Does light have Mass?

Ooh wait are you saying that I have the ability to read what everyone one else reads. That way I can come with the same conclusion that they have.
That is a mystery?

Actually, since you seem to be forgetful, this is what you said.



So what are your visions Peter?

Be as sarcastic as you want. You will never arrive at any useful conclusion creating theories about a highly technical field in which you obviously have no education whatsoever.

There are a lot of books on cosmology at the popular level which would at least give you some foundation. If you wanted to be really ambitious, you could read the first chapter of a high school physics book to get some idea of how this type of work is actually done and then read the popular cosmology book. But you're too lazy to do any actual work, you just want to skip to the last step. People spend many, many years studying this field before they reach the point of being able to understand the applicable theory. With two degrees in Physics, I don't even rate myself as being able to discuss it competently.

You will never reach any useful conclusion talking about state of the art physics understood by only a small percentage of physicists when you clearly can't function even at the introductory level. Clearly, there are popular books on this subject which would at least point you in the right direction, but apparently you're too lazy to look at them.

I'm sorry I didn't mean to sound negative towards your advice
Is just that I been asking anyone that reads this, and you keep jumping in explaining that you went to school so therefore you are qualified to have an opinion. I ,on the other hand, am disqualified because you know what knowledge that I accumulated in 44 years and it's not what is needed to be qualified for one to have an opinion with.
Maybe I misunderstood, is that the point of view that you are trying to explain me?

Go right ahead. Maybe next you can practice medicine without taking a biology or chemistry class. I'm sure you'll do great. Be really sure that you never actually read a book about it. I'm done with you.

I can't figure out why this clown is so annoying, why don't we just let him solve all of the mysteries of the universe, all on his own. After all we can't help him.....

Yes. That's my point. People in my profession see this on the Internet frequently. It becomes a pet peeve for many of us.

Well ok. I hear you guys. You are saying that I am a clown.
Ok I'll be funny than.
I challenge both of you guys to come up with an explanation of dark energy. Yes is a mystery but you have clues.
The limit is 3 posts a day, so to allow the party to research the information.
Please put the information clearly so that anyone can understand it.
Ok I went first. Is both you guys turn. (The person sitting beside me is betting that you both will come up with an excuse and say "go read a book"). But I have faith that you both will demonstrate your intelligence. Do you both accept the challenge?

No offense Pete, but believing that you can challenge someone to solve the missing parts of the mathematical universe, is not actually going to happen, even if you were in touch with the two best physicist in the World, because it is irrational, that they would solve this problem, then give you the answer. Can you see the irrationality, in your thought process? It's quite bizzarro...!

Peter, actually, it can be shown that an interaction between dark matter and dark energy is favored by the most recent large scale structure observations. The result presented by the BOSS-SDSS collaboration measuring the baryon acoustic oscillations of the Ly-α forest from high redshift quasars indicates a 2.5σ departure from the standard ΛCDM model. This is the first time that the evolution of dark energy at high redshifts has been measured and the current results cannot be explained by simple generalizations of the cosmological constant. We show here that a simple phenomenological interaction in the dark sector provides a good explanation for this deviation, naturally accommodating the Hubble parameter obtained by BOSS, H(z=2.34)=222±7 km s−1 Mpc−1, for two of the proposed models with a positive coupling constant and rejecting the null interaction at more than 2σ. For this we used the adjusted values of the cosmological parameters for the interacting models from the current observational data sets. This small and positive value of the coupling constant also helps alleviate the coincidence problem.

In 1916, Karl Schwarzschild obtained an exact solution[2][3] to Einstein's field equations for the gravitational field outside a non-rotating, spherically symmetric body (see Schwarzschild metric). Using the definition M=\frac {Gm} {c^2}, the solution contained a term of the form \frac {1} {2M-r}; where the value of r making this term singular has come to be known as the Schwarzschild radius. The physical significance of this singularity, and whether this singularity could ever occur in nature, was debated for many decades; a general acceptance of the possibility of a black hole did not occur until the second half of the 20th century.

Parameters[edit]

The Schwarzschild radius of an object is proportional to the mass. Accordingly, the Sun has a Schwarzschild radius of approximately 3.0 km (1.9 mi) while the Earth's is only about 9.0 mm, the size of a peanut. The observable universe's mass has a Schwarzschild radius of approximately 13.7 billion light years.[4][5]



\text{radius}_s (m)

\text{density}_s (g/cm3)

Universe 4.46×1025[citation needed] (~4.7 Gly) 8×10−29[citation needed] (9.9×10−30[6])
Milky Way 2.08×1015 (~0.2 ly) 3.72×10−8
Sun 2.95×103 1.84×1016
Earth 8.87×10−3 2.04×1027

Formula[edit]

The Schwarzschild radius is proportional to the mass with a proportionality constant involving the gravitational constant and the speed of light:
r_\mathrm{s} = \frac{2 G m}{c^2},
where:
rs is the Schwarzschild radius;G is the gravitational constant;m is the mass of the object;c is the speed of light in vacuum.
The proportionality constant, 2G/c2, is approximately 1.48×10−27 m/kg, or 2.95 km/M☉.

An object of any density can be large enough to fall within its own Schwarzschild radius,
V_\mathrm{s} \propto \rho^{-3/2},
where:
V_\mathrm{s}\! = \frac{4 \pi}{3} r_\mathrm{s}^3 is the volume of the object;\rho\! = \frac{ m }{ V_\mathrm{s} } is its density.

However if you figure in neutrino mass or positive lack of mass to be more exact, then it follows that.

Are you following still, because there is more

The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) is a water Čerenkov detector located in INCO’s Creighton mine near Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.14 The SNO consists of a sphere, 12 m in diameter, filled with heavy water (D2O),15 and surrounded by light water (H2O)—to provide shielding from non-neutrino sources such as radioactivity.16 When a neutrino interacts with the heavy water, the Čerenkov photons generated within the sphere are detected by an array of 9,456 photomultiplier tubes placed around the sphere.

SNO can detect neutrinos in three different ways: the charged current (CC) reaction,17 the elastic scattering (ES) reaction,18 and the neutral current (NC) reaction.19 The CC reaction can detect only electron neutrinos (νe). The ES reaction can detect all neutrino flavours, but with reduced sensitivity to νµ and ντ . The NC reaction detects all neutrino flavours with equal sensitivity. By comparing the measured rates of the three reactions, it is possible to determine if any neutrinos are of a non-electron flavour. The reactions are listed below. The d represents a deuteron.20 The p, n, and e– are a proton, neutron, and electron, respectively. The νx indicates that all flavours of neutrinos can undergo the reaction.



Equation 2


The latest SNO results are now examined21 and compared with predictions. Using the standard solar model, Bahcall, Pinsonneault, and Basu have predicted22 a total neutrino flux (φ) for the 8B solar neutrinos23 at Equation 5 which can be compared with the observed values for each of the three reactions.24 In the measured values shown below, the first error bars are statistical and the second are systematic. The results are normalized for the 8B neutrino spectrum with an energy threshold of 5 MeV. All values are in units of 106 cm–2 s–1.



Equation 3


The NC reaction (which detects all neutrino flavours equally) is consistent with the standard solar model predictions. It does not show a deficit of neutrinos, yet it exceeds the fluxes of the other reactions that detect electron neutrinos preferentially (the ES reaction has been normalized assuming only electron neutrinos), or exclusively (as with the CC reaction). This is compelling support for neutrino oscillations. It is not consistent with a ⅓ fusion and ⅔ gravitational collapse power source. If the sun were simply producing fewer neutrinos than predicted, then all three fluxes should be reduced equally—the same as the CC flux. Less fusion would mean fewer neutrinos ‘across the board’; only oscillations to other flavours can readily explain the differences in the measured fluxes. The SNO data are demonstrated visually in the accompanying figure.

The electron, and non-electron components can be derived from the above fluxes:



Equation 4


The flux values for the non-electron neutrinos are 5.3 standard deviations above zero (combining the uncertainties). This detection of non-electron solar neutrinos makes a very compelling case for neutrino oscillations.

So if you can tie these ideas together, with the right strings, the unified theory should at least be near, however the missing neutrino mass is what throws me off every time.

Thank you!
Ok now I can see your point of view.
You are chasing structures that move through space and I am looking for the structure of space itself.
Give some more time to study this research and the development of the theory. Thanks again.

Brandon do you want to offer anything different or do you agree that another name for dark energy is neutrino?

I never said that the neutrino was dark matter or energy, just that they are intriguing, as they are enormously hard to detect, and seem to be able to travel directly thru matter. The Neutrino is a subatomic particle famous for its ability to slip through matter without interacting. Neutrinos have none of the "handles" by which most other particles affect one another: no electric charge, almost zero mass. They are so elusive that a light-year of lead, nine and one-half trillion kilometres (six trillion miles) would only stop half of the neutrinos flying through it. The only hope for detecting them is to put a large quantity of matter in one place and hope the occasional neutrino will, by dumb luck, strike an atom somewhere and interact with it. Because so many other radiation sources are releasing energy throughout the Universe, any detector trying to spot neutrinos has to deal with backgroud noise. Picking the signal out of this noise can be a challenge. To make the problem easier, neutrino detectors are built underground, often within deep mineshafts. The rock around the detector blocks any radiation not powerful enough to penetrate beneath the Earth; because neutrinos are so "slippery", they can pass through the rock and reach the detector device.

Neutrinos are valuable to astronomers precisely because they are so evasive. Since even large thicknesses of matter don't have much effect, neutrinos can flow right through things which distort or block other types of radiation. For example, our Sun is a ball of hot gases, 1,392,000 kilometres (870,000 miles) in diameter. Nuclear fusion reactions at the Sun's core heat these gases, producing vast quantities of energy. We would like to know the details of what's going on inside the Sun's core, but the gaseous layers in the way block our view. The gas atoms scatter light so well that a single photon, the basic particle of light, takes roughly fifty thousand years to reach the Sun's surface. Photons leave the core, hit nearby atoms, bounce off them, hit other atoms, and spend centuries doing more and more of the same, until they manage to leak out in the thinner regions near the surface. All that scattering and jostling obscures the details of the interior, just like a bright city skyline looks vague and indistinct when observed through a thick fog. Neutrinos avoid this problem, because they don't like to interact with the Sun's atoms. Once nuclear reactions in the core produce neutrinos, they can radiate away and rapidly escape the Sun. Neutrino detectors, then, can tell us what happens deep within the solar core, because they bring us information directly from the source. In the city analogy's terms, they zip through the fog and reveal the metropolis behind it.

The neutrino entered physics as the brainchild of Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958). Pauli was trying to explain a puzzling feature of beta decay, a type of nuclear reaction that frequently occurs in unstable heavy elements. In beta decay, a neutron within the atomic nucleus breaks down and turns into a proton, releasing an electron which flies away from the atom. Measurements showed that the electron's energy varied: sometimes it barely crept out of the nucleus's pull, and sometimes it shot away at high speed. Physicists could explain the high-energy case fairly easily: the electron simply carried the maximum energy the reaction could produce. What about the lower-energy cases, Pauli wondered.

A basic principle, the Conservation of Energy, says that energy cannot vanish from existence. It cases where that appears to happen, it is in fact being transformed into a less obvious form. (To a physicist, watching energy vanish from a situation is like how many people feel watching money disappear from their bank account.) For example, when you throw a broken computer out the window, the Earth's gravity gives it a certain amount of energy, which shows up as the computer's speed. The higher it begins, the more energy and hence speed it gains by the time it hits the sidewalk below. When it impacts the ground, though, where does all that energy go? Answer: the kinetic energy the falling computer had from its motion went into thermal energy (both computer and sidewalk are a little warmer than before) and acoustic energy (the crash makes a sound). Also, some goes into distorting the shape of the computer, which (among other things) puts potential energy into bending pieces of metal and plastic.

What kind of phenomenon could carry away the energy the electron didn't use? Pauli dreamt up a new particle, an entity which would pick up the slack, so to speak. It would have to be hard to detect, elusive enough to explain why no one had seen it before. Pauli decided the particle would have no electric charge, and that it would be very light, either totally massless or almost so. Enrico Fermi (1901-1954) named this particle the neutrino, from an Italian word meaning "little neutral one".

A later discovery, flavor change, complicates this issue somewhat. From the mid-1960s, when the solar neutrino flux was first measured, up until about 2002, the "solar neutrino problem" caused much debate. All detectors confirmed a puzzling result: the Sun was only emitting one-third to one-half of the neutrinos we expected. Large amounts of cleverness have gone into solving this problem, and developments in the past few years have been very exciting.

Yes I understand I have been reading about them.
I apologize again for my grammar. I was painting the wrong picture.
When I mentioned dark energy you had a vision of structures moving close to the speed of light.
I'm searching for a structure at a state of rest that is accumulating.
It would have to be able to display force while interacting with other structures, because it is pushing other structures in the expansion of the Universe.
So I apologize for the mistake in my grammar a structure, that is not at a state of rest. Yes I agree that doesn't fit.
What about this Web of space? How would you describe it?

Pete, part of the problem you are having with people, is in telling them what they are thinking. Trust me I had no vision of structures moving close to the speed of light, you may have, but please do not attribute your visions to me or any other person, because this is irrational and might also be considered delusional.

Now as to space and the universe. This topic does intrigue me, because there is no definition of what the universe is. Some see the universe as everything, which includes the matter that was dispersed by the big bang, and the area in which this matter is expanding into. To me this is crazy, because this matter is clearly separate from space itself, unless the space that is involved in cosmic expansion of matter, is being created by the expansion itself, which I see no evidence for. It sure would be nice to be able to get ahead of cosmic inflation, and see matter coming closer to ones self, and to see the other direction into emptiness, and test this area for any particles that might exist there.

Oops I missed it. I thought the neutrinos was the missing mass? They seem to be describing.... am I miss reading again? Sorry I have trouble understanding reading material sometimes.
What is being described as dark energy?

Nothing is being described as dark energy. Dark energy is not even certain to be real.

Sheesh.

Ooh so that was just a description of a neutrino. And then that's the missing part of the formula. So dark energy is no longer part of the formula?

Beats me? I just copied that stuff from the net, if you can make sense of it, you are a better man than I....... http://www.theblogbelow.com/2008/07/japans-superkamiokande.html

Yes he is basically trying to detect neutrinos by the effects it causes when is passing a structure like water. Like a sonic boom. But in water.
That's cool I hope that it helps some of the numbers.
I also did more research on the structure of space.
It seems that before Einstein people seen space as an medium. That kind of fits my vision.
But Einstein developed a formula called space\time and said that it is to explain the structure of space so that numbers can match. But the structure don't really exist.
I keep reading that and I keep asking "why wouldn't it be there?"
So I am probably missing the meaning of what he is explaining.
How do you understand it?