![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
doooook's journalLog in Create a LiveJournal Account Learn more
| You are viewing doooook's journal Log in Create a LiveJournal Account Learn more | Explore LJ: Life Entertainment Music Culture News & Politics Technology |
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
|||||
|
Marmaduke Bannerworth  Played at Hustler yesterday for the first time. The 25/50 game was very soft. I can't wait to pick up my better half from the airport today. She's been in South America for almost a month. Current mood:  good.
 I mean, what's more likely -- that I have uncovered fundamental flaws in this field that no one in it has ever thought about, or that I need to read a little more? Hint: it's the one that involves less work. Current mood:  tired.
So the dominant theory alive today is that at high enough temperature (beyond anything we've managed thus far in an accelerator) two photons can create a proton and an electron rather than creating an electron and a positron or a proton and an anti-proton. Similarly the same process would allow for an anti-proton and a positron to be produced. Then there's some minor variance in probability between the two that allows one extra proton for every 10^10 proton/anti-proton pair. My question is this - if we assume a closed an bounded (positive curved) universe, then by definition does that universe have a magnetic field around its 3-sphere? Now that it's gotten so big, that might not be detectable, but when the universe was relatively small and filled entirely with super-hot plasma, could that magnetic field have managed to polarize the universe such that one hemisphere had a bias to matter whilst the other hemisphere had a bias to anti-matter? (yes both existed throughout in thermal equilibrium) I imagine it MUST have had magnetic North and South and thus attracted a slight imbalance. If that's the case then 50% of the galaxies would be anti-matter galaxies and 50% would be matter galaxies and we wouldn't have to break the rule of conservation of baryon number. Of course that means that the universe is not *exactly* homogeneous and isotropic. The obvious question is why can't we see any anti-matter galaxies? The answer to that is that if the universe is positively curved then it is extremely large (triangles still add to 180 degrees as big as we can draw them, within about 1% certainty). That, in turn just means that we are like most galaxies in that our observable universe is not stradling the border of matter galaxies and anti-matter galaxies. Furthermore, if it was the case that the (lets say North) pole had an abundance of matter and the South pole had an abundance of anti-matter, then areas in the middle had a closer ratio of matter to anti-matter than regions at the poles. Thus the equatorial section would have almost all of its matter and anti-matter reconvert into photons and there would be a gulf between the section of the universe containing matter and the section of the universe containing anti-matter which would be sparse with galaxies or entirely empty. Of course that also vialates homogeneity and istorpicity. But it doesn't violate conservation of baryon number. Current mood:  curious.
As difficult as it is to even detect a nutrino, what if you could create a substrate that was capable of slowing nutrinos down. We've been able to slow light to a dead standstill since 2001. We also know that when the universe was small enough, it was opaque to nutrinos. The rub is that unlike a photon, a nutrino has mass. If you could slow it down enough its mass would dominate its energy and you could really get a good look at the thing. I'd postulate that you could make a brick of nutronium which would be completely degenerate matter. I'd also suggest that shining light on it would evaporate back into free nutrinos traveling very close to the speed of light. Current mood: curious.
I've dreamt up a model that includes a fifth force and so far I see no contradictions. I propose a fifth force which affects all matter equally (or very very close to equally) regardless of distance and exists with equal magnitude and direction (or very very close to equal magnitude and direction). Then I suggest looking for a means of detecting it. If it truely was ubiquitous in magnitude, direction, and proportionality (at any given moment for a small enough epsilon) then there would be no physical way to detect it, since you couldn't make an instrument to measure it. Even light would be "pushed" as a photon has momentum despite its lack of mass. If, however, there are small variations in the way it acts on the Earth then there could be devised a method to detect it. I'm thinking that this force could give us a basis for the expansion of the universe and possibly have a play in this dark matter we still can't explain. You could think of it as a force current that pushes matter away from its point of origin. I imagine that we're far enough away from the middle of everywhere that it would be physically impossible to measure a difference in the angle of the force across a measuring device that could travel the distance of the Earth's orbit, but the edge of our observable universe is only 14 billion parsecs away. Outside that radius, any guesses about the size of the universe are simply that. Current mood:  okay.
Up over 5% on MSFT in less than 4 trading days. *\o/*\o/*\o/* Of course if I had kept the DELL, that would be up almost 8% :/ Current mood: okay.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/st Current mood: okay.
From http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/us/05 Evan Wolfson, executive director of the national gay-rights group Freedom to Marry, said the loss in Maine underscores "the fact that we need to continue those conversations and make ourselves visible as families in communities." He added, "It shows we have just not done it long enough and deep enough, even in a place like Maine.” Current mood:  amused.
Sold DELL, bought MSFT. Current mood: coffee. Saturday was an interesting day - more interesting than most in my life in fact. The morning started abruptly with a 4:00am phone call from Russia crying about a server going down. I made the necessary arrangements with IT and decided not to waste the moment by rousing my bedmate for sex round 2. A little more sleep and I got up with my alarm, but instead of heading to the drop zone right away, I decided that it would be wise to be fashionably late and got some more sex and breakfast. Made four 4-way jumps that didn't go all that well, but the team has been losing and adding people a lot lately and we've had to move down in experience quite a bit to keep it alive. I think there'll be a massive re-factor at the start of next season and hopefully we'll be back to the core of Mark, Rigo, me and a fourth person with the dedication to get a lot better over the coming season. In the middle of the day my packer vanished, leaving me in the lurch. I was pissed until I found out the my packer had been arrested for smoking weed in the parking lot - in skydiving parlance you call that a "safety meeting." Oh, and did I mention that there were porn stars there? There's a contingent of skydiving porn stars who jump out of taft - the only name I got was Nicole Sheridan (though her real name is Melle) - they certainly added spice to the party that evening. The party was 60's themed. One of the freefly load organizers came dressed as a big bag of coke. Tickets were $5 for all you could drink. We did. Some British girl got a kick out of sneaking a condom onto guys shoulders in pictures - fortunately I didn't get tricked on camera, but there were some great shots. ( pictures behind the cut ) Unfortunately, I think my cup changed colours a few times over the course of the evening and that may be the reason behind my sniffles today :( Current mood:  sick.
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||