Can R2 gravity explain dark matter?

Apr 20, 2009 By Miranda Marquit feature

(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 dictate the evolution of late time cosmology. They both together constitute more than 95 percent of the energy content of the present Universe." If this is the case, why do we trust the standard model? It can’t explain such a large portion of the universe.

Cembranos points this out about why we continue to place our faith in the standard model: “Sometimes it is hard to explain why you trust a model if you don’t understand the most part of it. The reason is that you do not need to know the fundamental nature of dark energy or dark matter to compute the evolution of the Universe. With the ingredients we have, the model fits the different observations we have done so far.” But many scientists are not satisfied with a model that leaves out the natures of dark energy and dark matter. They, like Cembranos, are looking for ways to modify the standard model so that these mysterious parts of the may eventually be revealed.

Cembranos is a scientist at the William I. Fine Theoretical Physics Institute at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. He has been working on a model of that includes a modification of Einstein . “Gravity is the main issue in any model of cosmology; it is the force that drives the dynamic. However, we know that the Einstein theory of gravity cannot be the final word on gravity. It is not consistent at high energies.” Cembranos has developed a model that uses an effective approach and illustrates the idea that new gravitational states could account for dark matter with R2 gravity. His work is described in Physical Review Letters: “Dark Matter from R2 Gravity.”

“I used R2 gravity because it is the simplest way to modify Einstein gravity,” Cembranos explains. “We know how to deal with gravity as an effective field theory, working at low energies. At low energies you have the opportunity for a perturbative expansion, everything working order by order. Unfortunately, you can’t go to very high energies. From a quantum standpoint this approach does not work.”

“In addition to a constant that may explain the dark energy, and a linear term in the space-time curvature that defines Einstein gravity, the next term of the expansion is quadratic,” Cembranos explains. “When you introduce this R2 term, gravity is modified by the introduction of a new mediator of the gravitational interaction. However, it is completely different from its cousin: The standard graviton predicted by the linear term is a mass-less particle of spin 2. This new graviton has mass and spin 0.”

The model that Cembranos developed also allows you to tune the parameters of the system in order to explain dark matter. “I wanted to focus on the dark matter issue,” he says, “because dark matter seems a little more straightforward. All you need to do is introduce more stuff into the model. We can do this with R2 gravity.”

Cembranos points out that while R2 gravity is an interesting approach to the problem, it doesn’t hold all the answers. “Many people have used different modifications of gravity in order to explain dark matter and even ,” he says. “However, usually these explanations end up being worse than Einstein gravity. Einstein gravity clearly has problems, but nearly all the other explanations are worse.”

What makes the model studied by Cembranos more promising, he insists, is that using the R2 term isn’t worse than Einstein’s gravity theory. “It’s not any better, but it’s also not any worse. It’s more or less the same, but a little more complicated.”

The additional gravitational states allowed in the R2 gravity modification introduce new degrees of freedom to the . “I’m hoping that by studying this model,” Cembranos points out, “that we can get a general idea of what can be signals or observations that are apparent if dark matter is really related to the gravitational sector.”

More information: Cembranos, Jose, “ from R2 Gravity.” (2009). Available online: http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.141301 .

Copyright 2009 PhysOrg.com.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of PhysOrg.com.

Explore further: Optimum inertial self-propulsion design for snowman-like nanorobot

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Modified gravity v. dark energy

Apr 12, 2007

For many years now, scientists have wondered why the universe is expanding faster than it should be. Through conventional knowledge of physics, the universe should be expanding at a slower pace that observations show that ...

Macro, not micro: modified theories of gravity

Feb 16, 2007

When it comes to cosmology, the macro scale is important. As scientists search for the reasons behind the increasing rate at which the universe is expanding, they modify Einstein’s theory of gravity and delve into dark ...

The end to a mystery?

Jan 31, 2008

Astronomers at the University of St Andrews believe they can “simplify the dark side of the universe” by shedding new light on two of its mysterious constituents.

Einstein’s Theory ‘Improved’?

Feb 13, 2006

Chinese astronomer from the University of St Andrews has fine-tuned Einstein’s groundbreaking theory of gravity, creating a ‘simple’ theory which could solve a dark mystery that has baffled astrophysicists ...

Recommended for you

A transistor-like amplifier for single photons

10 hours ago

Data transmission over long distances usually utilizes optical techniques via glass fibres – this ensures high speed transmission combined with low power dissipation of the signal. For quite some years ...

User comments : 50

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

MrGrynch
2.2 / 5 (13) Apr 20, 2009
The first problem is that gravity is not a force, contrary to popular belief. It is a process in which forces develop and these forces are responsible for the locomotive force of gravitation. The source of these forces is the radiant emission of energy from all matter, and their associated recoil forces.

http://dx.doi.org....3062146

The need for dark matter is borne of the need to explain anomalous rotational velocities of galaxies, which are no longer anomalous if you consider electric forces in the universe, as proposed by Plasma Cosmology. Dark energy is borne of the belief that red-shift of light is a reliable indicator of distance and/or recessional velocity. This is also highly contested by Plasma Cosmology.
Damon_Hastings
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2009
The need for dark matter is borne of the need to explain anomalous rotational velocities of galaxies

...and also the fact that we can actually "see" the dark matter via gravitational lensing... and the matter is distributed as a web throughout the known universe with galaxies clustering at the web's vertices in a way that could not be easily explained without dark matter...
Question
1.7 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2009
How about a simple explanation for gravity that follows the laws of Classical Physics. Assume Einstein's idea of gravity being a bending of space-time is correct. Now we have two parts to this space-time. Space is actually nothing, it the "time" part of space-time that is bent. It is already known that time runs slower in gravity fields. So this is the part of space-time that is bent and actually is the source of gravity along with temperature. The natural vibrations of particles with mass that have a temperature above absolute zero spend a little more time toward the center of a gravity field than away. This is why we feel the constant pull toward the center of the earth. This is the origin of weight, but not mass. This is explained in more detail in "An Alternative to the Standard Model of Physics".

omatumr
1.8 / 5 (11) Apr 20, 2009
I do not agree that "the standard model of cosmology works very well." Nor can it be salvaged by a few minor modifications.

The standard model of cosmology incorrectly assumes that a Big Bang made the most dispersed form of nuclear matter, Hydrogen, and Hydrogen-fusion is the energy source that supposedly powers the universe.

H --> He --> C --> . . . Fe --> Neutron Stars --> Black Holes

Observations reveal the exact opposite - a fragmenting universe - and modern nuclear studies reveal repulsive forces between neutrons that make this possible.

See: "On the cosmic nuclear cycle and the similarity of nuclei and stars," Journal of Fusion Energy 25 (2006) pp. 107-114; DOI:10.1007/s10894-

http://arxiv.org/.../0511051

Information stored in the rest masses of the 3,000 types of atoms that comprise the visible universe is the key to cosmology:

http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm" title="http://http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.omatum...Data.htm

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com/
brant
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2009
"All you need to do is introduce more stuff into the model."

A classic timeless statement. Fail, fail, fail, fail...
earls
3 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2009
brant, I'll fix your rating against extremist discrimination, but certainly theories and models are allowed to evolve. The reason I grant you understanding is because it's true that the standard model has been flexed to the most extreme limits of prediction. Soylent should take note that brant's disposition exists quite succinctly even in mainstream, as illustrated by the article itself.
manonthemoon
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2009
Yes, I agree with all these comments. R2 sucks. In my model, I have explained dark matter and dark energy with the energy provided by the souls of death people. usually, astrophysicists do not take it into account and it makes a big difference. It is able to explain all observations much better than standard cosmology.
E_L_Earnhardt
1 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2009
Sure, you can ignore small inconsistances, but 90% of described mass! THAT needs to be addressed! Why are you so reluctant to consider ALL possabilities?
Fazer
2.7 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2009
I have a theory that involves the soles of dead sneakers. Only problem is, it smells really bad.
brentrobot
1 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2009
Why cant dark matter and dark energy be caused by the same thing. Say a form of matter similar to neutron star material but stable in small amounts, like around a ton. They would be essentially invisible due to their small size, and yet at enormous distances greater than a billion light years, their would be so many between us and distant supernovae that much of the light would be reflected and refracted causing a dimming that scales directly with distance.
Velanarris
1 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2009
How about a simple explanation for gravity that follows the laws of Classical Physics. Assume Einstein's idea of gravity being a bending of space-time is correct. Now we have two parts to this space-time. Space is actually nothing, it the "time" part of space-time that is bent. It is already known that time runs slower in gravity fields. So this is the part of space-time that is bent and actually is the source of gravity along with temperature. The natural vibrations of particles with mass that have a temperature above absolute zero spend a little more time toward the center of a gravity field than away. This is why we feel the constant pull toward the center of the earth. This is the origin of weight, but not mass. This is explained in more detail in "An Alternative to the Standard Model of Physics".

Yes but this flavor of gravitational theory still fails to account for the anomalous observations we've seen on rockets and probes sent far out into the solar system and falls short of Einstein gravity by having issues calulating the observed perturbations of Mercury.
laserdaveb
1 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2009
Why cant dark matter and dark energy be caused by the same thing. Say a form of matter similar to neutron star material but stable in small amounts, like around a ton. They would be essentially invisible due to their small size, and yet at enormous distances greater than a billion light years, their would be so many between us and distant supernovae that much of the light would be reflected and refracted causing a dimming that scales directly with distance.

Why cant dark matter and dark energy be caused by the same thing. Say a form of matter similar to neutron star material but stable in small amounts, like around a ton. They would be essentially invisible due to their small size, and yet at enormous distances greater than a billion light years, their would be so many between us and distant supernovae that much of the light would be reflected and refracted causing a dimming that scales directly with distance.




aren't these two different hypotheses proposed to explain two different observations unexplainable by current theory? Has either demonstrated enough collateral evidence to elevate them to a realistic theory,let alone unifiable?
fuzz54
1 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2009
This whole article sounds like an empirical approach to explaining something. Basic knowledge is needed similar to what Einstein did with thought experiments. Just adding empirical ideas and equations to relativity isn't increasing our understanding of this issue.
fleem
2 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2009
There's not enough information in the article to tell for sure, but it looks like this guy might be suggesting non-equivalence of mass and gravitational attraction. The problem with that is that it implies non-conservation of energy: I can lower a box of matter into a gravity well, convert it to another form of matter (or energy) and when I raise it the attraction is different. Repeat the process and I can create or destroy energy.

I don't see a spooky mystery surrounding dark stuff. Right now I suspect its just particles that only very weakly interact with the particles of which we are familiar. Dark matter are heavy particles and dark energy extremely light, fast-moving particles. Its kinda like when we didn't know about neutrons or neutrinos.
-fleem
magpies
1 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2009
Gravity is pressure.
Velanarris
1 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2009
There's not enough information in the article to tell for sure, but it looks like this guy might be suggesting non-equivalence of mass and gravitational attraction. The problem with that is that it implies non-conservation of energy: I can lower a box of matter into a gravity well, convert it to another form of matter (or energy) and when I raise it the attraction is different. Repeat the process and I can create or destroy energy.
Not necessarily. You're assuming massless energy has a gravitational effect upon objects with mass, which as far as I'm aware, does not. There is no loss of energy from one process to another.
omatumr
1 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2009
Cosmologists with an interest in gravitational interactions might help us solve a very practical problem:

Climate changes are empirically linked more closely with angular momentum changes in the Sun and solar cycles than with anthropologic CO2.

Here are graphs of solar angular momentum changes and the Landscheidt solar cycles:

http://landscheid...m-graph/

The link of angular momentum changes and solar cycles are unexplained if the Sun is the homogeneous ball of Hydrogen described by the Standard Solar Model (SSM).

However, precise, space-age data indicate that our Sun has a surface veneer of lightweight elements (H & He) covering layers of successively heavier elements, encasing a dense, energetic core of nuclear density [1,2].

1. "Composition of the solar interior: Information from isotope ratios," Proceedings of the 2002 SOHO/GONG Conference on Helioseismology, European Space Agency SP-517 (editor: Huguette Lacoste, 2003) pages 345-348: http://arxiv.org/.../0410717

2. "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass," Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) pages 1847-1856; Yadernaya Fizika 69 (Russian), number 11 (Nov 2006); PAC: 96.20.Dt DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X ; http://arxiv.org/.../0609509

Cosmologists with an interest in gravitational interactions might explain how changes in solar angular momentum effect the very heterogeneous object described by these measurements [1,2]. Cosmologists need to address the data, whether or not they agree with the interpretations given above.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com

Stein
1.3 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2009
Hello Everyone

Gravity has been a rather illusive phenomenon. For what it is worth and for your consideration. I would like to post here a somewhat radical new approach to the concept of gravity and mass.

A The following are the known facts we should consider
Newton s concept of gravity states that gravity is the attractive force which is proportional to the 2 masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the masses. This works in some situations but not in other situation. For example how can a photon without mass be attracted by a star as observed and confirmed.

Einstein s equation E=mc^2 appears to equate energy with mass and velocity and this has been proven.

Einstein s theory of special relativity stipulates that the speed of light cannot be exceeded and has provided mathematical formula which take care of this phenomenon.

Photons have no mass however they have kinetic energy to displace an electron from its atom and therefore must have mass.

At first inspection there appear to be major conflicts. I would like to present some logical analysis to find a solution which fits all these observations in order to redefine gravity, mass, velocity and energy,

B First we make a assumption that the universe is empty flat space without any energy of its own just like a perfect vacuum. Therefore the energy present in the space must be intrinsic to the particles which exist in this space. Therefore Gravity is a intrinsic property of the particles and not of space. Electromagnetism, Temperature, velocity, kinetic energy and all forms of energy must be the intrinsic property of the particles.

My first postulate is that all types of energy is an ITRINSIC PROPERTY of particles!

C Let us define the Law of GRAVITY

The law of Gravity is similarity to the Coulomb Law. Maxwell s famous equations define the INTERACTION between magnetic and electric fields. In view of the potential for similarity let us consider the following hypothesis.

Gravity is the field emitted by particles which interacts with the mass of other particles!

Therefore the photon which emits a gravitational field does not require mass to be attracted to other masses. At the same time the gravitational attraction of all the particles which make up the earth and apple will attract the total mass of the other. This would require a minor adjustment to the formula to incorporate the extra terms in Newton s law.

D Let us define MASS in isolation of gravity

Let us consider the hypothesis that mass weighs Zero when gravity is removed. In such a situation mass would not have the dimensions of kg. At first impression this concept does not make any sense because it violates dimension control. But let us consider the outrageous hypothesis that.

Mass in isolation of gravity is the resistance to velocity or motion. Where the resistance is inversely proportional to the velocity of the particle relative to space.

From this could be implied that the photon when traveling at velocity c has no mass however if its velocity is reduced it will gain mass so that maximum mass is reached when the photon is at rest relative to universal space. Therefore it is quite conceivable that the photon has mass when interacting with matter.

Based on the above, the formula for relativistic mass as stipulated in the special relativity requires changing so that mass is at minimum when velocity is at c and maximum when velocity is Zero. In order to do this without changing the result of the mathematics of special relativity, it is necessary to fix the intrinsic maximum energy of photons and matter to equate with the velocity c. In such a situation the particle will have no further energy once velocity c is reached, and therefore the velocity cannot be exceeded. If Einstein s relativistic formulas are redefined to accommodate a variable mass with an intrinsically fixed velocity-mass relationship maximum of c.

Let us consider that the mass of matter particles such as electrons, quark and neutrinos are also variable due to their velocity relative to space.

E Let us consider MASS in conjunction with the gravitational field

When gravity of all nearby particles interact with mass (as in resistance to movement) the Mass will gain the dimension of kg. Therefore the dimension kg is the intrinsic special property of gravity just as Ampere is the intrinsic property of electromagnetism. The result of the gravitational interaction between particles also resolves the issue of dimension control referred to above.

F Let us consider conservation of energy

When one compares the interaction of magnetic and electric fields which causes a displacement or movement or a change in velocity. We could apply a similar principal of conservation whith respect to gravity such that.

The interaction of gravity with mass (mass = resistance to movement) will result in a change to the frequency of the rotation of the photon or matter particle. Such rotation alters the frequency of the photon or the temperature of matter. (note that the interaction of 2 phenomena causes a change in the 3rd phenomenon.

G Let us consider the implications of mass and gravity as proposed above on a cosmological scale.

Red shift over long distance is the result of gravitational interaction of dark matter and energy with the photon such that the photon rotation is reduced over time. This reduction in frequency due to gravity is constant. However at lower photon frequencies a more physical interaction between dark matter and photons commences which accelerates the reduction in frequency.
The lensing effect of mass on photons is determined by the relativistic scale of mass -velocity.
The relativistic scale of mass accounts for the variations in the rotation and movement of galaxies.

H Conclusion
All the apparently contradictory phenomenon of particles and photons with respect to mass and gravity can be explained by the above logical deductions. I shall leave it up to you to make your own conclusions as to the validity of the arguments presented and hypotheses made here.

It would be polite and honorable to make reference to this posting and to the author Stein should the information be used or distributed to other parties. Who knows there may be a Nobel prize attached.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Velanarris
1 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2009
As soon as you wrote
Photons have no mass however they have kinetic energy to displace an electron from its atom and therefore must have mass.
you made all the rest of the post unreadable. If you're not getting such a simple and well understood mechanic, there's no way you could have anything reasonable or relevant to say.
earls
1 / 5 (1) Apr 21, 2009
Stein, so how would one slow light down (sub-c) to give it mass?
Stein
1.7 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2009
Hello Velanarris

I am not quite sure what your question is.

Are you questioning the photoelectric effect.

Or do you question that a photon particle with MASS.

Or do you question my understanding of energy requiring a MASS at velocity in order to do work.

How do you propose a photon with ZERO MASS can have a component of energy which can cause the photoelectric effect? Please consider velocity c times ZERO MASS equals ZERO energy. The same applies to rotational and linear velocity in both cases a component of mass is required to do work. Without a component of Mass there is no energy because energy = kg m^2/s^2. Note the term kg in the dimension of energy. If kg is zero energy is also zero and no work is done full stop.

Do you not understand my point that a contradiction exits with the ZERO MASS photon having energy which requires MASS?

Would you not agree that a photon must gain a component of mass in order to do work?

Please elaborate on which concept you are not happy with?

Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2009
Hello earls

Max Plank has conducted many scientific experiments which have determined that photons interact with electrons in matter and in so doing raise the energy level of electrons by a quantized amount. Einstein has also established that photons are quanta which interact with electrons in the photoelectric effect.

The interaction in between the Photon and the electron requires the 2 particles to be connected to each other if only temporarily. This temporary connection changes the orbital velocity and spin of both particles. Therefore, because the electrons velocity is less than c,

The photons velocity is reduced to that of the electron which gives it mass and the photons spin energy can only then be transferred to the electron to raise its energy.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2009
Hello Velanarris
I am not quite sure what your question is.
Are you questioning the photoelectric effect.
Or do you question that a photon particle with MASS.
Or do you question my understanding of energy requiring a MASS at velocity in order to do work.
How do you propose a photon with ZERO MASS can have a component of energy which can cause the photoelectric effect? Please consider velocity c times ZERO MASS equals ZERO energy. The same applies to rotational and linear velocity in both cases a component of mass is required to do work. Without a component of Mass there is no energy because energy = kg m^2/s^2. Note the term kg in the dimension of energy. If kg is zero energy is also zero and no work is done full stop.

Do you not understand my point that a contradiction exits with the ZERO MASS photon having energy which requires MASS?

Would you not agree that a photon must gain a component of mass in order to do work?

Please elaborate on which concept you are not happy with?

Cheers Zwei Stein

Mr. Stein,

Two things,

1. Energy does not require mass.
-Although E=MC^2 this does not mean that energy has all of the characteristics of mass, nor does it require that energy carries mass. To put it simply, you can't walk on steam. Although steam and ice are composed of the same elements they do not require the same characteristics.

2. photons are quanta of energy traveling at light speed.
-A quantum of anything traveling at light speed cannot have mass as it would be infinitely dense and of infinte size. Unless you can substantiate how a photon has a non-zero rest mass, and subsequently re-write the majority of electromagnetic theory, and the standard model, you're incorrect.

And before you go on a tangent, yes, I'm very familiar with the work of Roderic Lakes where he pinpointed a possible "upper" limit to photonic mass, but I need only point to the lack of evidence for photons having any mass at all.

If the fact photons have massless momentum doesn't make sense feel free to reply and I'll try to explain it.
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2009
errata:A quantum of anything traveling at light speed cannot have mass as it would be infinitely dense and of infinte *dimension*.
earls
not rated yet Apr 22, 2009
Stein only seems to be suggesting that "a photon can have various amounts of energy, and therefore varying relativistic mass." I have no read where he indicates he is referring to the rest mass of the photon.
earls
not rated yet Apr 22, 2009
Yes, Stein, I understand that concept without issue, but that requires a massive particle to be present for the massless photon to impart its energy to. I suppose the real question is: Is the Universe getting more or less massive from its massive or massless beginning?

I suppose I have the answer already in accords with the "Big Bang." An infinite point mass that is fragmenting into nothingness.
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2009
Stein only seems to be suggesting that "a photon can have various amounts of energy, and therefore varying relativistic mass." I have no read where he indicates he is referring to the rest mass of the photon.


Not when he starts off with
Photons have no mass however they have kinetic energy to displace an electron from its atom and therefore must have mass.



To say if you have energy you must have mass is incorrect. To say if you have energy, you must have momentum would be correct, however he follows with:

From this could be implied that the photon when traveling at velocity c has no mass however if its velocity is reduced it will gain mass so that maximum mass is reached when the photon is at rest relative to universal space. Therefore it is quite conceivable that the photon has mass when interacting with matter.
thus creating contradiction of terminology and meaning. The problem here is relativistic mass vs. invariant mass.

Photons do not have invariant mass, meaning
Therefore it is quite conceivable that the photon has mass when interacting with matter.

is false.

Subsequently
Is the Universe getting more or less massive from its massive or massless beginning?
The answer is, neither.
earls
not rated yet Apr 22, 2009
So E=mc^2 suddenly breaks down or it simply doesn't apply?

The descriptions of his concepts seem to hold true if approached from a relativistic standpoint...

Unforunately, I've just read another post in another thread... "My theory of the Universe and Item goes much further than the current Standard Model and in addition it has features which are not in full agreement with the conventional thinking such as Quantum Chromo Dynamics, Big Bang Theory, expanding Universe, [b]Relativistic Mass[/b]..."

So what more is there to say. :/

The answer is, neither.


Care to elaborate? I assume you're referring to the conservation of mass. But approaching it from the relativistic standpoint, matter (mass) can be converted into energy, as long as the energy is equal to the mass.

Consider matter/antimatter collisions, are not both massive particles converted into massless photons of equal energy?
HenisDov
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2009
Gravity Is THE Manifestation Of The Onset Of Cosmic Inflation Cataclysm
On Energy, Mass, Gravity, And Galaxies Clusters -
A Commonsensible Recapitulation
>and read (1 plus D)<


A. "Heavyweight galaxies in the young universe"
http://www.scienc...universe
New observations of full-grown galaxies in the young universe may force astrophysicists to revise their leading theory of galaxy formation, at least as it applies to regions where galaxies congregate into clusters.


B. Some brief notes in "Light On Dark Matter?", at
http://www.physfo...ic=22994&st=0&#entry373127
and
http://www.the-sc...184.page

- "Galaxy Clusters Evolved By Dispersion, Not By Conglomeration"
- Introduction of E=Total[m(1 D)] >read (1 plus D)<
- "Dark Energy And Matter And The Emperor's New Clothes"
- "Evolutionary Cosmology: Ordained Or Random"
- "%u201CMovie%u201D Of Microwave Pulse Transitioning From Quantum To Classical Physics"
- "Broken Symmetry" Is Physics' Term Of Biology's "Evolution"
- "A Glimpse Of Forces-Matter-Life Unified Theory"


C. Commonsensible conception of gravity

1. According to the standard model, which describes all the forces in nature except gravity, all elementary particles were born massless. Interactions with the proposed Higgs field would slow down some of the particles and endow them with mass. Finding the Higgs %u2014 or proving it does not exist %u2014 has therefore become one of the most important quests in particle physics.

However, for a commonsensible primitive mind with a commonsensible universe represented by
E=Total[m(1 D)], >read (1 plus D)< this conceptual equation describes gravity. It does not explain gravity. It describes it. It applies to the whole universe and to every and all specific cases, regardless of size.

2. Thus gravity is simply another face of the total cosmic energy. Thus gravity is THE cosmic parent of phenomena such as black holes and life. It is the display of THE all-pervasive-embracive strained space texture, laid down by the expanding galactic clusters, also noticed in the expanding energy backlashes into various constructs of temporary constrained energy packages.


3. "Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time to the early hot dense "Big Bang" phase, using general relativity, yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.
At age 10^-35 seconds the Universe begins with a cataclysm that generates space and time, as well as all the matter and energy the Universe will ever hold."

At D=0, E was = m and both E and m were, together, all the energy and matter the Universe will ever hold. Since the onset of the cataclysm E remains constant and m diminishes as D increases.
The increase of D is the inflation, followed by expansion, of what became the galactic clusters.

At 10^-35 seconds, D in E=Total[m(1 D)] was already a fraction of a second above zero. This is when gravity started. This is what started gravity. At this instance starts the space texture, starts the straining of the space texture, and starts the "space texture memory", gravity, that will eventually overcome expansion and initiate re-impansion back to singularity.


D. Commonsensible conception of the forces other than gravity

The forces other than gravity are, commonsensibly, forces involved in conjunction with evolution:
http://royalsocie...?id=4770

The farthest we go in reductionism in Everything, including in Life, we shall still end up with wholism, until we arrive at energy. Energy is the base element of everything and of all in the universe. At the beginning was the energy singularity, at the end will be near zero mass and an infinite dispersion of the beginning energy, and in-between, the universe undergoes continuous evolution consisting of myriad energy-to-energy and energy-to-mass-to-energy transformations.

The universe, and everything in it, are continuously evolving, and all the evolutions are intertwined.


E. PS: On Evolution of Cosmic Energy And Mass

As mass is just another face of energy it is commonsensible to regard not only life, but mass in general, as a format of temporarily constrained energy.

It therefore ensues that whereas the expanding cosmic constructs, the galaxies clusters, are - overall - continuously converting "their share" of original pre-inflation mass back to energy, the overall evolution within them, within the clusters, is in the opposite direction, temporarily constrained energy packages are precariuosly forming and "doing best" to survive as long as "possible"...


Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
Life's Manifest
http://www.the-sc...page#578
EVOLUTION Beyond Darwin 200
http://www.physfo...ic=14988&st=405&#entry396201
http://www.the-sc...age#1407
HenisDov
1 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2009
Gravity Limits Link Ultracold And Superhot,
Our Inability To Create Singularity
>and read (1 plus D)<

A. From "Strings Link the Ultracold with the Superhot"
http://www.scienc...Superhot]http://www.scienc...Superhot[/url]
Perfect liquids suggest theory%u2019s math mirrors something real

"When the universe was very young, and still superhot from the aftermath of the Big Bang, plasma should have been the only state of matter around. And that%u2019s what scientists at Brookhaven expected to see when they smashed gold ions together at 99.99 percent of the speed of light using a machine called RHIC (for Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider). RHIC physicists thought the ion collisions would melt the gold%u2019s protons and neutrons into a hot plasma of quarks and gluons at a temperature of a trillion kelvins, replicating conditions similar to those a microsecond after the birth of the universe. But instead of a gaslike plasma, the physicists reported in 2005, RHIC served up a hot quark soup, behaving more like a liquid than a plasma or gas."


B. The expectation of Brookhaven scientists was a bit unrealistic

The "aftermath of the Big Bang" lasted much less than 10^-35 seconds. This is evidenced by the fact that "Gravity Is THE Manifestation Of The Onset Of Cosmic Inflation Cataclysm" :

http://www.the-sc...age#1950
and
http://www.the-sc...age#1982

With all respect due to the scientists at Brookhaven it is very difficult to expect that they can recreate the state of pre big-bang energy-mass singularity.

Commonsense is still the best scientific approach.


Respectfully suggesting,

Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
EVOLUTION Beyond Darwin 200
http://www.physfo...ic=14988&st=405&#entry396201
http://www.the-sc...age#1407

============================
Commonsensible PS To
Gravity Limits Link Ultracold And Superhot,
Our Inability To Create Singularity


A. From "Strings Link the Ultracold with the Superhot"
http://www.scienc...Superhot]http://www.scienc...Superhot[/url]

A new truth always has to contend with many difficulties,%u201D the German physicist Max Planck said decades ago. %u201CIf it were not so, it would have been discovered much sooner.%u201D


B. IMO gravity is attempted reversal of inflation

To me, a simple uninformed one, E=mc^2 is a derived formula, whereas E=Total[m(1 D)] is a commonsensical descriptive concept.

I intuitively regard both the ultracold and superhot liquids as being in a confined space and "striving but unable" to overcome D, to render D=0.

I also intuitively regard accelerated collisions smashups as attempted "reverse inflations" in the sense that Newton's law of universal gravitation seems to me as "reverse inflation".


Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
tkjtkj
not rated yet Apr 22, 2009
"At this instance starts the space texture, starts the straining of the space texture, and starts the "space texture memory", gravity, that will eventually overcome expansion and initiate re-impansion back to singularity."

Rubbish. There is zero evidence that the expansion of the universe will ever end. The average density of the universe will continue to decrease forever.

Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2009
earls, the equations won't format properly on the board and the explanation is rough without the math, do you have an email address I can reach you at?
Stein
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2009
Hello Vellanaris
Point 1
Energy has a dimension of kg m^2 / s^2 Therefore there must be a component of mass as in kg kilogram. Kilogram is the unit which represents the component of mass

Point 2
Correct anything traveling at the speed of light cannot have mass and as such cannot do work. However when velocity is less than the speed of light they gain mass proportionally as per the formula E=MC^2. When photons gain even a small amount of mass they can do work because of their high velocity.
And correct photon have a quantum of energy this energy is caused by the photons rotation. Just as the speed of light is intrinsic and fixed, the quantum of rotational energy is also fixed, such that each rotation of the photon will have a angular momentum equal to Plank h. However this angular momentum is not observed when the photon has velocity c because the photon has no mass and therefore no energy. However when the photon is slower down only by a small amount tit will have mass and the angular momentum becomes a quantum of energy which is transferred to the particle with which it interacts. Maxwells equations do not have to be rewritten to accommodate this. There is enough evidence to establish that a photon must have mass

Please consider that angular momentum is one thing but if the object has no mass the momentum will be unable to do any work and cannot change the energy of the Electron.

Anything traveling at the speed of light has no mass as I have posted above and when the it is at rest it has maximum mass and in between these 2 extremes mass and velocity are proportionally variable. As earls mentioned I am at odds with the current interpretations of Einstein s Special relativity with respect to velocity and mass. So let me explain how my thought differ.

SPECIAL RELATIVITY %u2013 VELOCITY & MASS
The current theory has the correct mathematical result however I would like to show how the same result can be achieved without Mass anomalies so that it same formula defines the variable mass of the Photon.
At the moment the formula stipulates that the closer an objects velocity get to the speed of light the more mass the object gains. So that no matter how much energy you put into its velocity You cannot exceed the speed of light.

Now let me put it in terms of my theory
No particles can exceed the speed of light because the intrinsic energy of all particles is that their absolute maximum velocity is c and at this velocity there is no energy available for mass. When a particle is at rest relative to universal space it will have maximum rest mass and no energy remains for velocity. In between these extremes the mass and velocity are proportional as defined by the equation E=MC^2. From this explanation you can reformulate the equation of special relativity to meet this alternative explanation and you will find there is no mathematical difference between the 2 however My version of events closer resembles what happens in reality, as can be observed with photons and electrons. The mass is therefore not invariant. But the intrinsic energy of the photon is constant and has 2 components energy/rotation and energy of MassLinearVelocity.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Stein
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2009
Hello earls

Electrons and photons dance together quite happily and make the orbits, which suit best to their combined intrinsic energy. You may expect the mass of electrons to change when their velocity canges.

Since the total energy E of all matter in the universe is conserved. There is no possibility that the mass can be conserved unless one considers mass in conjunction with its velocity. In addition the energy associated with spin which include gravity and electromagnetism must also be conserved by the conservation of spin.

This agrees exactly with the formula E=mc^2 and therefore the equation does apply exactly. On what basis do you suggest that the equation E=mc^2 brakes down?

I have explained above how my theory differs with respect to mass and special relativity.

Since you ask what more is there to say perhaps I should elaborate a little further.

With respect to energy of velocity and mass relationship is purely with respect to linear or orbital velocity of photons and matter and the energy associated therewith.

The gravitational and electromagnetic energy field components are both associated with the spin of the photon or particle. The increase or decrease of spin however does not displace the particle relative to universal space and therefore does not alter the mass of the particle.

These components must be taken into account when considering the total energy of the system.

There is another clear distinction I wish to make which is different than Newtons law which stipulates that mass attracts mass this can simply not be so.
Its that the total gravitational field of one system attracts the total mass of the other and vice versa. This small distinction allows the gravitational field of the massless photon be attracted by the mass of a massive object. The gravitational field of the massive object on the other hand cannot be attracted by the massless photons. If however both objects have mass the will both interact between their gravitational fields and masses.

The electron positron annihilation is a process where the 2 particles are attracted and collide with each other and in so doing convert into 2 photons and 2 dark matter particles. As both the electron and positron have a component of mass they will have a velocity proportionally lower than c. The photons will no longer be bound inside the electron and positron, when the particles are separated by the collision and will therefore be free to move at their full potential velocity. Because both the electron and positron have spin and the binding energy is released the 2 photons will be required to conserve the resultant energy and they do that by spin at gamma frequency.

Cheers Zwei Stein
Velanarris
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2009
Stein:


Photons do not have mass. You are clearly confusing relativistic mass and rest mass. A photon traveling at sub C will carry a relativistic mass directly related to its energy as described by m=E/c^2.



Now to determine rest mass the formula is



E = mc^2 /sqrt (1 -v^2/c^2)



or as



E^2 = m^2 c^4 (plus) p^2 c^2

where v is velocity and p is momentum.

Magically, (by doing the correct math), photons with a zero rest mass no longer provide a zero state energy at sub c speed. This is why most people don't understand the relationship between mass, velocity, and energy.

Earls: these are the same equations I was going to send you.
earls
not rated yet Apr 24, 2009
What answers do you get?

m = 0 ?
c = 299792458 m/s ?
v = ?
p = ?
brentrobot
not rated yet Apr 24, 2009
On the subject of photons and mass. If a photon is trapped inside a spherical mirror does the mirror/photon object have an increase in mass? And if so where exactly is the increased mass located?
seanpu
1 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2009
"In many ways, the standard model of cosmology works very well," ... "However, there are very basic features that we just do not know. We have dark energy and dark matter. They dictate the evolution of late time cosmology. They both together constitute more than 95 percent of the energy content of the present Universe."

In ANY other science, if someone said "I know this stuff pretty well!! I know that i dont know 95% of it!" they'd be fired. They wouldn't receive billions of dollars in funding, the wouldnt be allowed to practice. they would be termed QUACKS, insane people.

In cosmology, knowing only 5% of your subject is acceptable.
Velanarris
1 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2009
What answers do you get?

m = 0 ?
c = 299792458 m/s ?
v = ?
p = ?


It would depend on the measurements from the photon. Effectively, photons could never have a non-zero rest mass because either your velocity will be zero or your momentum will be zero, even if measured from a relative point of rest. As soon as you remove velocity and momentum from a mass calculation you are defining relativitic mass, not true mass.

On the subject of photons and mass. If a photon is trapped inside a spherical mirror does the mirror/photon object have an increase in mass? And if so where exactly is the increased mass located?
In truth, the spherical mirror system would have an increase in relativitic mass but not in rest mass. When the photon is absorbed, the relativistic mass of the system increases, but at no time would the rest mass increase as the total energy and mass of the closed system does not change.
jeffsaunders
3 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2009
There is a lot we don't know about the universe and a lot we don't know about the things we supposedly know all about.



Gravity - one mystery but not so great perhaps.



Universe - lots of talk about starting and expanding - we don't know any of that at all. Therefore talk about dark energy is equally just something to make an equation work out.



like x^2 plus y^2 = z^2



We can always add another variable if we want to.



Everybody that thinks the universe is expanding uses red shift to define it. I say red shift is not caused by expanding universe and I want proof otherwise.



Age of galaxies and positions of galaxies and other more recent observations say universe is not expanding or if it is then it looked pretty much the same when it started as it does now - which is ridiculous.



Matter we can see around galaxies and lensing effects attributed to dark matter? get real. The dark matter we can see there is the same dark matter you have in your own backyard.



Time dilation due to acceleration now we are getting somewhere.



What makes a positive charged particle? or for that matter a negative charged particle?



How do they interact exactly? We can observe what happens but do we know any more about it?



We introduce some small particle exchange but does that actually help in explaining it?



What about speed of gravity? much greater than velocity of light. What speed does positive negative attraction take place at?



Electricity is like gravity - it still works even if we have no idea why.



Same goes for nuclear forces why do neutrons and protons attract? why not repel? They do, or we would not be here but how? what takes place?

Standard method introduces particle exchange everywhere extrapolation declares the same thing must happen with gravity and we give a name to the particles.



What do these particles consist of though. Are they a wave with no mass like a photon? How do they propagate? How would they know that another particle was nearby and decide to swap particles with?



At least we know that photons just keep on traveling and don't seem to want to stop until they hit something (except for the gravity bending, or is it time bending).
Velanarris
1 / 5 (1) Apr 24, 2009

Everybody that thinks the universe is expanding uses red shift to define it. I say red shift is not caused by expanding universe and I want proof otherwise.
So you're saying the doppler effect isn't real?
Age of galaxies and positions of galaxies and other more recent observations say universe is not expanding or if it is then it looked pretty much the same when it started as it does now - which is ridiculous.
Got a link?

Matter we can see around galaxies and lensing effects attributed to dark matter? get real. The dark matter we can see there is the same dark matter you have in your own backyard.
True, but I think you're missing the fact that for the dark matter in your backyard to have a lensing effect it would have to be almost as massive as that galaxy.
What makes a positive charged particle? or for that matter a negative charged particle?
Direction of electrical flow through the medium causes polarity.

How do they interact exactly? We can observe what happens but do we know any more about it?
Yes, electromagnetic theory.

What speed does positive negative attraction take place at?
Speed of light.
Electricity is like gravity - it still works even if we have no idea why.
What are you talking about?

What do these particles consist of though. Are they a wave with no mass like a photon? How do they propagate? How would they know that another particle was nearby and decide to swap particles with?
Welcome to the purpose of the LHC and other relativistic colliders.
jeffsaunders
not rated yet Apr 25, 2009
Doppler effect - yes i think the Doppler effect is real just that we have interpreted incorrectly.

I have not got a link on hand about galaxies however, even here in this web site we see from time to time more and more anomalies in distant observations describing situation as I pointed out.

And this is not the only place, however next time I see one of these photos or articles I will try and write it down.

What makes a positive charged particle? or for that matter a negative charged particle?

Direction of electrical flow through the medium causes polarity.


So which way does electricity flow through an electron?

What speed does positive negative attraction take place at?

Speed of light.
are you sure? because that would make charges be carried by photons and therefore they would be easily visible using apparatus we have.

Push two north pole magnets together and tell me just how many photons they have colliding at any time.

Do photons flow out of a north pole?
Do photons flow out of a south pole?
No, magnetic effect can be measured and also calculated and even manipulated but it is not known very well. No better understood now than fire was understood 2,000 years ago. People could still light fires, smelt ores, calculate heat densities and determine what will burn and what wont - without understanding what fire actually was.

Where is the electric charge in an electron. Is the electron an electric charge only? Why do electrons, which are attracted to protons, decide to circle around the outside instead of getting together?

A circling electron should radiate a magnetic field, moving electric charge in a circle, radiating energy should cause the electron orbit to decay. yet they can keep it up for quite a while.
Velanarris
1 / 5 (2) Apr 26, 2009
You're trying to redefine fundamentals of electromagnetic theory, appears to be more and more common now that the Discovery channel airs stripped down physics commentaries.



http://en.wikiped...c_charge



Try that for starters. I'd follow up with some of the linked references. This will answer a lot of your questions.
A circling electron should radiate a magnetic field, moving electric charge in a circle, radiating energy should cause the electron orbit to decay. yet they can keep it up for quite a while.
FYI: In reality, the electron doesn't circle around the proton-neutron core.
dutchman
not rated yet Apr 28, 2009
The article, and the many posts following raise many questions. But one appears to jump out at me:

"Cosmologists with an interest in gravitational interactions might help us solve a very practical problem:

Climate changes are empirically linked more closely with angular momentum changes in the Sun and solar cycles than with anthropologic CO2."

And the post makes convincing argument about the existence of regular angular momentum cycles, but leaves one question that I did no see answered: How does knowledge of angular momentum cycles help in solving climate change?
Velanarris
1 / 5 (2) Apr 28, 2009
It doesn't. It puts the emphasis from "solving" the problem, to adapting to a problem we cannot technologically solve without imposing great damage upon the planet.
dutchman
not rated yet Apr 28, 2009
It doesn't. It puts the emphasis from "solving" the problem, to adapting to a problem we cannot technologically solve without imposing great damage upon the planet.


This is the kind of surprising, defeatist attitude I would not have expected in this community.

I think not doing anything would be a lot more damaging to the earth and to most current life forms that inhabit it.
Velanarris
1 / 5 (2) Apr 28, 2009
Who's to say that change is damaging? Us? The komodo dragon? Thermophyles deep under the sea?

This is the core failure of environmentalist thinking. The environment is not only the organisms you like, but also the ones you don't.

Secondly, it's not defeatist to not attempt to stop the ocean's tide, it's foolhardy to believe you have that ability, or right.
earls
not rated yet Apr 28, 2009
"This is the kind of surprising, defeatist attitude I would not have expected in this community."

lol, better get used to it!
Scryer
1 / 5 (1) May 08, 2009
Define Energy and where it comes from.

I would like to say that all of these posts were a very good read.
HenisDov
1 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2009

The Basic Implications Of E=Total[m(1 D)]

a recapitulation


A. Its essential statement

"Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time to the early hot dense "Big Bang" phase, using general relativity, yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. At age 10^-35 seconds the Universe begins with a cataclysm that generates space and time, as well as all the matter and energy the Universe will ever hold."

E = Energy content of the universe
m = mass content of the universe
D = distance, Total = in all spatial directions, from the point of Big-Bang, of singularity's energy-mass superposition

At D=0, E was = m and both E and m were, together, all the energy and matter the Universe will ever hold. Since the onset of the cataclysm, E remains constant and m diminishes as D increases.
The increase of D is the initial inflation, followed by the ongoing expansion, of what became the galactic clusters.

At 10^-35 seconds, D was already a fraction of a second above zero. This is when gravity starts. This is what started gravity. At this instance starts the energetic space texture, starts the straining of the space texture, and starts the space-texture-memory, gravity, that most probably will eventually overcome expansion and initiate re-impansion back to singularity.


B. Some of its further essential implications beyond Einstein-Hubble and re classical-quantum physics

And again and again : "On The Origin Of Origins"
http://www.the-sc...age#2753

1. It promotes commonsensical scientific critical thinking beyond Einstein-Hubble.

The universe is the archetype of quantum within classical physics, which is the fractal oneness of the universe.

Astronomically there are two physics. A classical Newtonian physics behaviour of and between galactic clusters, and a quantum physics behaviour WITHIN the galactic clusters.

The onset of big-bang's inflation, the cataclysmic resolution of the Original Superposition, started gravity, with formation - BY DISPERSION - of galactic clusters that behave as classical Newtonian bodies and continuously reconvert their original pre-inflation masses back to energy, thus fueling the galactic clusters expansion, and with endless quantum-within-classical intertwined evolutions WITHIN the clusters in attempt to delay-resist this reconversion.

2. There is no call, no need, for any dark energy. The energy of the universe is conserved. The mass of the universe is conserved in the form of energy, the energy fueling the clusters expansion. At the next universal singularity, at the next D = 0, there will again be E = m for a small fraction of a second...just wait and see...

Following Newton (1) gravity is decreased when mass is decreased and (2) acceleration of a body is given by dividing the force acting upon it by its mass. By plain common sense the combination of those two 'laws' may explain the accelerating cosmic expansion of galaxy clusters and the laws that drive it, based on the E/ m/ D relationship suggested above..

3. There is no call, no need, for a Higgs Particle.

The resolution of energy-mass superposition is reverted when D = 0. Shockingly sad, but must be soberingly faced rationally.


C. Its implications re the origin and nature of life beyond Darwin, re selection for survival

For Nature, Earth's biosphere is one of the many ways of temporarily constraining an amount of energy within a galaxy within a galactic cluster, for thus avoiding, as long as possible, spending this particularly constrained amount as part of the fuel that maintains the clusters expansion.

Genes are THE Earth's organisms and ALL other organisms are their temporary take-offs.

For Nature genes are genes are genes. None are more or less important than the others. Genes and their take-offs, all Earth organisms, are temporary energy packages and the more of them there are the more enhanced is the biosphere, Earth's life, Earth's temporary storage of constrained energy. This is the origin, the archetype, of selected modes of survival.

The early genes came into being by solar energy and lived a very long period solely on direct solar energy. Metabolic energy, the indirect exploitation of solar energy, evolved at a much later phase in the evolution of Earth's biosphere.


Dov Henis
(Comments from 22nd century)
Updated Life's Manifest May 2009
http://www.physfo...ic=14988&st=480&#entry412704
http://www.the-sc...age#2321