In The Beginning

[pittsburghjoe]

A realm of quantum field void was already here. Pure Energy and Magnetism created Dark Matter tunnels/filaments, then observation traveled through all the tunnels but doesn't observe all the Dark Matter as it passes through. The Dark Matter that is observed eventually forms galaxies.

 

 

The CMB is the farthest/oldest, and therefore Blurriest photo ever. It is showing us plasma filaments finalize as the cosmic web.

 

The Universe isn't expanding, Cosmic voids do. Spacetime doesn't expand but does bend for gravity. Dark Matter bends spacetime but it isn't observed ..it doesn't have a physical state.

 

The circumference of the universe enlarges as observation continues to run through the Dark Matter filaments. As it continues, void is distributed throughout all existing voids. Because these voids are of nothingness, they do not effect the momentum of spacetime regions. Light can travel through voids because it is the quantum field.

 

[exchemist]

"Pure energy" is a nonsense.  It is Star Trek, not science.

 

Energy is not an entity, not stuff, but a property of a physical system, just as momentum is. You do not see people talking about "pure momentum". Everyone understands how stupid that would be, because momentum has to be the momentum of something, i.e. it is a property; an attribute, not an entity. Energy is exactly the same. You cannot have a jug of energy. 

[Farsight]

 

A realm of quantum field void was already here. Pure Energy and Magnetism created Dark Matter tunnels/filaments, then observation traveled through all the tunnels but doesn't observe all the Dark Matter as it passes through. The Dark Matter that is observed eventually forms galaxies...

Sorry Joe, but there's a lot wrong with this. 

 

"Pure energy" is a nonsense. It is Star Trek, not science. Energy is not an entity, not stuff, but a property of a physical system... 

 

That's wrong. Energy is a thing. Matter is made of it. In Compton scattering some of the photon kinetic energy is converted into electron kinetic energy. The photon changes direction so it’s decelerated in the vector sense, and its wavelength increases. The electron is deflected in a direction opposite to the photon, and is accelerated in the usual sense. The point to note is this: if you could do another Compton scatter on this self-same photon, and another and another ad infinitum, in the limit there’s no photon left. That’s because the photon is a singleton soliton electromagnetic wave in space, and it has an E=hf or E=hc/λ wave nature. A wave in the surf has a wave nature too. Note that when you take all the kinetic energy away from a wave in the surf, it just isn’t there any more. So the wave in the surf is energy. It’s the same for a photon. When you take all the kinetic energy away from a wave in space, it just isn’t there any more. So the photon is energy. Perform Compton scattering repeatedly with the self-same photon, and in the end it has been entirely converted into the kinetic energy of electrons.

 

And yet, and yet: in pair production, you can make an electron and a positron out of photons. So the electron is kinetic energy too. But now this kinetic energy is hidden. We call it mass-energy. Or potential energy. Or field energy. Only there’s angular momentum in this field, and a secret Poynting vector going around and around. See page 26 of Schrödinger’s quantization as a problem of proper values, part II. That’s where he said “let us think of a wave group of the nature described above, which in some way gets into a small closed ‘path’, whose dimensions are of the order of the wave length”. Also see Hans Ohanian’s 1984 paper what is spin? He said “the means for filling the gap have been at hand since 1939, when Belinfante established that the spin could be regarded as due to a circulating flow of energy”. 

[pittsburghjoe]

How is it wrong? I'm not a fan of blanket statements.

[pittsburghjoe]

Einstein hated quantum theory because it doesn't use spacetime until observed

[pittsburghjoe]

There is no point in pretending Dark Energy is a thing anymore.

[exchemist]

Sorry Joe, but there's a lot wrong with this. 

 

 

That's wrong. Energy is a thing. Matter is made of it. In Compton scattering some of the photon kinetic energy is converted into electron kinetic energy. The photon changes direction so it’s decelerated in the vector sense, and its wavelength increases. The electron is deflected in a direction opposite to the photon, and is accelerated in the usual sense. The point to note is this: if you could do another Compton scatter on this self-same photon, and another and another ad infinitum, in the limit there’s no photon left. That’s because the photon is a singleton soliton electromagnetic wave in space, and it has an E=hf or E=hc/λ wave nature. A wave in the surf has a wave nature too. Note that when you take all the kinetic energy away from a wave in the surf, it just isn’t there any more. So the wave in the surf is energy. It’s the same for a photon. When you take all the kinetic energy away from a wave in space, it just isn’t there any more. So the photon is energy. Perform Compton scattering repeatedly with the self-same photon, and in the end it has been entirely converted into the kinetic energy of electrons.

 

And yet, and yet: in pair production, you can make an electron and a positron out of photons. So the electron is kinetic energy too. But now this kinetic energy is hidden. We call it mass-energy. Or potential energy. Or field energy. Only there’s angular momentum in this field, and a secret Poynting vector going around and around. See page 26 of Schrödinger’s quantization as a problem of proper values, part II. That’s where he said “let us think of a wave group of the nature described above, which in some way gets into a small closed ‘path’, whose dimensions are of the order of the wave length”. Also see Hans Ohanian’s 1984 paper what is spin? He said “the means for filling the gap have been at hand since 1939, when Belinfante established that the spin could be regarded as due to a circulating flow of energy”. 

.........[click]...........

[pittsburghjoe]

Einstein couldn't answer the theory of everything because he refused to believe anything could be without spacetime.

[pittsburghjoe]

The shape of the cosmic web is extremely bothersome to me. Did antimatter cause cosmic voids?

[pittsburghjoe]

You guys got it wrong. It's not that matter won, it's that 50% matter formed and 50% void formed. It's why we have a cosmic web.

 

https://home.cern/science/physics/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem

[pittsburghjoe]

I now wonder if Dark Matter is Antimatter that didn't touch Matter yet.

[Dubbelosix]

I now wonder if Dark Matter is Antimatter that didn't touch Matter yet.

 

No no no no no. This is embarrassing rubbish, a moderator should put this thread where it belongs.

[pittsburghjoe]

Oh, I'm sorry, apparently you already know what dark matter is.

[Dubbelosix]

Oh, I'm sorry, apparently you already know what dark matter is.

You clearly do not know the definition of dark matter or various possibilities as to what it could be. Saying it is the leftover antimatter is so absurdly wrong, it is almost pointless to carry on this discussion. If you get the understanding right behind physical theories, mistakes like this could be avoided. Heck, even off shell particles could act as dark matter but would you even know why?

[pittsburghjoe]

You don't get to claim Dark Matter isn't Antimatter because he haven't seen anything safely travel though an area known to have Dark Matter.

Edited November 18, 2019 by pittsburghjoe

[Dubbelosix]

You don't get to claim Dark Matter isn't Antimatter because he haven't seen anything safely travel though an area known to have Dark Matter.

 

Slaps forehead, you're right, my mistake.

 

 

(sarcasm)

[pittsburghjoe]

Matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy.

 

 

Do the pairs have to be those particular pairs to touch to annihilate? Does matter and antimatter have to be of the same element to annihilate?

 

What I'm asking is: Are their requirements for Matter and Antimatter to annihilate each other?

Edited November 18, 2019 by pittsburghjoe