Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 109

Thread: Determine the mass of baryonic matter based on relativity constants ?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,319
    Why Does Dark Energy Make the Universe Accelerate? by Sean Carroll has a good explanation.
    The usual (wrong) way to explain this is to point out that dark energy has “negative pressure.” ...
    The right way is to not mention pressure at all, positive or negative. ... Dark energy is persistent, which imparts a constant impulse to the expansion of the universe, which makes galaxies accelerate away. No negative pressures, no double-talk.
    The problem with just stating "negative pressure" is the immediate conclusion is that here is no acceleration! Any equal pressure from all around an object such as a galaxy has no net force. So it has to be gravity from the negative pressure and that needs justification.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The universe includes Baryonic Matter and so astronomers write about it. Your point is?
    This is a baryon

    Particle physics is not astronomy or GR. Particle physics is quantum mechanics. The Standard Model that describe the fundamental particles is quantum mechanics.

    Unit of measurements are not GR or QM or scientific theories or even an obviously wrong ATM idea! They include G, c, etc. Plank units setting G = 1 does not make it GR. Plank units setting c = 1 does not make it SR. Plank units setting h bar = 1 does not make it QM. Plank units setting kb = 1 does not make it thermodynamics. Plank units setting ke = 1 does not make it electromagnetism.

    If you were actually using Plank units then there would be no G in your equations. In Plank units Newton's law of gravitation is as in the Wikipedia article you linked to (G=1 and thus it does not appear).
    I refered this baryon, a easier definiton for me

    I am almost sure that I make a misunderstanding on this name of "unity".what it is the name for the nations like G, c, Lambda, acceleration, force etc... please

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    This is the cosmological constant and it is still not a force. Neither is a pressure, a force. A classical force of say a gas against a surface is a force per area. The cosmological constant is not a gas pressing against a surface. When we look at the equation of GR we say that the cosmological constant has an associated pressure: "A positive vacuum energy density resulting from a cosmological constant implies a negative pressure, and vice versa.". That pressure does not pull on an area. There is no associated force.
    One can, perhaps make it acceptable with the analogy of the mass of a galaxy deforming a tissue of space. You need another galaxy, so another mass, very far away, so as not to fall into the gravitational fields of one or the other. (only one galaxy has no force, it must take 2 masses to have a force). This negative pressure pulls on the filaments of the tissue space and distances the 2 galaxy


    Of course if you stay with only one galaxy you can't have a force.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Why Does Dark Energy Make the Universe Accelerate? by Sean Carroll has a good explanation.

    The problem with just stating "negative pressure" is the immediate conclusion is that here is no acceleration!
    in classical mechanics you have an acceleration due from the mass.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,319
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    in classical mechanics you have an acceleration due from the mass.
    This is GR.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,319
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    I refered this baryon, a easier definiton for me
    You did not refer (past tense) to the link. I gave you the relevant textbook physics that you need to know before proposing an ATM idea. GR does not describe the masses of any fundamental particles.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jan-28 at 03:32 AM.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,319
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    One can, perhaps make it acceptable with the analogy of the mass of a galaxy deforming a tissue of space ...
    Irrelevant analogy, stephaneww, because the Big Bang is an expansion of spacetime and dark energy is an acceleration of that expansion of spacetime. There are no forces between galaxies due to the expansion of spacetime. It is the distances between them getting bigger. GR has a basic concept called a metric. A metric is a measure of the distance between 2 points. An expanding universe has the metric increasing with time.
    If you read Why Does Dark Energy Make the Universe Accelerate? by Sean Carroll then you will see "Friedmann equation". These are important equations in standard cosmology: Friedmann equations
    The Friedmann equations are a set of equations in physical cosmology that govern the expansion of space in homogeneous and isotropic models of the universe within the context of general relativity. They were first derived by Alexander Friedmann in 1922 from Einstein's field equations of gravitation for the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric and a perfect fluid with a given mass density ρ {\displaystyle \rho } \rho and pressure p {\displaystyle p} p.[1] The equations for negative spatial curvature were given by Friedmann in 1924.[2]
    The "metric of the universe must be of the form" of a scale factor a(t) times a three-dimensional metric of space. As a(t) increases, the distances between points increases.


    What "the mass of a galaxy deforming a tissue of space" actually does is give us gravitational lensing. Two galaxies give us 2 lenses.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,319
    Something lacking from your ATM idea: What is the actual "mass of baryonic matter", stephaneww?

    You have a Mb but I can not see where you give the value for it. The mass of ordinary matter in the observable universe is 4.5 x 10^ 51 kg. If you do not get this value then you not only have numerology , you have the wrong numerology.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Something lacking from your ATM idea: What is the actual "mass of baryonic matter", stephaneww?

    You have a Mb but I can not see where you give the value for it. The mass of ordinary matter in the observable universe is 4.5 x 10^ 51 kg. If you do not get this value then you not only have numerology , you have the wrong numerology.

    Hi Reality Check

    there is sometimes mistakes on wikipedia : (where exactly do you find value in 10^51kg please ?)


    look here to the good value : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observ...rdinary_matter
    ... and the mass of ordinary matter equals density (4.08×10^−28 kg/m3) times volume (3.58×10^80 m3) or 1.46×10^53 kg.
    Last edited by stephaneww; 2019-Jan-28 at 09:01 PM.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,319
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    That is my link (see the summary at the top), not that it matters for the question: What is the actual "mass of baryonic matter", stephaneww?

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    In cosmology, "baryonic matter" is synonymous with "ordinary matter". So it's the same mass

    edit :

    That is my link (see the summary at the top), not that it matters for the question: What is the actual "mass of baryonic matter", stephaneww?
    ok I have find it on the right. I think it's a mistake.

    edit 2 :

    No, It's a mistake ! : On the top right, the density and the volume are about the right values. calculate the total mass, the ordinary mass share is about 4.8%, you will see the error (the good value is about 1.5*10^53 kg)
    Last edited by stephaneww; 2019-Jan-28 at 11:39 PM. Reason: ...on "the" instead "on sur"

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    That is my link (see the summary at the top), not that it matters for the question: What is the actual "mass of baryonic matter", stephaneww?
    it's not exactly the same link : mine points to a section of the page

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,319

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    it depends on the cosmological parameters measured such as , , , . according to the values of this abstract Planck 2018 it is . I do not see why you insist, the value in 10^51 kg is wrong
    Last edited by stephaneww; 2019-Jan-29 at 01:23 AM. Reason: latex and link

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,319
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    No, It's a mistake !.
    Not a really mistake, stephaneww.
    Observable universe has s summary panel which lists the parameters of the observable universe. The authors list "Mass (ordinary matter) 4.5 x 10^51 kg [3] " using Planck and WMAP data.
    Observable universe has a section on the mass of ordinary matter that starts "The mass of the observable universe is often quoted as 10^50 tonnes or 10^53 kg.[66]". This section has an calculation (1.46×10^53 kg) by the Wikipedia article authors from what looks like Planck data alone.
    It is two different ways of calculating the mass using valid physics.

    Now we need your value from your equation based on no physics. Do you get 1.46×10^53 kg? Do you get 4.5 x 10^51 kg? Or do you get another number?

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,319
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    ...I do not see why you insist
    I insist because you have not shown that you have done the basic step of putting the well known constants into your equation. Thus my question What is the actual "mass of baryonic matter", stephaneww?

    You will state a mass. The question then is how close have you accidently got to other estimates based on actual physics.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Not a really mistake, stephaneww.
    Observable universe has s summary panel which lists the parameters of the observable universe. The authors list "Mass (ordinary matter) 4.5 x 10^51 kg [3] " using Planck and WMAP data.
    Observable universe has a section on the mass of ordinary matter that starts "The mass of the observable universe is often quoted as 10^50 tonnes or 10^53 kg.[66]". This section has an calculation (1.46×10^53 kg) by the Wikipedia article authors from what looks like Planck data alone.
    It is two different ways of calculating the mass using valid physics.

    Now we need your value from your equation based on no physics. Do you get 1.46×10^53 kg? Do you get 4.5 x 10^51 kg? Or do you get another number?
    with my equation I have 1.456*10^53 kg instead of 1.459*10^53 kg for Planck 2018

    do Volume 4×10^80 m^3 * Density (of total energy) 9.9×10−27 kg/m3 = 3.9* 10^54 kg. (total mass)
    % of ordinary matter : 4.9% of total mass = 1.9 * 10^53 kg for mass of ordinary matter. 10^51 kg is clearly an error
    Last edited by stephaneww; 2019-Jan-29 at 01:58 AM. Reason: do Volume...

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    I insist because you have not shown that you have done the basic step of putting the well known constants into your equation. Thus my question What is the actual "mass of baryonic matter", stephaneww?

    You will state a mass. The question then is how close have you accidently got to other estimates based on actual physics.
    the difference with estimates based on actual physics is a spread of 0.29% for the mass of ordinary matter

    Edit :

    I insist because you have not shown that you have done the basic step of putting the well known constants into your equation.
    I thought I had do that here :

    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post


    ...with datas of abstract data Planck 2018



    is it enought ?
    Last edited by stephaneww; 2019-Jan-29 at 02:29 AM.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,319
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    with my equation I have 1.456*10^53 kg ...
    Good. Now we know that your physically invalid numerology accidently gets a result that is not outside of the real estimates.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,319
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    I thought I had do that here :
    Your thought is wrong, stephaneww. That is your invalid equation for force (the F is a big hint, not getting a mass is an even bigger hint!).
    Your physically invalid numerology
    • An Mb equation for baryonic mass that cannot be baryonic mass.
      The only "variable" is the cosmological constant which is not related to mass. Nothing about the size of the observable universe or density of matter in the universe.
    • Uses the known to be wrong/approximation Newtonian gravitation.
      The universe is described by GR.
    • Irrelevancy about the Planck force which is just a unit of measurement.
    • An ignorant "exactly with the notion of classical force" calculation.
      Put Planck mass and Planck length into Newton's law of gravitation and it is no surprise that we get the Planck force unit of measurement.
    • An ignorant "the more easy is to use instead of (it's constant and have the same dimension) statement.
      You cannot arbitrarily replace things just because they have the same dimensions and are constant. 1 inverse square meter is also constant and has the same dimensions. 1 inverse square light-year is also constant and has the same dimensions.
      The cosmological constant is not a unit of measurement. A Plank length is not a part of GR.
    • An random division of mass by 2 as if half the mass of the universe has vanished.
      We do not need to divide by 2. The dynamics of the universe are from all of the mass of the universe.
    • An invalid inclusion of pi.
      Including pi makes your "Planck force" wrong.
    • Ignorance of what "dimension analysis" is.
      Dimensional analysis is a way to verify that already derived physics equations are not obviously wrong. The closest that it gest to deriving physics is when physic relationships are already postulated. For example, postulate that gravity between 2 objects is an inverse square law, proportional to the mass of 1 object and proportional to the mass of the other object. Then F is proportional to Mm/r^2. Thus F = X Mm/r^2 where X is a unknown constant with dimensions determined by dimensional analysis.
    • Deep ignorance about surface density.
      The ignorance is deep because you link to an article stating that this applies to physical objects and then apply it to units of measurement.
    • Deep "exactly volume density of energy of the quantum vacuum" ignorance.
      The quantum vacuum energy is estimated to be ~10^113 joules per cubic meter. This value leads to the cosmological constant problem.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    ...

    note: Mb disappears in this part of egality



    ....

    you can see here why divide Mb by 2 is needed again… when Mb disappears…
    Last edited by stephaneww; 2019-Jan-29 at 10:28 PM.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,319
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    you can see here why divide Mb by 2 is needed again… when Mb disappears…
    A lie that Mb disappears unless mass is divided by 2, stephaneww, and the same idiocy that half the mass of the universe does nothing. The first line has your imagined (Mb/2) in it.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Mb / 2 is used in messages #1 and #2, with the same logic. It can be removed from message #2 with the acceleration formula. If it's a lie, explain why it should not work for both messages: what is the logical mistake?
    Last edited by stephaneww; 2019-Jan-29 at 11:23 PM.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,319
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    what is the logical mistake?
    The physical mistake is making half of the mass in the universe do nothing. It is as bad as trying to calculate the orbit of the Earth around the Sun and setting the mass of the Sun to a half solar mass.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The physical mistake is making half of the mass in the universe do nothing. It is as bad as trying to calculate the orbit of the Earth around the Sun and setting the mass of the Sun to a half solar mass.
    to say that it is a physical error implied that I propose a theory which underlies these calculations, but I do not have any: it remains to be defined

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,319
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    to say that it is a physical error ...
    It is still a physical error from the list of already physically invalid numerology because you ignore half the baryonic mass of the universe.
    Try reading and understanding what you quote - Newton's law of gravitation. This does not say that the force is due to half of the mass !

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    I abdicate, I have already explained several times (especially in the message #1) the why of Mb/2. One last time: to make the parallel with the approach in units of Planck one needs two egals masses. If we take Mb without dividing it by two, that supposes that we have two masses of universe that come into play, which is a physical heresy worse than dividing it by 2

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,319
    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    last time: to make the parallel with the approach in units of Planck one needs two egals masses.
    That is 2 different errors.
    An obsession with Planck units which are just an ordinary system of measurement.
    A fantasy that any system of measurement needs "two egals masses". System of units have a single mass unit. Planck units have the one and only Planck mass. SI units have the one and only kilogram.

    If one did an irrelevant calculation of the Newtonian gravitational force between 2 units of mass then we have F = G (1 kg) (1 kg)/r^2 or F = G (1 mp) (1 mp) )/r^2, or etc. The force will be related to the unit of mass squared.

    If one did the irrelevant calculation of the Newtonian gravitational force of the baryonic mass in the universe then the result should be F = 0! Mb is distributed uniformly so every point has the same density of mass around it and the forces cancel out.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    ...
    An obsession with Planck units which are just an ordinary system of measurement.
    This is just a shortcut of language from me

    edit:
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    A fantasy that any system of measurement needs "two egals masses". System of units have a single mass unit. Planck units have the one and only Planck mass. SI units have the one and only kilogram.
    explain how you calculate a force with only one mass please ?

    edit3 :without object, you explain below that it takes two masses
    end edit

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    If one did an irrelevant calculation of the Newtonian gravitational force between 2 units of mass then we have F = G (1 kg) (1 kg)/r^2 or F = G (1 mp) (1 mp) )/r^2, or etc. The force will be related to the unit of mass squared.
    and what is the value of r to have Fp? ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    If one did the irrelevant calculation of the Newtonian gravitational force of the baryonic mass in the universe then the result should be F = 0! Mb is distributed uniformly so every point has the same density of mass around it and the forces cancel out.
    can you detail your calculation please? I do not see how you calculate it … especially how you choose r

    edit 2 :

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    ...The force will be related to the unit of mass squared.
    It's exactly what I do here :

    Quote Originally Posted by stephaneww View Post
    I am beginning to wonder if you have read and understood alls the proposed calculations. Among others because of the lack of knowledge of the mass of ordinary matter and the erroneous reference of 10 ^ 51 kg from wikipedia
    Last edited by stephaneww; 2019-Jan-30 at 01:32 AM.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    A lie that Mb disappears unless mass is divided by 2, stephaneww, and the same idiocy that half the mass of the universe does nothing. The first line has your imagined (Mb/2) in it.
    Reality Check

    Do not accuse other people of lying just because you disagree with their ideas or think they have made a mistake. Tone it down.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •