Residual Strong Nuclear Force vs. Dark Forces?

Nuclear force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_force

We know that the Strong Nuclear Force leaks out from within the nucleons
and allows them to bind together into an atomic nucleus, which we call
the Residual Strong Force. This is normally only effective at distances
of between 1.0 and 2.5 fm. Below 1.0 fm, this force actually becomes
repulsive.

Now, since we know that the gluons that escape from inside the nucleons
can travel to the next adjoining nucleon, it must also be possible that
the gluons can completely escape the nucleus altogether, especially from
the border nucleons, i.e. the protons and neutrons that make up the
surface edge of a nucleus. I'm not talking a hell of a lot of them
escaping, maybe just 1% of 1% or something that small. And since gluons
travel at the speed of light, they can travel great distances very
quickly. Now let's say one of these gluons escapes a nucleus, and
depending on the density of the material it is travelling through it may
not get captured by another nucleus for quite some time. And even if it
got captured, it's effect on the movement of the capturing nucleus would
so minimal that it would barely be noticed above its quantum vibrations.

In fact, this gluon could likely travel through an entire solar system
without really getting captured by any other nucleus within it. However,
over the confines of an entire galaxy, it might indeed get captured by
something along the way. Even within the confines of an entire galaxy
cluster, it might get captured. Now let's imagine that this one lone
gluon is joined by trillions more, from every atom in the galaxy. The
gluons don't even have to hit a nucleus, it could just hit another gluon
and still create an attractive force. One gluon may not have much
effect, but many trillions might affect the shape of the galaxy,
creating a helper force to gravity. It might even create an attractive
effect like what we call Dark Matter. It's been found that the Dark
Matter halo around the Milky Way resembles an American football, or
rugby ball; and the narrow end is planar to the disk of the galaxy,
while the long end is perpendicular to the disk. Perhaps this reflect
the relative abundance of nucleons in those directions?

Then we also know that the Strong Force becomes repulsive at scales
smaller than 0.7 fm. What if a similar effect also occurs at extremely
large scales of over 10 billion light-years? This might create the
repulsive effect which we call Dark Energy? This would of course work
against gravity.

Also, it's been shown that Dark Energy didn't become an issue until
maybe 5 billion years after the Big Bang. Gluons would be more likely to
escape the nucleus of more complex elements, i.e. "Metals" in the
astronomical sense of the word, any nucleus bigger than hydrogen. What
this could reflect is a critical point when enough metals were produced
in stars to became a large enough portion of nuclei in the universe.
Enough metals where gluons now escape more readily, creating repulsive
forces at large distances.

Yousuf Khan

On 4/16/13 4/16/13 5:48 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
[...] it must also be possible that the gluons
can completely escape the nucleus altogether, [...]

Not really. It is energetically infeasible for them to do so. This is so because
gluons carry color charge, the force that holds the nucleons and nucleus
together. If a gluon managed to get even few fermis outside the nucleus, it
would be energetically favorable to create a quark-anti-quark pair with the
correct color charges to neutralize the color force. Now you no longer have a
gluon outside the nucleus, you have a (color neutral) meson....

I'm speaking VERY loosely here....

Experimentally, no isolated quark or gluon has ever been observed. The above is
a very loose description of the theoretical mechanism that explains this.


[... rest omitted as it depends on that basic error]


Tom Roberts

it could just be the inherent symmetry of particles,
as well as antiparticles.

Experimentally, no isolated quark or gluon has ever been observed.

On 16/04/2013 11:06 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
Not really. It is energetically infeasible for them to do so. This is so
because gluons carry color charge, the force that holds the nucleons and
nucleus together. If a gluon managed to get even few fermis outside the
nucleus, it would be energetically favorable to create a
quark-anti-quark pair with the correct color charges to neutralize the
color force. Now you no longer have a gluon outside the nucleus, you
have a (color neutral) meson....

What sort of energy levels are required to create quark-antiquark
virtual particle? How much energy do these gluons have anyways? These
quark/antiquark pairs would annihilate to form a gamma-ray photons
eventually anyways.

I'm speaking VERY loosely here....

Experimentally, no isolated quark or gluon has ever been observed. The
above is a very loose description of the theoretical mechanism that
explains this.


Is it because they eventually turn to gamma rays?

Yousuf Khan

On 4/17/2013 12:43 AM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 16/04/2013 11:06 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
Not really. It is energetically infeasible for them to do so. This is so
because gluons carry color charge, the force that holds the nucleons and
nucleus together. If a gluon managed to get even few fermis outside the
nucleus, it would be energetically favorable to create a
quark-anti-quark pair with the correct color charges to neutralize the
color force. Now you no longer have a gluon outside the nucleus, you
have a (color neutral) meson....

What sort of energy levels are required to create quark-antiquark
virtual particle?

no lower limit. literally. the minimum to create a meson depends on the
rest mass of the meson.

How much energy do these gluons have anyways?

depends on how hard they are hit.

These
quark/antiquark pairs would annihilate to form a gamma-ray photons
eventually anyways.

not if they don't have opposite colors, and of course since the gluon is
carrying color, this isn't the case.


I'm speaking VERY loosely here....

Experimentally, no isolated quark or gluon has ever been observed. The
above is a very loose description of the theoretical mechanism that
explains this.


Is it because they eventually turn to gamma rays?

Yousuf Khan

[newsgroups snipped]

In article ,
Yousuf Khan writes:
it must also be possible that
the gluons can completely escape the nucleus altogether,

Probably not, as someone else wrote.

I'm not talking a hell of a lot of them
escaping, maybe just 1% of 1% or something

If it's that small, how could it possibly give rise to non-baryonic
mass about six times larger than baryonic mass?

Also, it's been shown that Dark Energy didn't become an issue until
maybe 5 billion years after the Big Bang.

That's not (necesssarily) because dark energy was smaller earlier on,
it's because ordinary gravitational attraction was larger when the
Universe was denser. The actual time dependence of dark energy is
very much an open question today, but if dark energy is a
cosmological constant, its strength wouldn't vary in time.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

On 17/04/2013 5:20 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
[newsgroups snipped]

In article ,
Yousuf Khan writes:
it must also be possible that
the gluons can completely escape the nucleus altogether,

Probably not, as someone else wrote.

Because mesons would be created to neutralize the colour force. I'm not
sure how far the gluons would get before the mesons get created?

I'm not talking a hell of a lot of them
escaping, maybe just 1% of 1% or something

If it's that small, how could it possibly give rise to non-baryonic
mass about six times larger than baryonic mass?

Not saying it's creating a mass, I'm saying it just creates a force
(i.e. a colour force) that aids gravity and makes it seem bigger,
creating the illusion of greater mass. Only after a certain distance
when enough of these long-distance gluons accumulate, do the effects
become apparent.

Also, it's been shown that Dark Energy didn't become an issue until
maybe 5 billion years after the Big Bang.

That's not (necesssarily) because dark energy was smaller earlier on,
it's because ordinary gravitational attraction was larger when the
Universe was denser. The actual time dependence of dark energy is
very much an open question today, but if dark energy is a
cosmological constant, its strength wouldn't vary in time.

It would only be a constant, because we call it a "cosmological
constant", we have no idea if it is truly constant or not.

Yousuf Khan

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Friday, April 19, 2013 11:29:39 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 17/04/2013 5:20 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
....
I'm not talking a hell of a lot of them
escaping, maybe just 1% of 1% or something

If it's that small, how could it possibly
give rise to non-baryonic mass about six times
larger than baryonic mass?

Not saying it's creating a mass, I'm saying it
just creates a force (i.e. a colour force) that
aids gravity and makes it seem bigger,
creating the illusion of greater mass.

This makes gravity NOT 1/r^2, and it is.

Only after a certain distance when enough of
these long-distance gluons accumulate, do the
effects become apparent.

Gravitation is not a force, and you are "aiding" it with a force.


Also, it's been shown that Dark Energy
didn't become an issue until maybe 5 billion
years after the Big Bang.

Neglecting inflation itself. Dark Energy is also written into the CMBR glow, remember.

That's not (necesssarily) because dark energy
was smaller earlier on, it's because ordinary
gravitational attraction was larger when the
Universe was denser.

Inflation shows that simply isn't true. And since gravitation is not an attractive force...

The actual time dependence of dark energy is
very much an open question today, but if dark
energy is a cosmological constant, its strength
wouldn't vary in time.

But it could, and not much change the formulation / solution.

It would only be a constant, because we call it
a "cosmological constant", we have no idea if it
is truly constant or not.

Hubble had a constant too, and it varies with time. Until we see Dark Energy change distribution by "angle" and not just time, it can stay the "cosmological parameter".

David A. Smith

On 19/04/2013 3:55 PM, dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Friday, April 19, 2013 11:29:39 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 17/04/2013 5:20 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
...
I'm not talking a hell of a lot of them
escaping, maybe just 1% of 1% or something

If it's that small, how could it possibly
give rise to non-baryonic mass about six times
larger than baryonic mass?

Not saying it's creating a mass, I'm saying it
just creates a force (i.e. a colour force) that
aids gravity and makes it seem bigger,
creating the illusion of greater mass.

This makes gravity NOT 1/r^2, and it is.

Gravity itself may remain 1/r^2 as long as it wants, but the
hypothesized additional (colour) force could take over after that.

Only after a certain distance when enough of
these long-distance gluons accumulate, do the
effects become apparent.

Gravitation is not a force, and you are "aiding" it with a force.

Whatever you want to call gravitation (perhaps pseudo-force?), it acts
like a force, therefore aiding it with a force would come out to the
same effect in the end.

Also, it's been shown that Dark Energy
didn't become an issue until maybe 5 billion
years after the Big Bang.

Neglecting inflation itself. Dark Energy is also written into the CMBR glow, remember.

Actually Dark Energy is not written into it, it's merely "interpreted"
into it. It's currently the favourite interpretation of what the peaks
and valleys of the radiation frequency graphs mean. Prior to the
discovery of Dark Energy, in the late 90's, that graph was assigned to a
substance called "Warm Dark Matter", a mixture of Cold and Hot Dark
Matter, where the part of the graph assigned to Dark Energy currently
was instead assigned to Hot Dark Matter (i.e. most likely neutrinos).

In fact, at that time, they divided Warm Dark Matter into 30% Cold Dark
Matter, and 70% Hot Dark Matter, which is pretty close to the amount we
now assign to Cold Dark Matter and Dark Energy instead.

Warm dark matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm_dark_matter

On 17/04/2013 5:20 PM, Steve Willner wrote:
That's not (necesssarily) because dark energy
was smaller earlier on, it's because ordinary
gravitational attraction was larger when the
Universe was denser.

Inflation shows that simply isn't true. And since gravitation is not an attractive force...

The actual time dependence of dark energy is
very much an open question today, but if dark
energy is a cosmological constant, its strength
wouldn't vary in time.

But it could, and not much change the formulation / solution.

It would only be a constant, because we call it
a "cosmological constant", we have no idea if it
is truly constant or not.

Hubble had a constant too, and it varies with time. Until we see Dark Energy change distribution by "angle" and not just time, it can stay the "cosmological parameter".

Another theory of what Dark Energy is, is something called Quintessence,
which does vary with time.

Quintessence (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintessence_(physics)

Yousuf Khan

In article ,
Yousuf Khan writes:
Not saying it's creating a mass, I'm saying it just creates a force

What you are proposing is several layers of "new physics." That
doesn't guarantee your proposal is wrong, but it's far from the first
thing people will be looking at.

It would only be a constant, because we call it a "cosmological
constant",

The constant in the Friedman equation really is a constant. Having
it vary with time would be "new physics," but only one layer.

we have no idea if it is truly constant or not.

"No idea" is a little strong. Time variation has been looked for and
isn't ruled out, but existing data show no evidence of variation.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA