Do YEC days 1, 2 & 4 explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy?

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@Joe_Felsenstein

If all if science is to be found there, shouldn’t we use the Bible to make predictions?

The analogous rhetorical question that I often ask is:

“Why do scientific discoveries come from the laboratories? Shouldn’t they be coming from the monasteries?”

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

Just putting this here right now as I don’t have time to check the comments, but since Google is tracking my searches, this came up. https://www.livescience.com/fast-radio-burst-magnetar-milky-way.html what? We’ve already detected the “leftover light”/ dark energy? This is awesome!!!

Also had a “duh” moment this morning when I realized God enjoyed revealing his nature through quarks - the three colors of light, the three quarks adding up to 1. I expect that if anjils exist, they would also have similar characteristics and subparticles with an anjilic mass of 1. Hehe.

Ok. New things on my list to research!

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

And … we’re already using dark energy? New class of laser beam doesn't follow normal laws of refraction Google has to stop giving me articles. I haven’t learned the basics of physics yet to understand what they’re talking about…

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

Wait - does this mean that stars that supposedly died like a million years ago actually didn’t? Lol, questions are coming too fast.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@swamidass do you know Hugh Ross? I recently watched a YouTube of him. Is he studying these things? Would be fascinating to get a perspective from a quantum physicist or Astro physicist who is a Christian. I need someone to explain it to me.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Science is like finding a candy shop full of treasure isn’t it?

I do know Hugh. Search this site or google to find the events I’ve done with him and RTB.

[John_Harshman]

@thoughtful

the three colors of light

Just so you know, there are not three colors of light. What you are mistaking for those three colors are the three types of cones in your eyes. Because we only sample light in three ways, various intensities of light emitted at just 3 wavelengths can give us all the color information we’re capable of processing. But a bird or a mantis shrimp would see many more colors in nature.

[david.heddle]

Valerie,

If you want some really excellent accessible and fun videos on QM, I highly recommend the youtube channel “looking glass universe.”

Looking Glass Universe

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@John_Harshman

@thoughtful

the three colors of light

Just so you know, there are not three colors of light. What you are mistaking for those three colors are the three types of cones in your eyes. Because we only sample light in three ways, various intensities of light emitted at just 3 wavelengths can give us all the color information we’re capable of processing. But a bird or a mantis shrimp would see many more colors in nature.

OK. I will need to learn more about quarks and why they name them with colors.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@Joe_Felsenstein

If all if science is to be found there, shouldn’t we use the Bible to make predictions? For example, physicists currently argue about the need for “dark energy” in their theories, and string theorists argue about which version of that theory describes the real world. Shouldn’t biblical exegesis solve these dilemmas? Let’s bring it to the aid of physics! Ahead of time, for once.

“All of science”? You’ve created a gigantic straw man.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@david.heddle

Valerie,

If you want some really excellent accessible and fun videos on QM, I highly recommend the youtube channel “looking glass universe.”

https://www.youtube.com/user/LookingGlassUniverse

Thanks! I’ve found some others I really like as well. https://www.youtube.com/user/physicswoman
https://www.youtube.com/user/dominicwalliman

First question - Do all physicists understand all physics?

Second - I’d love a scientific opinion on this article generally. I think this phenomenon of repeating fast radio bursts is more interesting than the one identified as coming from a specific source. But i’m also curious - it seems they haven’t identified a specific source, could it be something that isn’t creating its own electromagnetic energy but is reflecting solar energy or changing it? Or is that a silly idea…
Unexpected emission pattern adds to the enigma of fast radio bursts.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@swamidass

Well that curiosity is great. I really recommend Ethan Siegel’s blog “Starts With A Bang” for questions like this. Have you heard of it?

Forbes

Ask Ethan: Could Dark Matter Not Be A Particle At All?

We always assume that dark matter is particle-based, and we just need to find which particle it is. But what if it isn’t so?

THANKS! Super-helpful article. I love that it refined the hypotheses I already had. Dark energy fills the universe - it would have been created on Day 1 as/with light. Dark matter is fluid, but clumps together over time. That definitely sounds like quark soup. How much time though? Something to research. I keep wondering whether certain stars or heavenly things we’ve already identified are made up of some or all dark matter. But maybe if it only clumps together very slowly that’s not the case.

So that description of dark energy made me think of this article again Mysterious 'fast radio burst' detected closer to Earth than ever before | Live Science - if dark energy is light, maybe it’s light with such a long wavelength it takes an immense amount of energy to compress it. But when it does, it’s like ripples in a pond, and they’re really close together as they get farther away. So by the time our part of the pond ripples we can read them as radio waves. We’d be getting light from the original burst within light from the dark matter then, but it seems physics can do whatever it wants, so

@david.heddle I don’t know who else is a physicist here. Thanks for entertaining my musings. This is fun

[John_Harshman]

@thoughtful

I will need to learn more about quarks and why they name them with colors.

It’s a fanciful analogy, nothing more.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@thoughtful

Dark matter is fluid, but clumps together over time. That definitely sounds like quark soup.

Doesn’t seem like a good explanation to me. I’m no theoretical physicist but afaicg a quark soup, or quark plasma, would be opaque to electromagnetic radiation. And extremely hot, and actually emit light due to interactions between quarks.
But the thing about dark matter is that it doesn’t appear to interact with light except gravitationally. Matter that doesn’t reflect or absorb electromagnetic radiation would be invisible (“dark”). But due to it’s gravitational effect, is still inferred to be a form of matter. Hence the name, dark matter.

@thoughtful

I keep wondering whether certain stars or heavenly things we’ve already identified are made up of some or all dark matter. But maybe if it only clumps together very slowly that’s not the case.

Since dark matter doesn’t emit or absorb light, in so far as it might be present in any observed astronomical object, that object is observable not because of it’s dark matter content, but the normal baryonic matter that interacts with light.
Light coming to us from distant objects have emission spectra with fraunhofer lines in them, which can be used to infer their elemental composition. It appears that all observed objects in the universe so far, are made of atoms found on the standard periodic table of elements.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@thoughtful

First question - Do all physicists understand all physics?

Perhaps no single @physicists understand all of physics. There are many sub fields, and scientists rely on the larger community to make sense of things. Even @physicists as a whole don’t collectively understand all of physics, or they wouldn’t still be researching it.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

Maybe dark energy is the fifth dimension and it’s space and time. But space is not time, so space and time is either nothing or everything. It’s like coding our universe with 1s and 0s. As soon as either space or time are measured it exists as a 1. If neither space or time are measured it exists as 0. Fun philosophy anyway even if I don’t know what I’m talking about because I don’t.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

I think I’m saying dark energy exists as parallel lines filling the universe. So we will only ever measure it’s existence as waves, since it’s 1 or 0. So electrons are dark energy? and photons and maybe gravitons also?

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

Thanks for the critique @rumraket. I don’t have enough knowledge about what you’re talking about to have a response. So if and when I do, I’ll give a reply.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

I think these guys are saying what I am saying. New class of laser beam doesn't follow normal laws of refraction Light has fifth dimension properties that don’t have to respond to time and space separately. If I’m understanding this wrong, please let me know.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@John_Harshman

Just so you know, there are not three colors of light. What you are mistaking for those three colors are the three types of cones in your eyes. Because we only sample light in three ways, various intensities of light emitted at just 3 wavelengths can give us all the color information we’re capable of processing. But a bird or a mantis shrimp would see many more colors in nature.

I remember reading that whales have four types of cone cells that all respond to different wavelengths of blue light.

I imagine that rather than just seeing shades of blue underwater, as we do, they probably see different sort of light-levels and depths, and different times of day in entirely different colors.