Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is there Dark Matter in humans?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is there Dark Matter in humans?

    ... on Earth, in earth flora and fauna? I don't know. But insofar as DM is thought to be a rather large constutuent of our universe, I thought I would ask.

  • #2
    I could go in detail on this subject. However, the very best way to think about this is from one of my short papers to my students:

    Given what's known (as of Aug 2006, GKH), this is the makeup of the universe:

    · 5 percent normal matter

    · 25 percent dark matter

    · 70 percent dark energy



    The hot gas -- normal matter -- was slowed by a drag force described as the cosmic equivalent of air resistance. But the dark matter was not slowed by this effect, presumably because it does not interact with normal matter, as theory had predicted.
    One guess is that dark matter and dark energy have something to do with the makeup of sub-atomic particles. I would not limit it to neutrinos.

    All Matter may have the following components (1990 Standard Model):

    6 quarks

    6 leptons

    6 antiquarks

    6 antileptons

    force carriers

    However in chemistry, we work with the least massive quarks and leptons:

    Up and down are the quarks

    Electrons and neutrinos are the leptons

    Forces and residue forces are important with intra and interactions of these particles.
    So, my guess is that it has something to do with human makeup. It is like the photon (discovered by GN Lewis) is connected to the makeup of the human being.

    Originally posted by tomcat
    ... on Earth, in earth flora and fauna? I don't know. But insofar as DM is thought to be a rather large constutuent of our universe, I thought I would ask.

    Comment


    • #3
      Say what?

      And exactly what do you teach? Fascinating but you lost me!
      Maria

      Comment


      • #4
        Okay, maybe Dark E is the bigger issue. So what is inexplicable about the behavior of DNA that MIGHT be explained by the presence of DE (or DM)? Like, why four bases; ACTG? Or why the helical structure? Is the helix L-R or R-L? Or why chemistry serving 'organic' memory ... what is in it for chemistry?

        The big question, or the little question is; why is it 'just so' and no other way?

        And my PARTICULAR complaint is; why do I not have a personal anti-gravity device. WHY? WHY NOT?

        Screw this DNA stuff, let me fly and I will.

        Comment


        • #5
          Unfortunately, dark matter is as elusive as reliable autosomal results. Perhaps we are all just characters in a higher being's biological computer game that functions on a quaternary (ACTG) rather than binary system. I must replicate, must replicate, replicate........

          John

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Johnserrat
            Unfortunately, dark matter is as elusive as reliable autosomal results. Perhaps we are all just characters in a higher being's biological computer game that functions on a quaternary (ACTG) rather than binary system. I must replicate, must replicate, replicate........

            John
            Oh, I agree, the mystery is 'here' and not 'out there' or, rather, both HERE and OUT THERE.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Maria_W
              And exactly what do you teach? Fascinating but you lost me!
              Maria
              I have degrees in electrical engineering, biochemistry, chemistry, and physical chemistry. Presently, I am teaching chemistry.

              Do not worry about not understanding. The truth is no one understands dark matter and dark energy.

              At first, people spoke about how other people acted.

              "Euthyphro mentions seeing Socrates in the Lyceum. In Socrates's day the Lyceum was an area outside the walls of Athens that had an athletic field (a gymnasium, gymnasion -- meaning a "place for nudity") and possibly a bath. Later, in 335, it became the site for the school of Aristotle. After the death of Socrates in 399, Plato had travelled a bit, and then, on returning to Athens, founded a school around 387 in a grove of trees, which may also have had an athletic field, just outside the Dipylon Gate of Athens. The grove had been named after an Olympic athlete, Akademos, and was consequently was known as the Akademeia. This became the name of Plato's school, the Academy, spawning modern words like, indeed, "academy," "academic," etc. The school lasted from 387 to 529 AD, when the Roman Emperor Justinian closed it as part of his campaign to stamp out paganism. That adds up to 915 years, a pretty good run, longer than most of the universities of Europe -- though the al-Azhar University in Cairo, associated with the al-Azhar Mosque, was founded in 970 AD by the Fatimid Caliph al-Mu'izz, so it is now 1028 years old. In modern Athens there is an old monastery in the area where the Academy would have been -- it may be on the actual site. Aristotle was Plato's best student at the Academy and was even known as the "mind of the Academy." When Plato died in 347, Aristotle thought he would become the head of the School. Instead, the office went to one of Plato's nephews. Aristotle was a little put out by this and left. After visiting a friend, who was then executed by the Persians, and marrying his daughter, Aristotle went home to Macedonia in 345, where his father, a court physician, got him a job as tutor to the son of the King. The King was Philip II, and the son would turn out to be Alexander the Great. Just what Aristotle taught Alexander, or what they had to say to each other at all, was recorded by neither of them and remains one of the tantalizing unknowns of history. When Alexander went off to conquer Persia, Aristotle then returned to Athens to found his own school in the Lyceum. This became one of the established schools of the Hellenistic Period, though it does not seem to have lasted as long as the Academy. Although members of the Academy were simply "Academics," members of the Lyceum were called "Peripatetics," which meant, and still means, those who "walk around," which evidently is the way that Aristotle lectured. . . . "archons," = rulers . . . http://www.friesian.com/euthyph.htm"
              People were interested in eliminating their foes, and they were interested in gaining power for themselves. Gaining power for the nations was a strange thought. However, people eventually thought water a basic "root" of life. This changed when Lavoisier began to study oxygen.

              Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier (August 26, 1743 – May 8, 1794), the father of modern chemistry, was a French nobleman prominent in the histories of chemistry, finance, biology, and economics. In 1771, Lavoisier married the 13-year-old Marie-Anne Pierrette Paulze, the daughter of a co-owner of the Ferme. When her mother passed away, the young woman left a convent school to help her father as a hostess. Her vivacity attracted a friend of the family, the 50-year-old Count d'Amerval. A remarkable letter survives in Cornell's Lavoisier collection in which Marie Anne's father diplomatically yet directly declines the Count's proposal. Another suitor was much more welcome. Antoine Laurent Lavoisier had a law degree, but his passion was for science. Over time, she proved to be a scientific colleague to her husband. She translated documents from English for him, including Richard Kirwan's Essay on Phlogiston and Joseph Priestley's research. She created many sketches and carved engravings of the laboratory instruments which Lavoisier and his colleagues used. She also edited and published Lavoisier’s memoirs (whether any English translations of those memoirs have survived was unknown as of the summer of 2007) and hosted many parties during which eminent scientists would discuss new chemical theories. On May 8, 1794, Antoine and his father-in-law were beheaded, along with 26 other Farmers General. After her husband's death, Mme. Lavoisier herself spent 65 days in jail. Emerging, she recovered his confiscated books and she kept his works in print while running a scientific salon. The statesman Pierre-Samuel duPont de Nemours, friend of Thomas Jefferson and namesake of the Dupont Company, courted her until she rejected him. In 1805 she married the notorious expatriate American scientist, Count Rumford. That union quickly devolved into raging squabbles and lasted only a few months. She lived on to the age of seventy-eight, and Hoffmann laments that no one has written her biography. He thinks there should be an opera. Anyone familiar with Lavoisier knows Jacques-Louis David's famous painting of the couple. Antoine sits writing, while Marie bodies up against his shoulder. He turns to look at her, more than just distracted. Her hand hovers next to his writing hand as she gazes out at us with a faint smile. David knew this couple well. He painted them a scant two years after Mozart made his own revolutionary statement in the opera The Marriage of Figaro. Mozart has the servant Figaro singing, "You may go dancing, but I'll play the tune." Perhaps David was the librettist for Marie's opera, but his version is less harsh.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by tomcat
                Okay, maybe Dark E is the bigger issue. So what is inexplicable about the behavior of DNA that MIGHT be explained by the presence of DE (or DM)? Like, why four bases; ACTG? Or why the helical structure? Is the helix L-R or R-L? Or why chemistry serving 'organic' memory ... what is in it for chemistry?

                The big question, or the little question is; why is it 'just so' and no other way?

                And my PARTICULAR complaint is; why do I not have a personal anti-gravity device. WHY? WHY NOT?

                Screw this DNA stuff, let me fly and I will.

                By faith, people tried to use the older teaching to model newer findings. This did not work well in cosmology and in genetics. Even the newer ideas of Newtonian physics had to be changed. In the world of physics, we all wonder how did the laws of conversation really change through history. Whatever, sub-atomic particles were finally discovered. And this helped us to understand cosmology and genetics better.
                The Proton-Proton Chain is the principal set of reactions for solar-type stars to transform hydrogen to helium: . . .
                More massive stars burn hydrogen via a catalytic reaction called The CNO CYCLE. . . .
                The Triple-Alpha Process follows hydrogen burning in both solar-type stars and high-mass stars transforming Helium into Carbon. (n.b. Stars with M < 0.4 M s.m. will not reach high enough temperatures for the 3-alpha process.) There are no stable isotopes with Atomic Mass 5 or 8 (i.e. such that reactions like:

                There is no center of the universe. So, it is thought that novas are localized, and it is the cause of expanding matter.
                The Sun is thought to be a second-generation star, whose formation may have been triggered by shockwaves from a nearby supernova.
                The ideas of the Big Bang led scientist to learn about novas and the life-cycle of stars. And so this led us to understand the life-cycles of the Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, and the universe.

                Prior to this era of the Universe, neutrons and protons were rapidly changing into each other through the emission and absorption of neutrinos. Now the Universe has expanded and cooled to the point where that process slows down, and at the end of the slowing down, we are left with about seven protons for every neutron.
                How does this happen? Particle physicists have known for a long time that a neutron just sitting around will all by itself decay into a proton, an electron and an electron antineutrino, but a proton won't decay into anything. (This process is illustrated in the animation above.) If we hit a proton with a electron antineutrino at high enough energy, we can make a neutron and a positron (an antielectron) come out the other end. And if we hit a proton with an electron, we get a neutron and an electron neutrino at the other end. So neutrons change into protons by themelves, but the reverse process requires extra energy from some kind of collision.
                When the Universe was sufficiently hot and dense, there were so many electrons and antineutrinos hitting protons and changing them into neutrons that an equal numbers of protons and neutrons are changing into each other at the same rate.
                However, as the Universe kept expanding and cooling, the average energy level of the particles dropped and so did the rate of neutrinos hitting protons and changing them into neutrons. The neutrinos and antineutrinos decoupled from the rest of the matter and radiation, and interactions between neutrinos and other particles stopped being a very big factor in the dynamics of the Universe.
                So the protons were no longer being changed to neutrons, but the neutrons were still changing spontaneously all by themselves into protons. That eventually left us with about seven times more protons than neutrons in the Universe.
                To make a hydrogen nucleus, we only need one proton, no neutrons. To make a helium nucleus, we need two protons and two neutrons. Therefore, a direct consequence of an excess of protons over neutrons would be an excess of hydrogen over helium, and that is what is observed today.
                http://www.superstringtheory.com/cosmo/bang05.html
                Dark matter and energy helps our equations to work, whatever it is . . .
                Last edited by GregKiroKHR1bL1; 11 October 2007, 11:37 AM.

                Comment

                Working...
                X