Mathematicians offer unified theory of dark matter, dark energy, altering Einstein field equations

Sep 07, 2012
Sichuan University professor Tian Ma, left, and IU Department of Mathematics professor Shouhong Wang have developed a unified theory of dark matter and dark energy they believe could change our view of energy, gravitational interactions and the structure and formation of the universe.

(Phys.org)—A pair of mathematicians—one from Indiana University and the other from Sichuan University in China—have proposed a unified theory of dark matter and dark energy that alters Einstein's equations describing the fundamentals of gravity.

Shouhong Wang, a professor in the IU College of Arts and Sciences' Department of Mathematics, and Tian Ma, a professor at Sichuan University, suggest the law of energy and momentum conservation in is valid only when normal matter, dark matter and dark energy are all taken into account. For normal matter alone, energy and momentum are no longer conserved, they argue.

While still employing the metric of curved spacetime that Einstein used in his field equations, the researchers argue the presence of dark matter and dark energy—which scientists believe accounts for at least 95 percent of the universe—requires a new set of gravitational field equations that take into account a new type of energy caused by the non-uniform distribution of matter in the universe. This new energy can be both positive and negative, and the total over spacetime is conserved, Wang said.

It is curved spacetime, along with a new scalar potential field representing the new , and the interactions between the two that form the foundation for the new gravitational field equations.

"Many people have come up with different theories for dark energy," Wang said. "Unfortunately, the mystery remains, and in fact, the nature of dark energy is now perhaps the most profound mystery in cosmology and astrophysics. It is considered the most outstanding problem in .

"The other great mystery concerning our universe is that it contains much more matter than can be accounted for in our visible stars. The missing mass is termed as dark matter, and despite many attempts at detecting dark matter, the mystery remains and even deepens."

The researchers postulate that the energy-momentum tensor of normal matter is no longer conserved and that new equations follow from Einstein's principles of equivalence and general relativity, and the principle of Lagrangian dynamics, just as Einstein derived his field equations. Wang said the new equations were the unique outcome of the non-conservation of the energy-momentum tensor of normal matter.

When Einstein developed his theory, dark energy and dark matter had not yet been discovered, so it was natural for him to start his theory using the conservation law of energy and momentum of normal matter, Wang added.

"The difference between the new field equations and Einstein's equations is the addition of a second-order covariant derivative of a scalar potential field," he said. "Gravity theory is fundamentally changed and is now described by the metric of the curved spacetime, the new scalar potential field and their interactions."

Tensors provide a concise framework for solving general relativity problems and the energy-momentum tensor quantifies the density and current of energy and momentum in spacetime. The second-order covariant derivative would be the geometric analog of a second order derivative in calculus which measures how the rate of change of a quantity is itself changing.

Associated with the scalar field is a scalar potential energy density consisting of positive and negative energies and representing a new type of energy caused by the non-uniform distribution of matter in the universe. The scalar potential energy density varies as the galaxies move and matter redistributes, affecting every part of the universe as a field.

Wang said negative energy produces attraction while the positive energy produces a repelling force fundamentally different from the four forces—gravity, electromagnetism, the weak interaction and the strong interaction—recognized in physics today.

"Most importantly, this new energy and the new field equations offer a unified theory for both dark energy and dark matter, which until now have been considered as two totally different beasts sharing only 'dark' in name," he said. "Both dark matter and dark energy can now be represented by the sum of the new scalar potential energy density and the coupling energy between the energy-momentum tensor and the scalar potential field."

The negative part of this sum represents the dark matter, which produces attraction, and the positive part represents the dark energy, which drives the acceleration of expanding galaxies, he said.

"In a nutshell, we believe that new gravity theory will change our view on energy, gravitational interactions, and the structure and formation of our universe," Wang said.

Kevin Zumbrun, chair of the Department of Mathematics at IU Bloomington, said the new unified theory looked sound in principle.

"It is speculative at the cosmological level, since one must match with experiment, but the math is solid," he said. "It's a new and elegant angle on things, and if this does match experiment, it is a huge discovery. Quite exciting!"

Wang said the new field equations also lead to a modified Newtonian gravitational force formula, which shows that dark matter plays a more important role in a galactic scale at about 1,000 to 100,000 light years, but is less important in the larger scale, where dark energy will be significant (more than 10 million light years).

"This unified theory is consistent with general characterizations of and , and further tests of the theory up to measured precisions of cosmic observations are certainly crucial for an eventual validation of the theory," Wang added.

The full research paper, "Gravitational Field Equations and Theory of Dark Energy and Dark Matter," is available at the open access online preprint archive arXiv.

Explore further: At the origin of cell division: The features of living matter emerge from inanimate matter

Related Stories

Dark matter could provide heat for starless planets

Apr 01, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- In a recent paper posted at arXiv.org and submitted to Astrophysical Journal, Dan Hooper and Jason Steffen, physicists at Fermilab in Illinois, present the theory that cold and dark planet ...

Light from galaxy clusters confirms theory of relativity

Sep 28, 2011

All observations in astronomy are based on light emitted from stars and galaxies and, according to the general theory of relativity, the light will be affected by gravity. At the same time all interpretations ...

Can R2 gravity explain dark matter?

Apr 20, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- "In many ways, the standard model of cosmology works very well," Jose Cembranos tells PhysOrg. "However, there are very basic features that we just do not know. We have dark energy and dark matter. They d ...

Recommended for you

How to test the twin paradox without using a spaceship

10 hours ago

Forget about anti-ageing creams and hair treatments. If you want to stay young, get a fast spaceship. That is what Einstein's Theory of Relativity predicted a century ago, and it is commonly known as "twin ...

User comments : 79

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benni
2 / 5 (26) Sep 07, 2012
Einstein could not take into account the effects of "dark matter" & "dark energy" because it had not yet been discovered.....that is what the crux of this article is.

THEY STILL HAVE NOT BEEN DISCOVERED, they are still only proposed. Astrophysicists are trying to account for all the gravity that cannot be explained by "visible stars". Einstein could not propose the concept because in 1916 we were only beginning to develop telescopes that could view more than a couple million light years distance.
Expiorer
1.8 / 5 (15) Sep 07, 2012
you have my vote, I hate theories about dark matter
El_Nose
4.1 / 5 (34) Sep 07, 2012
@benni

Dark energy is the force driving universal expansion We know what it is we have measured it. We just don't know where it comes from- thats why its dark.

Dark matter has been mapped, it has been measured, we just don't know what it is made of, cause we haven't held it.

we also have not seen the core of the earth, but we believe it to be molten based on measurements. We only have measurement to indicate that quasars are black holes but we have never been there... we use measurements.

You can choose not to believe in DM and DE and you can join others like you at the flat earth society.
Ophelia
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2012
The arxiv article was published over 2 months ago. If the physics community thought there was much to this idea, wouldn't there have been all sorts of noise about this paper by now? As far as I know, this is the first I've heard of it.
Ophelia
5 / 5 (16) Sep 07, 2012
@ El Nose:
... Dark matter has been mapped, it has been measured, we just don't know what it is made of, cause we haven't held it.

Isn't it more accurate to state that an effect has been mapped and measured but the cause is yet to be determined?

PPihkala
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 07, 2012
I think this sounds like this can drive all kinds of development. For energy technology this would permit overunity devices that previously have been cried to be violating the law of energy conservation.
Giovanni L_ B_
5 / 5 (1) Sep 07, 2012
What's the meaning of a second order covariant in gravitational field equations?
Einstein's ones were all linear... thats why we can talk about a cosmological constant in his equations in the first place.
rubberman
3.5 / 5 (10) Sep 07, 2012
"Dark matter has been mapped, it has been measured, we just don't know what it is made of, cause we haven't held it."

Careful EN, it's effect has been measured, it's location inferred based on stellar/galactic motion. My understanding is that holding "it" would be impossible as it only interracts with normal matter gravitationally. Physicists trying to pinpoint the source is like an oceanographer swimming in the ocean at night and entering a section of water that is 10 degrees C warmer, but for no apparent reason. It doesn't just happen, something caused it but none of the "usual suspects" are present (sun, vents, life). So here you have this effect, with no detectable cause, just theories of varying legitemacy on the cause.
rubberman
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 07, 2012
LOL, thanks OP! Stated my point far more simply.
casualjoe
5 / 5 (2) Sep 07, 2012
So glad that mathematicians are having a go at this, they can do a much better job of it than me.
cory_saurus
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 07, 2012
Hmmm, does this mean there might be something to the hocus pocus of harnessing zero point energy, vacuum energy or by its other name, free energy?
Scryer
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2012
Dark energy repels: that's all I had to hear, these guys have a theory that may be very close to the truth, we'll have yet to see though.

Now, if only we could harness Dark Energy, something that may eventually happen once we learn more about it.

Free energy? Not likely, however, the way technology advances we may just end up reducing power consumption to near nothing, while at the same time harvesting all the energy from the local environment that we could ever need.
axemaster
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 07, 2012
Physicists have already been using this modified technique for many years. It's just the superposition of the three forces produced by normal matter, dark matter, and dark energy. I'm afraid I don't see any discovery here... Perhaps that's why it came out of a Dept. of Mathematics, not a Dept. of Physics?
ccr5Delta32
1 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2012
Sure axemaster , it must be fun to be a mathematician, not being constraint by any "physical" reality's .This is just like the Greeks , Plato and the other guys argument and we haven't really progressed any " Why should we understand the universe ?" as an ape . I'm impressed , However ! " Not bad for a monkey"
Now I'm going to read the article
hemitite
1 / 5 (2) Sep 07, 2012
Potential energy becomes energy when it effects the movement of some object. So by having this new scalar feed energy into the ordinary matter of a galaxy (or subtracts it), the conservation of energy would be violated for that system.

That being the case, wouldn't the energy from the "dark matter", or negative manifestation of this new field lead to a runaway increase in the mass, and therefore the gravitational potential of galaxies and galactic clusters just as the "dark energy" aspect is accelerating the expansion of the universe on a larger scale?

If so the result may be a bunch of monstrous black holes being blasted away from each other.
Tangent2
1 / 5 (2) Sep 07, 2012
Am I really reading this correctly? These mathematicians are saying that their theory is showing 2 different forces of gravity? One that is prevalent at the microscopic/quantum level and the other that is prevalent at the cosmological level?

Is this right?
Urgelt
5 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2012
So, they fiddled with Einstein's field equations to match observations.

There are an awful lot of assumptions in this approach.

I guess the proof will be whether the new equations can make predictions, and I don't mean predictions identical to those the equations were shaped to fit.

I don't think any experiment has demonstrated that conservation of energy and momentum do not apply to normal matter. That would be a step towards proving these new equations. But it sounds like a long shot to my ears.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 07, 2012
So, they fiddled with Einstein's field equations to match observations.

There are an awful lot of assumptions in this approach.

I guess the proof will be whether the new equations can make predictions, and I don't mean predictions identical to those the equations were shaped to fit.

I don't think any experiment has demonstrated that conservation of energy and momentum do not apply to normal matter. That would be a step towards proving these new equations. But it sounds like a long shot to my ears.


These two guys have gone over the edge. I don't for a minute doubt there are energy fields & undetected matter out there producing a lot of unaccounted for gravity, but for these two guys to say it is "proven" & they know the source of this gravity is "dark energy & matter" is palpably foolish.

OK you two guys in China, send us a picture of all this "dark matter" you've proven to exist! Also tell us what the wavelength of the proven "dark energy" is!
antonima
not rated yet Sep 07, 2012
it just doesn't sound sexy enough, even if true. scalar tensor theory?? that is hardly satisfying.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4 / 5 (4) Sep 07, 2012
So essentially they toss out classical thermodynamics and relativity on matter (energy conservation), propose yet another scalar DM theory (as natello notes) that is known to fail precisely because DM is matter and predicts individual effects in individual systems, toss out the known cosmological constant DE, and doesn't care for the new simulations where DM predicts all structures from galaxies and up - without DM it is a no go.

You know they are headed for the cliff when they claim that GR doesn't include DE, which it does in the Lambda-CDM standard cosmology - _that is the point_.

This is so 80's, and so wrong.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2012
@benni

Dark matter has been mapped, it has been measured, we just don't know what it is made of, cause we haven't held it.


You can choose not to believe in DM and DE and you can join others like you at the flat earth society.


And Mister, you live on the same plane along with the rest of "flat universe bunch" who believe in things they can't prove exists in a finite quasi-Euclidean universe. Sounds more like you have eschatological ambitions about God in making statements concerning things never having "proven" to exist.
dtyarbrough
1 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2012
The universe isn't expanding so there is no need for dark energy or dark matter to explain it. Read Read THE UNIVERSE IS NOT EXPANDING http://www.scribd...XPANDING . The problems with the speeds of orbiting stars in galaxies is not a problem for gravity when you realize they are not in orbit. Read THE MYSTERY OF THE SPIRAL GALAXIES EXPLAINED http://www.scribd...xplained

ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 07, 2012
The need for upgrade of Einsteinian field equations follows from mass-energy equivalence. The field equations are saying, that every curvature of space-time (curvature tensor) has its energy density assigned (stress energy tensor) - this is the whole basis of general relativity. But from relativity follows too, that every energy density has its equivalent mass density from famous mass-energy equivalence E=mc2. It means, that gravity field has a curved space-time assigned, which has its energy density, which has its mass density, which has its gravity field, which has a curved space-time assigned,.. huh, pretty complex and recursive, isn't it true? Which is the reason, why Einstein neglected the mass-energy equivalence in its equations at all, so that these equations cannot predict the things like dark matter. What's worse, there is more than single way, in which the mass-energy density (i.e. the scalar field) can be applied into general relativity.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Sep 07, 2012
The above work is just another attempt from many previous ones, how to apply the scalar terms into tensor fields. And it will not be definitely the last one, because - as the above trivial analysis explains - the general relativity is actually infinitely recursive or dimensional theory on background. You cannot get the simple analytical formulation of it, the explicit solution the less. The idea of relativity actually boils down to infinitelly chaotic and complex CMBR noise, which surrounds all massive bodies - it's the manifestation of all these implicit scalar terms, which were neglected in the original formulation of general relativity. Their finding is highly intellectual and seductive, but essentially futile and useless job, because the universe is infinitely complex and random. The laymans have right to know, they're paying the mathematicians for something, which can be never done in its entirety.
Oysteroid
1 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2012
@Ophelia:
@ El Nose:
... Dark matter has been mapped, it has been measured, we just don't know what it is made of, cause we haven't held it.

Isn't it more accurate to state that an effect has been mapped and measured but the cause is yet to be determined?

But this is pretty much what he says. We have observed, measured and mapped the effect. We know something must be causing it but no known candidates fit. So we call that something "dark matter/energy" and now are trying to determine what it might be first (what those two guys suggest) and what it actually is (what they propose to test).

Now for the test which may or may not check with their theory.
Oysteroid
1 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2012
@Tangent2:
Am I really reading this correctly? These mathematicians are saying that their theory is showing 2 different forces of gravity? One that is prevalent at the microscopic/quantum level and the other that is prevalent at the cosmological level?


Are you calling 1000 to 100,000 light years scale microscopic?
Shinichi D_
1.5 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2012
Dark energy repels: ...
Now, if only we could harness Dark Energy, something that may eventually happen once we learn more about it.


We already can. It's called Casimir effect.

johanfprins
2 / 5 (8) Sep 08, 2012
The arxiv article was published over 2 months ago. If the physics community thought there was much to this idea, wouldn't there have been all sorts of noise about this paper by now? As far as I know, this is the first I've heard of it.
It is comments like this one that is keeping physics in the dark ages The naive opinion that mainstream physicists will with enthusiasm embrace new physics concepts that is at variance with accepted dogma. It just does not happen. At present the dogmatists are even more powerful than in the time of Galileo when his peers rejected his ideas outright. Peer review, as it is at present being practised, is open to criminal abuse and is regularly being abused: In fact, this is at present the rule!
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 08, 2012
- the general relativity is actually infinitely recursive or dimensional theory on background. You cannot get the simple analytical formulation of it, the explicit solution the less. The idea of relativity actually boils down to infinitelly chaotic and complex CMBR noise, which surrounds all massive bodies - it's the manifestation of all these implicit scalar terms, which were neglected in the original formulation of general relativity..... the universe is infinitely complex and random.


This is "pseudo-science speak" at its epitome. You understand practically nothing about Einstein's General Relativity evidenced by your choice of words anytime you use the word "infinity" or any of its' derivative forms. "Infinity" does not exist in the spherical quasi-Euclidean universe upon which Einstein bases his GR, but you don't know that because you theorists living in a "flat universe" can't do the math to follow the concept of Conservation of Energy, the laws of Thermodynamics, etc.
Bernd
1 / 5 (1) Sep 08, 2012
A true continuum is simply something connected in itself and cannot be split into separate pieces: that contradicts its nature.
Hermann Weyl

If Hermann Weyl is correct, how can we build the physical universe from a concept of elementary particles.
ValeriaT
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 08, 2012
"Infinity" does not exist in the spherical quasi-Euclidean universe
The relativity isn't based on "spherical quasi-Euclidean universe" as it's not based at any particular geometry (it has no such requirement in its postulates). For example, the gravitational waves were first derived for cylindrical geometry, because it was simplest way to do in this case. The relativity is usually formulated for Riemann geometry, the Euclidean space is the special case of that geometry with zero curvature. What I or you understand or not is subjective perspective, not relevant to matter of fact discussion.
ValeriaT
1.9 / 5 (8) Sep 08, 2012
If Hermann Weyl is correct, how can we build the physical universe from a concept of elementary particles
The spherical, hyperbolic, Euclidean, Riemann etc geometries are all less or more faithful but ad-hoced models. The emergent particle model is more general geometry, which covers the above cases as a special examples of it. The scattering of energy in the homogeneous particle field leads to the spherical Euclidean geometry, if the dispersion and change of energy wavelength is taken into account, then this geometry becomes Riemannian. When the inhomogeneity of particle field is taken into account, then this geometry becomes hyperbolic and so on. But I don't think, that the Universe is composed of particles: the emergent model is just most general aspect of inhomogeneous random reality, which enables to predict something new about it in this moment. If it appears composed of particles for us, then just because we as a observers represent an infinitely small portion of it.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2012
theorists living in a "flat universe" can't do the math
They indeed can do the math, as relativity is agnostic regarding the shape of Universe, as I already explained. It's true, Alexander Friedmann proved in 1922, that the flat Universe would be unstable, but he used just the approximative model of GR, which becomes surpassed by now. I'm sure, if these new corrections will be taken into account, then our models of Universe will expand accordingly. In essence, every such a correction literally puts existing Universe into hypothetical hyperspace, which is way larger and in which our 4D space-time resides. So we can say, with these corrections our models of Universe converge into infinite steady state model in quiet - which is nothing new in history of cosmology, after all.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2012
theorists living in a "flat universe" can't do the math
The more funny is, Mr. Einstein himself believed in flat infinite Universe originally (he didn't know about red shift and its interpretation) - so he did all his math just for the flat Universe model under insertion of ad-hoced cosmological constant into it as a price. Later he called this adjustment a "biggest blunder of his life" - but it doesn't change the fact, the theorists can develop the relativity for whatever model of Universe, you can imagine, including the flat Universe - just the founder of general relativity Einstein was the prime example of it. So I'm forced to refuse your objections as deeply uninformed and even comical. In accordance to my model the expanding closed Universe can be converted into flat infinite one easily with consideration of blue shift above the human observer scale: this blue shift should be observable in radiowave spectrum and it would balance the Hubble red shift.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2012
theorists living in a "flat universe" can't do the math
The more funny is, Mr. Einstein himself believed in flat infinite Universe originally (he didn't know about red shift and its interpretation) - so he did all his math just for the flat Universe model
If this is the case, why was he so stupid to complicate the mathematics by using curvilinear coordinates to model a flat universe?
ValeriaT
2 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2012
He (Einstein) indeed didn't model the Universe during his derivation of relativity in 1916 - he modeled curved space-time around massive objects. The attempt for modeling of the whole Universe with general relativity has come six years later, when Lamaitre realized, the same - "just" inverted - geometry could be used for modeling of the whole Universe. Einstein adopted relativity to flat Universe model just ten years after when he realized after reading of Friedman derivations, that flat Universe cannot be stable. Because the Universe was believed to be flat this time, from Einstein's position the insertion of cosmological constant was purely self-preservation act. But during this time Hubble found the Universe expands and it's curved too. What a mess! It's not difficult to imagine the Einstein's feeling: due his silly manipulation with GR he lost a prominent opportunity to predict Hubble's findings. He certainly felt himself as an imbecile.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2012
The arxiv article was published over 2 months ago. If the physics community thought there was much to this idea, wouldn't there have been all sorts of noise about this paper by now? As far as I know, this is the first I've heard of it
Yes, and it's very easy to understand it - with compare to laymans the specialists know quite well, there are already many scalar-tensor models in the game. The second reason is even more crucial: the dark matter was originally found by rotational curves of galaxies as a violation of equivalence principle. The equivalence principle is one of fundamental postulates of general relativity, so that when someone is saying, he is able to derive the dark matter with modification of general relativity, it just means he managed to violate its own postulates during this. Not surprisingly the rock-steady relativists are somewhat skeptical regarding such a rhetorics.
Tausch
1 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2012
Figuratively these are maps. Attempts to describe the territory.
Cartography for cosmology.

Mathematicians' contributions as well as any source wanting to contribute to an understanding and account for effects.

Acceptance or rejection does not motivate to contribute.
A most fortunate aspect of humans.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 08, 2012
Val, Einstein was not the founder of Relativity, as Tesla once pointed out;
"...the relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its present proponents. It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious countryman Boskovic, the great philospher, who, not withstanding other and multifold obligations, wrote a thousand volumes of excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects. Boskovic dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum..."

Tesla also was not impressed with Relativity,
"...magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists..." New York Times, July 11, 1935, p23, c8
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 08, 2012
A couple of quotes from some real scientists, both of which produced tangible discoveries that not only advanced the sciences but also everyday living for us pleebs.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla

"We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture." Hannes Alfvén

johanfprins
2 / 5 (8) Sep 08, 2012
The attempt for modeling of the whole Universe with general relativity has come six years later, when Lamaitre realized, the same - "just" inverted - geometry could be used for modeling of the whole Universe. Einstein adopted relativity to flat Universe model just ten years after when he realized after reading of Friedman derivations, that flat Universe cannot be stable.
You are confusing "flat universe" with "stable universe": These are two totally different concepts.
Because the Universe was believed to be flat this time, from Einstein's position the insertion of cosmological constant was purely self-preservation act.
Einstein's equations did show that the univerese is expanding which he did not believe, but this has NOTHING to do with whether the universe is flat or not!
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 08, 2012
The equivalence principle is one of fundamental postulates of general relativity, so that when someone is saying, he is able to derive the dark matter with modification of general relativity, it just means he managed to violate its own postulates during this.
Any and ALL principles in physics might be found to be wrong. If you do not accept this you are too incompetent to do physics. In fact I suspect that the equivalence principle is, most probably, wrong.
Not surprisingly the rock-steady relativists..
You should have used the word "bigots".
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 08, 2012
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla


Absolutely correct, and the biggest culprit was Paul Dirac who, with his irrelevant and wrong relativistic equation for the electron led the theoretical physicists into Alice's Wonderland where they are spending billions of dollars hunting non-existing Higgs bosons. Don't just smile Cheshire cat rather LOL!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2012
You are confusing "flat universe" with "stable universe": These are two totally different concepts
I already said five posts above, that according the Friedmann the flat Universe would be unstable. How did you get into the opposite? BTW You should turn on some self-censor filter, as many of your posts sound very senile (despite you're realizing it or not). Sometimes it's very apparent, you're old bitter man already - which is understandable in your situation, but it will not help anybody here. And I'm not interested about any subjective opinion of anybody here. This discussion is not social club.
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2012
Mathematicians offer unified theory of dark matter, dark energy, altering Einstein field equations

Yes, but how about its physical view, may be this paper could help to understand it.
http://www.vacuum...14〈=en
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2012
@Valeria:

It isn't my intention to embarrass you guy, but would you kindly tell us what you do for a living? I have six years of engineering school education if it's of any interest to you.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Sep 08, 2012
@Benni: The purpose of my post was to reduce the social and subjective traits of this discussion - not to support them. Why not to use the PM feature of this forum for such kind of personal and OT questions? Personally, I don't care about qualification or occupation of posters here at all, only about matter of fact arguments. Thank you for your understanding in advance.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2012
@Valeria:

It isn't my intention to embarrass you guy, but would you kindly tell us what you do for a living? I have six years of engineering school education if it's of any interest to you.
Qualifications are important to judge whether a person has a better chance to know what he/she is talking about than another person; but it could also be misleading. The majority of complete idiots I have come across in my life, especially the last ten years, all have PhD's in physics! It hurts to state this since I have a DSc in Materials Science and an MSc in physics.

I suspect that Valeria is breaking the rule by being an idiot without any qualifications.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2012
@Valeria:

It isn't my intention to embarrass you guy, but would you kindly tell us what you do for a living? I have six years of engineering school education if it's of any interest to you.
Qualifications are important to judge whether a person has a better chance to know what he/she is talking about than another person; but it could also be misleading. The majority of complete idiots I have come across in my life, especially the last ten years, all have PhD's in physics! It hurts to state this since I have a DSc in Materials Science and an MSc in physics.

I suspect that Valeria is breaking the rule by being a physics-idiot without any qualifications. I have also met people who do understand physics even though they have no qualifications in this field

Bogey
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 09, 2012
Big Magnets.
Its magnatism Jim, but not as we know it.
53 years of really bad spelling, but luckily I can read.

ps, It makes a refreshing change not to have to read "tard" 10.000
times in one of these posts.
Benni
3 / 5 (8) Sep 09, 2012
@Benni: The purpose of my post was to reduce the social and subjective traits of this discussion - not to support them. Why not to use the PM feature of this forum for such kind of personal and OT questions? Personally, I don't care about qualification or occupation of posters here at all, only about matter of fact arguments. Thank you for your understanding in advance.


About the kind of response I expect from someone who has never had a course in calculus that would enable him to follow Einstein's field equations in GR. You see Val, if you can't follow the math there's no hope that you can make an intellectually competent critique of the subject matter. This is not to say you cannnot understand the subject matter unless you can also do the math, you can, but you become a follower not a leader in such a case, but you want to jump to the front of the line & declare yourself a leader with no credentials, which starts with the math.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (7) Sep 09, 2012
Einstein's equations did show that the univerese is expanding which he did not believe, but this has NOTHING to do with whether the universe is flat or not!

Absolutely correct. This is the reason Einstein revised his 1916 paper & came out with the revised edition in 1924, to account for Hubble's discovery with new telescopes & new spectroscopy capability to accurately detect redshift.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2012
A couple of quotes from some real scientists, both of which produced tangible discoveries that not only advanced the sciences but also everyday living for us pleebs.
How can this be true? The metaphysical doesn't exist today and it certainly didn't exist in 1935. And if Boskovic speculated about something which resembled what Einstein discovered much later, then it was only dumb luck wasn't it? How could it be anything else, without evidence and the math to correctly interpret it?

This is like saying that Kant somehow intrinsically knew something about relativity. Because he was THAT smart i guess. What Rubbish.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 09, 2012
The problem with the whole "dark energy" & "dark matter" hypotheses is the nonbaryonic substance of the stuff. If the universe really were made up of 50-90% of such stuff, then most of the mass of our sun would be invisible & undetectable. The problem for such dark stuff hypotheses is that the mass of our Sun is exactly as gravity equations calculate the expected mass to be.

So what the dark stuff advocates have now done is move the origin of the stuff to some magical distance from our sun to a point where our Earth/orbit bound instrumentation can make no meaningful measurements, then spoonfeed us arguments that this is where the dark stuff begins, you know, somewhere beyond our solar system, & this must be the location of the "glue" that holds the baryonic matter of galaxies together. Well to the ashbin of stardust for that theory too, because we know the central bulge of all galaxies in fact do orbit galactic cores faster than stars in the spiral arms.
Bernd
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 09, 2012
I am not sure how this works here, but some remarks are surprisingly …… for such a forum.

If a physical theory is formulated, at some point of the theory calculus is used and I don´t think a theory of relativity can formulated without calculus. At this point Euclidean geometry sneaks in on an infinitesimal local level – which can be proved. Of course a local Euclidean geometry can be used to describe any geometry (Riemann Geometry) on a macro scale. Thus I think ValeriaT did not understand my comments.

This Quote from Albert Einstein probably applies to ValeriaT: Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater.

Another Quote from Albert Einstein: ... Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 09, 2012
So what the dark stuff advocates have now done is move the origin of the stuff to some magical distance from our sun to a point where our Earth/orbit bound instrumentation can make no meaningful measurements,...


I suspect it's a matter of density, with the space occupied by our immediate surroundings infinitesimal in comparison to galactic scales. Is this not more reasonable than supposing it was placed in a place safe from disproof?
Lumberjack
1 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2012
I know what Dark Energy is. Dark Energy is the electric potential generated by separation of charges. What moves galaxy clusters apart are the repulsion forces between the clouds of electrons that surround galaxies and galaxy clusters forming negatively charged outer layers.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 09, 2012
I know what Dark Energy is. Dark Energy is the electric potential generated by separation of charges. What moves galaxy clusters apart are the repulsion forces between the clouds of electrons that surround galaxies and galaxy clusters forming negatively charged outer layers.


I'll be perfectly honest with you, this sounds like a better argument than the silly claims made in a previous post in this series. And the reason it sounds almost reasonable is the point I made two posts above, that it is now known for a fact that the stars which populate the central bulge of spiral galaxies orbit the black hole core more frequently than those in the spiral arms, it is no longer presumed there is some kind of baryonic glue that causing everything inside a galaxy to rotate in unison. Time lapse photos reveal stars near our galactic core exhibit dynamics totally out of sync with anything involving "dark stuff", & these dynamics are now believed to extend to the edge of the "bulge".


ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Sep 10, 2012
Dark Energy is the electric potential generated by separation of charges.
If it would, it should lead to attractive force - or not?
Shinichi D_
1 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2012
Dark Energy is the electric potential generated by separation of charges.
If it would, it should lead to attractive force - or not?


I think Lumberjack described the galaxy clusters like atomic structures. The clusters in his model are surrounded by negativ particles, like the electrons in the case of atoms. In this analogy the dark energy would act in a similar way to PEP.
The problem is with this, that according to our knowledge this would result in a short distance force, and DE seems to be a very long distance interaction.
Erik
1 / 5 (1) Sep 10, 2012
hmm, isn't "any place" within a few light-years of some observer, so wouldn't dark matter & attraction dominate everywhere?

contra-wise: hmm, isn't "any place" at least a few million light-years of some observer, so wouldn't dark energy & repulsion dominate everywhere?
Deathclock
1 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2012
hmm, isn't "any place" within a few light-years of some observer


No... the nearest star to our own is 4.2 light years... so there are trillions upon trillions of stars which are not "within a few light years" from us.
Lex Talonis
1 / 5 (4) Sep 10, 2012
Dark Matter is the human perception of the Kingdom of Satan - it's in the bible.

I say this as a world leading scientist, that this is based on the science of faith, without which God and the Universe would not exist.
Shinichi D_
1 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2012
I think all phenomena, DE, DM, and gravity are the different manifestation of the same thing. Quantum vacuum. Vacuum has negative density, thats why the expanding voids seem to generate more and more .. well, void within themselves. The more a vacuum field expands, the more vacuum density it has. This is the phenomena we call Dark Energy.

The other side of this is gravity and Dark Matter. Gravity is the vacuum pressure 'empty' space exerts onto 'solid' objects. Solid – compared to vacuum - can be a star or a gas giant planet, even an interstellar cloud. Direction of gravity is pointing from the densest vacuum – deep space – towards the least vacuumy regions – massive objects.

Particles, that we describe gravitationally interacting, are pushed together by the vacuum pressure. The same goes with planets. Take earth-moon system for example. Earth is surrounded by the vacuum of space. The gravity we experience is however somewhat smaller in one direction. The moon.
cont.
Shinichi D_
1 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2012
cont.
One would argue, that moon is gravitationally interacting with earth, and everything that side on the planet is pulled towards it slightly. For example the tidal waves on the oceans.
But we could say, that from the direction of the moon, there is less vacuum pressure exerted toward earth. Between the two objects, there is a low pressure region, compared to other directions. They shield vacuum field between themselves. They not pulling each other in, they are pressed towards each other.

And here comes Dark Matter in the game. Vaccum pressure is not only exerted onto the two massive objects, but also onto the low(er) pressure region between them. That is Dark Matter. You can't find it around earth, can't find it around moon, but if you look at the system of the two, ther sould be a small ammount of DM present.

cont.
Shinichi D_
1 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2012
The same goes on with galaxies, or globular clusters for examlpe. Part of their gravitational field is coming from vacuum pressure exerted onto the stars, that compose them. But between the stars, there is a large region of space, that is devided to smaller regions by the stars, and other massive objects.
And the deep space surrounding the globular cluster, since it has higher vacuum density, exerts pressure onto the entire cluster, like it would have an extra gravitational field, stronger, than the visible stars would justify. This is the phenomena we call Dark Matter. It's not made up by some mysterious particle, and it's not to be found in a given place. The phenomena is generated by the vacuum density difference within a cluster and the deep space surrounding it.

Shinichi D_
1 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2012
This can be checked easily. Just take two similarly sized globular clusters. One of them way outside the galactic plane, the other embeded within the galactic plane, surrounded by other stars. The one outside, in deep space, should seem to have more DM than the one, within the plane.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (12) Sep 11, 2012
This is like saying that Kant somehow intrinsically knew something about relativity.


I doubt you've read Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' yet, so I'll make your argument for you, then defeat it.

Kant's transcendental deduction, that a-priori cognitive faculties determine the form of experience, and so the conditions of science, ...does not imply that Cosmological Space must be Euclidean in form.

His transcendental deduction wrt space and time, is based on 'a-priori synthetic propositions', which means axioms not logically necessary, but logically synthetic, that is, geometric axioms can be denied without contradiction. This actually implies that non-Euclidean geometries are possible, just not intuitively comprehendible.

We don't locally experience a semi-Riemannian inner product space with a torsion free Levi-Civita connection. In the limit of this Riemannian space, locally, the tangent and cotangent spaces, are Euclidean, and so compatible with intuitive understanding.
Tausch
1 / 5 (2) Sep 12, 2012
Conforming that of which you are a part of makes no sense.
Conforming that of which you are apart of makes sense.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Sep 14, 2012
Einstein was not the founder of Relativity, as Tesla once pointed out;
"...the relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its present proponents. It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious countryman Boskovic, the great philospher, who, not withstanding other and multifold obligations, wrote a thousand volumes of excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects. Boskovic dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum..."


General relativity explains gravity and other phenomena by treating spacetime using non-Euclidean geometry, specifically that invented by Reimann in 1854. Since Boskovic died in 1787, this is patently untrue.

Tesla also was not impressed with Relativity, "...magnificent mathematical garb .."


Merely philosophising about "spacetime" without any actual theory (equations) of practical use is not physics. No matter how smart Boskovic was, without Reimann geometry, the tools weren't there for him to produce relativity.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2012
It doesn't, the general relativity still relies on good old Newton's gravitational law on background. No relativity theory can explain, why the space-time is curved around massive bodies.
I am gobsmacked: For once you stated some sense; although I doubt that you understand why you did it.

Curved space-time, and thus gravity has NOTHING to do with relativity. It follows directly from the wave-nature of matter. What is called the "tunnelling tails" of a matter-wave is the space-time curvature around the mass of such a wave.

The mass itself can be modelled by a stationary Maxwell-wave; within which the electric field-energy is the mass-energy. Lorentz had the right idea except that the electric-field energy is NOT in space surrounding the electron BUT within the wave-intensity which IS the electron.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2012
Curved space-time, and thus gravity has NOTHING to do with relativity. It follows directly from the wave-nature of matter.
It doesn't and the gravity is not "tunneling tail" of "stationary Maxwell waves". The fact, relativity doesn't explain gravity doesn't imply, that some other theory or model explains it.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2012
It doesn't and the gravity is not "tunneling tail" of "stationary Maxwell waves". The fact, relativity doesn't explain gravity doesn't imply, that some other theory or model explains it.

I just gave you another theory, but as you have proved time and again on these forums you are far tooo much of a closed-minded bigot to consider alternatives in an objective manner.

BTW: I did not say that the tails are those of Maxwell-waves: The tails are the curvature in space-time that traps the light-energy, which can be modelled by Maxwell's wave equation, to become stationary mass-enegy.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 15, 2012
I don't care about senile rants called the theories, but about predictions made with sequence of robust logical steps, with math rigor if possible. Your "theory" provides none and it even doesn't explain the existence of space-time curvature about massive bodies better, than the general relativity (which does provide some predictions at least). So what? What your theory is actually good for?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 15, 2012
I don't care about senile rants...., but about predictions made with sequence of robust logical steps, ....
This is exactly what I have done: If I can get it past the Orwellian swine in charge of "modern theoretical physics" you will be able to read the robust logical steps.
Your "theory" provides none and it even doesn't explain the existence of space-time curvature about massive bodies better,
How do you know this if you have not yet read my derivations? This again proves what I have just now stated: You are a closed-minded bigot who are not able to look at alternatives objectively.
.. the general relativity (which does provide some predictions at least). So what? What your theory is actually good for?
Why do you not first read what I have derived robustly before firing from the hip? If you want a copy, I will e-mail you a copy, provided you first send me an e-mail identifying yourself and promising to try objectivity; if possible for you!
Osiris1
1 / 5 (2) Sep 17, 2012
Sounds like a gaggle of Einsteinian whiners afraid for their jobs. ON the other hand, this leaves open the idea of gravity manipulation and space warping/compression/rarefaction just like sound waves in three dimensional spatial quanta. These space quanta may be sub Planck size......NEW PHYSICS. Albert Einstein was ok in his day, but remember that my Grandfather was a young man then back in 1905, and he never liked those 'new fangled' horseless carriages (cars). He preferred horses to have the beer from his brewery delivered. Said they got traction on steep mountain roads better and had less accidents and lost product other than his teamsters drinking his beer....Old Export.. from the Frostburg Brewing Company in Frostburg, Maryland. Anyway, theories from the horse and buggy era are OLD, and bound to be revised. Wonder they lasted long as they did, as much as they had to fight to be accepted when first proposed.....Albert was NOT greeted as a long lost brother.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 17, 2012
Sounds like a gaggle of Einsteinian whiners afraid for their jobs.
Interesting post: I enjoyed it.

Just to add: When a rod passes by, it becomes longer and the time "within" the rod as obseved from outside goes from "past" at the tail, to "future" at the nose.

So what is this time-change observed "within" the passing rod? It represents the change in phase-angle of the rod which moves like a coherent matter-wave.

Thus, without realising it, Einstein could have predicted the wave nature of matter about 20 years before de Broglie formulated his postulate for a moving electron. But Einstein decided incorrectly on "rod-contraction". It should be noted that de Broglie's postulate is only valid for a moving electron-wave.

An atomic electron wave-"orbital" is a stationary wave and thus has NO momentum. If it had actual orbital-momentum it would radiate away its kinetic.

BTW: Clocks attached to the rod, and stationary clocks "through" which the rod passes, ALL keep time in sync.
ChemE
1 / 5 (2) Sep 19, 2012
All,

I have just published a new paper on my blog. I have just figured out that dark matter is triggering many of the seismic events and intense low pressure systems on earth. I have posted a technical write-up on my blog:

darkmattersalot "." com
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2012
All,

I have just published a new paper on my blog. I have just figured out that dark matter is triggering many of the seismic events and intense low pressure systems on earth. I have posted a technical write-up on my blog:

darkmattersalot "." com


If you succeed to convince the Orwellian swine in control of modern theoretical physics, and I cannot see why not since your ideas are just as absurd as Dirac's relativistic equation for the electron, you might even win the 2012 Nobel Prize!! Good luck! So many has won it with equally absurd physics, that you deserve it!

More news stories

Down's chromosome cause genome-wide disruption

The extra copy of Chromosome 21 that causes Down's syndrome throws a spanner into the workings of all the other chromosomes as well, said a study published Wednesday that surprised its authors.

Researchers see hospitalization records as additional tool

Comparing hospitalization records with data reported to local boards of health presents a more accurate way to monitor how well communities track disease outbreaks, according to a paper published April 16 in the journal PLOS ON ...

Ebola virus in Africa outbreak is a new strain

The Ebola virus that has killed scores of people in Guinea this year is a new strain—evidence that the disease did not spread there from outbreaks in some other African nations, scientists report.