Physics still can't identify matter that makes up the majority of the universe

Physics still can't identify matter that makes up the majority of the universe
Map of all matter – most of which is invisible dark matter – between Earth and the edge of the observable universe. Credit: ESA/NASA/JPL-Caltech, CC BY

The past few decades have ushered in an amazing era in the science of cosmology. A diverse array of high-precision measurements has allowed us to reconstruct our universe's history in remarkable detail.

And when we compare different measurements – of the expansion rate of the universe, the patterns of light released in the formation of the first atoms, the distributions in space of galaxies and galaxy clusters and the abundances of various chemical species – we find that they all tell the same story, and all support the same series of events.

This line of research has, frankly, been more successful than I think we had any right to have hoped. We know more about the origin and history of our universe today than almost anyone a few decades ago would have guessed that we would learn in such a short time.

But despite these very considerable successes, there remains much more to be learned. And in some ways, the discoveries made in recent decades have raised as many new questions as they have answered.

One of the most vexing gets at the heart of what our universe is actually made of. Cosmological observations have determined the average density of matter in our universe to very high precision. But this density turns out to be much greater than can be accounted for with ordinary atoms.

Physics still can't identify matter that makes up the majority of the universe
Astronomers map dark matter indirectly, via its gravitational pull on other objects. Credit: NASA, ESA, and D. Coe (NASA JPL/Caltech and STScI), CC BY

After decades of measurements and debate, we are now confident that the overwhelming majority of our universe's matter – about 84 percent – is not made up of atoms, or of any other known substance. Although we can feel the gravitational pull of this other matter, and clearly tell that it's there, we simply do not know what it is. This mysterious stuff is invisible, or at least nearly so. For lack of a better name, we call it "dark matter." But naming something is very different from understanding it.

For almost as long as we've known that dark matter exists, physicists and astronomers have been devising ways to try to learn what it's made of. They've built ultra-sensitive detectors, deployed in deep underground mines, in an effort to measure the gentle impacts of individual dark matter particles colliding with atoms.

They've built exotic telescopes – sensitive not to optical light but to less familiar gamma rays, cosmic rays and neutrinos – to search for the high-energy radiation that is thought to be generated through the interactions of .

And we have searched for signs of dark matter using incredible machines which accelerate beams of particles – typically protons or electrons – up to the highest speeds possible, and then smash them into one another in an effort to convert their energy into matter. The idea is these collisions could create new and exotic substances, perhaps including the kinds of particles that make up the dark matter of our universe.

Physics still can't identify matter that makes up the majority of the universe
Experiments at CERN are trying to zero in on dark matter – but so far no dice. Credit: CERN, CC BY-ND

As recently as a decade ago, most cosmologists – including myself – were reasonably confident that we would soon begin to solve the puzzle of dark matter. After all, there was an ambitious experimental program on the horizon, which we anticipated would enable us to identify the nature of this substance and to begin to measure its properties. This program included the world's most powerful particle accelerator – the Large Hadron Collider – as well as an array of other new experiments and powerful telescopes.

But things did not play out the way that we expected them to. Although these experiments and observations have been carried out as well as or better than we could have hoped, the discoveries did not come.

Over the past 15 years, for example, experiments designed to detect individual particles of dark matter have become a million times more sensitive, and yet no signs of these elusive particles have appeared. And although the Large Hadron Collider has by all technical standards performed beautifully, with the exception of the Higgs boson, no new particles or other phenomena have been discovered.

The stubborn elusiveness of dark has left many scientists both surprised and confused. We had what seemed like very good reasons to expect particles of to be discovered by now. And yet the hunt continues, and the mystery deepens.

Physics still can't identify matter that makes up the majority of the universe
At Fermilab, the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search uses towers of disks made from silicon and germanium to search for particle interactions from dark matter. Credit: Reidar Hahn/Fermilab, CC BY

In many ways, we have only more open questions now than we did a decade or two ago. And at times, it can seem that the more precisely we measure our universe, the less we understand it. Throughout the second half of the 20th century, theoretical particle physicists were often very successful at predicting the kinds of particles that would be discovered as accelerators became increasingly powerful. It was a truly impressive run.

But our prescience seems to have come to an end – the long-predicted particles associated with our favorite and most well-motivated theories have stubbornly refused to appear. Perhaps the discoveries of such particles are right around the corner, and our confidence will soon be restored. But right now, there seems to be little support for such optimism.

In response, droves of physicists are going back to their chalkboards, revisiting and revising their assumptions. With bruised egos and a bit more humility, we are desperately attempting to find a new way to make sense of our world.


Explore further

Video: Dark matter hunt with LUX-ZEPLIN

Provided by The Conversation

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.The Conversation

Citation: Physics still can't identify matter that makes up the majority of the universe (2017, October 26) retrieved 25 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2017-10-physics-majority-universe.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1393 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 26, 2017
Eventually some physicist will propose that matter, in a manner similar to neutrinos, changes form as it propagates through space: Matter to antimatter etc.

Unlikely, as we'd see a slew of gamma radiation as a result (whenever a particle that currently happens to be matter meets one that so happens to be antimatter).

Oh...and our planet (and every other piece of rock in the universe) would be blowing up...instantly. That is (luckily) not observed
(not that anyone'd be around to observe it)


Oct 26, 2017
Does the latest and greatest inflationary model of the Universe, I think they call it eternal inflation take the dark matter and dark energy in consideration, after all whatever "inflated" didn't it have to also contain this mystery material? They call it the "inflaton" field. In any event wouldn't this inflaton field have to account for these missing pieces or are they like something the tooth fairy takes care of? I like to think of the "eternal inflation" model of the universe as "eternal confusion", but I don't think anyone would appreciate that so I will keep it to myself. Yours truly ,eternally confused

Oct 26, 2017
I think the missing matter has been turned into energy through annihilation. Most of it occurring in the early U when there was so much more matter/antimatter around to annihilate. It's what caused inflation. The remnants of what's left is in the galaxies. Still some of it going on when we see gamma ray bursts. So what we see as dark matter is actually radiation pressure left over from inflation.

Oct 26, 2017
I like to think of the "eternal inflation" model of the universe as "eternal confusion"


It's more like "intentional confusion". These asstrophysicists are not educated to think in terms of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, so they create these perpetual motion fantasies for themselves and call real scientists foul mouthed names like DM Fritz Zwicky used on Einstein when referring to him as a "spherical bastard".

You get this DM slop & swill pseudo-science from those who do not have the intellectual capacity to get an education in Nuclear Physics like Einstein did, in their place you get the Fritz Zwicky asstrophysicists & his present day following of overage Trekkies.

Oct 26, 2017
Well, my ridiculously hypothetical speculation remains in play. Perhaps I should risk the copyright infringement and used the word 'ludicrous'?

My Guesstimate... There is a meta-universe surrounding our tiny little cosmos. The meta-universe is a primordial chaos of some sort of exotic-gravitrons.

Completely surrounding the accidental-universe we inhabit. The exotic-gravitrons are pulling our universe apart.. Looks like inflation. Though being invisible as being outside our POV, sure smells like dark matter!

Your welcome.

Sorry, I don't do autographs.

Oct 26, 2017
I don't think we should be too disappointed, the solution, one way or another, will come...and it may surprise us all. I'm confident that something will happen, not disastrous I hope, or technology will make further advances and begin to see things we don't currently recognize. Just think of the advances we've made in the past 400 to 500 years and that's without leaving the planet. Let's not be greedy and have it all on one plate. Some discoveries will have to wait until we are able to travel through space. Maybe DM is some kind of phenomenon that does or has in the past 'absorb/absorbed matter and has a peculiar 'event horizon' and no 'singularity'. Please don't bother to say this is wrong for this and that reason, I know I am, but the universe is a fascinating place and sometimes it's good to stop wondering, just for a short time, take a breather and realize just what an amazing place it is.

Oct 27, 2017
...
My Guesstimate... There is a meta-universe surrounding our tiny little cosmos. The meta-universe is a primordial chaos of some sort of exotic-gravitrons.
Completely surrounding the accidental-universe we inhabit. ...

My guess? Meta Universe surrounding our 27 billion year (roughly) diameter bubble, yes. Primordial chaos of exotic gravitons, no.
Just more of the same Universe we already see.
WA-A-AYY more...

Oh.... and it's ALL in motion...

Oct 27, 2017
Oh...and our planet (and every other piece of rock in the universe) would be blowing up...instantly. That is (luckily) not observed
(not that anyone'd be around to observe it)"
Galaxies are what's left after everything else has blown up - ergo inflation. Well almost everything else. We still see gamma ray bursts like about every day. And we are around to observe it. Which raises a good question - why would nature go to all this trouble if there really wasn't anyone around to observe it? Dinosaurs were great creatures but they couldn't lie on their backs and contemplate our view of the galaxies. Or build telescopes.

Oct 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 27, 2017
its the mass of time! if you call this universe "space time", and can measure the matter in space, how about the mass time? time is not constant and can vary, therefore the time particles have mass. move along now.

Oct 27, 2017
"we simply do not know what it is"

- Well Dr Randall Mills would tell you he knows exactly what it is.

"these exist below the first nonradiative n = 1 state, erroneously called the "ground state" by quantum theory. Hydrinos further react to form the corresponding very stable molecules, and neither hydrinos nor molecular hydrinos emit or absorb electromagnetic radiation as is typical of electronic transitions of the ordinary species.

"Observations support that hydrinos is the identity of the dark matter of the universe. Brilliant Light Power is engaged in experimentally characterizing hydrinos and developing the technology for commercial use..."

-And nobody has yet proved him wrong.

Oct 27, 2017
I am leaning toward the idea that it's us. Our system enclosed inside the Oort shell somehow is leading us to make calculations for the rest of the universe based on a strangely isolated and unusual us. We have this gravity well we live on and think the rest of the universe uses the same format. Maybe not.

Oct 27, 2017
27 billion light years is a tiny, temporary bubble within an infinite, eternal Meta-Universe.

Existence does not exist to provide us 'Lords of ALL We Survey' with reasonable answers to our unreasonable questions.

Specifically, the closer we come to dictating a 'Purpose' for our existence the farther away we get from finding any coherent answers.

At best, to exist to have the opportunity to invent new questions, That once we have deduced the 'True Answers'. Will turn out to be more egotistical self-delusions in smuggery.

Approx a hundred million years from now. A giant cockroach archeology professor. Standing in front of a classroom of giant cockroach students.

He/She/It will lift up a skull of a dinosaur in one pair of hands. And a human skull in another pair of hands.

Comparing the two brain cavities & comment about how the Hominid Period ending in self-perpetuated catastrophe. "That the size of the brain in no sign of intelligence!"

Oct 27, 2017
its the mass of time! if you call this universe "space time", and can measure the matter in space, how about the mass time? time is not constant and can vary, therefore the time particles have mass. move along now.


Yes, they act as though they can talk about things in the past without paying attention to time. How can they do that when their theories say that space and time are not separate?

They seem to be assuming that the way they it now is the way it has always been, despite the theory being quite literally about how relative everything is. And their evidence is the way light behaved billions of years ago as it passed by some billions-of-years-old structures, and that was billions of years after the light was emitted. So it is not necessarily representative of the way things are now, but only the way things were at that point in spacetime.

Oct 27, 2017
I've said before, and I'll get derided again by the usual suspects, that it looks like gravity has effects over long timescales that they are not taking into account. Not that gravity changes, but that it acts on matter/energy in spacetime in such a way as to have emergent effects.

The longer you sit in a gravity well, the deeper your well will seem relative to the rest of the universe. So if you are a galaxy that has been part of a cluster for billions of years, you will be held in by the walls of the well despite your apparent rotational speed being high enough to fling you out of the cluster.

Light has to follow the geodesics of gravity wells. So light passing by an old, massive structure will be subject to the same effects as that galaxy in the cluster--it will be pulled toward the center in a way that seems "too much" for the mass you can detect.

The lengthening of geodesics also explains apparent accelerated expansion over time. No dark energy, just longer paths.

Oct 27, 2017
So my guesses are based on the idea that general relativity is static, that it describes the state of things at a specific point in spacetime. You have to solve all those field equations, and all you get is where things were at that moment, or how much energy they had. To find out what was where a second later, you have to solve it all over again.

What would be needed is a dynamic framework, built around the formulas that I'm calling static, to enable a description of what happens when gravity continues to act on a system over time. Current theory seems to say that a gravity well instantaneously reaches its endpoint, never gets deeper or shallower, because that's the value you get for that much mass and energy. But that forgets the fact that the system you are looking has to be relative to the rest of the universe. If there is no explicit bottom to gravity wells built into the theory, then the well should get deeper as time passes, relative to things outside your system.

Oct 27, 2017
So, within your system, you see no differences over time. But you do see differences relative to things that are very large, very old, and very far away.

Oct 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 27, 2017
your missing matter is a miscalculation based on the "red shift" of gravitons. Of course gravitons suffer the same "red shift" effect, prove me wrong! Now where is my Nobel prize?

Oct 27, 2017
@CubicAdjunct, how do you propose to demonstrate redshift of gravitons? They don't have atomic spectra like photons do. Without something to measure you cannot demonstrate it.

Oct 27, 2017
...

Light has to follow the geodesics of gravity wells. So light passing by an old, massive structure will be subject to the same effects as that galaxy in the cluster--it will be pulled toward the center in a way that seems "too much" for the mass you can detect.

The lengthening of geodesics also explains apparent accelerated expansion over time. No dark energy, just longer paths.

So... you're saying a gravity well adds length to the path?

Oct 27, 2017
...
You guys are ALL IN at this point, wherever this amusement park ride takes you!

I've been sayin' for 30 years that Earth is the sim "Great America" for sentient beings from around the galaxy...

Oct 27, 2017
Those inconceivable speeds can explain "entanglement",
I'd say entanglement can be explained by Newton's 3rd law.

Oct 28, 2017
Sorry, @Seeker but that one put you on ignore. It's like claiming Aristotle explained gravity.

Oct 28, 2017
Gravity is...simply the stretching of electron orbitals as a reaction to stacking matter.
Don't think you can stretch an electron orbit without knocking the electron out of its orbit. As around black holes. The space inside the orbits of atoms can be trillions of times that occupied by the nuclear matter. So to produce a neutron star where the nuclear material is stacked you have to expel lots of spacetime. In addition the spacetime energy density inside an atom is much greater than that of empty space. OBTW I think this is where the dark energy hides - inside quantized matter. So increasing the energy density around the nova or supernova fuels the expansion of spacetime. The energy density required for particle formation is then released back to spacetime from where it came. Conservation of energy. Nothing mysterious about it. But the supply of quantized matter is not inexhaustive so we don't expect the expansion to go on forever.

Oct 28, 2017
Sorry, @Seeker but that one put you on ignore. It's like claiming Aristotle explained gravity.
You mean again? How many times does it take? You mean Aristotle knew about gradients in energy density? Don't get mad get even.

Oct 28, 2017
droves of physicists are going back to their chalkboards, revisiting and revising their assumptions. With bruised egos and a bit more humility, we are desperately attempting to find a new way to make sense of our world.
And hopefully the next Einstein or Dirac is looking back beyond a treasured assumption to derive a more fundamental set of laws of physics.

Fundamentally:- What drives the Heisenberg uncertainty? Why is only the weak force so anti-symmetric? What is the reality behind the Copenhagen fudge explanation of wave-particle duality?

Oct 28, 2017
The weak force is asymmetric because it is the result of a broken symmetry of the underlying electroweak force. That's also how it got such massive quanta.

Every interpretation of particle physics has a "fudge" explanation. It appears this way to us because quantum physics does not follow the laws or logic of classical physics, which is the physics we see in everyday life.

Heisenberg uncertainty is a consequence of the fundamental wave-like nature of particle physics.

Oct 28, 2017
Noether's theorem says all forces have underlying conservations and symmetries but only the weak force is so anti-matter anti-symmetric... Why?

Quantum wave equations showed us that Heisenberg uncertainty must be true but as it is one of the most fundamental properties of space at all scales, doesn't explain... Why?

So many of our equations, even the quantum ones, are empirical (Derived from experiment).
We need more derived from first principles and that yield extra results like the Dirac equation did and General relativity did.


Oct 28, 2017
Noether's Theorem doesn't say anything about forces. It says that for every continuous symmetry there is a conservation law.

De Broglie matter waves are empirically measured reality. They are also a fundamental part of quantum mechanics. It is this wave nature of both matter and energy that results in Heisenberg uncertainty as I said above. Waves are not localized phenomena like particles; the more you localize when measuring a wave, the less you know about the wave. If matter were completely particle-like then there would be no uncertainty; it is its wave-like nature that is responsible for uncertainty.

You are asserting the primacy of principle; in fact, experiment is primary. Theory must always conform to experiment.

Oct 28, 2017
@Whydening Gyre
...

Light has to follow the geodesics of gravity wells. So light passing by an old, massive structure will be subject to the same effects...

The lengthening of geodesics...

So... you're saying a gravity well adds length to the path?

Yes, I wondered about that too. I thought that a gravity well was really a gravitational potential field, in astrophysics that is, and is not, in general, associated with with GR and the curved path that light takes. A gwell is more associated with the 'depth' of the well, as least that is how I understand it. I'm sure someone here will correct my intuitive idea.

Oct 28, 2017
A gwell is more associated with the 'depth' of the well, as least that is how I understand it. I'm sure someone here will correct my intuitive idea.


The Shapiro time delay effect, or gravitational time delay effect, it demonstrates there is an "apparent" change in the velocity of electromagnetic waves, that velocity decreases as an EM wave gets nearer and nearer to the sun. This "apparent reduction" of measurement of velocity is the result of the angle at which the photon is traveling, whether observing the photon dead on or at a parallax view from the source, the photon's velocity has actually has not changed, the change is simply an apparent change & not a real change.


Oct 28, 2017
the more you localize when measuring a wave, the less you know about the wave.
Tell us how do you localize when measuring a wave? Specifically a periodic wave?

Oct 28, 2017
...whether observing the photon dead on or at a parallax view from the source, the photon's velocity has actually has not changed, the change is simply an apparent change & not a real change.
The change is in direction. The change in direction doesn't depend on the angle from which the photon is viewed.

Oct 28, 2017
After decades of measurements and debate, we are now confident that the overwhelming majority of our universe's matter – about 84 percent – is not made up of atoms, or of any other known substance. Although we can feel the gravitational pull of this other matter, and clearly tell that it's there, we simply do not know what it is. This mysterious stuff is invisible, or at least nearly so. For lack of a better name, we call it "dark matter." But naming something is very different from understanding it.

The ONLY evidence for DM is provided by the theory of GRAVITY. Perhaps that theory is completely wrong, and the effect is caused by the expansion of all matter (i.e. the passage of TIME).

Oct 28, 2017
...the theory of GRAVITY. Perhaps that theory is completely wrong, and the effect is caused by the expansion of all matter (i.e. the passage of TIME).
nope

and many people already explained why you're wrong about that one in the comments found here: https://phys.org/...ong.html

Oct 28, 2017
Noether's Theorem doesn't say anything about forces. It says that for every continuous symmetry there is a conservation law
Conservation law is about energy, momentum and forces, thus the Noether theorem is about symmetry of force action - nothing else.
The fundamental entity is the symmetry; it is a basic feature of the universe. A conservation law emerges from a continuous symmetry, by Noether's Theorem. This is the mainstream view of modern physics.

For a nice simple example, energy is not a force. The statement I responded to was, "Noether's theorem says all forces have underlying conservations and symmetries..." and it's incorrect in the exact way I said.

Oct 28, 2017
...whether observing the photon dead on or at a parallax view from the source, the photon's velocity has actually has not changed, the change is simply an apparent change & not a real change.
The change is in direction. The change in direction doesn't depend on the angle from which the photon is viewed.

Oct 28, 2017
A conservation law emerges from a continuous symmetry, by Noether's Theorem.
Except dissipative systems with continuous symmetries. Macroscopic systems are dissipative because spacetime has viscosity. So a quantum theory is not going to work for gravity. The best you can say is that the forces of expansion round up quantized matter which cannot expand and isolates it, as in a black hole. An application of the principle of least action. Action being at the interface of the forces of expansion and quantized matter. Nature minimizes this action by minimizing the surface at the interface. To do this it rounds up quantized matter into a more spherical configuration. Thus gravity.

Oct 29, 2017
Yeah, I didn't figure there was any answer for that question. Downvoting a question you can't answer without any actual argument indicates that the view previously expressed that the question isn't answered about is unscientific. Make a response if you got one; otherwise you are shown to be a troll.

Oct 29, 2017
Monoatomic elements and superconducting at Zero K?

Oct 29, 2017
Reads to me like Hooper has given up on LHC observing supersymmetric particles, which is the simplest explanation for dark matter (c.f. "the WIMP miracle" of their predicted density matching DM density) and should naturally be within energy reach of LHC. But I have not seen most particle physicists claim that yet.

To field some misunderstandings here:
- Conspiracies are neither supported by the article (notes unexpected success) nor by the proposed scope (unlikely to last long with that many in on it). Conversely, there is no evidence for it.
- The "wave-particle duality" of the Copenhagen QM was replaced by quantum field theory almost a century ago. The field is fundamental, particles are quasistable excitations in them.
- DM is observed independently in many ways, so is not in question as the article notes. Nor is it "monoatomic", since "dark" means it interacts weakly with electromagnetism.

[tbctd]

Oct 29, 2017
[ctd]
- The current inflation cosmology does not mean dark matter or anything else we see now existed and was 'blown' up during inflation. Inflation is, most likely, a quantum field in its empty vacuum state (or else with massive particles long diluted to practically nothing remaining). I refer to the many articles of cosmologist Ethan Siegler on "Starting With A Bang". When inflation stops, likely locally (c.f. eternal inflation which is what Planck seems to have seen), energy is released and a [so called pocket] universe like ours can appear.

Oct 29, 2017
I see Strumpo has started "commenting" again, I thought he had been banned.

Oct 29, 2017
Yeah, I didn't figure there was any answer for that question. Downvoting a question you can't answer without any actual argument indicates that the view previously expressed that the question isn't answered about is unscientific. Make a response if you got one; otherwise you are shown to be a troll.


Hey, Schneibo, maybe you try be the one to lead by example, knock it off with your down voting. It's just so entertaining listening to little ole foul mouthed YOU complain about the same things that you yourself are guilty of.

Maybe if you'd just learn a little bit about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics & the fact ENTROPY IS NOT CONSUMED, I wouldn't need to post so many Comments here negating all the wacky narratives you come up with to advance your advocacy for Perpetual Motion.

Oct 29, 2017
QFieldTheory may well be currently in favour. But doesn't indicate they represent reality just because the particles of those fields do. (Though they may be manifestations of some TOEverything field. We don't know as we still have too many unknowns.)

The difficulty is choosing the right fundamentals or first principles to draft a theory of reality behind the standard model equations. My bet is on the Heisenberg uncertainty and choosing a sub-set of symmetries and adding some new one relating matter/anti-matter.
It could take a while if it must predict inflation, and weak force asymmetry, and probably emergent space-time, as well as the dark sectors.


Oct 29, 2017
...
Maybe if you'd just learn a little bit about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics & the fact ENTROPY IS NOT CONSUMED, I wouldn't need to post so many Comments here negating all the wacky narratives you come up with to advance your advocacy for Perpetual Motion.

No, Entropy is not "consumed". It can, however, be re-directed or "transferred"...

Oct 29, 2017
I'd say entanglement can be explained by Newton's 3rd law.
Problem with Newton's 3rd law was that he forgot to use the term instantaneous before the word reaction. Cause and effect is not some signal propagated at the speed of light. Spooky I know. Have a happy Holloween!

Oct 30, 2017
...

Light has to follow the geodesics of gravity wells. So light passing by an old, massive structure will be subject to the same effects as that galaxy in the cluster--it will be pulled toward the center in a way that seems "too much" for the mass you can detect.

The lengthening of geodesics also explains apparent accelerated expansion over time. No dark energy, just longer paths.

So... you're saying a gravity well adds length to the path?


Yes. If approaching the speed of light dilates time and compresses space, then curving spacetime has to lengthen the path of light. That's what gravity is, so that's what it does.

Oct 30, 2017
- DM is observed independently in many ways, so is not in question as the article notes. Nor is it "monoatomic", since "dark" means it interacts weakly with electromagnetism.


There are observed phenomena, but the things that are called "observations of DM" by DM proponents are really their explanations for those phenomena that would fit within their version of the theory. The phenomena could be explained by other means, and thus you are not "observing DM." You are only choosing DM as the explanation of the observation.

Oct 30, 2017
I notice there are ratings here, and there's a clique (or one person with multiple accounts) that goes through upvoting themselves and downvoting all their "enemies." Sad.

Oct 30, 2017
Interesting point, @torbjorn:
The "wave-particle duality" of the Copenhagen QM was replaced by quantum field theory almost a century ago. The field is fundamental, particles are quasistable excitations in them.
This is the assertion that fields are a fundamental characteristic of spacetime, if I'm understanding you correctly here.

Oct 30, 2017
Interesting point, @torbjorn:
The "wave-particle duality" of the Copenhagen QM was replaced by quantum field theory almost a century ago. The field is fundamental, particles are quasistable excitations in them.
This is the assertion that fields are a fundamental characteristic of spacetime, if I'm understanding you correctly here.

DS,
wouldn't that be more correct as fields as fundamental characteristic (of energy) WITHIN spacetime?

Oct 30, 2017
I notice there are ratings here, and there's a clique (or one person with multiple accounts) that goes through upvoting themselves and downvoting all their "enemies." Sad.

Dnat. That's what happens. If you'll notice it is a 2 way street...
Personally, I only upvote...
Sometimes, even the people who consistently downvote me (but pretty rarely).

Oct 30, 2017
...

Light has to follow the geodesics of gravity wells. So light passing by an old, massive structure will be subject to the same effects as that galaxy in the cluster--it will be pulled toward the center in a way that seems "too much" for the mass you can detect.

The lengthening of geodesics also explains apparent accelerated expansion over time. No dark energy, just longer paths.

So... you're saying a gravity well adds length to the path?


Yes. If approaching the speed of light dilates time and compresses space, then curving spacetime has to lengthen the path of light. That's what gravity is, so that's what it does.

Light is already AT the speed of light. It only "compresses" space by travelling at 186 thousand,some odd mps. Gravity, on the other hand, is what compresses space. So, if any given quantified section of space is compressed, wouldn't that shorten (or at least not affect) the photon path speed?

Oct 30, 2017
DS,
wouldn't that be more correct as fields as fundamental characteristic (of energy) WITHIN spacetime?
No. The fields all extend everywhere in the universe. They are a constituent of every spot in the universe. If an electron went someplace where there isn't any electron field it would disappear. If a photon went someplace where there isn't any EM field, it would disappear too. In order for these things to propagate, their fields have to be everywhere.

That means they're a characteristic of spacetime.

Oct 30, 2017
DS,
wouldn't that be more correct as fields as fundamental characteristic (of energy) WITHIN spacetime?
No. The fields all extend everywhere in the universe. They are a constituent of every spot in the universe. If an electron went someplace where there isn't any electron field it would disappear. If a photon went someplace where there isn't any EM field, it would disappear too. In order for these things to propagate, their fields have to be everywhere.

That means they're a characteristic of spacetime.

So.... You're saying spacetime is a "field" (complex system) made up of all other known types of fields?
Maybe I'm just not gettin' what ya mean by "field"...

Oct 30, 2017
Some relativists get all hot under the collar when you call gravity a field, but overall, I'd say that spacetime is the collection of all fields at all places. It's kind of inexact in more than one way, but that's pretty much the easy way to think about it.

Oct 31, 2017
Some relativists get all hot under the collar when you call gravity a field, but overall, I'd say that spacetime is the collection of all fields at all places. It's kind of inexact in more than one way, but that's pretty much the easy way to think about it.

That's how I roll, guess...:-)

Oct 31, 2017
Some relativists get all hot under the collar when you call gravity a field, but overall, I'd say that spacetime is the collection of all fields at all places.
Corn ball physics. Spacetime would seem to be a propagator. Fields are certainly propagated, but not the propagator itself. Just ask your friend @Lenni or whoever.

Oct 31, 2017
DS,
wouldn't that be more correct as fields as fundamental characteristic (of energy) WITHIN spacetime?
No. The fields all extend everywhere in the universe. They are a constituent of every spot in the universe. If an electron went someplace where there isn't any electron field it would disappear. If a photon went someplace where there isn't any EM field, it would disappear too. In order for these things to propagate, their fields have to be everywhere.

That means they're a characteristic of spacetime.


That's just circular. The photon is the instantiation of the field, and its traveling is the propagation of the field. It can't go where there is no field because it is the forefront of the field itself. Same with any particle.

So if particles pass into some area where no particles have been before, they cause spacetime to become there. There's no principle of conservation of space.

But you can't find the edge; you can only see what is, not what isn't.

Oct 31, 2017
Dark matter will be our Phlogiston theory!

Oct 31, 2017
Yeah, because all those galaxies will just start winding themselves up!

Oh, wait...

Oct 31, 2017
Some relativists get all hot under the collar when you call gravity a field, but overall, I'd say that spacetime is the collection of all fields at all places. It's kind of inexact in more than one way, but that's pretty much the easy way to think about it.

So... we're sayin' the "fields actually have to exist in order for a "particle" generating that field to exist?
Wouldn't it be easier to just say the fields are an emergent property of what ever it is that generates them?

Oct 31, 2017
Particles don't generate fields. Fields generate particles.

Oct 31, 2017
@Da Schneib
Particles don't generate fields. Fields generate particles.

Are we talking QFT here? So in a classical rod moving electrons (already produced by the field, say) do not create the orthogonal magnetic and electric fields but the reverse? This would indeed be another disposal of a classical analogy, because particles of matter (i.e. dirt) make the field we stand on (to give elementary examples of co-ordinates axes). This assuming the definition of a 'field' as an area or space that has a given value at different points.
How would your quote be interpreted with regard to DM with perhaps an implied grav. gradient? That is, should we be looking for an implied gradient of some field that DM might create as opposed to particle detection? Hmm, interesting.

Oct 31, 2017
@Mimath, from the point of view of the construction of physics theories, the fundamental entity in the theories is symmetry. These are results of experiments that remain the same over transformations, like moving from place to place, or time to time, or turning around to different angles. From the point of view of the fundamental entities in the universe, these are the fields. Spacetime is constructed from fields, and these fields define everything that can happen in the universe.

QFT hints at this, but doesn't define it; it's the universe, and our theoretical construction of physics that define these structures.

Nov 01, 2017
Particles don't generate fields. Fields generate particles.

So what generates the fields...?

Nov 01, 2017
@Da Schneib
Particles don't generate fields. Fields generate particles.

Are we talking QFT here? So in a classical rod moving electrons (already produced by the field, say) do not create the orthogonal magnetic and electric fields but the reverse? This would indeed be another disposal of a classical analogy, because particles of matter (i.e. dirt) make the field we stand on (to give elementary examples of co-ordinates axes). This assuming the definition of a 'field' as an area or space that has a given value at different points.
How would your quote be interpreted with regard to DM with perhaps an implied grav. gradient? That is, should we be looking for an implied gradient of some field that DM might create as opposed to particle detection? Hmm, interesting.

That IS an interesting supposition...

Nov 01, 2017
Particles don't generate fields. Fields generate particles.


So what generates the fields...?

Magic bowls!

Nov 01, 2017
Particles don't generate fields. Fields generate particles.


So what generates the fields...?

Magic bowls!

Ya spelled "balls" wrong....

Nov 01, 2017
@Mimath, from the point of view of the construction of physics theories, the fundamental entity in the theories is symmetry. These are results of experiments that remain the same over transformations, like moving from place to place, or time to time, or turning around to different angles. From the point of view of the fundamental entities in the universe, these are the fields. Spacetime is constructed from fields, and these fields define everything that can happen in the universe.
QFT hints at this, but doesn't define it; it's the universe, and our theoretical construction of physics that define these structures.

Thanks for the reply and I understand.
3D symmetry using 'monkey blocks' (including the head an 'old world' monkey= 'valency' of 6) and so a basically flat universe would imply a symmetry of its own without regard to a field. Now I, a layman, might tend to regard that as the fundamental entity and not any symmetric field(s) that it might/does contain. (cont.)

Nov 01, 2017
(cont.) Now impose 'change' on this structure and we have a space-time continuum (change=our arrow of time). However the A of T cannot flow if there is nothing in the symmetric block to change, enter fields. What then causes the underlying/fundamental energy entity to 'move' and create change?
So with the current topic of DM what might the alternatives be for its symmetry to be static and unchanging and thereby be undetectable as an active field in our universe? I hope that you can see that I'm asking questions and not making proposals (in the same way that I'm looking at the Quarternion (8) [Q8] symmetry that might me help understand other cosmological/QT principles.). Again, thanks

Nov 01, 2017
Particles don't generate fields. Fields generate particles.

So what generates the fields...?
There's the question. And what makes them conservative/symmetrical?

Nov 01, 2017
3D symmetry using 'monkey blocks' and so a basically flat universe would imply a symmetry of its own without regard to a field.
I'm not quite sure what this means. Simply by allowing 4D symmetry you already have gravity. So now you've already got a field (again, watch out for those pesky pedantic relativists).

Now I, a layman, might tend to regard that as the fundamental entity and not any symmetric field(s) that it might/does contain.
But as I pointed out, you've already got a field if you have spacetime: gravity. So even if you regard pure spacetime without any other fields, you still have gravity.

This means that the most basic characteristic of the universe is its dimensionality. As soon as it has that it has a field. This is not mainstream, but it's how I see things. And there's the answer to @Whyde's question: dimensionality generates the fields.

Nov 01, 2017
Regarding DM, we don't yet know if it is a variation in the gravity field or a new field generating excitations that we would interpret as a particle we haven't seen yet. The evidence is still being collected. Most physicists think the latter, which is why we call it dark "matter." But nobody knows for sure. Experiments and observations are ongoing. We'll have to wait and see.

Nov 01, 2017
Be very cautious here: in my last two posts I have expressed an opinion that is not mainstream. These are my own views and that's not something I usually discuss, and never without that disclaimer. I think dimensionality is the fundamental entity, and this is a very, shall we say, "stringy" point of view. But I constantly look for evidence I might be wrong; so far I haven't seen any. As physics is seen today by the mainstream, symmetry and field are the most basic characteristics of the universe.

I note that despite making a major fuss over the "untestability" of string physics, Lee Smolin's LQG hasn't made any more testable predictions than string physics, and for that matter neither has any quantum gravity theory.

Nov 01, 2017
There, you got me to talk about non-mainstream views and now I'm going to get hammered by #realphysicists if any show up. They'll have a fit because I called gravity a field.

Nov 01, 2017
@Da Schneib, Well, I'm not a scientist so I can 'hammer' you, Ha? But I won't because in a way what you've said about 'dimensionality' is, in my interpretation, along the lines to what I was intimating.
Particles don't....

So what generates the fields...?
There's the question. And what makes them conservative/symmetrical?

My own form of 'correction' to what you stated about gravity is not that it's a field but what might be an analog of a lake because as such they can be shallow or otherwise. My choice a math analogy is that a rank 2 tensor describes the variations of gradients upon the surface of said field while a '3D block' rank 3 tensor might be a description of variations but not just on the surface. As far as DM is concerned I'm suggestion we take your 'dimensionality' and impose symmetrical gradient's upon it. Could we end up with the 'gravitational' anomaly' that DM seems to imply mass? Gee I said enough to be hanged, drawn & quartered, Ha!

Nov 01, 2017
@Mimath, a nonuniform field makes forces (or what we perceive as forces). And that's exactly how gravity behaves.

Nov 01, 2017
Uh-oh. You guys have thought experiment trippin' again....
What if there was just space? Would there be gravity?
(And I totally agree on the dimensionality thing...)

Nov 01, 2017
If you mean space without time, @Whyde, nothing could move so there would be no such thing as symmetry, but there would still be field; unfortunately the field could not be measured since to do so requires motion and therefore time.

Nov 01, 2017
If you mean space without time, @Whyde, nothing could move so there would be no such thing as symmetry, but there would still be field; unfortunately the field could not be measured since to do so requires motion and therefore time.

Yep, you said it right there...so what is about 'time' that makes things move? That's a rhetorical question because I think we've had similar discussions before. This is where I am working way off mainstream and best if I leave it there. Anyway thanks for the discussion, much appreciated I assure you.

Nov 01, 2017
@Mimoth
There's only one way to measure time, and that is by measuring a change in the relative positions of matter. (please correct me if you know of any other way?). So, turning this around, what we call time is only states of matter, and does not otherwise exist except subjectively to us (bit like gravity). Its not time that makes things move, its things moving that make time......

Nov 01, 2017
@Reg Mundy Please go back and read the comments. Nowhere do I mention measuring time and you are referring to the 'arrow of time' (changes) the 'illusion of time' whatever and I'm not.

Nov 01, 2017
From my Aunt Carrie's dairy, posted in 1889 I believe:
While others beautiful as the ethereal kind,
the nobler potions want the knowing mind.
In outward show, heaven gave to them the power to excel ,
but heaven denied the power of thinking well .

Nov 01, 2017
Regarding DM, we don't yet know if it is a variation in the gravity field or a new field generating excitations that we would interpret as a particle we haven't seen yet. The evidence is still being collected. Most physicists think the latter, which is why we call it dark "matter." But nobody knows for sure. Experiments and observations are ongoing. We'll have to wait and see.


I hate to ruin your day, but I agree about particles. You will probably say I don't even understand, whatever. I think particles don't exist. What we observe, we interpret as particles. But really, we are seeing the point of reconnection of the fields. Like those plasma ball toys, where the light goes where your finger is--when you observe the electron, you are not seeing where it is, you are seeing where you happened to observe it. The electron is actually the field in the space where you might observe it.

Nov 01, 2017
At which point I can get on board with the idea of dark matter IF it is put as you just did, a field generating excitations that we exhibit as particles. Obviously something is going on to modify gravity in those observations.

That is not the same as being on board with current theories of dark matter. Those seem to involve too much self-serving pretzel making. Too many ignored coincidences and ad hoc complications. A real answer would look more fundamental, the way E=mc^2 did.

Nov 01, 2017
At which point I can get on board with the idea of dark matter IF it is put as you just did, a field generating excitations that we exhibit as particles. Obviously something is going on to modify gravity in those observations.

That is not the same as being on board with current theories of dark matter. Those seem to involve too much self-serving pretzel making. Too many ignored coincidences and ad hoc complications. A real answer would look more fundamental, the way E=mc^2 did.


I misspoke. It is not obvious that anything is modifying gravity. it is obvious that the current theory of gravity does not explain the observed phenomena. Therefore, either something is modifying gravity, or the theory needs to be modified to fit the facts.

Nov 02, 2017
At which point I can get on board with the idea of dark matter IF it is put as you just did, a field generating excitations that we exhibit as particles. Obviously something is going on to modify gravity in those observations.

That is not the same as being on board with current theories of dark matter. Those seem to involve too much self-serving pretzel making. Too many ignored coincidences and ad hoc complications. A real answer would look more fundamental, the way E=mc^2 did.

Like...DM=mc^2, maybe...?
Possibly, "excitations" with a relative mass? Albeit, pretty small, but there is a LOT of space out there....

Nov 02, 2017
There, you got me to talk about non-mainstream views and now I'm going to get hammered by #realphysicists if any show up. They'll have a fit because I called gravity a field.

Well, at least it provides a "field effect"...:-)

Nov 02, 2017
A real answer would look more fundamental, the way E=mc^2 did.
Yes but you need to know the effective volume displaced by quantized matter. For example let the effective volume displaced by quantized matter be dV and the total volume of the galaxy be V. The differential pressure of expansion inside and outside the galaxy would be dP=-PdV/V where P is the pressure of expansion outside the galaxy. The total force holding the galaxy together is then F=AdP/V=APdV/V where A is the surface area of the galaxy. Not really rocket science. Even a barnyard physicist can figure that one out.

Nov 02, 2017
Let's make that dF=AdP=APdV/V.

Nov 02, 2017
I agree about particles. ... I think particles don't exist. What we observe, we interpret as particles.
So far so good. They're localized excitations of fields, all of them. It's a little more obvious for photons, a little less obvious for electrons, but they are all excitations of various fields. That's what QFT says, more or less.

But really, we are seeing the point of reconnection of the fields. Like those plasma ball toys, where the light goes where your finger is--when you observe the electron, you are not seeing where it is, you are seeing where you happened to observe it. The electron is actually the field in the space where you might observe it.
I don't know what "reconnection" means in this context. But the rest seems a lot like a probability amplitude in QFT.

Nov 02, 2017
At which point I can get on board with the idea of dark matter IF it is put as you just did, a field generating excitations that we exhibit as particles. Obviously something is going on to modify gravity in those observations.

That is not the same as being on board with current theories of dark matter. Those seem to involve too much self-serving pretzel making. Too many ignored coincidences and ad hoc complications. A real answer would look more fundamental, the way E=mc^2 did.
There aren't any current theories of dark matter in the way you seem to mean. There are some hypotheses that are being tested various ways.

The only theory of dark matter is that something is making galaxies and galaxy clusters behave as if they have more mass than we see and it's distributed differently than we see.

Nov 02, 2017
OBTW Here's an idea. We know the expansion rate of the U. Call it dU/U where U is the volume of the U. Then the pressure of expansion P=rho*dU/U where rho is the energy density of the U. I think.

Nov 02, 2017
Can I request that all readers with an open mind consider this possibility:- All matter is expanding. In a galaxy, the expansion causes stars further from the centre of mass to accelerate faster than those closer in, just as the surface of planet Earth is accelerating away from the centre more than the core (thus providing what we perceive as gravity). We do not "see" this as we ourselves are also expanding, so to us the expansion is not apparent. Now, plot the position of the stars in the galaxy in sequential quantums of time, taking the situation in each quantum as the starting point in turn (which is what we experience subjectively, as each quantum is in fact a new starting point). Hey presto, the stars in the galaxy rotate AS OBSERVED, with no need for DM. Its relatively easy to model this on a computer, plotting each star in a chosen population and predicting its position, remembering to use the subjective velocity vector for each new quantum (the speed/direction we observe!).

Nov 02, 2017
Can I request that all readers with an open mind consider this possibility:- All matter is expanding.
Ok. So tell me, all you open-minded readers, how does quantized matter fit into this paradigm? No problem of course with dark matter.

Nov 02, 2017
Can I request that all readers with an open mind consider this possibility:- All matter is expanding.
Ok. So tell me, all you open-minded readers, how does quantized matter fit into this paradigm? No problem of course with dark matter.

So there is no problem with DM? How do you know that when you have no idea what DM is (if it exists at all!)?
As for quantized matter, all I'm saying is that for each succeeding quantum of time, the particles of which matter is comprised are slightly bigger than they were in the proceeding quantum (in practice, time is the choice of states of matter from chaos so that this is true according to the laws of physics which define our universe.

Nov 02, 2017
A real answer would look more fundamental, the way E=mc^2 did.
Yes but you need to know the effective volume displaced by quantized matter. For example let the effective volume displaced by quantized matter be dV and the total volume of the galaxy be V. The differential pressure of expansion inside and outside the galaxy would be dP=-PdV/V where P is the pressure of expansion outside the galaxy. The total force holding the galaxy together is then F=AdP/V=APdV/V where A is the surface area of the galaxy. Not really rocket science.

Are you talking just the outside surface area of the galaxy? Or the total surface area of all galactic mass exposed to space?
Even a barnyard physicist can figure that one out.

Just a barnyard artist, so I can't...

Nov 03, 2017
All matter is expanding. In a galaxy, the expansion causes stars further from the centre of mass to accelerate faster than those closer in, just as the surface of planet Earth is accelerating away from the centre more than the core (thus providing what we perceive as gravity). We do not "see" this as we ourselves are also expanding, so to us the expansion is not apparent.


This is equivalent to saying that all gravity wells get deeper, constantly and indefinitely, with no bottom. Same effects. Just sayin'.

Nov 03, 2017
All matter is expanding. In a galaxy, the expansion causes stars further from the centre of mass to accelerate faster than those closer in, just as the surface of planet Earth is accelerating away from the centre more than the core (thus providing what we perceive as gravity). We do not "see" this as we ourselves are also expanding, so to us the expansion is not apparent.


This is equivalent to saying that all gravity wells get deeper, constantly and indefinitely, with no bottom. Same effects. Just sayin'.

Good comparison...

Nov 03, 2017
So there is no problem with DM? How do you know that when you have no idea what DM is (if it exists at all!)?
DM is a gradient in the DE. Don't worry. There's plenty of it to go around.
As for quantized matter, all I'm saying is that for each succeeding quantum of time, the particles of which matter is comprised are slightly bigger than they were in the proceeding quantum (in practice, time is the choice of states of matter from chaos so that this is true according to the laws of physics which define our universe.
In which case matter expands with each tick of the cosmic clock. I don't think this is what quantization means.

Nov 03, 2017
A real answer would look more fundamental, the way E=mc^2 did.
Yes but you need to know the effective volume displaced by quantized matter. For example let the effective volume displaced by quantized matter be dV and the total volume of the galaxy be V. The differential pressure of expansion inside and outside the galaxy would be dP=-PdV/V where P is the pressure of expansion outside the galaxy. The total force holding the galaxy together is then F=AdP/V=APdV/V where A is the surface area of the galaxy. Not really rocket science.
Are you talking just the outside surface area of the galaxy? Or the total surface area of all galactic mass exposed to space?
Only one galaxy.

Even a barnyard physicist can figure that one out.

Maybe on the second try. Sorry.
Just a barnyard artist, so I can't...
I understand.

Nov 03, 2017
...The total force holding the galaxy together is then F=AdP/V=APdV/V where A is the surface area of the galaxy. Not really rocket science.
Are you talking just the outside surface area of the galaxy? Or the total surface area of all galactic mass exposed to space?
Only one galaxy.

What I mean is...
are you meaning the surface area of the general volume of a galaxy or the total surface area of all matter within that galaxy (Like a sponge)?

Nov 03, 2017
I believe DM is nothing more than a combination of compounded errors and emergent behavior. For instance, it is difficult to see the effect of the moon on a cup a water and very easy to detect the effect of its gravity on an ocean. Likewise, there are likely factors that don't play much of a role in our solar system, but become much more prominent at the scale of galaxies.

Also, take the equation E = MC^2. Energy can cause gravity just like mass does. We don't currently take photons, neutrinos, nor empty space into consideration when we make these gravity calculations. At a quantum level, matter and antimatter pairs are constantly appearing and annihilating each other. This mass and energy can play a part as well. I don't think it is a single factor that accounts for DM but a combination of many little things which lead to errors in our assumptions which got compounded repeatedly when we used these values to make more assumptions.

Nov 03, 2017
@Merrit it would still be "dark matter," whatever that is.

People keep telling you EUdiot/Velikovsky nutjobs that "dark matter" is just a placeholder for whatever makes galaxies obey the Rubin curve and galaxy clusters obey the Zwicky effects and you keep pretending it means physicists think there is some sort of "matter" that is involved. There isn't, it doesn't, and you're lying. Get over it.

Nov 03, 2017
People keep telling you EUdiot/Velikovsky nutjobs that "dark matter" is just a placeholder


No, these "people" do not take DM as a placeholder & neither do you, you really do believe it exists. You simply like how that "placeholder" word resonates within the resonating cavity of the pseudo-science of pop-sci culture with you as an advocate for perpetual motion math, something for which you have been unable to come up with a Differential Equation, ordinary or partial.

Nov 03, 2017
are you meaning the surface area of the general volume of a galaxy or the total surface area of all matter within that galaxy (Like a sponge)?
Was thinking the general volume.

Nov 03, 2017
@Benni What's the MATTER with you. What difference does it make what the apparent effect is called? Some think it can be explained by MOND and some don't. Some think it MATTERS some think it doesn't MATTER. But until the MATTER is unequivocally determined we can call it the Dense Alien Riemann Knots if we wish. What is good about the term DM is that the anti-DM camp will continue to devise arguments against and the DM group will continue to search; so between the two of them a solution will be found. If it wasn't controversial perhaps no one would care and not bother at all. It's all part of progress. Get used to it!

Nov 04, 2017
So there is no problem with DM? How do you know that when you have no idea what DM is (if it exists at all!)?
DM is a gradient in the DE. Don't worry. There's plenty of it to go around.
As for quantized matter, all I'm saying is that for each succeeding quantum of time, the particles of which matter is comprised are slightly bigger than they were in the proceeding quantum (in practice, time is the choice of states of matter from chaos so that this is true according to the laws of physics which define our universe.
In which case matter expands with each tick of the cosmic clock. I don't think this is what quantization means.

I think you are correct, this is not what quantization means. But matter can be viewed as expanding with each tick of the cosmic clock because the expansion of matter IS THE TICK OF THE COSMIC CLOCK...subjectively, of course!

Nov 04, 2017
I get it. Matter gets lighter as time goes on and it expands. Eventually it gets so light it just sort of floats away. That's why we have the expansion of the U. Never thought of that.

Nov 04, 2017
are you meaning the surface area of the general volume of a galaxy or the total surface area of all matter within that galaxy (Like a sponge)?
Was thinking the general volume.

Wouldn't that be an incomplete "averaging" mechanism, then?
I mean, gravitational effect might be different on different areas of that surface (dependent on local density of matter), wouldn't it?

Nov 04, 2017
I mean, gravitational effect might be different on different areas of that surface (dependent on local density of matter), wouldn't it?
Depends on how you pick the surface. Every point on the surface must be outside the galaxy and you have to pick the surface so that the g-force is the same on every point of that surface. Additionally every point on the surface must be as close to the galaxy as possible. Don't think people know that much about the g force around galaxies yet but maybe someday.

Nov 05, 2017
I get it. Matter gets lighter as time goes on and it expands. Eventually it gets so light it just sort of floats away. That's why we have the expansion of the U. Never thought of that.

Well, matter might get lighter, but as weight is a relative thing, and all the matter in the universe is expanding, it remains subjectively relatively the same weight to us. But of course weight for us is merely the amount of force necessary to accelerate a mass at the same rate as the surface of Earth is accelerating away from the Earth's centre of mass. And don't forget, force itself is only a convenient mathematical shorthand, and doesn't really exist - in our universe, every action results in an equal and opposite reaction, therefore considering two masses (M1 and M2) interacting resulting in two different accelerations (A1 and A2), then you have M1A1 = F = M2A2, so F is effectively redundant and only useful in modelling reality. This obviously also applies to many-body interactions.

Nov 05, 2017
We know that QFT cannot be the ultimate pointer to the explanations for space, matter, dark-matter, and the space-time universe; as it calculates a HUGE density of energy in space. (predicting the universe should collapse)

However as it also calculates many other experimentally measured results amazingly accurately (after a big normalisation fudge) it does give a place to start thinking outside of our box from.

Its certainly too much of a coincidence that the rotation curves of galaxies flatten so exactly regardless of their inner rotation rate and central black hole mass.

Nov 05, 2017
Its certainly too much of a coincidence that the rotation curves of galaxies flatten so exactly regardless of their inner rotation rate and central black hole mass.
Sure is. Galaxies are formed in the gravitational wells of dark energy according to the dictates of the gravitational well and the principle of least action. That is they are ordered so in such a way as to minimize their internal interactions and keep from early self-destruction.

Nov 05, 2017
We know that QFT cannot be the ultimate pointer to the explanations for space, matter, dark-matter, and the space-time universe; as it calculates a HUGE density of energy in space. (predicting the universe should collapse)
Don't understand why it shouldn't predict the U would explode which would be more like what it's actually doing. Anyway I think you have to have a huge density because without it you wouldn't have enough pressure gradient to form black holes. Maybe we should give QFT a second look.

Nov 05, 2017
If matter was indeed expanding like many people on this site seem to think that would cause a lot of issues I fail to see. In quantum physics small changes in size can have profound effects on materials. The whole field of metamaterials makes great use of this. If all matter was expanding, then atoms would become unstable and the universe as we know it would cease to exist. Luckily matter is not expanding and there is nothing to worry about.

Nov 05, 2017
If matter was indeed expanding like many people on this site seem to think that would cause a lot of issues I fail to see. In quantum physics small changes in size can have profound effects on materials. The whole field of metamaterials makes great use of this. If all matter was expanding, then atoms would become unstable and the universe as we know it would cease to exist. Luckily matter is not expanding and there is nothing to worry about.

How would you know whether or not matter was expanding, if ALL matter (including you) is expanding? "Gravity" is actually the force required to keep masses apart as they expand. Expanding matter provides the subjective experience we perceive as TIME. As for worrying about it, don't, as it has always gone on since the BB and always will until we eventually participate in a BH.
By the way, the effect on materials is manifest in their molecular shapes, some of which are more robust than others thus giving degrees of hardness as they expand.

Nov 05, 2017
Gravity" is actually the force required to keep masses apart as they expand.
So gravity is what keeps you from falling down when you're standing up. I wondered about that.

Nov 06, 2017
@reg sorry to burst your bubble, but time does not exist. It is a man made concept. Very useful for describing motion Etc., but it is simply an illusion.

You can think of the universe as just a giant chemical reaction. This would be why it is only one directional and time dilation is akin to enzymes or lack of enzymes.

Nov 06, 2017
@reg sorry to burst your bubble, but time does not exist.
Plenty of time for trolling though. Or so it seems.

Nov 06, 2017
@reg sorry to burst your bubble, but time does not exist. It is a man made concept. Very useful for describing motion Etc., but it is simply an illusion.

You can think of the universe as just a giant chemical reaction. This would be why it is only one directional and time dilation is akin to enzymes or lack of enzymes.

Perhaps you are mis-reading my comments. Time is a subjective phenomenon created by the expansion of matter, each quantum of time being a state of matter, or rather the position of particles in different states of chaos chosen to be experienced as sequential quantums according to the laws of physics which dictate the conditions of our universe. It is nothing like a chemical reaction, and I can't believe that you are seriously suggesting any similarity to enzyme functionality as relevant to the subject.

Nov 06, 2017
@reg it was simply an analogy.

Also, I see two major issues with your theory. One, the nuclear strong force would appear to be weakening as matter expanded. Two, since you account time to the expansion of matter how do you explain time dilation? Matter would need to expanding at different rates to account for this. This clearly, is not happening.

Nov 06, 2017
@reg it was simply an analogy.

Also, I see two major issues with your theory. One, the nuclear strong force would appear to be weakening as matter expanded. Two, since you account time to the expansion of matter how do you explain time dilation? Matter would need to expanding at different rates to account for this. This clearly, is not happening.

Why would the nuclear strong force appear to be weakening? Against what would you be measuring it?
Matter expands in general in all directions, but if it is moving relative to the observer it is expanding more in the direction of travel than in other directions, that's how it moves (you would have to read the entire theory to see how it explains relative motion and momentum). As time is dictated by the general expansion, the faster something moves relative to the observer the more of its expansion is dedicated to movement and less to general expansion, thus slowing its subjective time for the stationary observer.

Nov 06, 2017
@reg inside the nucleus of an atom there are protons and neutrons. If matter where to expand, then the distance between said particles would be expanding as well. Nuclear strong force is only strong over very short distances. As the distance between the particles increased due to matter expanding, the strong force would lose its force and atoms everywhere would explode due to the electromagnetic force. Very simple really. Not sure what part is confusing you.

Nov 06, 2017
I have just read an article (published October 30). Anyone here care to comment? Thanks in advance.
'...If dark matter does interact through Higgs intermediaries, then this should affect—in a reverse sense—how Higgs bosons decay. Specifically, some fraction of Higgs bosons created in the LHC should decay into dark matter particles, which would escape detection. The fact that none of these "invisible decays" have been observed allows researchers to set a lower limit on the likelihood, or cross section, for dark matter particles interacting with a nucleon.....
Martin Hoferichter of the University of Washington, Seattle, and his colleagues reevaluate this Higgs-nucleon coupling....'
@Merrit Yes, I was thinking the same. I think Reg is getting his 'expansions' mixed, that is, applying classical thought to quantum levels, Ha!

Nov 07, 2017
@M-people
@reg inside the nucleus of an atom there are protons and neutrons. If matter where to expand, then the distance between said particles would be expanding as well. Nuclear strong force is only strong over very short distances. As the distance between the particles increased due to matter expanding, the strong force would lose its force and atoms everywhere would explode due to the electromagnetic force. Very simple really. Not sure what part is confusing you.

Just as the Earth and Moon expand whilst the RELATIVE distance between them remains the same, so the fundamental particles of matter expand yet the distance between them remains RELATIVELY the same. And please don't confuse protons and neutrons with fundamental particles. Its not me who is confused....
By the way, Mimoth, the basis of the theory is the quantum nature of the universe, and exactly why it is quantum rather than classical.

Nov 07, 2017
I have just read an article (published October 30). Anyone here care to comment? Thanks in advance.
'...If dark matter does interact through Higgs intermediaries, then this should affect—in a reverse sense—how Higgs bosons decay. Specifically, some fraction of Higgs bosons created in the LHC should decay into dark matter particles, which would escape detection. The fact that none of these "invisible decays" have been observed allows researchers to set a lower limit on the likelihood, or cross section, for dark matter particles interacting with a nucleon.....
Martin Hoferichter of the University of Washington, Seattle, and his colleagues reevaluate this Higgs-nucleon coupling....'
@Merrit Yes, I was thinking the same. I think Reg is getting his 'expansions' mixed, that is, applying classical thought to quantum levels, Ha!

Why do you think that, over sufficient time, ALL atoms decay?

Nov 07, 2017
Why do you think that, over sufficient time, ALL atoms decay?
Like I said, over time they get so bloated they just sort of float away.

Nov 07, 2017
@reg the distance value for forces such as the strong force and gravity is measured from the center of gravity of two objects, not the distance between their surfaces. If two particles in the nucleus are touching, then this distance would be equal to the diameter of the particle which would indeed increase if said matter was expanding. I can not put this any more simple for you. Your idea is complete garbage. Please move on.

Nov 07, 2017
@Merrit
If you had bothered to read the previous comments, you would know that I postulate that gravity does not exist as a force. You should also know that in quantum context it is meaningless to talk about the surface of objects, and your concept of two fundamental particles touching indicates a lack of thought and a reluctance to deeply consider any alternative to the current scientific establishment view. Please either think again about the fact that as far as we are concerned although the fundamental particles have expanded and also the distance between them, to our universe they REMAIN THE SAME DISTANCE APART. Unless you can grasp this concept, and realise that although the strong nuclear force has weakened in underlying reality, to us in our universe it has NOT CHANGED, then I suggest you stop hurting your brain and move off....

Nov 08, 2017
@reg does your theory have any predictions that would prove it?

Nov 08, 2017
Not so much predictions as observations...
e.g. If you are in a box, there is no way of telling whether you are on the surface of Earth or in a spaceship accelerating at about 10mss (OK, pedants could say if you drop a weight at different end of the box (spaceship) the weights would fall in parallel, whereas on Earth they would converge towards the centre of the Earth, but I'm assuming a very small box (spaceship).- any bigger, and on Earth either the weight would be heavier in the middle of the box than at the ends or the floor of the spaceship would be curved to match Earth's surface). So gravity is simply acceleration, why invent it in the first place....
I think we started this thread talking about galaxies and DM, and in an earlier comment I explained how using each successive quantum of time as a completely new starting point with observed velocity and expansion theory rather than gravity, star rotation in galaxies fits the observed motions without DM.
No more room...

Nov 09, 2017
@Merrit
@reg the distance value for forces such as the strong force and gravity is measured from the center of gravity of two objects, not the distance between their surfaces. If two particles in the nucleus are touching, then this distance would be equal to the diameter of the particle which would indeed increase if said matter was expanding....

Forgot to mention that, by experimental observation, the binding force between quarks initially INCREASES as they move further apart. That is, it increases as far as we in our universe observe. You will have to read about QCD to appreciate this. However, I do not subscribe to the idea that quarks are the fundamental building particles of our universe. For example, anything that can be created, such as a photon, must have constituent parts, so a photon is at least two fundamental particles. As many features of sub-atomic particles require that a particle with one third of the charge of an electron exists, simplest model is two/photon.

Nov 09, 2017
@reg expanding matter can't explain the force of gravity. That doesn't make sense at all. It could potentially work for say people on the surface of the earth, but would have no effect what so ever on say the moon earth relationship. Expanding matter has no way to explain orbits.

Nov 09, 2017
@reg expanding matter can't explain the force of gravity. That doesn't make sense at all. It could potentially work for say people on the surface of the earth, but would have no effect what so ever on say the moon earth relationship. Expanding matter has no way to explain orbits.

Sorry to burst your baloon, Merrit, but expanding matter and quantum time explain orbits very well. I don't intend to try to do this in the limited space here, and there are myriads of postings on the internet which agree with you, not me (see http://www.mathpa...h077.htm for an example of this containing numerous fallacious assumptions).

Nov 09, 2017
@reg at this point I am pretty sure you are a troll. Your theory is as absurd as the flat earthers

Nov 10, 2017
@reg at this point I am pretty sure you are a troll. Your theory is as absurd as the flat earthers

Well no, I'm not. But as you seem to be so keen on trading insults, its obvious you are. And by rejecting expansion theory without reading it, never mind understanding it, you also display the mindset of the flat earthers yourself. You cling desperately to the already-discredited theories that fail dismally to explain the multitude of discrepancies obvious to all impartial observers. I see no point in continuing this exchange, so wish you goodbye.

Nov 10, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 10, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 10, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 11, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 11, 2017
@nikola_milovic_378 x 4, so what you're describing really is 'doesn't matter' (DM eh?) because of '...ORDER...'. With such densely packed comments, they surely do mimic DM so much so I'm surprised this thread hasn't disappeared through their own gravitational collapse, Ha!

Nov 11, 2017
...talk about what matter is and what it forms.
How can you discuss and imagine that there is a dark matter, which you can not notice, when you do not know how it is created and how this matter that we have formed is disappearing. Imagine, we formed from something, but we do not know what it is...
Do not despair - there is hope. For example in special relativity for a quantized form of matter traveling at 1/2 the speed of light it's effective mass is increased by a factor of 1/3. This effect happens due to turbulence in spacetime in the environs of the traveling matter. Turbulence leading to a gradient in spacetime energy density fits precisely the definition of matter. Not a type you can quantize, however, so we can just call it dark matter.

Nov 12, 2017
...Turbulence leading to a gradient in spacetime energy density fits precisely the definition of matter.
Well not exactly. The gradient defines gravity. Quantized matter only causes a gradient because it blocks out spacetime and its energy density. That is, when calculating the energy density you have to subtract out the volume of spacetime occupied by quantized matter and ignore its internal energy.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more