Is Cosmic Matter Composition Complete ?

[Antonio Lao]

Is Cosmic Matter Composition Complete ?

Convincing theoretical and observational evidence indicate that 5% of mass of the universe is made up protons, neutrons, and electrons (.05%). 25% of the mass is from dark matter. What is dark matter? Nobody is certain. 70% from dark energy of repulsive cosmological constant of general relativity which is really mass causing the antigravity force.

Quantum mechanics only uses the 1st 5% of the stable mass to account the formation of ordinary atoms as shown by the periodic table of chemical elements.

Why can't atoms of strange-charm quarks and muon leptons or top-bottom quarks and tau leptons be formed? Are these the source of dark matter?

What is the source of cosmic rays? Are they mainly protons?

Failures to answer these questions indicate strongly that our current theories are not complete hence not universally applicable.

 

[mathman]

Why can't atoms of strange-charm quarks and muon leptons or top-bottom quarks and tau leptons be formed? Are these the source of dark matter?

All the particles you listed are unstable.

What is the source of cosmic rays? Are they mainly protons?

I am not sure of the answer to the first, but yes they are mostly protons.

 

[Antonio Lao]

mathman,

Experiments seem to indicate that increase in mass causes instability. But cosmic rays protons have high relativistic mass and yet they remain stable.

Edits:

Maybe it is the increase in rest-mass which causes instability?

 

[mathman]

Relativistic increase in mass has nothing to do with stability of particles. In their own coordinate system, they don't increase in mass, only to outsiders in relative motion. The unstable particles are different from the stable. Muons are NOT fast moving electrons, etc.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Muons lived a lot longer when traveling close to light speed.

 

[mathman]

That is true - it is a relativistic effect. But it doesn't make them electrons. Fast moving electrons (in accelerators) can be quite heavy, but they are not muons.

 

[Antonio Lao]

When the universe expands, does the matter density remain the same or decrease?

 

[mathman]

Matter density (both baryonic and non-baryonic) decreases. Dark energy is anybody's guess. Try starting a new thread - you may get some other answers.

 

[Antonio Lao]

mathman,

Thanks. The title of the new thread is 'Entropy and Expansion, a Puzzle?

 

[geistkiesel]

Convincing theoretical and observational evidence indicate that 5% of mass of the universe is made up protons, neutrons, and electrons (.05%). 25% of the mass is from dark matter. What is dark matter? Nobody is certain. 70% from dark energy of repulsive cosmological constant of general relativity which is really mass causing the antigravity force.

Quantum mechanics only uses the 1st 5% of the stable mass to account the formation of ordinary atoms as shown by the periodic table of chemical elements.

Why can't atoms of strange-charm quarks and muon leptons or top-bottom quarks and tau leptons be formed? Are these the source of dark matter?

What is the source of cosmic rays? Are they mainly protons?

Failures to answer these questions indicate strongly that our current theories are not complete hence not universally applicable.

What is so convincing about what you discuss re dark matter and dark energy? You do not need the simple failure of answering these questions to see that current theories of QM SRT, GRT are not universally applicable, or even applicable in any partilular instance, ever.

 

[Antonio Lao]

geistkiesel,

The failures are at the extremities of all theories. The point of zero mass/energy and infinite mass/energy. They very well are applicable in between, specially at the middle. These theories do work: it's the reason we are here to witness them (the anthropic cosmological principle).

The questions that I am attempting to answer are: why gravity is very weak almost zero and why it will take infinite mass/energy for gravity to be very strong as in the center of a black hole? Or at the singularity of the big bang?

Edits:

Furthermore, I am trying to find the justification of a new invariance of nature given as follow:

[tex] \vec{a} \cdot \vec{r} = c^2 [/tex]

where [itex] \vec{a} [/itex] is the acceleration and [itex]\vec{r}[/itex] is a distance and [itex] c [/itex] is the speed of light in vacuum. This says that the scalar product of acceleration and a distance is the square of light speed.