Selectrons as the particles of Dark Energy

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.
 
I seem to notice a buildup of papers like this: Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing. (OK, old one.) Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion Is this akin to “we’re soon gonna put string theory to the test”, or are these legit? Mind, I’m not expecting anyone to read the papers and explain them to me, but if one of you educated people already have an opinion I’d like to hear it. If not please ignore me. EDIT: I strongly suspect it’s bunk but...
I'm trying to understand the relationship between the Higgs mechanism and the concept of inertia. The Higgs field gives fundamental particles their rest mass, but it doesn't seem to directly explain why a massive object resists acceleration (inertia). My question is: How does the Standard Model account for inertia? Is it simply taken as a given property of mass, or is there a deeper connection to the vacuum structure? Furthermore, how does the Higgs mechanism relate to broader concepts like...

Similar threads

Back
Top