Selectrons as the particles of Dark Energy

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the hypothesis that selectrons, as proposed by the original poster, could be the particles responsible for dark energy, based on concepts from superstring theory. The conversation explores theoretical implications, particle interactions, and the nature of virtual particles within the context of higher-dimensional physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • The original poster suggests that selectrons and their superpartners, termed spositrons, are produced during virtual particle pair creation in the vacuum, potentially linking them to dark energy.
  • Some participants challenge the idea, stating that selectrons and spositrons are charged particles and thus cannot be considered as proposed by the original poster.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the energy requirements for virtual particles to become real, questioning the energy source in the original poster's model.
  • A later reply emphasizes the time symmetry of physics and the mystery of matter-antimatter asymmetry in the universe, suggesting that the original poster's idea may overlook fundamental principles.
  • The original poster acknowledges the critique regarding the charge of selectrons and reflects on the implications of energy considerations in their hypothesis.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement on the validity of the original hypothesis, with some asserting that the foundational assumptions about selectrons and their interactions are flawed. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views on the nature of dark energy and the role of selectrons.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the original poster's assumptions about particle properties and interactions, as well as the unresolved nature of energy requirements for virtual particle creation. The discussion also touches on complex topics in supersymmetry and string theory, which may not be fully accessible without a solid grounding in these areas.

yanniru
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
I have been removed from this forum for previous "crackpot" ideas. However, I would appreciate a review of the one presented below. I submit it to this subforum because it is based on superstring theory.

Selectrons as the particles of Dark Energy

Consider the creation of particle pairs in the vacuum of free space. In the M theory of 11 dimensional string theory as well as in the original 10 dimensional superstring theory, supersymmetric partners of each created particle are required to cancel out infinities, as I understand the process.

In a process very similar to the EPR experiments involving the creation of an electron and a positron, a virtual electron and positron pair are created in the vacuum of free space and subsequently recombine within the Heisenberg Uncertainty Time corresponding to the energy of creation.. So according to superstring theory, at the same time a selectron, the superpartner of the electron is created, as well as, to coin a new word, a spositron, the superpartner of the positron. But selectrons and spositrons are chargeless. So the spositron is actually a selectron with opposite properties, like spin, from the selectron associated with the electron.

Now let’s consider recombination or annihilation. When matter encounters antimatter, the two are annihilated resulting in photon production.. But selectrons are bosons like photons and have no antimatter. They may interfere like coherent photons, but they cannot annihilate each other.

So the conclusion is that for every virtual pair production and recombination in the vacuum of free space, a pair of selectrons is produced. (Virtual proton pair production may be neglected because of the much higher energy requirements) Since this happens continually in the vacuum of space throughout the universe, a volume effect, we presume that selectrons are the particles of Dark Energy. The continual production of selectrons is then somehow responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe.

Richard Ruquist, PhD
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, I suppose that's one way to handle "crackpot" ideas
 
What dark energy?
 
Your idea is wrong (or not even wrong) for several reasons:
- The selectron and the spositron are charged particles and they
are antiparticles of each other
(I am not an expert on susy, but this is how I understand it.)
- Every particle has an antiparticle. If a particle is not charged, it is its own antiparticle.
- Virtual particles can only become real, when you provide at least the energy, which is associated with the sum of their rest masses. Where is the energy source in your model?
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the critique. I just noticed from the paper of Carlos and Diaz that selectrons are charged [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/9511/9511421v1.pdf ] I had expected zero charge along with zero spin.

I had not considered the energy consideration and was more concerned with pair creation in ten dimensions. Within the Heisenberg uncertainty, there can be enough energy to get to the susy regime like Clavelli postulates for gamma ray bursts and it seemed to me that the creation of even a virtual particle pair would require superpartners according to superstring theory(?). But since they are charged as well, they will also recombine. Crackpot idea, indeed.
 
The fact, that selectrons are charged, is not the main problem with your idea.
If they were not, they were their own antiparticle and could recombine with themselves. After all, at least 99% of physics is time symmetric, so if pair creation was possible for two given particles, then also their recombination.
This is why it is so strange that we are sitting here in a whole universe of matter without any antimatter in sight.
Physicists assume that there were some special CP violating conditions
in the early universe responsible for this, but as far as I know, this is still a big mystery.
Susy and string theory is heavy stuff even for the most intelligent and long trained. I still struggle with quantum field theory.
If I may give you my modest advice, I would say, go one or two (actually I don't know how many) levels back until you get your feet on some solid physics ground.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 85 ·
3
Replies
85
Views
13K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K