Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I do, for my part.
I think the idea that for any particle with a property, there necessarily exists (or anti-exists) a particle with the balancing anti-property - is very compelling.
For science-fiction purposes if nothing else.
you're talking about particles and corresponding anti-particles.
isn't dark matter the stuff that comes from astrophysicists not being able to account for missing mass in the universe?
ugh, this type of physics hurts my head...
I'm talking about the idea that for every "thing" that can be observed and recorded, there must be a "nothing" that can't. Yet.
So while there are objects in the physical world that have counterparts with opposite, balancing properties - those anti-objects are still recordable as being part of the physical world. What I'm referring to are those objects whose lack of existence is the balancing property. It's like, if you have the concept of '1', there must necessarily exist the concept of '0' for it to be usable.
But if that's not what dark matter is (or turns out to be), I can only hold my hands up.
and I trust the metro implicitly
Having said that, I believe that someone has updated to Einstein's General Relativatiy which would also explain it and seems quite promising.
In short, I don't know. Wait and see what comes out from the LHC.
I could be wrong, im basing this on the minicosm section of the metro
what is being discussed above is anti matter, dark matter is essentially eh purported weight that keeps the unverse together, undetecatble and competelely hypothetical nothingness that is something gwhich binds the whole universe together... i feel sick, my head hurts. its just odd.
does anyone have some good reads?