[ExI] Dark mass = FTL baryons?
pharos at gmail.com
Thu Aug 24 10:43:57 UTC 2017
On 24 August 2017 at 01:56, Stuart LaForge wrote:
> 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
> 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.
The Big Bang and Cosmic Inflation is still subject to much discussion
Wikipedia (the fount of all knowledge) says that current theory is
that the universe was cooling during the inflation period and *after*
inflation stopped, reheating occurred and then the quark-gluon plasma
and other particles were created. At this time the heat was so great
that particles were moving at relativistic speeds and matter and
anti-matter was being continuously created and destroyed. After all
the excitement was over our universe was left with our present matter
This version of the creation theory seems to leave little room for
faster than light particles.
So you need a new creation theory as well to support your FTL protons. :)
> 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.
> 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
> 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.
As you say it is speculative, but it seems reasonable to me that the
Higgs field appeared at the same time as matter / anti-matter was
being created. Otherwise you are creating massless protons which seems
to be a contradiction in terms. (Show me a massless proton!) :)
> 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
More information about the extropy-chat