Science topic

# Dark Matter - Science topic

For people who work in the Dark Matter field.
Questions related to Dark Matter
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
How it was calculated
If we want to describe the nature of vacuum, then we first must consider the energy density E of gravitational fields. This energy density is given by E=-g²/(8πG),g=MG/r². G is the gravitational constant, r is the distance to the centre of mass M, which generates the gravitational acceleration g.
If we inspect the content of a high-end vacuum chamber at sea level, we find some rest gas, some photons and the gravitational energy density. The energy density value then is about E=-57.408.000.000 J/m³ or -5.7408 1010J/m³ (rounded to five digits).
If we then doubt that an absolute negative energy density exists, we must assume that a homogenous cosmic energy density exists, which everywhere overcompensates the negative gravitational energy density. The cosmic gravitational field must have an energy density of about 5.0E24 J/m³ to compensate neutron star gravity.
If we again inspect the content of the vacuum chamber, we can assume that cosmic energy is inside the chamber and as well omnipresent everywhere. This energy density is of gravitational nature. Because it is homogenous, it does not exert any force. We do not have any sensor, which is capable to detect this energy density.
The only thing we know is that it must be present if an absolute negative energy density cannot exist.
We could enter in a discussion about the possibility of the existence of negative energy and a negative mass equivalent. But this discussion leads to nowhere.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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.
Dear Hakan,
''The content of the universe is divided into 4 as matter, antimatter, dark matter and dark energy.''
Dark matter particles have never been obsrved and we do not know what kind of particle it is. It is not certain that it even exist. It is at this point a scientific speculation based on the assumption that galaxies have much more masse in their periphery than we can observe. This assumption has to be made if we assume that General Relativity is a valid theory of gravitation at this scale. But if it is'nt valid at this scale then there would be no need to assume the existence of a missing mass currently called dark matter. The attraction in between galaxies is not well described by GR if there is no missing mass. All experimental attempts to detect dark matter have so far failed. So we can'nt be sure of the reality of dark matter.
''Dark matter, on the other hand, consists of the weak nuclear force, since it does not interact with light.''
If dark matter exist, it does not interact with light which means that it has no electrical charge. Weak nuclear force has nothing to do with the other electromagnetic force which is about interaction with light.
Dark energy may not exist. It is assumed to exist in order to explain the accelerated rate of expansion of the Universe which cannot be explain otherwise within the confine of General Relativity. Both dark matter and dark energy may not exist and only be epicycle added to General Relativity in order to explain away its failures. So we should not confidently speak of them as facts or even experimentally supported theoretical realities. At this point they are unsupported theoretical possibilities.
''antimatter electromagnetically related""
YES
''antimatter: substance composed of subatomic particles that have the mass, electric charge, and magnetic moment of the electrons, protons, and neutrons of ordinary matter but for which the electric charge and magnetic moment are opposite in sign.''
Any particle that has an electrical charge , that it is anti-matter or not,
interact with the electromagnetic fields.
''nd why is the amount of matter more in the universe although they are equally affected by gravity in the universe''
The current Big Bang theory of cosmic evolution assumes that there were initially the same amount of matter and anti matter earlier in the Universe but they gradually anihilate each other although with a little assymetry in this process which explain why there is this current imbalanced between the two.
Regards,
- Louis
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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?
I opposed dark energy over several decades as a fudge factor to correct FLRW predictions caused by wrong sign of kinetic energy. Correct method is used now by many researchers to use Lagrange Density in development of curvature in FLRW.
Recently I changed my mind after remembering a college course from 1969 on engineering antenna design. In a microwave field like CMB a lot of interference occurs and has occurred in the past. The existence of associated stress energy fields is inescapable in classical science, both vector fields and scalar fields.
Errors in GR and QM do not change the classical science that describes interference patterns in microwaves.
Your argument can be applied to the amount of energy that is assigned to stress fields. Popular view is that very much energy is in the stress types. Your argument is saying the stress energy can be less. Otherwise the stress energy fields must be accounted for in Lagrange density which is classical science predating both GR and QM.
Classical optics treats every point in space as a separate oscillator of electromagnetic type. QM puts some limits on how close together the oscillators might be, but does not create the concept of oscillators or stress energy.
Classical dynamic mechanics describes how stress placed on an oscillator changes the frequency and amplitude of vibration. QM puts some limits on the changes, but does not create the concept.
GR treats space as a continuum, but mathematics describes continuous functions as the mapping of points from one domain to another in large enough numbers that the counting of points is not changing the function. So GR is not fundamentally opposed to QM, although GR does not predict QM.
GR describes a relation between large scale geometry and gravitational stress energy, but does not create the concept of stress energy in microwave interference patterns.
In my work GR arises in one quantum state of vacuum, the low energy state, and the only quantum state where Planck h is constant. At high energy a Hierarchy of Plancks is thought to occur in which the quantized angular momentum of vacuum stress oscillators is incremented.
To summarize, the failures of GR and QM do not eliminate vector and scalar fields of stress energy in microwave interference patterns, all of which which can be developed from classical science.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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?
Matter exists absolutely independently. It does not exist as the result of theoretical considerations, mathematical derivations and descriptions.
Dark matter was never observed. Its existence as the result of theoretical conclusions and their mathematical derivations. One should keep therefore a critical distance to this human mind creation which reflect a certain, rudimentary level of the cognition.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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
Nguyễn Thành Huy I don't think the expansion of the universe is caused by dark matter. The location of dark matter suggests that it forms in galaxies. In my view, all matter formed in galaxy formation events which created the galaxies individually. The nature of the galaxy formation event produces neutrons. About 85% of the neutrons bond to form dark matter and the other 15% decay into protons and electrons and then form hydrogen and helium:
Richard
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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.
So, it is better to wait for the paper, in order to emit an opinion on stronger foundations!
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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...
Dear Gary,
<<Therefore the corresponding gravitational energy-density is negative: -c4Φαβ/8πG.>>
I would provide a picture to MGR:
A negative definite energy density is admitted, as in Newtonian gravitation in which such quantity is calculated by considering a 0 energy density wherever far from ponderabile matter.
Considering that no energy density can be admitted in GR.
By using a line element field, intrinsic in a Lorentzian metrics, with the due modifications of the Einstein Stress tensor, it becomes possible to account for phenomena which GR is not able to give account of.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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.
Dear Marco Pereira, nobody canceled the norms of ethics.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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?
Dear Dr Richard Gauthier . I agree with Dr Joseph Badir ,
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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.
Forrest Noble: "... but not related to the supposed expansion of space."
Expansion of space ? I just imagine flying apart of astronomical systems. We obviously agree in that apparent radius Ru of the Universe is determined by distance of sight rather than by limitation of space, don't we? This view also seems to comply with observation of fully developed galaxies right at the edge of the Universe, which according to Big Bang theory should be assigned to very early stages of the Universe.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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:
Hi. I think the theory should included all fields like electrical, magmatic, electromagnetic …,etc.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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
I think, when describing any object, it is advisable to try several mathematical approaches. From the point of view of physics and technology, of course, the most adequate of them will be the one that best matches the data of observations and experiments. And from the point of view of mathematics - each investigated object will open new, non-trivial connections between various mathematical theories.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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:
Is dark matter real, or have we misunderstood gravity? PHYS June 22 2021.
For many years now, astronomers and physicists have been in a conflict. Is the mysterious dark matter that we observe deep in the Universe real, or is what we see the result of subtle deviations from the laws of gravity as we know them? In 2016, Dutch physicist Erik Verlinde proposed a theory of the second kind: emergent gravity. New research, published in Astronomy & Astrophysics this week, pushes the limits of dark matter observations to the unknown outer regions of galaxies, and in doing so re-evaluates several dark matter models and alternative theories of gravity. Measurements of the gravity of 259,000 isolated galaxies show a very close relation between the contributions of dark matter and those of ordinary matter, as predicted in Verlinde's theory of emergent gravity and an alternative model called Modified Newtonian Dynamics. However, the results also appear to agree with a computer simulation of the Universe that assumes that dark matter is 'real stuff'.
The new research was carried out by an international team of astronomers, led by Margot Brouwer (RUG and UvA). Further important roles were played by Kyle Oman (RUG and Durham University) and Edwin Valentijn (RUG). In 2016, Brouwer also performed a first test of Verlinde's ideas; this time, Verlinde himself also joined the research team.
Matter or gravity?
So far, dark matter has never been observed directly—hence the name. What astronomers observe in the night sky are the consequences of matter that is potentially present: bending of starlight, stars that move faster than expected, and even effects on the motion of entire galaxies. Without a doubt all of these effects are caused by gravity, but the question is: are we truly observing additional gravity, caused by invisible matter, or are the laws of gravity themselves the thing that we haven't fully understood yet?
To answer this question, the new research uses a similar method to the one used in the original test in 2016. Brouwer and her colleagues make use of an ongoing series of photographic measurements that started ten years ago: the KiloDegree Survey (KiDS), performed using ESO's VLT Survey Telescope in Chile. In these observations one measures how starlight from far away galaxies is bent by gravity on its way to our telescopes. Whereas in 2016 the measurements of such 'lens effects' only covered an area of about 180 square degrees on the night sky, in the mean time this has been extended to about 1000 square degrees—allowing the researchers to measure the distribution of gravity in around a million different galaxies.
Comparative testing
Brouwer and her colleagues selected over 259,000 isolated galaxies, for which they were able to measure the so-called 'Radial Acceleration Relation' (RAR). This RAR compares the amount of gravity expected based on the visible matter in the galaxy, to the amount of gravity that is actually present—in other words: the result shows how much 'extra' gravity there is, in addition to that due to normal matter. Until now, the amount of extra gravity had only been determined in the outer regions of galaxies by observing the motions of stars, and in a region about five times larger by measuring the rotational velocity of cold gas. Using the lensing effects of gravity, the researchers were now able to determine the RAR at gravitational strengths which were one hundred times smaller, allowing them to penetrate much deeper into the regions far outside the individual galaxies.
This made it possible to measure the extra gravity extremely precisely—but is this gravity the result of invisible dark matter, or do we need to improve our understanding of gravity itself? Author Kyle Oman indicates that the assumption of 'real stuff' at least partially appears to work: "In our research, we compare the measurements to four different theoretical models: two that assume the existence of dark matter and form the base of computer simulations of our universe, and two that modify the laws of gravity—Erik Verlinde's model of emergent gravity and the so-called 'Modified Newtonian Dynamics' or MOND. One of the two dark matter simulations, MICE, makes predictions that match our measurements very nicely. It came as a surprise to us that the other simulation, BAHAMAS, led to very different predictions. That the predictions of the two models differed at all was already surprising, since the models are so similar. But moreover, we would have expected that if a difference would show up, BAHAMAS was going to perform best. BAHAMAS is a much more detailed model than MICE, approaching our current understanding of how galaxies form in a universe with dark matter much closer. Still, MICE performs better if we compare its predictions to our measurements. In the future, based on our findings, we want to further investigate what causes the differences between the simulations."
Young and old galaxies
Thus it seems that, at least one dark matter model does appear to work. However, the alternative models of gravity also predict the measured RAR. A standoff, it seems—so how do we find out which model is correct? Margot Brouwer, who led the research team, continues: "Based on our tests, our original conclusion was that the two alternative gravity models and MICE matched the observations reasonably well. However, the most exciting part was yet to come: because we had access to over 259,000 galaxies, we could divide them into several types—relatively young, blue spiral galaxies versus relatively old, red elliptical galaxies." Those two types of galaxies come about in very different ways: red elliptical galaxies form when different galaxies interact, for example when two blue spiral galaxies pass by each other closely, or even collide. As a result, the expectation within the particle theory of dark matter is that the ratio between regular and dark matter in the different types of galaxies can vary. Models such as Verlinde's theory and MOND on the other hand do not make use of dark matter particles, and therefore predict a fixed ratio between the expected and measured gravity in the two types of galaxies—that is, independent of their type. Brouwer: "We discovered that the RARs for the two types of galaxies differed significantly. That would be a strong hint towards the existence of dark matter as a particle."
However, there is a caveat: gas. Many galaxies are probably surrounded by a diffuse cloud of hot gas, which is very difficult to observe. If it were the case that there is hardly any gas around young blue spiral galaxies, but that old red elliptical galaxies live in a large cloud of gas—of roughly the same mass as the stars themselves—then that could explain the difference in the RAR between the two types. To reach a final judgement on the measured difference, one would therefore also need to measure the amounts of diffuse gas—and this is exactly what is not possible using the KiDS telescopes. Other measurements have been done for a small group of around one hundred galaxies, and these measurements indeed found more gas around elliptical galaxies, but it is still unclear how representative those measurements are for the 259,000 galaxies that were studied in the current research.
Dark matter for the win?
If it turns out that extra gas cannot explain the difference between the two types of galaxies, then the results of the measurements are easier to understand in terms of dark matter particles than in terms of alternative models of gravity. But even then, the matter is not settled yet. While the measured differences are hard to explain using MOND, Erik Verlinde still sees a way out for his own model. Verlinde: "My current model only applies to static, isolated, spherical galaxies, so it cannot be expected to distinguish the different types of galaxies. I view these results as a challenge and inspiration to develop an asymmetric, dynamical version of my theory, in which galaxies with a different shape and history can have a different amount of 'apparent dark matter'."
Therefore, even after the new measurements, the dispute between dark matter and alternative gravity theories is not settled yet. Still, the new results are a major step forward: if the measured difference in gravity between the two types of galaxies is correct, then the ultimate model, whichever one that is, will have to be precise enough to explain this difference. This means in particular that many existing models can be discarded, which considerably thins out the landscape of possible explanations. On top of that, the new research shows that systematic measurements of the hot gas around galaxies are necessary. Edwin Valentijn formulates is as follows: "As observational astronomers, we have reached the point where we are able to measure the extra gravity around galaxies more precisely than we can measure the amount of visible matter. The counterintuitive conclusion is that we must first measure the presence of ordinary matter in the form of hot gas around galaxies, before future telescopes such as Euclid can finally solve the mystery of dark matter."
More information: Margot M. Brouwer et al, The weak lensing radial acceleration relation: Constraining modified gravity and cold dark matter theories with KiDS-1000, Astronomy & Astrophysics (2021). DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040108 ----- ABSTRACT. We present measurements of the radial gravitational acceleration around isolated galaxies, comparing the expected gravitational acceleration given the baryonic matter (gbar) with the observed gravitational acceleration (gobs), using weak lensing measurements from the fourth data release of the Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS-1000). These measurements extend the radial acceleration relation (RAR), traditionally measured using galaxy rotation curves, by 2 decades in gobs into the low-acceleration regime beyond the outskirts of the observable galaxy. We compare our RAR measurements to the predictions of two modified gravity (MG) theories: modified Newtonian dynamics and Verlinde’s emergent gravity (EG). We find that the measured relation between gobs and gbar agrees well with the MG predictions. In addition, we find a difference of at least 6σ between the RARs of early- and late-type galaxies (split by Sérsic index and u − r colour) with the same stellar mass. Current MG theories involve a gravity modification that is independent of other galaxy properties, which would be unable to explain this behaviour, although the EG theory is still limited to spherically symmetric static mass models. The difference might be explained if only the early-type galaxies have significant (Mgas ≈ M⋆) circumgalactic gaseous haloes. The observed behaviour is also expected in Λ-cold dark matter (ΛCDM) models where the galaxy-to-halo mass relation depends on the galaxy formation history. We find that MICE, a ΛCDM simulation with hybrid halo occupation distribution modelling and abundance matching, reproduces the observed RAR but significantly differs from BAHAMAS, a hydrodynamical cosmological galaxy formation simulation. Our results are sensitive to the amount of circumgalactic gas; current observational constraints indicate that the resulting corrections are likely moderate. Measurements of the lensing RAR with future cosmological surveys (such as Euclid) will be able to further distinguish between MG and ΛCDM models if systematic uncertainties in the baryonic mass distribution around galaxies are reduced.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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.
The theory explains the behavior of objects in space and time, and it can be used to predict everything from the existence of black holes, to light bending due to gravity, to the behavior of the planet Mercury in its orbit. The implications of Einstein's most famous theory are profound.
8 Ways You Can See Einstein's Theory of Relativity in Real Life
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
Dr. Hans-Otto Carmesin is a prolific theoretician who wrote among other things, these two books:
Modeling SN1a data:
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.
Dear Hans-Otto,
I thank you, in the name of all the readers, for your books and wisdom.
I also derived Quantum Gravity and offered everyone these articles.
I remind you that my work has no parameters and that my prediction for the G-dependence of the Absolute Luminosity yielded a G-factor that was off just by 11% from the observed.
My Quantum Gravity theory predicts the maximum density inside a Black Hole and creates Matter directly from deformed space.
Here is the maximum density inside a Black Hole:
I also predicted the position of Earth in the Hyperspherical Universe and replicated the CMB observations (together with the spherical harmonic spectral decomposition). I did that using interdimensional hyperspherical harmonic spectral decomposition, after a grid search for the best location. Here is the grid search:
Here is Planck's CMB observation:
and here is the hyperspherical harmonic acoustic spectral simulation of the same:
at Earth's position:
χ= 339.46 degrees
θ = 341.1 degrees
ϕ= 104.08 degrees
More details here:
Here is the Equation of State of the Universe:
Here is the 3D Map of the Observable Universe:
CENSORSHIP
My theory has been published since 2007 and it has been censored at Los Alamos archives and mainstream journals (including the one where Dr. Amendola is the editor)!
You have your voice. You are allowed to publish your work. I am not.
I have a story to tell, one that is distinct from the story you tell and that everyone wants to hear.
Can Scientists handle that? Science should be able to do so.
I would like you to offer to be my endorser at Los Alamos Archives.
Best Regards,
Marco Pereira
PS- Please confirm that your theory failed to predict the SN1a distances and please provide me with its E(z).
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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.
In principle, I agree with Stam Nicolis, but I would like to add something.
The cosmological constant can be understood as a property of spacetime or as the vacuum energy. The quantum fluctuations in the vacuum are subtracted in quantum field theory because they have no effect, but they do contribute when we consider gravity.
The quantum fluctuations of quarks and gluons can produce vacuum instability. Indeed, the perturbative QCD vacuum is only stable inside hadrons and decays outside into the standard QCD vacuum (a condensate of quark-antiquark pairs). In this sense, there is negative mass in QCD.
I think that the QCD vacuum instability has been related to the cosmological constant, but I cannot recall the references. Sorry.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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 (see the Annexes for our approach of modeling reactions involving kaons).
In the first half of the 20th century some theorists (e.g. Heisenberg, Brouwer, etc.) tried to develop the concept that space itself has a metric (the minimal length scale of discrete space). The size of the metric was thought to be ≈ 1 x 10-15 m because of the size of the minimal wave length of electromagnetic waves and the diameter of particles. However, 1 x 10-15 m is too large in relation to both amplitudes of 1 electromagnetic wave so the minimal length scale must be ≈ 0,5 x 10-15 m or a bit smaller. The consequence is that we cannot detect phenomena smaller than ≈ 0,5 x 10-15 m.
We are aware of the existence of discrete space because without a spatial structure there are no observable differences in the universe. But observable reality is created by discrete space and we know it because of the spatial differentiation of force fields (the general concept of QFT). The consequence is that the nature of everything we can observe and detect are mutual relations (“proved” by the formalism of QM). Thus we don’t measure the bare existence of the spatial units of discrete space, we measure the mutual interactions between the units, the exchange of variable properties.
It is obvious that these mutual interactions of the units of discrete space cannot “split” a unit of discrete space (even the ancient Greek philosophers reasoned some 2500 years ago that there is a limitation on reductionism). The magic word in theoretical physics to solve the problem is “asymptotic freedom”. We really like it to give problems a fuzzy name so we can keep our ambiguous concepts.
Recently astronomers have observed large regions of gravitational polarization in the early universe (Cosmic Microwave Background radiation by the BICEP2 Collaboration). That is a problem because the CMB radiation is the exchange of electromagnetic waves between the Hydrogen atoms in the early universe. So how is it possible that there are already regions of huge gravitational fields if there are no stars, etc.? There are also observations of “full grown” galaxies that already existed about 0,7 billions years after the proposed “big-bang”. These galaxies have an enormous black hole in the centre so cosmologists have termed these black holes “primordial” black holes. But thanks to the BICEP2 measurements we now know that our universe created the enormous black holes first, before there was the creation of Hydrogen atoms.
Now there is your question about the existence of quarks. Are they real or are they the result of tricky theoretical constructions with the help of “asymptotic freedom”? Moreover, can QCD elucidate why vacuum space created enormous black holes before the Hydrogen atoms emerged from vacuum space around the black holes? I will read your paper about ontology and physics. ;-)
With kind regards, Sydney
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
The dark matter candidate that I have been working on is the di-neutron and the reasons are explained here:
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
Stefan Bernhard Rüster Dear Stephan. I see you have a completely different world view to me so we are probably not going to agree - just argue from our own personal understanding without resolving anything. Best to stop now don't you think?
All the best
Richard
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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 Ωb/Ωvis),
• all that can be seen (observable Ωc+Ωb/Ωobs),
• the presently unobserved (dark matter Ωc/Ωuobs) and
• that which you will never see due to the expansion of space (dark energy ΩΛ/Ωdkm).
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.
Imagine that the universe is a closed, ever-evolving environment that began with the Big Bang. More importantly, space-time is shrunk by the gravitational force of celestial bodies. Two results are expected as a result of the expansion of a wrinkled closed space:
1. Space-time are flexible and are stretched under this force, and this tension creates a positive curvature in the structure of space-time.
2. The expansion of the wrinkled space finally causes the space-time break.
As a result, dark matter and dark energy can be explained by this assumption.
Dark matter and energy are the results of the positive shrinkage, fracture, and positive curvature of closed and expanding space.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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.
By the way, please don't use light-years as the unit. Use GLY. The least you can do it to place comas on the numbers in your table. It is cumbersome to count zeros.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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
Have a look at
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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.
The only thing I can agree on is that the gravitational force is, in my opinion, made up of two different sources; one goes as 1/r^2 and the other one 1/r. This would explain the dark matter phenomenon.
JES
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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
Thank you for you valuable answer
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
Much has been said about sterile neutrinos, is someone else possible?
Did this guy just say that he does not believe that quarks and gluons exist????
I rest my case.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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?
I think, there exist energies of different kinds. We call energy of unknown kind as "dark energy". It is possible, energies of different kinds act on different objects. We know until one kind of gravitation as energy of attraction. It is possible, there exist energy of repulsion linked with rotation of objects. Planets, stars, galaxies and others rotate because rotates spaces, surrounding these objects. Then "dark energy" is the energy of surrounding spaces. Assume that the rotation is linked with gravitation of repulsion. Stars and others rotating objects absorb this energy. It is possible to construct the model, which radiates energy of repulsion (with our point of view, for example, this is de Sitter bubble, fulled by matter in the state of inflation p =- rho c^2). This model is applicable for pulsars, quasars, quickly rotating. It is possible, accreted by these objects energy is the source of energy for them.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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?
Actually, I'm preparing right now another paper in which I try to demonstrate that these two type of massless neutral fermions (Predicted by my ZEH) are good candidates for a hypothetical superfluid vacuum which may at least partially explain dark matter and dark energy and even establish a profound connection between these two.
Regards!
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
“The electron is a photon around Dark Matter”
“The photon wavelength is 2πr, r the electron radius”
“The high energy Gravitons emitted by Dark Matter keep the photon inside the electron”
“In Ferent Quantum Gravity is important the energies of the Gravitons emitted by Dark Matter, not the Dark Matter mass”
“Inside the electron, Dark Matter mass is much smaller than electron mass, but has much bigger energy”
“Ferent electron and positron collision:”
“Photon momentum after n interactions:“
“The way how the photon ‘oscillates’ inside the electron will give the electron spin”
“The way how the photon ‘oscillates’ inside the electron will give the electron charge, negative charge – electron, positive charge – positron””
“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”
“Gamma ray is inside the electron because of electron’s electromagnetic properties and electrons interactions with photons”
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
“The Schrödinger equation and the Dirac equation are wrong because length can not be smaller than Planck length and time can not be smaller than Planck time.”
“To quantize the energy operator, the wave function must be multiplied by ħ:”
“The Schrödinger equation is wrong because time can not be smaller than Planck time”
“The Schrödinger equation is wrong because length can not be smaller than Planck length”
“The Dirac equation is wrong because length can not be smaller than Planck length and time can not be smaller than Planck time.”
The Schrödinger equation is the most important equation in Quantum mechanics and the state of a particle is completely described by its wave function Ψ(x,t), where x is position and t is time.
The one-particle Schrödinger equation:
The one-particle Schrödinger equation is a linear partial differential equation which represents a quantized version of the total energy of a classical system evolving under a potential function V.
The energy operator:
Max Planck discovered that energy is quantized and can be emitted or absorbed only in integral multiples of a small unit of energy.
“To quantize the energy operator, the wave function must be multiplied by ħ:”
The partial derivative is:
Multiplying by ħ implies Planck units, in this case Planck time, but ‘b’ can not be less than Planck time.
The partial derivative is wrong because ‘b’ can not be smaller than Planck time, Planck time 5.3 × 10^(-44) s. The denominator is much bigger than the numerator.
In the case of this limit, ‘b’ must be much smaller than Planck time.
This means:
“The Schrödinger equation is wrong because time can not be smaller than Planck time”
In the same way for the kinetic energy, the partial derivative is wrong:
Multiplying by ħ implies Planck units, in this case Planck length, but ‘a’ can not be less than Planck length.
The partial derivative is wrong because ‘a’ can not be smaller than Planck length, Planck length 1.6 × 10^(-35) m.
“The Schrödinger equation is wrong because length can not be smaller than Planck length”
The same thing in the case of the Dirac equation:
The Dirac equation
The partial derivatives are wrong because length can not be smaller than Planck length and time can not be smaller than Planck time.
“The Dirac equation is wrong because length can not be smaller than Planck length and time can not be smaller than Planck time.”
“The Schrödinger equation and the Dirac equation are wrong because length can not be smaller than Planck length and time can not be smaller than Planck time.”
This is another proof that Ferent Quantum Gravity (FQG) based on Gravitons is right and all other Quantum theories are wrong!
Because all Nobel Laureates, all scientists, your professors…did not understand Gravitation they did not understand Quantum mechanics.
“The particles oscillate along the direction of motion of the wave because they emit Gravitons”
“What the Gravitons are: Gravitons are emitted by particle that oscillate along the direction of motion of the wave”
335. I am the first who discovered that the Schrödinger equation and the Dirac equation are wrong because length can not be smaller than Planck length and time can not be smaller than Planck time
336. I am the first who discovered that to quantize the energy operator, the wave function must be multiplied by ħ:
337. I am the first who discovered that the Schrödinger equation is wrong because time can not be smaller than Planck time
338. I am the first who discovered that the Schrödinger equation is wrong because length can not be smaller than Planck length
339. I am the first who discovered that the Dirac equation is wrong because length can not be smaller than Planck length and time can not be smaller than Planck time
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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!
Dear Preston Guynn One of the mistake that we are carrying is perception of matter. The smallest complete unit of universe is atom. Particle is considered fraction of an atom. Anything smaller than an atom does not have any character, and it would have any relation with an atom, i.e. electron can not be free out of an atom and still call it electron. Also, We must take this in consideration that one of the most important part of an atom is space inside of atom with character. Yet I am admire you for information that you provide on galaxy.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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
yes
History is recorded in scientific evidence
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
What we actually mean by "Dark Matter Energy" in layman language?
Do you have any good abstract for this topic in your mind? Please feel free and share with us.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
I proved it but who said it first?
I am not sure, how did you prove it as dark matter, the Fermi bubble is a DM or it is related to DM, thanks.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
(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).
My cosmology knowledge is limited, but i like to consider matter whatever has rest mass. one may consider interaction with Higgs field and/or interaction with four (or five?) fundamental forces for a more concise definition of mass, since I have not thought of philosophy to declare what is actually "rest" and "motion", while coordinate system itself can rotate(?) or at least translate remaining as an inertial frame of reference. Dark matter is required to adjust/calibrate/correlate cosmological constant, mass density of visible universe and universe expansion rate. However, if one thinks inverse-square law of gravity breaks down at cosmological (kiloparsec ,megaparsec, gigaparsec) scale, then one can correlate observed galactic rotational speed without dark matter and/or dark energy (?)(there are subtle but fundamental differences between this two).
There are alternative theories to GR as well that are being tested and simulated, and I wish for Cosmologists' opinion before drawing final remarks.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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.
I skimmed through your article and couldn't find a single equation. So, I don't know exactly where are you trying to get.
In my theory single charges sense no Gravity.
Neutral Matter (made of neutrons/protons/electrons) will induce a stronger Gravitational Force on a probe, given that the other parameters are maintained constant.
He Law (a formula) is shown below:
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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
By the way, Javad. How do you know that you know something about Gravity if your article does not have a single equation?
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
I demonstrated that all astronomical observations refute General Relativity.
Since I did that, somehow, not a single scientist came to refute that conclusion.
Here is the argument:
Feel free to rebut it.
############################################
############################################
############################################
Bigger than Einstein's equations not describing the Universe?
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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?
Yes, that is correct. However in the longer paper I argue that C and D must also exist in GR.
Although I mentioned that two metrics are therefore needed, in reality only one metric is needed;- particles of class C and D just accelerate as if they have negative mass rather than positive mass in the geodetic equation (which requires that GR be generalised to allow maximal violation of the principle of equivalence).
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
This post is obviously a bait and snatch when the answers provided bear no relation to the question posed.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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.
For your Q8, to map the correct relative inclinations and intersections of the axes/planes/systems, you just need to know the celestial coordinates (RA & Dec) of their 3 "North poles":
• Earth's spin axis: North Celestial Pole, Dec = +90° [by definition]
• Earth's orbital plane about the Sun: North Ecliptic Pole, RA = 18h 00m [by definition]; Dec = +66° 33′.
• Milky Way's Galactic plane: North Galactic Pole, RA = 2h 49m; Dec = +27.4°.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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%?
I am not an expert in Radio Astronomy and not read about R being used instead of L in studies of expanding universe, standard candle, and Cipher's model, etc.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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.
After considering all your views about 'consciousness of atom' and 'smartness of atom' I felt that it is useless to continue this discussion for me. It is deviated from the topic in the question(a topic on particle physics). So I am not interested to discuss it further.
You may have another forum for its discussion.
All the best...
Regards.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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.
A lot of question in one question. The Universe is showing us a complete entity. To make long story short, the Universe did not create with a mechanical event of BB. https://www.academia.edu/38373675/Creation_of_a_Quantum_Mechanic_Universe_and_its_Rotation.doc Best regard Javad
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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?
Dear Jayaram!
I think we have to differ between wrong theories and wrong experiments.
If an experiment leads constantly to the same results this experiment can not be wrong. If the results are in contradiction to the theory than the theory is wrong.
In my opinion only wrong theories drailing the progress of science and only experiments leading to new insights and they can be repeated flawless.
But if an experiment is very complex and very expensive nobody can repeat it and examine the results. In this case some scientists hold a monopol of faulty science resp. incorrect knowledge and we have to belive them.
Some predictions in science founded on theories which are unproven. You should be cautious to follow certain theories like "dark matter" etc.
My Regards! Hans
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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...
The underlying behaviour is well described by the Navarro-Frenk-White or Einasto profiles, but for a basic understanding, note they are both similar to that resulting from the Virial Theorem. The simplest analogy I can offer is the density profile of a fully relaxed globular cluster, stars seldom impact but interact gravitationally so the statistics are very similar.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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.
Thank you George. But still, this seems to be a paper with a method for investigation and calculation, not the investigation done. I am involved in other research at the moment on game theory, cooperation and mathematical genetics and have a paper revision overdue.
My starting point for the question is a book I read about ten years ago by Amitabha Ghosh, Origin of Inertia: Extended Mach's Principle and Cosmological Consequences. In it he asserted that the amount of matter in the universe was "about right" to explain inertia as the negative of gravitational potential.
Since light speed is a function of gravitational potential (if measured non-locally) I was casually wondering to what degree the speed of light might be attributable to the known matter.
I am not looking to start a research project. It would take me years to figure out the cosmological math to a degree acceptable to a physics publication. I have more traction in other research areas. So I asked a question on RG to see if anyone had looked into this.
I recognize also that the question is dependent on interpretation and certain relativists would rather not ask such questions. I do not care a whit what questions they would like to suppress, which is another reason I would attempt the project myself.
Just about everything depends on the speed of light. Clocks? Well you can construct a light clock, so they run in sync with light speed. Everything is an excitation in a quantum field and moves at the speed of light (massive particles simply zig zagging in the Higgs field). So you always get the same value if measuring locally. For physicists who prefer to stop there, let them stop.
Obviously we observe light not to be traveling the same speed everywhere if we measure it from here. But going from that to asking questions about light speed in the universe does encounter these various problems, like where do you position a reference? What about curvature, including expansion? Etc.
If there is a published paper, presumably it would address those things. I would be happy even to see an approximation that left some of them out. I am not going to sit down and do any more than the very crude calculation I showed you earlier myself, and I don't even have the mass values to plug in.
Robert
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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?
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
By studying the properties of the Madun fluid we will find that it does not differ from the other fluids’ properties.
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 ".
If any theory invents additional particles, fields, fluids (similar to the inglorious ether-hypothesis) etc. then this theory is questionable from the outset.
Exact science has to declare the reality by exactly observable, demonstrable and measurable objects. Mathematics cannot replace observations and experimental results. Otherwise natural science becomes a mystery like religion or belief in the supernatural.
If you scrutinizing theoretical physics unbiased then you will have an uncomfortable feeling. Too many inventions and assumptions and too few observations and evidences. I would say: Physics stucks deep in a dead end.
My Regards! Hans
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
They are just hypothetical particles.
Dear Natalia S Duxbury.
The axions would be a good candidate for the dark matter for two reasons:
they haven't electric charge and their interaction with matter is very weak. The main problem is that these only speculative particles never observed.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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?
What makes electrons and positrons special in this regard is that they're the lightest leptons and that they have weak interactions. That's why they're useful probes of new processes-such as those involving dark matter particles, testing the ways these can have weak interactions. So, if it's possible to detect an excess of electrons or positrons that is beyond known backgrounds, this allows to describe possible decay pathways for dark matter particles.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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.
- When calculating ephemeris in the most accurate models of EPM and in some DE models, only miserable corrections are obtained from the PPN formalism. The Newtonian gravitation remains in the basement of celestial mechanics and of the GR. To my point of view, and stem from the fact, that geodetic lines in the presence of masses get bent, the Newton’s gravitation law suffers from a fundamental flaw due to violation of the inverse square law, underlying it. Let's try to go down from generalizations to specifics.
For example, discussing the modification of the law of Newton, I will argue that the mass is not an invariant, and the APPARENT gravitational mass depends on the distance to the observer Ma = M (1+ KR), where, for particular body, K = const. To verify the validity of the modified law, one will have to a) recalculate the masses of all celestial bodies in accordance with modified law, and b) get the Shapiro amendment, which will also depend on the (apparent) mass. As a result, using appropriate Shapiro delay values, we may get confirmation of the modified law.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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?
<σv> =3x10-26 cm3 /sec is the expected self annihilation cross-section of a massive stable particle (WIMP), which is thermally produced in the early universe, when we require that it should have the correct abundance today. Calculation of cross-sections related to elementary particles uses quantum field theories. Dark matter particles are allowed to interact with ordinary matter particles by some interaction which ia allowed to be at-most as strong as the weak interaction.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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?
Ah, the Universe has provided us with such delightful toys - dark matter, dark energy and nothing and existence. Existence implies duration in time and nothing as a non-existant entity has no duration in time so nothing has no end nor any beginning and certainly there is nothing in between but, the man says, existence likewise has no beginning and has no end so is existence nothing? An empty parcel of spce is conceivable but in order to be empty it must not contain anything, that is, it must contain nothing. If the parcel of space containing nothing has duration in time it has existence as does the nothing that it contains. This follows from the notion that if something enters the empty parcel of space then the space is not empty and no longer contains nothing.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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.
Dark matter density is 6x10-22 KG/m3, radius of earth's orbit 1011 m, therefore amount of dark matter within earths radius is, (4/3) x π x 1033 x 6 x 10-22=2.53 x 1012 kg. This is much smaller than the mass of the sun which is 2 x 1030 kg. Thus we cannot feel the effect of dark matter compared to sun's gravitational pull.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
Here is the equation
(1) Rμν - ½Rgμν + Λgμν = 8πGc-4 Tμν .
Since Tμν 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 Rμν should naturally vanish, and so the scalar curvature R. But in this case, the metric tensor gμν should also vanish.
First of all the latter cannot be true, we know that in the flat space gμν is the same as the identity matrix, except that the element g11 = -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. Rμν = 0.
Is there a mistake in what I say? If taking the dark matter in consideration, Tμν should not vanish in void? But the curvature should still vanish, the void is homogenuous.
@Hans van Leunen The Einstein-Planck equation E = h v suggests that a photon is a string of equidistant energy packages that each contain a standard amount of energy.
This view of photons runs contrary to the experimental results in
Martin Pitzer , Christian Ozga , Catmarna K¨ustner-Wetekam , Philipp Reiß , Andr´e Knie , Arno Ehresmann , Till Jahnke , Alexandre Giuliani , Laurent Nahon
State-dependent fragmentation of protonated uracil and uridine
See pages 3-4, where photon energy varies in the range 4 to 9.5 eV.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
What are the subcritical spatiotemporal scales over which the existential influence of dark matter may be realizable?
Thanks for all the answers as of now.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
Can black holes be modeled as a dark matter? What are the properties of a black hole that this model would challenge?
Dear @ Wolfgang Konle,
Does this mean that one possibility is that supernova explosions of massive stars in the early Universe formed stellar-mass black holes that, over billions of years, grew supermassive (age of the universe). A single stellar-mass black hole can grow rapidly by consuming nearby stars and gas, often in plentiful supply near the galaxy center.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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.
.
I came across this from 2014 just now:
Ethan doesn't have any answers either, but one question is worth asking: Is DM (in)compressible?
IS there a limit on compressibility as far as Black hole formation is concerned?
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder at Frankfurt is discussing this subject .
The problem of nature of gravity is linked immediately with problem of time. We must consider the problem of time in detail. If we do not consider the time only as uniform flowing we open the new world. The time in this world can flow uniformly, non-uniformly, the time can be stopped and flow in opposite direction --- from the future to the past. Assuming this position, we obtain that gravitation can be as the energy of attraction so energy of repulsion. These results can be obtained from the space-time described by de Sitter metric with positive lambda. Considering Schwarzschield metric in non-empty space (liquid sphere with constant density), we obtain that this space-time transforms by some conditions to the de Sitter space, filled by vacuum in the state of inflation. We obtain that the time inside and outside sphere flows in opposite directions. Sign of time changes at the surface where the time is stopped. With a position of a real observer Newtonian gravitation of attraction is linked with positive flow of time, and non-Newtonian gravitation of repulsion is linked with negative one. Gravitational force of repulsion is proportional to the distant from gravitating mass. Schwarzschield solution in empty space is the generation of Newtonian theory which is space section of Schwarzschield solution. Gravitational field is the field of repulsin or attraction in depend of distribution substance inside gravitating mass.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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.
There is much in your reply that starts ' The simple case would be ...' which is wrong and I recommend Feynman's lectures as a good starting point.
a) The electrical potential of an object in a system is not the same as the gravitational potential in a system.
b) ' Redshift is therefore caused by our potential falling. '
No. That is empirically not true. If I charge a lamp, its spectrum does not change one iota.
I can generate quite large Doppler shifts in a laboratory from a *neutral* gas by simply warming it.
I think that I'll step away from this conversation. Thanks for the replies.
<Feynman, or any similar introductory physics text: Kip for Electrostatics served me well, with Flowers and Mendoza for basic properties of matter>
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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.
2) (in Russian)
actually galaxies maintain their structure for as far back as we can see. Clusters maintain their cluster as far back as we can see. Nevertheless no one claims eternal results for anything in the Universe. That is not the point of dark matter or visible matter.
In addition x-ray emission is still gravitationally bound in clusters. True Zwicky did not include x-rays or other wavelengths, but his result holds firm for visible matter.
Karan R.Takkhi Spiral galaxies cannot be compared to planetary systems. There is different physics involved. Spiral galaxies rotate differentially all the way from center to edge in such a way that the rotation curve is flat. Planetary systems have a Keplerian curve. There is no rotation problem. A Mestel disk has a flat rotation curve without dark matter. Other potentials also produce flat curves. There is no missing mass in the Milky Way.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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 ?
"Why so called dark matter is outside the galaxy?"
Most dark matter models propose a very large amount of dark matter. A few galaxies are thought to have little or no dark matter. Based upon observed velocity rotation curves for most spiral galaxies at least 80 to 98% dark matter is needed to bring the rotation curve anywhere near what is being observed. The Milky Way, for instance, is thought to have 30 times more dark matter than observable matter for its rotation curve to come anywhere near what is observed. That is only 3.3% observable matter. Naturally most of this dark matter must be outside the observable galaxy if matter were distributed according to the inverse square law of distance from the galactic center which is the dark matter model most often used.
There is only one well-known group of alternatives to dark matter for spiral galaxies. These are changing-strength-of gravity models like MOND. There are dozens of these proposed models but few alternatives can also explain the excess rotation rates of galaxies in a cluster, the excess bending of light (gravitational lensing), or motions of galaxies as a whole in the observable universe, without also proposing vast quantities of unseen matter. For this it is believed that unobserved dark matter is the most likely answer.
There have been other alternatives to all observations, but few can get published since all must meet the publishers criteria of reasonableness, and most of the well-known publishers will not even consider alternatives involving changing-gravity like MOND, or what they consider more speculative models. I have been writing such an alternative-model paper for the last 2 years and hope to get it published in a well-known journal before the end of this year.
• asked a question related to Dark Matter
Question
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.