Re: neutrino interaction

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> Raymond Yohros wrote:
> > Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> >
> >>Raymond Yohros wrote:
> >>
> >>>But what is the backup for Dark Energy?
> >>
> >>* acceleration of the expansion of the universe, as shown by supernova
> >>studies
> >>* deceleration in earlier times, as shown by the same studies
> >>* WMAP data showing that the density of the universe is close to the
> >>critical value and at the same time showing that all matter combined
> >>(ordinary + dark) makes up only 30% of that value
> >>* integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
> >>* expected from QFT
> >>
> >
> >
> > Sometimes one thing can be the explanation
> > for everithing we see instead of tring to make a diferent
> > view for every posible observable stage.
>
> As I said: if you can explain all the stuff above, quantitatively,
> without dark energy, feel free to do so.
>

I will need help explaining the details of this idea
quantitatively. I'm using intuitive common sense in my understandings.

>
> > when a spinning blackhole is eating matenergy, it's spin is stable
>
> Don't think so. Where did you get this from?
>

I'm not being accurate with my description. in my
mind i can see quasars being like huge tornados
and galaxies being like hurracanes. of curse the
densities and dimentions are extremly diferent but
the basic physical mecanism and structure can be similar
in some aspects. my question to you and anyone else who
can listen is, beside the obious diference in range,
what could be a defining diference in the mecanism
of this structures?

>
> > making a much bigger event horizon but with alot less
> > gravitation in their centers. they start to unfold themselfs
> > in a similar way that a tornado disipates on the
> > surface of the earth when the air preasure and water can
> > no longer keep it together.
> > the singularity in the center disapears and gravitation
> > gets more spreadout on spacetime.
>
> And what exactly has all of that to do with explaining all the pieces
> of evidence I mentioned above?
>

Well, a spin off or decay of a big blackhole can unfold
alot of spacetime to our perception giving
axeleration to the expansion.
Desaseleration of the expasion in earlier times? of curse, that is
exactly the way i see it in my mind. the overal spin rate
of blackholes in the early universe was so high that there
where serious depresion in spacetime. it is only when
the overal tempo of this engines
start to slow down when spacetime starts to loose some
of it's curve properties becoming flater and flater
into the future.
also,decaying blackholes can have more gravitational FX
than ordinary matr.

>
> >>>Off curse there will always be radioactive decay on the heavy stuff
> >>>but i was speaking in general terms (H & He). it is not that the
> >>>weakforce
> >>>its going to disapear. it will always be there but not nesesarly
> >>>turning all matr into energy in large scales like in the begining.
> >>
> >>Huh? When did the weak force turn matter into energy? What do you mean?
> >>
> >
> >
> > what i mean is that in the begining bosons and fermions use to interact
> > with eachother everywhere in a way we now only see in stars.
>
> And in radioactive decay. And in neutrino scattering and captures. And
> in electron captures. That happens rarely, but it *does* still happen.
>

YES, you are very good with details.

>
> > matenergy was ruled by gravity and the strongelectroweak force.
>
> I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
>

This is basic knoledge from the standard model. it means
that even gluons interact with other particles
so there where no protons or neutrons.

>
> > when the strongforce start to diverge from the electroweakforce
> > the first stable fermions came into be
>
> That's speculation. We don't yet know how these two forces were united
> and what happened when they diverged.
>

in the past, a thoath that the strong force was closer to
gravity than to the electroweak (gravitystrong and electroweak)
it took me some time to understand why gravity was
alone in the begining.

>
> > and most of them where huge loads of streaming neutrinos.
>
> Don't know. Where did you get that from?
>

Intuitive common sense. neutrinos stream out of violent
phenomena just like photons do.

regards
raymond
www.sonofsound.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Time dilation and expanding space
    ... and through that vacuum light travels at c. ... speed of a photon through space, which is always c and NEVER slower. ... account of gravity proper by QM), even if badly, ... There is no spacetime in QM. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Fermats principle and curved spacetime
    ... to be) clearly chooses the path with the least accumulated spacetime. ... Einstein certainly did not do that. ... ** In 1908 after finally understood the Newtonian law of gravity ... even in the simplest of mathematics employed the help of his classmate ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Whats up with gravity wave detection?
    ... What has quantum gravity ever predicted ... theory in curved spacetime, ... nothing about quantum gravity, so gravitons are irrelevant. ... >photon exerts gravity. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Whats up with gravity wave detection?
    ... What has quantum gravity ever predicted ... theory in curved spacetime, ... nothing about quantum gravity, so gravitons are irrelevant. ... >photon exerts gravity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Whats up with gravity wave detection?
    ... What has quantum gravity ever predicted ... theory in curved spacetime, ... nothing about quantum gravity, so gravitons are irrelevant. ... >photon exerts gravity. ...
    (sci.physics)