|
Extra Mass
Link |
by shadybones
on 2007-05-12 11:40:17
|
|
Seems to me that dark matter is just another example of how brilliant we can be in stating the obvious. "It must be there, we can't see it, therefore it must be something we can't see." --eureka!! Thing is, I remember this little obscure formula that goes e=mc^2, and a little device called the atomic bomb. So matter is energy, energy is matter, right? So why can't the "dark matter" just be energy in use throughout the universe?  |
|
Re: Extra Mass
Link |
by SuicidopoliS
on 2007-05-12 12:16:43 (edited 2007-05-12 12:54:19)
|
|
How come you never won a Nobel prize is beyond me... EDIT: I might as well try to give an answer, besides getting worked up by the arrogant and denigrating way you formulated your question... E is not equal to mc^2, but rather: E=∆mc^2. Thus, this formula ( which b.t.w. is only valid in certain limited cases ) only tells you the energy you get when CONVERTING some mass ∆m completely into energy, like with the atomic bomb you mentioned ( or more correctly, what happens in the case of nuclear fission ). Energy is NOT mass. Energy isn't even something physical, it's only a concept we humans came up with to describe the world we see ( a rather handy one, i might add ). If energy were to be mass, then, to give an example, laser beams wouldn't carry any energy. This been said, i too do wonder if "dark matter" really has to be "matter", or if it could be something else... But to the contrary of your sayings, i don't think it's "stating the obvious", but think it's an amazingly complex problem that probably won't be solved anytime soon. I know people doing research in that area... go tell them it's "obvious". Djeez... EDIT 2: Repeat thread. .oO° Life's THE CURE, the rest are details! °Oo. |
|
Re: Extra Mass
Link |
by
on 2007-05-12 13:17:41 (edited 2007-05-12 15:56:18)
|
|
lol SuicidopoliS you just gendowned this fool! nice job! Although, I disagree with your statement that energy is NOT mass. Energy and mass are interchangeable in the Schrodinger Equation, which is valid in most circumstances. It is always possible to measure the energy of matter and the mass-equivalent of energy. On the contrary, I feel the major confusion here is that rest-mass and "resistance to acceleration" are being confused! Rest-mass is a property of each type of fundamental particles that never changes. Relativistic Mass is the resistance of a body to acceleration, and this property increases with relative motion. They are often close to the same for a non-relativistic body with negligible internal motion (heat). For example, me. My rest mass (the quantity of which is none of your business!) is more or less constant over the corse of a day. When I get in a car, however, my resistance to acceleration increases slightly, but immeasurably. If I was in a rocket ship flying at near light speeds, it would be quite difficult to add to my velocity, i.e., to accelerate me further. This is because a body's relativistic mass increases with relative motion! This is one way of explaining why faster-than-light travel is nonsense. Getting back to the topic, of course it is REST-MASS and not relativistic mass that we are talking about in terms of dark matter. So, it is Stuff-stuff, not imaginary-stuff, that we're looking for. And no, it's not just stuff so tiny we can't see it. Its stuff that, by our understanding of things, ought not to be there, but seems nonetheless to be. This is a genuine quandary and your foolish banter about "stating the obvious" is an obvious statement to your ignorance. Not to be mean or anything, but take a physics class before causing problems in my forum, if you please. 
|