Science topic

# Dark Matter - Science topic

For people who work in the Dark Matter field.

Questions related to Dark Matter

The content of the universe is divided into 4 as matter, antimatter, dark matter and dark energy. What if the Four traditionally accepted fundamental interactions in the universe are related to them respectively? These are gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear interactions. In other words, can matter be gravitationally related, antimatter electromagnetically related, dark matter weak nuclear force and dark energy strong nuclear force? If so, how does it happen? Let's see. We already know that matter is naturally related to the gravitational force. But how can antimatter be associated with the electromagnetic force, dark matter with the weak nuclear force and dark energy with the strong nuclear force? To find this out, we must first know the properties of antimatter, dark matter and dark energy? Let's look first: The amount of matter in the universe is more than the amount of antimatter. Well, matter is proton + ,electron - and antimatter is proton - electron + and why is the amount of matter more in the universe although they are equally affected by gravity in the universe. If this means that electrons are mobile for standard matter, and even atomos, that is, indivisible, meaning that protons and electrons cannot be separated, this can only happen by interacting with the proton - electron + in antimatter. In other words, there is the possibility of creating antimatter. Now let's consider this: how can antimatter interact with the electromagnetic force? This is exactly why it interacts with a light-like structure, namely the electromagnetic structure. Because antimatter is the structure that makes up standard matter. According to Einstein, an increase in the speed of light means an increase in matter. antimatter and standard matter work with gravity and electromagnetic theory. Presumably, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force will work with dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter, on the other hand, consists of the weak nuclear force, since it does not interact with light. Dark energy, on the other hand, is the strongest nuclear force in my opinion, since it interacts with light and is a combination of standard matter and antimatter. DARK ENERGY. THANKS.

In a universe filled with microwaves the production of interference patterns is inescapable. Two types are predictable from technology of designing antennas. One type is a kinetic field created by combining Poynting vectors when electric and magnetic components are canceled out. The other is a scalar field in which the Poynting vectors are also canceled out. Energy and momentum are conserved in both cases.

In other threads a possibility was discussed that dark energy can be related to the kinetic stress energy field. It opposes potential energy of gravity in the LaGrange density.

The present question is asking if dark matter can be related to the scalar field of stress energy, created as an interference pattern of microwaves. .

Stress energy on large scale is represented as geometric curvature in GR. On small scale stress energy is represented as change of amplitude and frequency of microscopic oscillators in QM. Unlike most arguments between GR and QM, there is agreement about curvature of stress energy provided that partition between kinetic energy and potential energy is correctly done in QM.

Gravity is usually represented as a scalar field of potential energy with a vector field gradient. In this representation a scalar field of inference patterns representing potential energy would strengthen gravity in the LaGrange density, a property that is described for dark matter. A difficulty remains that dark matter derived from microwaves might have anisotropy that was discussed in threads about dark energy, but not generally supported in other theoretical research.

The microwaves do not disappear but seem to have equilibrium with the stress energy interference patterns. It means there are at least two reverse reactions in which the microwaves are slowly regenerated from the two types of stress fields.

Slow rates of reverse reactions are defined in the Gibbs energy when most of the universe is found in the dark modes. Dark here means stress fields interact only with gravity. About 71% of the universe is thought to be dark energy opposing gravity and about 25% is calculated to be dark matter assisting gravity, while microwaves are much less 0.03% of the total universe.

Microwaves were more densely packed and higher temperature in the past,. This is suggesting most of the interference patterns were created in the early universe and are largely remaining from that time, but having a slow exchange of energy with microwaves. Distant time in some way removes the concern about anisotropy which might change slowly.

A fifth force is not needed in this representation, and the stress fields described here are virtually guaranteed to exist from proven technology of antenna design. Gravity is the only force with which the two stress fields interact.

All opinions are welcome.

Is Dark Matter A Stress Energy Scalar Interference Pattern?

Dark matter interacts with ordinary matter (and ordinary energy) via gravity (G), but not via electromagnetism (E), the strong nuclear force (S), or the weak nuclear force (W). But is

*totally*dark matter that does not interact with ordinary matter (and ordinary energy)*at all*,*not even via gravity (G)*, possible or impossible? If*totally*dark matter is possible, could there be other Universes with their own sets of forces (G´, E´, S´, W´), (G´´, E´´, S´´, W´´), etc., coexistent with our own (G, E, S, W) Universe, with each such Universe (including our own) interacting within itself but not with the other Universes? Is this a possible or impossible aspect of the Multiverse?When a particle is large, it is ejected from dark matter. When a particle is small enough not to break the bonds between dark matter particles, it dissolves and can diffuse back into its original medium.

In this sense, each object has the shape is a separate space, often interacting with each other through photons, and other particles. Possibly, objects that emit an infinitely small particle, which diffuses into dark matter, creating magnetic, electric or gravitational fields by sticking together in the space of dark matter, will form a "current" if another object (another space) is encountered. And like water, they tend to minimize surface area. Large objects like the earth emit large amounts of these tiny particles, sucking in humans on their surface.

This is like the dissolution of oxygen molecules in water and air bubbles in the water rising to the top

Based on the idea of Acsimeter thrust

The light particle is so small that it dissolves into the dark matter and is diffused again. Low-energy light particles will break bonds between dark matter particles less than high-energy light particles, thereby deducing the corresponding wavelength.

Proposed one way to prove it is: It is diffuse particle interference. Spray a jet of air into the water and place 2 narrow slits on opposite sides

GR equation shows that there exist a curvature for space time in the presence of mass and interpreted by force of gravity.The interactive force which bends the space time is a new fundamental force whose particle is 'dark matter'. With in few days I will submit the paper how it happens to be.

Several attempts at modifying the EFE to include the effects of Dark Matter and Dark energy have been done in the last 40 years.

One of the latest attempts comes from Gary Nash who modified the Stress Tensor of the EFE including a quantity which takes account of the gravitational energy avoiding the Pseudo tensors.

The introduction of the Line element field, first studied by Hawking is the entity which made a difference in this study

Let's see what are the comments and alternatives...

The offended paper is here:

This is a rhetorical question since, in my mind, that is utterly non-acceptable.

I say that while accepting the reality that it takes time to write a few paragraphs in a rejection letter.

That said, it might take years to polish the arguments contained in a paper.

In my case, it took 16 years.

My issue is that, on purpose, I chose to tackle the Big Bang Theory first. It is the weakest model in the whole Physics. There are "Crisis in Cosmology" articles written by everyone and their cats. There is Hubble Tension, S8 tension... Missing Dark Matter, Early Galaxy Formation Conundrum...

Not to mention the lack of any evidence of a False Vacuum, Inflaton Field or Inflaton Particle, etc, etc.

My theory starts with a new model for matter, where matter is made of shapeshifting deformations of the metric (so, it is not Mass Deforms Metric, but modulated metric is mass).

It cannot be simpler. It allows the Universe to have just space, deformed space and time - the simplest possible model.

Occam's Razor will tell you that this model should be part of the conversation.

The Universe starts from a Heisenberg-Dictated Metric Hyperspherical Fluctuation, which after partial recombination is left with an Inner Dilation Layer (IDL) and the Outermost Contraction Layer (OCL).

As one would expect OCL breaks apart when it starts to move, pushed by the IDL. This process has a physical analogy in the Prince Rupert Drop

SO, the model is disappointly simple. No metrics, nothing for you to polish... just a simple model that explains EVERYTHING.

It also debunks General Relativity (Einstein's equations do not describe the Universe expansion). And replicates all Einstein's successes, while providing simpler explanations (instead of time dilation, we have the weakening of forces with absolute velocity).

What about ABSOLUTE VELOCITY? Well, we all know we can define absolute velocity using the CMB. Period. So, absolute velocity (and the breakdown of Relativity) shouldn't be a surprise.

So, my theory also challenges the current Cosmic Distance Ladder and in doing so (using an epoch-dependent law of Gravitation), it parameterless predicts the distances using just the redshifts. The predictions are attached.

So, in doing so, it attacks Dark Matter and Dark Energy and all the sordid interests behind them. I say sordid in the sense that I believe that all these entrenched interests are at play in this summary rejection of my work.

Why would I say that? There is a simple reason. If an editor (and all the other editors) don't bother to justify their actions, one is left with nothing to do other than speculate on the WHY.

**Why is it ok for preprint repositories to block my already published work?? That is happening (and happened during the last 16 years) at the Los Alamos Archives.**

**Why would it be ethical for an editor not to write a single paragraph pointing to an specific scientific reason for yanking a paper out of the review process?**

**How calous these people can be with respect to Science and Mankind's Future? Science is the key to the Future. It shouldn't be at the mercy of unconfessable motivations.**

Cosmological explanations for our apparently fine-tuned universe are basically divided between a) a vastly huge multiverse of universes with varying fundamental force and mass constants, including the cosmological constant (where our apparently fine-tuned universe is just one universe in this multiverse), or b) a cosmic intelligence that fine-tuned our universe at its beginning to evolve stable galaxies, life and developed minds. In scientific terms, which explanation is preferable? Are there other options? Is a cosmic mind a viable scientific hypothesis for explaining our universe's origin?

Mass density within the expanding Universe may be assumed to stay essentially constant due to steady formation of elementary particles by spontaneous or induced creation of vortices at an elementary scale, see attached references. No

*Big Bang*nor*Dark Matter*are required under the above assumptions.Daniel Coumbe of the Niels Bohr Institute, in his April 21, 2021 Physical Review D article entitled "Is asymptotically Weyl-invariant gravity viable?", presents 6 criteria for a viable new theory of gravity. Do you agree or disagree? Are Coumbe's criteria meaningful? What would your own criteria be?

According to Coumbe, a viable new theory of gravity must be:

1. equivalent to general relativity in the low curvature limit

2. renormalizable in the high curvature limit

3. unitary

4. stable

5. free of curvature singularities

6. consistent with observation.

Coumbe is clearly assuming gravity must be quantized. Many physicists would disagree.

Also availabe at:

Among the many forms of Mathematics, which forms are particularly useful in the study of baryonic matter, dark matter and dark energy?

For example, the

**nabla and partial derivatives**are an important part of Chuck Keeton, How can mathematics reveal dark matter?

**Lattice theory**is used in

Craig McNeile , Meson and Baryon Spectroscopy on a Lattice

**Homology**is used in

Gregory S. Novak, Patrik Jonsson, Joel R. Primack, Thomas J. Cox, and Avishai Dekel, On Galaxies and Homology

**Black Holes out of a galaxy: do they exist???**

**➣➣The question is as follow.**

**Are there black holes outside the confines of a galaxy{*}, in the spaces between one galaxy and another???**

**{*}Galaxy is not meant only the Milky Way but any type of galaxy.**

**In what way can be identified and/or measured these hypothetical extragalactic black holes???**

**➢➢Il quesito è il seguente.**

**Esistono buchi neri al di fuori dei confini di una galassia{*}, negli spazi tra una galassia e l'altra???**

**{*}Galassia non viene intesa la sola Via Lattea ma qualsiasi tipo di galassia.**

**in che modo possono essere individuati e/o misurati questi ipotetici buchi neri extragalattici???**

**Previous POSTS:**

**►**

**https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1881512595213728**

**►**

**https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1886349588063362**

**►**

**https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1886357694729218**

**►**

**https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1887495014615486**

**►**

**https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1903371136361207**

**►**

**https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1990787000952953**

**►**

**https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1990806470951006**

**►**

**https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1990816627616657**

**►https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/2378526012179048**

According to the principle of the general relativity theory, the gravity field equation should contain the field energy as a source of the field itself. Including the field energy-momentum tensor into the Einstein’s equation brings extra unknown quantities to the equation. Such equation is not suitable for a metric finding; however it allows – based on the known metric – calculating the whole energy-momentum tensor of both matter and gravitational field. As the gravity field metric, the metric of continuous field can be used, parameters of which are found from the generally covariant one-parametric equation. Here, the solutions are given of the equation for the spherically symmetric stationary problem. One of the solutions coincides practically with that by Schwarzschild for weak fields, while the other one describes an expulsive field.

Dr. Hans-Otto Carmesin is a prolific theoretician who wrote among other things, these two books:

Modeling SN1a data:

Data H0_20210424.pdf

That said, he leads a field where a lot of unsupported claims are tossed around without anything to support it. That is why they are unsupported..:)

As Dr. Carmesin professed, scientists should follow the teachings of Aristotle and always use the simplest possible model that is consistent with Reality.

Dr. Carmesin's model has nonlocality, dimensional transitions, the usual suspects (Dark Matter and Dark Energy), and an epoch-dependent Dark Energy (figure 8.15 on the first book above).

It is a fantastic work and from my point of view, unnecessary and incorrect.

Unnecessary because there is HU which is capable to explain everything Dr. Carmesin explained without the need for a Big Bang, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, epoch-dependent Dark Matter, Polychromatic Vacuum. Because of that, Aristotle and Occam's Razor would support HU and rebut Dr. Carmesin's work.

Attached is my summary of the problems I found on Dr. Carmesin's claims that SN1a distances support his work.

**#########################################**

**#########################################**

**#########################################**

This is an ongoing discussion.

Dr. Carmesin provided a reply to my objections and

**confirmed that he is not sure if his model can predict the SN1a distances**.In fact, he said:

**"My theory does not fail to predict these distances. I just did not calculate these distances yet for a good reason: I tested my full theory by calculating the measured Hubble constants of the Hubble tension."****First, that is not a good reason. Second, I calculated the distances according to his model and the model failed. See the plot and the attached python script.**

**#########################################**

My plot of his model showcases that the model fails to predict the observed distances.

I also drive home the fact that Dr. Carmesin's model modifies the meaning of H0 (the Hubble Constant). Because of that comparison of results are not straightforward and seems to not have been considered before.

The plots also show that HU model predicts the observed distances without any parameters.

The preponderance of mass in nucleons is gluon binding energy. From this we see that protons and neutrons both have positive mass. Is there a potential relationship between gluon biding energy and the virtual particles in quantum foam? Consider this in the context of dark matter and dark energy.

Feynman's parton model (as presented by, for example, W.-Y. P. Hwang, 1992, enclosed) seems to bridge both conceptions, but they do come across as mutually exclusive theories. The S-matrix program, which goes back to Wheeler and Heisenberg (see D. Bombardelli's Lectures on S-matrices and integrability, 2016, enclosed), is promising because - unlike parton theories - it does not make use of perturbation theory or other mathematically flawed procedures (cf. Dirac's criticism of QFT in the latter half of his life).

Needless to say, we do not question the

*usefulness*of the quark hypothesis to classify the zoo of unstable particles (Particle Data Group), nor the massive investment to arrive at the precise measurements involved in the study of high-energy reactions (as synthesized in the Annual Reviews of the Particle Data Group), but the award of the Nobel Prize of Physics to CERN researchers Carlo Rubbia and Simon Van der Meer (1984), or Englert and Higgs (2013), seems to award 'smoking gun physics' only, rather than providing any ontological proof for virtual particles.To trigger the discussion, we attach our own opinion. For a concise original/eminent opinion on this issue, we refer to Feynman's discussion of high-energy reactions involving kaons (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_11.html#Ch11-S5), in which Feynman (writing in the early 1960s and much aware of the new law of conservation of strangeness as presented by Gell-Man, Pais and Nishijima) seems to favor a mathematical concept of strangeness or, more to the point, a property of particles rather than an existential/ontological concept. Our own views on the issue are summarized in

Preprint Ontology and physics

(see the Annexes for our approach of modeling reactions involving kaons). The dark matter candidate that I have been working on is the di-neutron and the reasons are explained here:

Conference Paper The Explanation for Dark Matter and Dark Energy

It occurs to me that, given the abundance of dark matter in the universe at least 5 times greater than hydrogen and helium combed then we would expect the star forming gas clouds of hydrogen and helium to contain an abundance of di-neutrons.

We have to consider the di-neutrons present at the time that nuclear fusion starts and also the di-neutrons that subsequently accrete onto the star. Would the di-neutrons (which are at least a thousand times smaller than the hydrogen atoms) tend to fall intact into the core of the star? Would the temperature inside the star be sufficient to cause the di-neutron bond to break so that we have a source of free neutrons? Would there be a tendency for the di-neutrons to be involved directly in nucleosynthesis adding two neutrons to a chemical element? This is a lot of questions rolled into one so apologies for that.

I would be interested to know if there is anything in the observation of stars or the nucleosynthesis models that supports the hypothesis that the di-neutron is the correct choice of dark matter candidate.

Richard

I’m working on research and reminded of a base tenant of Measurement Quantization (MQ), but would like more feedback about how astronomers interpret observation. The perceived view differs from that of MQ (Eqs. 57-80).

I will explain. When we look to the universe we may classically describe certain classes of observation. In an expanding universe they are

- what you see (visible Ω
/Ω_{b}),_{vis} - all that can be seen (observable Ω
+Ω_{c}/Ω_{b}),_{obs} - the presently unobserved (dark matter Ω
/Ω_{c}) and_{uobs} - that which you will never see due to the expansion of space (dark energy Ω
_{Λ}/Ω_{dkm}).

Now, there is considerable argument as to the rate of expansion and coincidence with critical density. Let’s avoid that and go with the premise that we are at critical. This is an area that MQ has covered well. Then, we take the temporal presentation and work out the distributions.

Amazing! The same. I am very familiar with the ΛCDM calculations. That said, maybe others have observed the correspondence to the temporal interpretation and wrote it off as coincidence because of the insufficient connection to critical density. Is that the only missing link? Or, maybe everyone is focused on the other properties, the oddness of star velocities in a galaxy, the energy properties of dark energy and correlation to the cosmological constant.

With respect to MQ, the temporal cannot be ignored. It is a property of observation. So, it seems confusing why the temporal approach is never mentioned nor accommodated. Outsider interpretations as to how the temporal properties of observation are resolved are valuable. Papers that directly address the coincidence of temporal classes in comparison to the human groupings to which we allocate all variety of properties (i.e. dark matter) are highly valued. Research not in a major journal is not particularly useful.

I am asking this question because my theory can do it and I know that L-CDM cannot.

L-CDM cannot even parameterless predict the SN1a distances or parameterless predict the mass distribution of spiral galaxies (consistent with observed rotation curves) that is doesn't require Dark Matter or Dark Energy.

This is the shinyapp displaying the observable Universe

Notice that the Layer Slider changes the Redshift of the seen layer and that in the third tab are links to articles and relevant posts.

Feel free to ask questions.

Professor Selleri's book "The weak relativity" represents the summary of 20 years of research on the physics of space and time. The research path is clear, the arguments are solid, the logic is evident, the content is revolutionary. If the topics expressed in this book are "true" physics would be completely reversed, the SR and the GR should be abandoned, with all their consequences, such as the Big Bang, dark matter etc .. Yet 9 years after its publication, no one has been able to reasonably contrast Selleri's ideas and in the same way no one has thought it necessary to rethink the physics of space and time .......

Either his ideas are refuted in a coherent and rational way or the physics of space and time must be completely re-founded, there is no alternative in the scientific method, indifference is not an option

1)I know that DE Broglie Hypothesis is based on the symmetry of nature. If the light has dual behaviour, then matter also has dual behaviour(wave and particle both). So, I used this symmetry to hypothesise that when it comes to fundamental forces of nature, they boil down to weak and strong pairs.

For example: 1)Electricity(strong) and Magnetism(Weak)

2)Weak Nuclear Force and Strong Nuclear force

Hence, it should imply that gravity also must be of two types: Weak gravity and strong gravity.

2)We know that charges are of two types, positive and negative. So mass should also be both positive and negative by symmetry. Positive mass would be Ordinary mass having an Attractive gravitational force. And Negative mass would be Dark matter( which is very little understood ) and its Corresponding energy be the dark energy(also negative By E=mc^2 as m is negative). This dark matter will have opposite gravitational force, that is, repulsive forces. And this explains why the universe is expanding with increasing acceleration observed by the redshift of light. And the same quantity of Positive ordinary mass and negative dark matter will add to zero as two equal and opposite charges add up to zero.

Do the quantization of gravity is required or the gravity it self the in quantizated forms can the dark energy is chaotic analogue of classical energy and dark matter is chaotic analogue of classical matter

Much has been said about sterile neutrinos, is someone else possible?

After WMAP observational results we have seen that 71.4% of universal energy budget is acquired by Dark Energy while 24% is under Dark matter. So every part in our universe must contain Dark Energy or Dark Matter. If a black hole is situated in the centre of a galaxy is it possible that dark energy accreted towards the black hole? If it is accreted then in which circumstances we can identify it?

**THE LONG VARIANT OF MY “COMPOSITE” DOUBLE-QUESTION:**

**Can elementary neutral massless fermions aka “elementary fermionic (neutral) luxons” (EFLs) (whose true existence isn’t rejected in principle by mainstream physics) (not to be confused with Weyl fermions which are not elementary particles, but quasi-particles) be valid candidates for dark matter and energy? And if so, do you have any suggestions on possible experiments that may confirm or infirm the existence of these EFLs?**

My zero-energy hypothesis (

**ZEH**) launched in my recent article (“*On a Possible Logarithmic Connection between Einstein's Constant**and the Fine-Structure Constant, in Relation to a Zero-energy Hypothesis*”, Physical Science International Journal [PSIJ], ISSN: 2348-0130, Vol.: 24, Issue.: 5, pages 22-40: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342530363 and https://www.journalpsij.com/index.php/PSIJ/article/view/30191) PREDICTS that all EPs may be “conjugated” in boson-fermion pairs of “mass-conjugates” (which is a new type of physical symmetry proposed by ZEH and produced by a balance between the strengths of electromagnetic and gravitational fields at Planck scales) with the rest masses of all known (and unknown!) elementary particles (**EPs**) being the conjugated solutions of a simple quadratic equation (proposed by ZEH) which allows all neutral EPs to have zero rest masses. ZEH also predicts that spacetime is probably granular (and very viscous!) at Planck scale allowing G/r and k_e/r ratios with only discrete values in the predicted length-interval [r_min, 5*10^3*r_min]. If the quantum vacuum will ever be proved to be actually a “fluid”-like entity, my ZEH predicts that vacuum may be granular and very viscous at scales close to Planck scales and that is why its movement and/or deformations may be governed by an equation similar to that of viscous flow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_W_function#Viscous_flows), which equation (of viscous flow) is solvable by using a Lambert W function.Furthermore, my ZEH predicts two

**elementary massless fermions**(the here-called “Higgs-fermion” [**Hf**] and “Z-fermion” [**Zf**] which can be regarded as**elementary fermionic luxons [EFLs]**[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle], NOT to be confused with Weyl fermions [which aren’t EPs but quasi-particles]) as being the “mass-conjugates” of the Higgs and Z bosons potentially viable candidates for**both dark matter and dark energy**. Being zero-mass fermions, they are also predicted by ZEH to move with the speed of light and thus to have been spread by the Big Bang in all directions of space with this speed of light. Mainstream physics DOESN’T reject, in principle, the true existence of EFLs.**Do you have any suggestion on possible experiments that may confirm or infirm the existence of my ZEH-predicted EFLs Hf and Zf?**

**It would be also interesting to (at least theoretically) know if these Hf and Zf have a weak charge or not, thus if they couple with the weak nuclear field (WNF)/participate to the weak interaction (**

**https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction**

**) (like all the other known fermions from the Standard model were proved to couple with WNF) or NOT. What do you think?**

“The electron is a photon around Dark Matter”

Adrian Ferent

“The photon wavelength is 2πr, r the electron radius”

Adrian Ferent

“The high energy Gravitons emitted by Dark Matter keep the photon inside the electron”

Adrian Ferent

“In Ferent Quantum Gravity is important the energies of the Gravitons emitted by Dark Matter, not the Dark Matter mass”

Adrian Ferent

“Inside the electron, Dark Matter mass is much smaller than electron mass, but has much bigger energy”

Adrian Ferent

“Ferent electron and positron collision:”

Adrian Ferent

“Photon momentum after n interactions:“

Adrian Ferent

“The way how the photon ‘oscillates’ inside the electron will give the electron spin”

Adrian Ferent

“The way how the photon ‘oscillates’ inside the electron will give the electron charge, negative charge – electron, positive charge – positron””

Adrian Ferent

“Because electron–positron pair is produced by a photon – photon interaction and two gamma rays of 0.5 MeV each will be created in electron and positron collision, I considered only one photon inside the electron”

Adrian Ferent

“Gamma ray is inside the electron because of electron’s electromagnetic properties and electrons interactions with photons”

Adrian Ferent

Einstein said; “You know, it would be sufficient to understand the electron” which is still true today.

“Conclusion: No Conclusion. So, what is an electron? An electron is a particle, and a wave; it is ideally simple, and unimaginably complex; it is precisely understood, and utterly mysterious; it is rigid, and subject to creative disassembly. No single answer does justice to reality. ” – Frank Wilczek

I am not a professional physicist or cosmologist as the phrasing of my question may imply. Something I recently was thinking about was how the velocity of galaxies increases with distance from our own position. This got me thinking about dark matter/energy (forgive me I don't fully understand the parameters very deeply) and how it counters gravitational effects. I am aware that Higgs bosons (and bosons in general?) are their own anti-particle. That is to say they neutral. So, it seems fair to assume then that dark matter/energy does not couple to the Higgs field through anti-particle. My question then is this: is it possible for there to be a dark matter/energy "field" which has "anti-Higgs" properties? The idea that galaxies are racing away from us at faster and faster speeds relative to distance makes me imagine an activation energy curve in which areas around black holes are gravity wells sitting on a dark matter/energy potential energy curve. The farther down the curve the well falls the more the stored potential energy is converted to velocity similar to something gaining velocity falling into an area of high gravity.

This may seem like hogwash to well trained professionals and by all means, tear apart my conjecture if there are obvious flaws. In fact, I am hoping that someone can dispel any misconceptions I have and set me on the right track to understand these concepts. Thank you in advance to anyone who responds!

The answer is yes.

A first example is the ultra-weak X-ray sources of Riccardo Giacconi’s which are equi-distributed across the sky.

Another is the so-called “dark galaxies” which are actually ultra-old.

A third is the invisible ordinary dark matter in galactic clusters and super clusters.

A fourth is the empirical fractal structure of the cosmos detected by my friend Benoit Mandelbrot.

.

Jan. 15, 2020

What we actually mean by "Dark Matter Energy" in layman language?

I proved it but who said it first?

(1) In the first place, what is a viable definition of "matter"?

(2) Secondly, what sorts of problems have given rise to the popular term "dark matter"?

(3) The third part of this question should materialize in answering (1) and (2).

I created a theory that tells us that it does. There is a lot of research in the field and I evaluate two seminal papers;

a) Lunar Ranging Data Analysis

b) SN1a Data Analysis

Both tells us that there isn't any real epoch-dependence on the Gravitational Constant.

Here I rebut those articles and show that glaring mistakes (assuming as a hypothesis something that forces the conclusion). That would be ok is the hypothesis made any sense, but in this case it does not.

**Please, if you are a real astronomer, professor of astronomy (as opposed to self-described specialist on astronomy and cosmology), please defend this article:**

I say that because, only the opinion of real experts are relevant. Opinions of other people will not change this debate.

Muller & Biskupek 2007

#########################################################

I proposed a theory where I derived an epoch-dependent Law of Gravitation. This and other measurements would collide with my theory.

My claim is that these analyses suffer from Confirmation Bias and are incorrect.

In simple terms, the Moon is receding with 4 cm/year and has an average orbit radius of 384,400,000 meters.

This means that

1/r*dr/dt=1.04E-10/yr

My theory predicts 1/G*dG/dt=c/R0=H0=0.74E-10/yr

where R0 is the 4D radius (13.58 GLY) of the Universe and H0=Hubble Constant of 72 km/s/mpc.

Leaving 41% of the observed receding velocity to be explained by tidal interactions, frame dragging and the use of incorrect Laws of Gravitation and Dynamics.

The Lunar Ranging results are equivalent to saying that we know the dynamics and can explain receding velocity with a 1:1000 precision. The effect of a variable G is supposed to be below 2E-13/year.

So, I think it is ludicrous and no conclusion about epoch-dependent G can be derived from this paper.

Later I will explain why this other article is wrong:

Constraining a possible variation of G with Type Ia supernovae

Jeremy Mould & Syed A. Uddin

I demonstrated that all astronomical observations refute General Relativity.

https://www.quora.com/What-scientific-ideas-or-theories-are-blocking-progress/answer/Marco-Pereira-1

Since I did that, somehow, not a single scientist came to refute that conclusion.

Here is the argument:

Feel free to rebut it.

############################################

############################################

############################################

Bonnor and Bondi suggest that GR predicts antigravitational interactions between negative masses. Jame Farnes points out that Newtonian mechanics suggest the same. But in electromagnetism interactions, same particles sign results in the same interaction, and only different signs behave different. Why choose one insted of the other?

Follow the link below to understand the discussion subject:

What I think I need to know is:

1) What is the current accepted shape of the Milky Way galaxy, and its sub-parts, such as core, halo, etc? Some documentation shows a sphere for dark halo, but other documentation shows models suggest some disc shape.

2) What percent of total mass is found in each sub-part, such as core, halo, etc? If this number isn't actually available for the Milky Way, what reference for another galaxy would be appropriate to use as a stand-in until we know?

3) Recent reports suggest that the mass of the entire galaxy is 1.5 Trillion solar masses. Does the mass of dark matter, which might make up 90% of this mass in the dark halo, affect objects within the halo the same as any other lit mass? For instance, does a particle of dark matter pull objects just like a neutron of equal mass?

4) What is the current accepted density of each subpart? Is this somewhat standard for barred spiral and spiral galaxies? Are globular clusters counted in any sub-part, or do they need to be factored separately? I would prefer to have them separate.

5) Can some sub-parts be rounded to homogeneity, or are there very important filamentous regions that must be accounted for? I read that the spiral arms are barely more dense (max 5%) than the region medium in which they exist.

6) Relative to a central black hole, within a relatively circular total circumference of the galaxy, and another reference point in the plane, what is the approximate location of the Sun in the overall X-Y plane of the galactic disk? I'd like for the other reference point defining the general plane to be maybe a globular cluster or important mass feature I need to calculate anyway.

7) I also want to make a map of mass-induced gravitational effect on earth, relative to a person standing anywhere on Earth.

If I model each subpart and define its density in a 3D shape, and then trace a ray through each shape beginning at Earth and ending at the limits of the dark halo, I want to sum the gravitational effect of each section at each of any number of spherical coordinates. Is it sufficient to run an integral though each subsection based on distance and average sub-part density until I reach the next sub-part?

So if my ray passes through one part, the total would be integral of start to end of part, and the formula within the integral would be the gravitational effect associated with mass at the point on the ray. The sum of each sub-part integral should give the total gravitational effect from edge of galaxy to the point of earth, correct? I mean just from mass alone, not from other force interplay, or mass-like effects of photons. I realize almost all mass in the galaxy has zero effect on Earth, or nearly zero, but I need the sum for my model. The sum of that many not-quite-zeros is not zero.

If I do it this way, should I just calculate at an interval of kpc and sum the parts, or take the real integral return?

8) How do I take the Earth as a reference system and project the external mass map or gravity map as a sky? I know the sun is tilted relative to galactic center, and the Earth is tilted relative to the sun.

Assume I have a map of the Milky Way with the equator being the galactic plane, projected onto a sphere (skybox), what angle(s) do I need to apply to a skybox to make it accurate from Earth? Another example: If I have created a mass or gravity map as a sphere with the Earth at the center of the sphere, ignoring daily rotation of the Earth what angle do I rotate the sphere to make the galactic plane match what we see in the sky?

9) A basic calculation suggests that the general projection of the milky way stays generally in the same 1% arc of the sky for 640k years as we move around the galactic center (230Ma orbit time/360°). Is this relatively reasonable? Is a linear account of our changing sky acceptable, or are we much closer to the galactic center at some point of our transit, causing the projection of the Milky Way to change faster on the other side of the galactic orbit?

I love references. So far all the galaxy shape astrometry text and images I've looked at give zero references. Example: https://content-calpoly-edu.s3.amazonaws.com/evolution/1/images/3universe/0MilkyWay/Milky-Way-structure-table.jpg.

Any help with any of the sub-questions, or even just the method itself, is very much appreciated.

How can we only account for Atoms to be 4.6% of Total Energy? How can we account for Dark Energy to be about 68% and Dark Matter to be about 27%?

In my opinion velocities more than that of light are imaginary only.We can not observe velocities more than that of light.

Based on this imaginary concept how a field is described and got 'Nobel' for its predicted particle.

Means, the calculation of predictions by standard model and quantum field theory may be correct. But still the most fundamental of quantum mechanics need some modifications which may modify even the standard model also.I feel that these modifications may develop new concepts in cosmology, black holes, dark matter and particle physics.

As LIGO has observed a couple of massive stellar BH binary merger events, we guess there may exist unprecedent large number of BHs in the Universe. These BHs may have ionized their environment, with HII regions or positron-electron plasma around them (perhaps also caused by Penrose mechanism). So that we could observe such plasma wave or the excess of positron-electron produced by the BHs.

Theories in science will be almost constantly changing. Earlier, atoms were considered as indivisible in Dalton’s atomic model. As new theories emerge, old theories will be modified or rejected. But if an experiment is done in hurry and wrong results are announced without analyzing, then it leads to creating a hurdle in progress of science. Some examples:

1] A galaxy having no dark matter was claimed to have been ‘found’ making big news. But now it is debunked.

2] In an experiment, it was concluded that neutrinos will travel faster than speed of light in vacuum. Later it was termed as experimental error.

In my view, experiments must be conducted several times in different methods and results should be announced after complete analysis to avoid confusion. What is your view?

Lets review what logarithms are... And that dark matter and also matter in general could be effected by the logarithm...Inverse of exponentiation...and such as in which is the clarified inverse of the antithetical string for reality or anti string...

All mass produces time dilation, and a reduced velocity of light isotropically, and for distant mass the effect is proportional to the inverse radius. In addition there is a radial reduction in coordinate velocity, but this is direction and does not add in the same way as the time dilation component. If mass is approximately distributed evenly, then the amount of mass in a differential radius increases proportional to R^2, so distant matter dominates the effect unless one is very close to a particular gravitational source. So how much would light speed increase if the known distant mass, including dark matter, were removed? I could do crude calculation, but there might be many factors I wouldn't think of. I'm looking for an authoritative paper. For example, if light speed would quadruple without this mass, relative to some even more distant observer (since we would not notice the difference, being local observers), then one could say the fraction attributable to the distant mass was something like (1 - 1/4) = 3/4, just as an approximate gauge.

Our work on the indirect detection of dark matter, and we need to Fermi_LAT data to compare our results, where do we get this data?

By studying the properties of the Madun fluid we will find that it does not differ from the other fluids’ properties.

Please, see.

1.3 Physical Properties of Madun Fluid.

**"A new alternative theory of gravity where gravity is particles behave as a fluid forming two types of swirls Annular swirls and oval swirls ".**

Why should we care about axions which were not found in connection with dark matter?

They are just hypothetical particles.

While reading the introduction to the Interpretations of the DAMPE electron data, the introduction references how positrons and electrons in large amounts can be used to probe CR sources as well as dark matter. What makes the electron/positron special in this case? Why is it used as oppose to anything else? How is it used?

Dear Sirs,

I would like to find out more precisely whether the 2nd Newton law is valid or not in wide range of masses, accelerations, forces. Particulary I have a question whether the inertial property of body (inertial mass) is able to stop the body for small external forces or not. I have found in the Internet the fresh articles with tests of the 2nd Newton law for small accelerations (10^-10), small forces (10^-13) and SMALL masses (about 1 kg). The articles deal with the question of dark matter and MOND theory in astrophysics.

But I am interested in BIG masses. Could the test be carried out in planetary scale? Maybe for the Moon or asteroids? Or for masses like 1000 kg? Thank you very much for any references.

As recently, we are changing our detectors (hunter of dark matter) by means of quantum technology , so what can this smallest scale of universe predict about largest scale of universe?

Dark matter apparently is local but also pervades the Universe with an abundance greater than that of "ordinary" matter. Is dark matter real or is something missing from our physics?

I have found two different results for the effect of dark matter on the orbital speed of the Sun. One from Wikipedia suggests there is no effect while another one from astronomynotes suggests there is a substantial effect. Which one is correct? Both Figures and their captions are attached.

Here is the equation

(1)

*R*- ½_{μν}*Rg*+_{μν}*Λg*= 8π_{μν}*G*c^{-4}*T*._{μν}Since

*T*represents sources, e.g. masses, this tensor should vanish in void - this is a claim that I saw in different places. Next, as I was explained, in flat space, the Ricci curvature tensor_{μν}*R*should naturally vanish, and so the scalar curvature_{μν}*R*. But in this case, the metric tensor*g*should also vanish._{μν}First of all the latter cannot be true, we know that in the flat space

*g*is the same as the identity matrix, except that the element_{μν}*g*_{11}= -1 instead of 1.Secondly, where is the dark matter? It should pervade the void. It should also be homogenuously distributed and leave the space curvature null, i.e.

*R*= 0._{μν}Is there a mistake in what I say? If taking the dark matter in consideration,

*T*should not vanish in void? But the curvature should still vanish, the void is homogenuous._{μν}What are the subcritical spatiotemporal scales over which the existential influence of dark matter may be realizable?

Can black holes be modeled as a dark matter? What are the properties of a black hole that this model would challenge?

I can see why Dark Matter (DM) is unlikely to form concentrations that would trigger the formation of a "Dark Matter Black Hole" but Dark Matter and Atomic ("normal") Matter (AM) each seem to feel the other's gravitational attraction, which would lead us to suppose that some DM would find is way into Black Holes (BHs). The question is whether DM might behave differently when it enters a BH and whether there might be observable consequences, which might shed some hazy light on the nature of DM. We'd need to find a BH in an area known to be rich in DM and also at an observable distance from Earth.

Odd behaviour might include a change in character of the force of attraction between AM and DM such as becoming repulsive, or being overcome by another force, at short range.

.

Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder at Frankfurt is discussing this subject .

The derivation of orbital velocity is presumably well understood. One method is to set the centripetal force equal to the gravitational force and solve for v.

Mv^2/r = GMm/r^2

for which orbital velocity becomes v = sqrt(GM/r)

Now let's assume we have a spacecraft in stable orbit around a body at some distance r(1) and want to move the craft to a higher orbit r(2), to do this it must fire it's engines, i.e. accelerate the craft (a) for some time (t), and presumably increase its velocity as ∆v = at, however Newtonian theory tells us that the velocity has indeed decreased as r(2) is larger than r(1).

So I would like to know what kind of Hokus Pokus is normally applied to explain this problem.

My belief is that our Universe is potently moving as a single object through the void of the unknown, which is outside our universe. The outside of our Universe is made up of Dark Matter. With this model there was never a big bang but in fact matter is been continually created and slowly makes it way within our Universe until it finally disipates and makes it way back into the void. The reason I feel this is possible is because it exists today, so if our belief is that what has been has always been, that then suggests that there is a continual cycle which goes on and on. A Big Bang suggests there is a beginning and then a end. As now we are aware that the Universe is expanding at greater than the speed of light, so it is unlikely it will ever come back together again, and if the other theory is true it will simply just vanish at some point, if this is true why are we here now. For me a continuous moving universe where matter is always been created and therefore our Universe will continue to be here, but of course it is continually changing. Maybe the only way it could end is if it has a head-on with another Universe travelling in the opposite direction. But that is another idea of mine. I am currectly in the process of writing a paper on this so if anyone aware of any theory that could contradict this idea.

The

is terrific and cutting egde scientific result. I know

as an independently thinking talentad astrophysicist.

My complemets with new step in fighting prejudeces!

Ildus Nurgaliev,

Here are some notes of myselfe in the same context.

1)

Conference Paper EINSTEIN UNIVERSE REVISITED AND END OF DARK ERA

2)

Article World as Flow

(in Russian) The so called dark matter is pictured out side the galaxy. What is the reason? why cant it be a part of the galaxy itself ?

We are, ultimately, preparing the field to discuss the possibility of QM effects, or others, on the formulation of gravity, and how they would not be forbidden by SR or GR. This is, essentially, a logical dicussion open to anyone, that can also free the logical mind.

This goal is forbidden by current general relativity theory, that defined the speed of gravitational waves to be c=1, the speed of light in vacuum [1]. However, we conjecture that gravity waves, using a different formulation of gravity, such as quantum mechanics, not using the curvature of spacetime to represent gravity, could allow such results to be calculated.

The reasoning is explained as follows. First, we prove that current general relativity may include a basic circular argument. Second, this may hide or mask other formulations. Third, this enables the conjecture of this question, including any value for wave speed.

1. Circular definitions are self-referential, a tautology, trivially right. For example, "a circle is a circle". Or, they can involve more complex patterns, where the repetition is hidden in multiple cycles, hard to see, with components that are defined by components. But, such definitions carry no information, in Shannon terms. They are useless to define the problem. Considering the subject of Physics, a specific number of definitions seem circular. For example, the definition of a travelling wave, as a "wave pattern that is seen travelling through a medium", as often stated, even in current textbooks used in the US Ivy League universities.

Current general relativity may include a basic circular argument, in that the Minkowsky metric uses c=1 for an electromagnetic wave in flat spacetime, and then measures the deformations of a curved spacetime (now, gravitational waves) by using the same value of c=1. Here, one has to suppose X, and using X “justifies” one to use it. Another argument, with a similar circular falllacy, is that since gravitational waves are massless yet have a finite energy, they must move at the speed of light

2. This fallacy, which seems to have not been observed before in general relativity, is similar to other “definitions” yet accepted in physics. This could be, as in a "mandatory" but questioned vector potential in electromagnetism [2], "a sleight of hand that is just, perhaps, hiding a circular argument, ending in a self-reference that is correct by that same definition". Thus, this is is not false necessarily, but may be incomplete -- it may hide a formulation where gravity waves are superluminal, c > 1, or have any speed value.

3. Thus, by not accounting for solutions that may be superluminal, or at any speed, current general relativity is blind to them. Even c=1 solutions may be missed by general relativity.

This may be important for currently missing solutions, such as in Dark Matter.

**NOTES:**

a. This discussion is about a logical fallacy in GR. It is NOT about any experiment, but the theory that represents nature. SR is powerless to define it, or any experiment.

b. This has an inverse relation to what is seen experimentally today, that what we do not measure is, maybe, possible. We don no have to recall the many cases where this happened before in science, and there are many examples in QM, today's perceived "bane" of SR and GR. We are discussing the possibility of QM effects on our formulation of gravity, and how they would not be forbidden by SR or GR.

c. To consider superluminal effects in gravity can be seen as a bet that gravity as that (v > c) wave can escape from colliding black holes, and reach distant Earth, an experimental fact maybe measured by LIGO, ahead of the detection time considered by LIGO themselves, of conventional gravity waves modeled by a spacetime curvature (that must, by construction, travel at c).

d. We are NOT talking about conventional gravity waves, a curvature in spacetime (see discussion theme, above), where gravity waves must follow the speed of light in vacuum, by construction.

e. Superluminal effects are also a verifiable solution of Mexwell's equations, as the late Waldyr Rodrigues considered. These are not so-called "academic" pursuits, decried by Murray Gell-Mann, but real contributions to understand both nature and the equations that describe it. Do they match? Is something over-promised in the equations, or falsely denied?

f. We point out here that current gravitational theory as indicated by general relativity has a basic fallacy. The argument is still in development, but it indicates a logical conjecture, that superluminal solutions may exist for gravity waves, they are not prohibited by general relativity.

g. And, we may also need to begin earlier, by denying Newtonian conventionalisms that still beset modern physics! A version of that is available for comments at the last update, here:

h. Off this discussion topic. but may be worth mentioning here. This is not a conceptual choice only, but must be also experimental, which one could then call natural, it is in nature. Reality, experimentally, must be at least 4D as in spacetime, it “does not fit” inside 3D in all cases. This is not 3+1, it is 4, integrated, you cannot separate. Now, this does not mean that reality cannot be >4 in dimensions, and exceed c in that context, of 8D or more... Gravity may be modeled in higher dimension than four, then. This is, today, speculative, but it is useful to know that v > c is not forbidden for gravity by SR, considering this discussion.

9. This thread arrived, in the past, at a conclusion, which is stated in the body of the initial text. There is no room to refuse to notice an obvious thing, or to re-explain here, the reasoning and references are available here, to anyone.

10. We are now ready to move to non-mathematical and non-physical aspects. We are talking about the historical and intersubjective aspects, which are important to us qua humans. Finding a humanly acceptable answer is difficult in physics or maths today, and, pretty soon, in all natural sciences. Therefore, this very thread is important.

11. We suggest, as in physics, that facts are what you were willing to bbelieve. A bias, preventing a more complete vision. That is another motivation here, to abandon bias. It has no place going forward, and may prevent us from seeing what is plain to see.

[1] LIGO CALTECH, https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/what-are-gw

[2] E. V. Gerck, Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325934158_There_Must_Be_Light