Coincidence?

[orcot]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081120/sc_afp/sciencephysicseinstein_081120235605


According to the conventional model of particle physics, protons and neutrons comprise smaller particles known as quarks, which in turn are bound by gluons.

The odd thing is this: the mass of gluons is zero and the mass of quarks is only five percent. Where, therefore, is the missing 95 percent?

The answer, according to the study published in the US journal Science on Thursday, comes from the energy from the movements and interactions of quarks and gluons.

5% in matter 95% in energy
If heard those numbers before is this coincidence?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Cosmological_composition.jpg

[kaneda]

If gluons are not a form of energy, then they have a non-zero mass. They are assumed to exist though there could be another unknown mechanism doing their job.

Does matter change into energy or is it just the binding forces which create the energy displays we see (as in nuclear fission)? A dozen pounds weight of fundamental particles are hardly going to be noticed in a nuclear explosion.

I think the problem here is defining "mass". Photons have no mass but in collision have an effect that can be mistaken for mass.

DE/DM are due to a misunderstanding of the cosmological redshift.

[quantum_wave]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081120/sc_afp/sciencephysicseinstein_081120235605

5% in matter 95% in energy
If heard those numbers before is this coincidence?

http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/10/13/5609

http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/Courses/Ast242_07/ast242_06.pdf

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big_rip_030306.html

These three links lead me to the conclusion that it is coincidence that you hear about 5% and 95% from different sources. We just don’t know, and any break down between matter and energy, or between matter, dark matter, and dark energy are all theory dependent.

The first link is about the principle of “tentativeness”. It means that every aspect of science is subject to change. If it is not, it is not science.

The second link describes FRW cosmologies which all have the common characteristic of progressive expansion, and all require a beginning to the universe.

The third link, the Big Rip, is the end result of any FRW cosmology as long as expansion is accelerating (no final big crunch). There are various scenarios as to the sequence of events leading to the final de Sitter universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_universe), i.e. a universe without any matter like after a big rip, but all FRW cosmologies end up there after expansion has proceeded to complete entropy.

There are alternatives to FRW cosmologies that predict a universe that has always existed and where energy cannot be created or destroyed. If matter is composed of energy and if there is a process of matter, to energy, to matter that plays out in finite arenas across an infinite universe, then entropy could be defeated. In that case the matter to energy ratio in a given arena of space would be continually changing and yet the average energy density of the greater universe would remain constant.