
Anti-antineutrinos.
The right hand.
Neutrinos hit the big time.
A different kind of particle physics
I ought to mention that whilst only 5% of the observable mass of the Universe is matter, it is 99% Baryonic matter (Three Quarks). Which is Neutrons and Protons.
Photons and Electrons (and short-lived twin quark mesons) hardly get a look in. All the Neutrinos we know about are left-handed.
So, my idea is that right handed Neutrinos at around 100 GeV (The electroweak Energy) are Dark Matter which constitutes about 25%. Interacting solely through Gravity. Thus very hard to detect.
As for Dark Energy, well I have absolutely no idea at all. 🙂
Interesting conundrum raised by Gavin Hesketh.
How many stars are there in the known universe?
How many atoms in a drop of rainfall?
Answer: About the same. A HUGE number. I can't even calculate it. Well, I could actually. Just me. 😎
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science...d-model-of-particle-physics-explained/7670338
I am currently working on that most peculiar of particles, the Neutrino!
Chapter 8: Every Neutrino has its day.
Subchapters:
Neutrinos Everywhere.
Neutrino Knowledge.
Finding Neutrinos.
The problems with Neutrinos.
Oscillating Neutrinos.
Anti-antineutrinos.
The right hand.
Neutrinos hit the big time.
A different kind of particle physics
I ought to mention that whilst only 5% of the observable mass of the Universe is matter, it is 99% Baryonic matter (Three Quarks). Which is Neutrons and Protons.
Photons and Electrons (and short-lived twin quark mesons) hardly get a look in. All the Neutrinos we know about are left-handed.
So, my idea is that right handed Neutrinos at around 100 GeV (The electroweak Energy) are Dark Matter which constitutes about 25%. Interacting solely through Gravity. Thus very hard to detect.
As for Dark Energy, well I have absolutely no idea at all. 🙂
Interesting conundrum raised by Gavin Hesketh.
How many stars are there in the known universe?
How many atoms in a drop of rainfall?
Answer: About the same. A HUGE number. I can't even calculate it. Well, I could actually. Just me. 😎
Last edited:
Could right-handed neutrinos (AKA sterile neutrons) solve the dark matter puzzle?
At 4.8 x 10^8 GeV, we are talking ultra-heavy, so could right-handed neutrinos actually be the dark matter?
These super-heavy dark matter candidates have been dubbed "WIMPzillas"!
Unfortunately, the hypothetical WIMPzilla is trillions of times more massive than any other proposed type of dark matter.
EDIT: I should add that the hunt for these sterile neutrinos has been underway for some time, but it is possible that they may never be found.
Last edited:
We noted earlier in the thread that we should reduce our estimate of about 2.1 × 10^21 stars in the observable universe to 8.0 × 10^19.
Estimating the number of stars in the observable universe requires some consideration as described in this link:
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/overestimated-stars-in-universe/
An estimate of the number of atoms in a drop of water is 5 sextillion (5 x 10^21) which is comparable with our original estimate of the number of stars in the observable universe.
https://www.thoughtco.com/atoms-in-a-drop-of-water-609425#:~:text=atoms in a drop of water,in a drop of water .&text=atoms in a drop,drop of water .&text=a drop of water,in a drop of
More recent info, 😉 Mentioned on Sky At Night Question Time
https://news.yale.edu/2023/02/22/early-universe-may-be-teeming-bright-galaxies-new-data-reveals
The prog mentioned young stars galaxies much earlier on than expected.
The prog was on when I switched off our watch a film little box. H96MAX with it's cranky software.
I watched The Sky at Night: Question Time. It is available on BBC iPlayer for others to see.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001rb07/the-sky-at-night-question-time-special
A question on the possibility of simulating gravity using centrifugal force was answered by an illustration of a pair of O'Neill cylinders.
The highlight for me was finding out that Dr. Maggie Aderin-Pocock has had a Barbie Doll created in her likeness!
EDIT: Inserted the correct iPlayer link!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001rb07/the-sky-at-night-question-time-special
A question on the possibility of simulating gravity using centrifugal force was answered by an illustration of a pair of O'Neill cylinders.
The highlight for me was finding out that Dr. Maggie Aderin-Pocock has had a Barbie Doll created in her likeness!
EDIT: Inserted the correct iPlayer link!
Last edited:
I am a great one for observing the "Sky at Night":
Taken on the 10 October 2023 early in the morning. The waning Moon and Venus unless I have entirely lost my Astronomical ability.
Alas, this morning's skies were overcast. So no follow up. I was expecting to see the Moon below Venus.
Taken on the 10 October 2023 early in the morning. The waning Moon and Venus unless I have entirely lost my Astronomical ability.
Alas, this morning's skies were overcast. So no follow up. I was expecting to see the Moon below Venus.
Last edited:
I've been checking out "attractors" and first came up with the Lorenz attractor or strange attractor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system
Quote: "Chaotic systems can be completely deterministic and yet still be inherently unpredictable over long periods of time."
In the mathematics of dynamic systems, an attractor is "a set of states toward which a system tends to evolve, for a wide variety of starting conditions of the system".
For reasons of personal lack of comprehension, I won't go into the actual mathematics! 😉
Interesting article here about missing mass in the Milky Way. Seems we have no clue what’s going on with dark matter etc.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...may-be-missing-a-trillion-suns-worth-of-mass/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...may-be-missing-a-trillion-suns-worth-of-mass/
According to the newly released article, either our galaxy is extraordinarily deficient in dark matter or our core conceptions about dark matter are somehow deeply flawed.
I'd lean towards the third possibility that scientists are inadvertently misinterpreting their data in some way.
The findings are based on ESA's Gaia satellite's data on more than 1.8 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy.
Chris Lintott, Professor of Astrophysics and The Sky at Night presenter had this to say just one year ago:
"At times our ignorance about the Universe around us is breathtaking. Often I realise that a fact that I’d taken for granted is being called into question.
The identity of the closest star to the Sun, for example, and the length of the day on Saturn are both up for debate.
On larger scales, we don’t really have a satisfactory measure of our own Galaxy’s mass. Indeed, how do you measure the mass of the Milky Way?"
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/measure-mass-weigh-milky-way
And remember, it's not over until Phat ELVIS sings! https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/487/3/4409/5513466
EDIT: So you don't have to look it up, Phat ELVIS is a suite of computer simulated galaxies.
Last edited:
The thing is, I was reading a year or two back that the the Milky Way appeared to be more massive than one would assume looking at it’s diameter. So although it’s smaller than Andromeda our next door galactic neighbour, it’s heavier and that was put down to more dark matter.
Looks like that study has a very different view from the one I linked to above.
There’s clearly something going on with the way matter, energy and gravity interact. Then we still have the dark energy question to answer.
The more we look, the deeper the mystery.
Looks like that study has a very different view from the one I linked to above.
There’s clearly something going on with the way matter, energy and gravity interact. Then we still have the dark energy question to answer.
The more we look, the deeper the mystery.