Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #682212 > unrolled thread

Could "Dark Matter" simply be a composite of Tachyons?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Could "Dark Matter" simply be a composite of Tachyons? Jerry Kraus <jkraus1999@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 07:15 -0700
    Re: Could "Dark Matter" simply be a composite of Tachyons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 15:46 +0000
      Re: Could "Dark Matter" simply be a composite of Tachyons? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 08:16 -0700
        Re: Could "Dark Matter" simply be a composite of Tachyons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 15:22 +0000
          Re: Could "Dark Matter" simply be a composite of Tachyons? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 08:55 -0700
            Re: Could "Dark Matter" simply be a composite of Tachyons? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 08:59 -0700
              Re: Could "Dark Matter" simply be a composite of Tachyons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 16:15 +0000
                Re: Could "Dark Matter" simply be a composite of Tachyons? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 09:21 -0700
                  Re: Could "Dark Matter" simply be a composite of Tachyons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 17:07 +0000
            Re: Could "Dark Matter" simply be a composite of Tachyons? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 16:15 +0000
    Re: Could "Dark Matter" simply be a composite of Tachyons? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 09:27 -0700
      Re: Could "Dark Matter" simply be a composite of Tachyons? Jerry Kraus <jkraus1999@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 11:46 -0700
        Re: Could "Dark Matter" simply be a composite of Tachyons? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 10:26 -0700
          Re: Could "Dark Matter" simply be a composite of Tachyons? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 13:13 -0700
            Re: Could "Dark Matter" simply be a composite of Tachyons? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 19:46 -0700
              Re: Could "Dark Matter" simply be a composite of Tachyons? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 07:13 -0700
                Re: Could "Dark Matter" simply be a composite of Tachyons? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-26 15:01 +0000
                  Re: Could "Dark Matter" simply be a composite of Tachyons? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 09:04 -0700
    Re: Could "Dark Matter" simply be a composite of Tachyons? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 20:31 -0500

#682212 — Could "Dark Matter" simply be a composite of Tachyons?

Wouldn't the simplest explanation of "Dark Matter" simply be that it's comprised of sub-atomic particles travelling at speeds faster than the speed of light, and, that's precisely why we can't perceive it, at all?   And, wouldn't that pretty much be the death knell of the Theory of Relativity, if 90% of the matter in the universe is travelling at ultra-light speeds?    Also, couldn't all those sub-atomic particles travelling unperceived at speeds faster than light effectively do away with the ambiguities and uncertainties of Quantum Mechanics, and replace it with predictable, stable mechanisms operating in the sub-atomic world?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#682228

Jerry Kraus <jkraus1999@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wouldn't the simplest explanation of "Dark Matter" simply be that it's
> comprised of sub-atomic particles travelling at speeds faster than the
> speed of light, and, that's precisely why we can't perceive it, at all?   

I’m not sure why you think traveling faster than the speed of light would
prohibit absorption or radiation of light, which would be the mechanism by
which we would detect it electromagnetically. 

And, wouldn't that pretty much be the death knell of the Theory of
Relativity, if 90% of the matter in the universe is travelling at
ultra-light speeds?    Also, couldn't all those sub-atomic particles
travelling unperceived at speeds faster than light effectively do away with
the ambiguities and uncertainties of Quantum Mechanics, 

I have no idea why you think this “solves” your perceived problems with
quantum mechanics. First off, quantum mechanics makes thousands of unique
predictions that agree with experimental observation. You’d have to show,
one by one, that those observations also are matched by quantitative
predictions from a faster-than-light particle theory. Can you do that? 

> and replace it with predictable, stable mechanisms operating in the sub-atomic world?
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682317

Odd
“I’m not sure...”
“I have no idea...”
Hahahahahahahaha 
I heard PD say those words so many times.
He and Odd talk SO MUCH the same!

And they REALLY don’t have ANY idea

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682319

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “I’m not sure...”
> “I have no idea...”
> Hahahahahahahaha 
> I heard PD say those words so many times.
> He and Odd talk SO MUCH the same!
> 
> And they REALLY don’t have ANY idea
> 

And Hanson says hahahahahahaha all the time. Congratulations for reminding
me of him. 

I certainly don’t have your ideas, because your ideas don’t fit with
observations. As we have discussed. And which you casually dismiss. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682323

Odd
“I certainly don’t have your ideas, because your ideas don’t fit with 
observations. As we have discussed. And which you casua”
Precessing galaxies fit with observations of asymmetrical galactic rotation curves.
As we have discussed.
But you think two sides of a rotating whirlpool can be going different speeds.
You think electrons can be moving but not going anywhere.
You have QM-induced dementia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682324

Odd
Here’s PD from 2011- sound like an Odd mantra?
“The fact that YOU don't understand that explanation is simply because 
you've never studied it, and on top of it you are pathologically lazy 
and/or terrified of studying, so there is little to no chance that you 
will ever understand it. So instead, you throw up something else and 
say, "I like this better." And that situation you are in, Mike, nobody 
cares about. You have do deal with your self-generated drama 
yourself. ”

Hahahahahahahaha

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682327

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> Here’s PD from 2011- sound like an Odd mantra?
> “The fact that YOU don't understand that explanation is simply because 
> you've never studied it, and on top of it you are pathologically lazy 
> and/or terrified of studying, so there is little to no chance that you 
> will ever understand it. So instead, you throw up something else and 
> say, "I like this better." And that situation you are in, Mike, nobody 
> cares about. You have do deal with your self-generated drama 
> yourself. ”

Well that certainly is a sentiment I agree with. I’m not under the illusion
I’m the only one that would feel that way. Are you? 

> 
> Hahahahahahahaha
> 

Hi Hanson. 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682328

Odd
“Well that certainly is a sentiment I agree with. I’m not under the illusion 
I’m the only one that would feel that way. Are you? 
“
That WAS you.
Obviously.
But lying is okay, right? To confuse your opponents. Like what Moslems do? Tachy whatever?
Only sensible to lie, in your world. Right?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682332

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “Well that certainly is a sentiment I agree with. I’m not under the illusion 
> I’m the only one that would feel that way. Are you? 
> “
> That WAS you.

Really? You said it was from PD. 

> Obviously.

Not to me. 

> But lying is okay, right? To confuse your opponents. 

WHAT opponents? You think this group is some kind of match?

> Like what Moslems do? Tachy whatever?
> Only sensible to lie, in your world. Right?
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682326

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “I certainly don’t have your ideas, because your ideas don’t fit with 
> observations. As we have discussed. And which you casua”
> Precessing galaxies fit with observations of asymmetrical galactic rotation curves.

But precession without a source of torque is counter to observations. This
is a fine example of your cherry picking. 

> As we have discussed.
> But you think two sides of a rotating whirlpool can be going different speeds.

Absolutely! Happens all the time. Observations. 

> You think electrons can be moving but not going anywhere.

Use my words, not yours. Don’t distort. 

> You have QM-induced dementia
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682238

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:15:23 AM UTC-4, Jerry Kraus wrote:
> Wouldn't the simplest explanation of "Dark Matter" simply be that it's
> comprised of sub-atomic particles travelling at speeds faster than the
> speed of light, and, that's precisely why we can't perceive it, at all?

keep this property in mind----^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>   And, wouldn't that pretty much be the death knell of the Theory of
> Relativity, if 90% of the matter in the universe is travelling at
> ultra-light speeds?

Sorry but no.
if these tachyons, as "sub-atomic particles travelling at speeds faster
than the speed of light" are called, do not carry information across
the Speed of Light in Vacuum barrier, then it does not change the physics
for non-tachyon particles.

Now it could mean an improved theory such that general relativity is
a special case of this new theory, just as special relativity is a
special case of general relativity and just as newtonian theory is
a special case of special relativity.

>    Also, couldn't all those sub-atomic particles travelling
> unperceived at speeds faster than light effectively do away with
> the ambiguities and uncertainties of Quantum Mechanics, and
> replace it with predictable, stable mechanisms operating in
> the sub-atomic world?

Perhaps and perhaps not. Application of Bell's theorem seem to
exclude hidden variables to explain cert quantum features. And
that seems to exclude even hidden particles.

Tachyons are not a new idea (at least forty years old).
And no evidence has been found to support the idea. So
no need to jump on that bandwagon yet. (Yes, no proof
they don't exist, but you cannot prove the negative.)
HTH,
  Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682264

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 11:27:39 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:15:23 AM UTC-4, Jerry Kraus wrote:
> > Wouldn't the simplest explanation of "Dark Matter" simply be that it's
> > comprised of sub-atomic particles travelling at speeds faster than the
> > speed of light, and, that's precisely why we can't perceive it, at all?
> 
> keep this property in mind----^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> >   And, wouldn't that pretty much be the death knell of the Theory of
> > Relativity, if 90% of the matter in the universe is travelling at
> > ultra-light speeds?
> 
> Sorry but no.
> if these tachyons, as "sub-atomic particles travelling at speeds faster
> than the speed of light" are called, do not carry information across
> the Speed of Light in Vacuum barrier, then it does not change the physics
> for non-tachyon particles.
> 
> Now it could mean an improved theory such that general relativity is
> a special case of this new theory, just as special relativity is a
> special case of general relativity and just as newtonian theory is
> a special case of special relativity.
> 
> >    Also, couldn't all those sub-atomic particles travelling
> > unperceived at speeds faster than light effectively do away with
> > the ambiguities and uncertainties of Quantum Mechanics, and
> > replace it with predictable, stable mechanisms operating in
> > the sub-atomic world?
> 
> Perhaps and perhaps not. Application of Bell's theorem seem to
> exclude hidden variables to explain cert quantum features. And
> that seems to exclude even hidden particles.
> 
> Tachyons are not a new idea (at least forty years old).
> And no evidence has been found to support the idea. So
> no need to jump on that bandwagon yet. (Yes, no proof
> they don't exist, but you cannot prove the negative.)
> HTH,
>   Ed

Thanks, Ed, nice analysis.   But, you have to admit, the fact that 90% of the universe is "Dark Matter", does make Tachyons a very tempting, and a very simple explanation, doesn't it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682334

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 2:46:51 PM UTC-4, Jerry Kraus wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 11:27:39 AM UTC-5, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:15:23 AM UTC-4, Jerry Kraus wrote:
> > > Wouldn't the simplest explanation of "Dark Matter" simply be that it's
> > > comprised of sub-atomic particles travelling at speeds faster than the
> > > speed of light, and, that's precisely why we can't perceive it, at all?
> > 
> > keep this property in mind----^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > 
> > >   And, wouldn't that pretty much be the death knell of the Theory of
> > > Relativity, if 90% of the matter in the universe is travelling at
> > > ultra-light speeds?
> > 
> > Sorry but no.
> > if these tachyons, as "sub-atomic particles travelling at speeds faster
> > than the speed of light" are called, do not carry information across
> > the Speed of Light in Vacuum barrier, then it does not change the physics
> > for non-tachyon particles.
> > 
> > Now it could mean an improved theory such that general relativity is
> > a special case of this new theory, just as special relativity is a
> > special case of general relativity and just as newtonian theory is
> > a special case of special relativity.
> > 
> > >    Also, couldn't all those sub-atomic particles travelling
> > > unperceived at speeds faster than light effectively do away with
> > > the ambiguities and uncertainties of Quantum Mechanics, and
> > > replace it with predictable, stable mechanisms operating in
> > > the sub-atomic world?
> > 
> > Perhaps and perhaps not. Application of Bell's theorem seem to
> > exclude hidden variables to explain cert quantum features. And
> > that seems to exclude even hidden particles.
> > 
> > Tachyons are not a new idea (at least forty years old).
> > And no evidence has been found to support the idea. So
> > no need to jump on that bandwagon yet. (Yes, no proof
> > they don't exist, but you cannot prove the negative.)
> > HTH,
> >   Ed
> 
> Thanks, Ed, nice analysis.   But, you have to admit, the
> fact that 90% of the universe is "Dark Matter", does make
> Tachyons a very tempting, and a very simple explanation,
> doesn't it?

I am pretty sure that percentage is way off. Maybe you mean
90% of matter IN the universe?

Ah, here it is
"Overall, dark energy is thought to contribute 73 percent of all
 the mass and energy in the universe. Another 23 percent is dark
 matter, which leaves only 4 percent of the universe composed of
 regular matter, such as stars, planets and people."
https://www.space.com/11642-dark-matter-dark-energy-4-percent-universe-panek.html

So still, dark matter would be 85% (23%/(23%+4%)) of all matter.
So I guess you weren't far off.

So there are two main solutions to this problem:
Gravity is different at galactic scales and larger
WIMPs - weakly interacting massive particles

Other normal matter that is difficult to observe
(many small BHs, other?) seem ruled out by other
observations, such as Big Bang Nucleogenesis.

On the WIMP side, tachyons are an interesting longshot.
If they do exist, it could hint at faster than light
travel as a possibility.

I am expecting it will turn out to be something more mundane.
But I could be wrong.  8^)

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682358

ed ed ed
“am expecting it will turn out to be something more mundane.”
Each layer of smaller Fractal Matter is more numerous

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682393

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 4:13:23 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
> ed ed ed
> “am expecting it will turn out to be something more mundane.”
> Each layer of smaller Fractal Matter is more numerous

John,
your pointless comments long ago lost my interest.
ed ed ed
8^)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682416

ed
“your pointless comments long ago lost my interest. 
ed ed ed 
8^) ”

The point of my comment is: in a Fractal Universe, each smaller iteration will be more numerous than the last. So this would match with Dark Matter being the next one down and Dark Energy the one after.
You say this idea is not new- too bored to find a reference?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682426

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>You say this idea is not new- too bored to find a reference?

I definitely have heard the idea before, I think it was a sci-fi story, 
but I really can't remember. But it did come to mind when I first heard 
your idea.

There are also childrens' stories "Horton Hears a Who" and "The Cat in the 
Hat Comes Back". So Dr. Seuss came up with fractal worlds before you did.

(I once had a copy of "The Cat in the Hat Comes Back" in my cube jokingly
labeled as an "instruction manual" for (computer) recursion)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682445

MM
“I definitely have heard the idea before, I think it was a sci-fi story, 
but I really can't remember. But it did come to mind when I first heard 
your idea. 
”
But I’m expanding it- right?
PD pressured me to find a source for LeSage gravity and I realized that smaller manifestations of matter must perforce come with smaller manifestations of emr radiations. I know that idea was new to ME when I first realized it. That was a nice little epiphany- for me, anyway. Thanks PD

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#682388

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 07:15:17 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus wrote:

> ... travelling at speeds faster than the speed of light....

Wouldn't they then emit Cherenkov radiation until they'd lost all their
energy, wind up moving at infinite speed and possess no mass?

Hard to see how all this fits together.

> ... it's comprised of sub-atomic particles....

Why do people persist in believing that using the word "comprise" in
place of "compose" makes them sound high-brow?

"Comprise" means pretty much the same thing as "include".  It comes to
us from Latin, has meant the same thing for two millennia.

-- 
Goat

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web