/sci/ - Science & Math

Picture if you will a pair production. Two particles of opposite charge emerge from a quantum energy fluctuation. They separate by momentum, attract by charge and annihilate one another.

I think this may be a model for symmetry breaking.

The problem with Symmetry breaking is that we are looking for anti-matter in our universe. What if instead before the big bang even happened the mass that makes up our universe emerged from a pair production? This would mean that for every particle charge in our universe there is an equal and opposite charge in the pair of this universe, the Anti-universe of this universe?

>>6700993

paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.5676.pdf

None of this is nilly willy, waste funding bla bla. That's crazy talk. Physics is a weird jigsaw puzzle that fits together kind crappily, but there is nothing "guesswork" about DM. Case clizzled.

>>6700993
Here's a good example of a piece of the puzzle. I work in the same room as people looking for these things. Not sure what they are, but they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion

>>6701068
Likely to give results though...I have no idea what that means. I do solid state physics - very "tangible" stuff. But likely to give results doesn't exists. Tons of ideas fall on their face.

It is a totally different field. But as far as I can tell and have seen, cosmologists have worked up a hell of a case for DM, so DM research IS likely to give results, according to experts.

>>6701065
I do not think that dark matter is known to be unobservable. There are some candidates (i guess) being looked at.

>>6701058
This is an oldie and goodie. Nobody is sure, I believe.

>>6701057
The evidence is theoretical. Cosmologists know what the fuck they are doing, but almost nobody else does.

Theoretical evidence is what it is. It's not crazy at all. In the past, theories have been thought insane for years until proven correct, so what can you say?

A shit load of people agree on a bunch of stuff regarding dark matter. I, a physicists in nothing to do with dark matter, have to simply concede that they may have a point. Then I go on my marry way, doing my shit, fully respecting their position. What else can I/we do?

>>6664445
If anything can be certain, its that infinity is a hell of a complicated thing for those with little scientific know-how.

Thank you all. Sadly, not many ways to come across this stuff without really hunting for awhile to get to the specifics you want/

>>6664432
Any way you can source this information? I'm quite interested in reading these studies

>>6664415
Would i be asking such a ridiculous theory if i understood it myself?
>>6664423
This is a valid point. Everything we have found so far, every natural force, has a degree of order to it. From atomic structure to quantum mechanics, there is order. Maybe its not as far off as it seems? Its hard to think about when we know infinity as itself and nothing more.

And if you're going to get butthurt over a simple theoretical question please, leave. This is meant to stimulate thought and nothing more.

>>6664408
Doesn't every force have a matching equation with which to understand it and explain its functioning? Even gravity has an equation, but none of you could probably explain why mass attracts other mass. Maybe you could though. The universe is orderly chaos. There IS a natural order to everything. Maybe the infinite expanse is no different.

Well, perhaps not an exact equation, perhaps one with variables we are not yet aware of? Logically, there has to be an explanation and a way to reach said explanation (IE Formulas). There can't be infinite space without reasoning. The question is, can we find that reasoning?

Guess science isn't for /b/, i should've known. Ill try you guys out.
Time for a brain crunch by Mary Jane.
After about 3 grams in one sitting i started to think.
(Yeah, thats a wonderful sign isn't it?)
'If the universe really is infinite, then naturally there must be a scientific equation to describe and calculate infinity, or everything would unravel.

Discuss.

Couldn't the accelerated expansion of the universe be explained by the idea that gravity is attractive on small cosmic scales but may be repulsive on larger scales?

Say the acceleration of gravity is -G.M/r^2 + k.M.r where k is extremely small, then as r gets very large k.M.r would become noticeable. Then dark energy would not have an unknown origin anymore as it would arise from mass itself.

I said k.M.r but it might be k.M.r^2 or something else, the power of r would be derived from observations. Is there any reason why this wouldn't be possible?

Essentially when an animal evolves. It tends to lose some of its ancestors parts. We still have the tail bone to prove that we once had a tail. But as we evolved we started to lose the purpose for the tail and started to grow without it. I'm not to much into evolution because of my religious background. But i have enough knowledge of that.

>>5586743
I used to have this problem

then i realized how awesome i was, and decided that i would turn my ego into my fist

It is inflated, yes. But where others use hot air, i used MOLTEN IRON of TRAINING

And now my job is to be the best fighter who ever lived. It's totally fine to be horrbly narcissistic, because as long as i WIN, nothing will ever go wrong with my life and i'll just be better.

>>5586722
I think you should apply activated thermite to one plant, and provide the other with a heat lamp over X time where X = Heat of lamp*time lamp is on= Total energy of thermite

It'd be much morecool for babbys first sci project

>>4839974
I think the only way to demonstrate freedom from causality would be to violate it. How that might be done, I'm not sure.

If someone can do that, here's what to do next:

Show that anything which doesn't have what we consider "free will" is incapable of doing the same.

Then we might really have something.

There is a concept firmly engrained in our language, so much so that it seems people sometimes aren't even conscious of it. It's time.

Determinism states that the future state of the universe is fully determined, and in principle can be predicted, by the present state.

I was a determinist until I took quantum mechanics and learned about experiments like quantum erasers.

In everyday life at the macro scale, determinism is a good rule of thumb. But it's been proven experimentally that either:

--There are truly random events, or
--The future can have some kind of effect on the past

If either is true, determinism cannot be held to be true in full confidence. For a good explanation, look up wheeler's delayed choice experiment.

As for free will, it's just semantics. Similar to the definition of god, it's pointless to affirm or deny its existence until a coherent, cognitively meaningful definition can be put forward.

>>4740505
I'm on it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303640104577436392955009490.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

>Informed by meetings with top physicists and cosmologists at MIT and Cornell University, "Dark Matter" is intended to be the first in a series of albums that GZA—born Gary Grice in Brooklyn in 1966—will put out in the next few years, several of which are designed to get a wide audience hooked on science.
>"There's no parental advisory, no profanity, no nudity," he said. "The only thing that's going to be stripped bare is the planets."

Opinions?

>>4718226
no thats it, thanks again.

So 18. should be

y= x^2 - 1
y=(x-1)(x+1) -1
x^2