Physics Help Forum Missing anti matter

 Philosophy of Physics Philosophy of Physics Forum - Philosophical questions about our universe

 Apr 23rd 2019, 07:25 AM #11 Member   Join Date: Apr 2019 Posts: 73 What particle is this - I don't know - What I say is it looks like its trying to make a cloud of supper large QUARKS but I don't know - this IS the question im trying to answer - can it be making something like a quark at the knots. Keep in mind that physics has not gone beyond the quark in an accelerator so you would not see this galaxy flying in or its parts. So I want to know what would I see if it WAS THERE.
Apr 23rd 2019, 07:28 AM   #12
Senior Member

Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: England
Posts: 842
 the exact same mass in the exact same distribution is absurd
However statistically averaged over a large region (an appreciable portion of the observable universe) one can expect the average mass and the average distribution to be almost identical.

Some of your arguments seem to echo those of Sir Fred Hoyle
He was a lifetime opponent of the Big-Bang, and championed a steady renewal model where baryonic particles pop into existence, at random, throughout the universe.
He showed that the rate at which additional matter would have to be created to balance the effects of (the observed) universal expansion would be so tiny that we would be unlikely to be able to detect it.
__________________
~\o/~

Apr 23rd 2019, 09:08 AM   #13
Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 341
 Originally Posted by fligmin What particle is this - I don't know - What I say is it looks like its trying to make a cloud of supper large QUARKS
Okay... canonical big bang theory also suggests that at some point just after the big bang, there was a quark-gluon plasma.

 but I don't know - this IS the question im trying to answer - can it be making something like a quark at the knots.
What are these knots you keep referring to?

 Keep in mind that physics has not gone beyond the quark in an accelerator so you would not see this galaxy flying in or its parts.
What is this galaxy you keep talking about?

 So I want to know what would I see if it WAS THERE.
Sure, speculation is fun.

Last edited by benit13; Apr 23rd 2019 at 09:15 AM.

 Apr 23rd 2019, 08:09 PM #15 Member   Join Date: Apr 2019 Posts: 73 I had a bit of time after dinner to read up on Sir Fred Hoyle in Wikipedia. Yes I see some of his arguments in me the biggest difference is I see no creation of matter. The universe is not in a steady state by any means. Its evolving through phases of gravity then BB then gravity with the BB particles now a factor bigger(if im saying that right). Expansion inevitably pulls pools so far apart locking mass to do it again. Yes im creating matter I guess in the classical BB sense but I'm not, My matter is a black hole with a simple description (mass outside time space) it can only grow which causes expansion which in the end Pulls pools to far apart that they For all intensive purpose become gravitationally separated. The connection is still there but so week the other forces dominate and classical BB takes hold. Lather rinse repeat This locking and our place in the cycle at this time is why there are few mid sized black holes - its not that they can not happen. The locking(expansion) prefers certain sizes.
 Apr 23rd 2019, 10:13 PM #16 Member   Join Date: Apr 2019 Posts: 73 Hi benit - I answered a few of your questions and asked you what's wrong with how a galaxy behaves and then if you had ever looked like its behaviour using the math of the small Quantum. Does this help https://www.space.com/39881-massive-...nics-math.html
Apr 24th 2019, 02:14 AM   #17
Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 341
 Originally Posted by fligmin Hi benit - I answered a few of your questions and asked you what's wrong with how a galaxy behaves and then if you had ever looked like its behaviour using the math of the small Quantum. Does this help https://www.space.com/39881-massive-...nics-math.html
Okay, I don't see a problem with any physicists experimenting with techniques to describe the shape and dynamics of galaxies, but how is that relevant to cosmology? There are no galaxies in the early universe.

 Apr 24th 2019, 06:27 AM #18 Member   Join Date: Apr 2019 Posts: 73 So first link shows the large scale structure https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/...oil/Coil1.html This link shows the knot https://www.eso.org/sci/publications...iann14070.html If that knot(big if) is the universe forming a quark (a cloud with all the knots) Then your galaxy is a particle beyond what the collider can see. Your quark gluon plasma is all the starts Planets dust and gas brought along. Been wondering what will happen to the filaments when the knots get pulled so far apart - will the break and join the knots or break and pool with a larger over all energy due to the motion. Need three flavors of quark and I would believe that small differences in knot size will eventual help but if mass is needed then motion will make up the difference We don't know if it was in the early universe as the collider is not seeing past the quark and if the universe is building a quark at the knot it could be argued that that is its early universe and there the galaxy is. if I could not free think and try to come up with such an idea I would likely just do math for another if I were in the field.
Apr 24th 2019, 09:02 AM   #19
Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 341
 Originally Posted by fligmin So first link shows the large scale structure https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/...oil/Coil1.html This link shows the knot https://www.eso.org/sci/publications...iann14070.html
Ahhh, yes... these are the large scale structures of our universe. They're commonly referred to as "filaments" and "voids". So the "knots" you have been referring to are the parts of the universe that have a high density of galaxies.

 If that knot(big if) is the universe forming a quark (a cloud with all the knots) Then your galaxy is a particle beyond what the collider can see.
This sentence makes no sense at all.

The universe is defined to be everything; the cosmos and everything in it. A 'knot' here is just a patch where the density of galaxies is high within the universe, so it doesn't make sense to say that a knot is a "universe".

Quarks are subatomic particles and all hadrons (e.g. protons and neutrons) have three of them. Mesons have two; a quark and an anti-quark pair.
They cannot exist on their own.

Perhaps you mean quark-gluon plasma? In that case, environments like that have been hypothesised to exist only within neutron stars, because the gravitational force has to be strong enough to break nucleon degeneracy pressure but not strong enough to create a black hole.

Deep field images show that knots are just areas that have lots of galaxies, so nothing new to look at. Galaxies often have supermassive black holes at their centres.

 Your quark gluon plasma is all the starts Planets dust and gas brought along. Been wondering what will happen to the filaments when the knots get pulled so far apart - will the break and join the knots or break and pool with a larger over all energy due to the motion.
If you zoom out further, you see that the Universe is basically homogeneous (flat) to within $\displaystyle 10^{-5}$.

I don't know the dynamics of the large scale structure, but they're primarily dictated by cosmological expansion. It's a little bit like a bubblegum that's been stretched out and once it gets to a certain size, holes appear.

Whatever theory you come up with must give rise to these large scale structures. It's a constraint.

 Need three flavors of quark and I would believe that small differences in knot size will eventual help but if mass is needed then motion will make up the difference We don't know if it was in the early universe as the collider is not seeing past the quark and if the universe is building a quark at the knot it could be argued that that is its early universe and there the galaxy is. if I could not free think and try to come up with such an idea I would likely just do math for another if I were in the field.
What you're saying makes no sense.

 Apr 25th 2019, 06:19 AM #20 Member   Join Date: Apr 2019 Posts: 73 I am wrong here big time. Need three flavors of quark and I would believe that small differences in knot size will eventual help but if mass is needed then motion will make up the difference so There is 6 kinds each with an anti quark so all you need is 6 different general sizes of knots to form out of the large scale structure of the universe. After that expansion pulls them apart so gravity between them is reduced and the forces can become dominant then physics and those forces can work their magic. Im thinking the 6 anti quarks probably just need to spin backwards but that could be a brain fart as the forces becoming dominant may take care of that issue. Or a combination. this thread is now likely to go silent as physics is beyond my math. Its out of my field being 55 year old mill worker who runs a 6 foot circular saw to cut logs to length is breaking them down to 18 inch or 24 inch pieces and waste less the 6 inches at the end - Quality is in play in those choices to - math don on fly in head. That's my biggest math issue in life.

 Tags anti, matter, missing

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Physics Forum Discussions Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post htam9876 Philosophy of Physics 29 Jun 28th 2018 05:13 AM timemachine2 Light and Optics 0 Mar 4th 2016 04:27 PM topsquark Physics 3 Apr 2nd 2014 12:54 PM zenctheo Energy and Work 6 Apr 15th 2008 06:26 AM