# [ExI] Dark mass = FTL baryons?

Stuart LaForge avant at sollegro.com
Thu Aug 24 00:56:42 UTC 2017

BillK wrote:

>Well, I suppose anything could be happening at the time of the big bang. :)
>Our physics may not apply at the moment of creation. I doubt that any
>protons at all existed at the big bang instant. After inflation ended,
>matter and antimatter almost annihilated each other leaving only our
>universe of normal matter. So protons didn't exist until 0.0001
>seconds after the big bang when inflation had ended and the universe
>had cooled down a bit.

Actually protons froze out the quark-gluon plasma paired with antiprotons
when the universe was about 8 microseconds old (t = 7.78*10^-6 seconds)
when the temperature had cooled to 11 trillion Kelvin (T = 1.09*10^13
Kelvin).

When I numerically integrated the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution at the
condensation temperature of protons, to find out what fraction of protons
would be going less than c and more than c.

What I got was 19.87% of protons were going less than the speed of light,
and 80.12% going faster than c, with most likely speed being 1.4150c or
sqrt(2)c actually. That is a 1/5 fraction so it is disppointingly
different from the 1/6 fraction predicted for normal matter from my
lightcone/ball 4-volume ratio.

The weird thing is that this ratio is the same for all particles whatever
their mass. This is because the melting/freezing temperature of a
subatomic particle is given by T = mc^2/K and the most likely speed for a
particle in a gas of temperature T is v=sqrt(2KT/m) where m is the mass of
the particle and K is Boltzmann's constant.

One can see that  substituting in for T, gives the result that particles
of any mass freeze out of the quark soup with most likely velocity v =
sqrt(2)*c and a ratio of 4/5 going faster than c with 1/5 going slower
than c.

>More thoughts .....
>As protons increase in speed they also increase in mass towards
>infinite mass and this stops them from exceeding the speed of light.
>Or, an alternative phrasing is that to make protons exceed the speed
>of light you need a force acting on them that also exceeds the speed
>of light.

These days, that is certainly the case. I am talking about the first
microsecond after the big bang. These particles are condensing out of the
quark-gluon plasma as it cools. They are losing energy, not gaining it.

According to Higgs mechanism there is a critical temperature below which
the Higgs field becomes non-zero and particles acquire mass.
Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any reliable estimates for that
temperature online and it seems controversial.

https://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0955

>I doubt that heating protons up would make them exceed the speed of
>light. If you assume the almost infinite heat of creation, then you
>also have to assume that protons could exist under those conditions.

Maybe not but the first protons were not heated up, they were cooling
down. Protons could exist starting at 10.9 trillion Kelvin and statistical
mechanics predicts 4/5 of them would exceed the speed of light at their
creation.

If protons came into being without mass because the Higgs field was not
yet in effect, then they could have any velocity at at all. Then the Higgs
field came along and divided the various inertial reference frames of the
protons into separate causal cells that could no longer communicate with
one another.

>Dark matter is clustered around galaxies. It is the galaxies that form
>gigantic filaments. So why are FTL particles static and clustered
>around galaxies? They should be zipping through our normal universe
>regardless of what is in our universe. These space-noodles don't hang

That should indeed be the case, space-noodles would be transient,
manifesting for very short times in our lightcone. But if a superluminal
extended body like a star or galaxy were to pass through our causal
domain, space noodles would be popping in and out of existence at high
frequencies for extended periods of time ranging from minutes to tens of
millenia. Thus allowing them to have a gravitational echo which would
attract visible matter to where they were but are no longer.

Of course, they would cluster around visible matter galaxies because our
visible matter galaxies would be the dark matter in their causal domains.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any gravitational lenses that
look bilaterally symmetrical which is what you would expect if there were
lots of space noodles about. Instead, they all seem to display radial
symmetry i.e. circular arcs instead of mostly straight lines.

The lack of evidence is dampening my enthusiasm for the idea somewhat.

Stuart LaForge