Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: JimBob on 10/12/2006 05:46:15
-
In conjunction with Publius Aelius Traianus Hadrianus' question "Is the universe finite or eternal in nature" I have a question on cosmology.
There is energy, matter and dark matter. But if E=MC2 is "C2" just an aproximation for the quantum (or non-quantum) 'thing', 'substance' or 'whatever' that is dark matter?
All you Carl Sagen wanna-be's give it a shot.
-
c (lowercase) is the speed of light ie. 299792458 meters per second.
Dark Matter is still matter and it has mass. Therefore it is part of the 'm' in the equation.
The dark matter hypotheses suggest that so-called dark matter only interacts via gravity. Not with the electromagnetic force or any other force and so it must be made of something rather exotic.
No one knows what it may be made of.
No one knows if dark matter actually exists.
-
The "C" factor could also, be interesting if it was found not to be "constant" in the early, universe formation. Could such a variation in "C" cause miroscopic inflationary regions that is, quantum fluctuations that would expanded to cosmic size, becoming the underlining structure of our universe today? I don't know. [???]
-
The reason I posted this is the fact that at the quantum level and at the scale of galaxies, gravity is not Newtonian and this fact (Yes it is provable)thus casts doubt on Einstein's E=MC2. So If Dark Matter is everywhere and light passes through it what is going on with light (C) and Dark Matter?
-
The reason I posted this is the fact that at the quantum level and at the scale of galaxies, gravity is not Newtonian and this fact (Yes it is provable)...
I am extremely interested in this and am desperate to know more !
Can you provide references to peer reviewed papers with the proofs that I could go and check out please ?
Thank you.
-
In reality its all just energy and nothing else. The Einstein relation just shows how matter (material with mass and made out of the particles like protons and electrons and neutrons etc) and energy can be converted into each other.
The dark matter has mass but does not interact in any way other than by gravity. It has been proposed to explain an anomaly in the rotation of galaxies an alternative is MOND modified Newtonian dynamics. The Einstein equations also include the possibility of dark energy which is the "force" that makes the universe expand faster and some hints of this have been inferred by the observation of type 1a supernovae.
-
Soul Surfer has the gist of it - it is all energy in one form or other. What I am trying to ascertain and find peoples opinions about is the form of energy that makes up Dark Matter. Zwicky's and then Rubin's work called for a label for the unknown form of energy that has been termed "Dark Matter'. It does not act like conventional matter and as pointed out above may be the energy 'force' that could be causing the universe to expand.
So is Einstein to be modified? Is it to be E1 + E2 = MC2 or E = (M1 + M2)C2 or something else? Is the speed of light squared an approximation of that unknown?
To me, Dark Matter is just a convenience for a huge gap in our knowledge. What are your ideas on this question?
-
Right. Gotcha.
I know about MOND etc...
I was actually trying to catch what I thought was going to be more pseudoscientific nonsense about new forces that only one person understands etc... etc...
That's why I asked for peer reviewed papers as if it were genuine then references can be provided and if it's bunk then I can use logic to annihilate the ineffectual attempts to convince me by saying "well these people believe it so it must be true" etc...
I'm glad that's not the case.
Splendid.
Anyway...
As I understand it MOND is a hypothesis and is not proven and in fact has significant problems accounting for some observations. OK, I'm quoting there and I can't remember the details off-hand but as I recall it's recently been turned into a relativistic hypothesis and has gained much credibility in becoming so. That's good.
I do think there are some serious gaps in the description of gravity over galactic cluster scales. Standard theory cannot account for the rotation of galaxies, as you know, and so this "dark matter" has been invented to fill the gap.
My own personal view is that dark matter is bunk. But obviously I'm not aware of the full story.
However, if the theories don't fit the observations then the theories need changing or we need better observations.
We got the better observations and the theories still don't fit them in this case and so the theory mut be changed.
Holding onto the present formulation of Newtonian/Einsteinian gravity in the face of clear observational evidence that it cannot account for is irrational.
Yes, OK, give it some more time before we modify the curent gravitational theories but the most promising alternate hypotheses must be persued to see how far they can be taken.
If they work then we rewrite the books.
That's the easy part but some seem to find it very hard. "Sacred cows" and all that.
-
Since strings could be open or closed (open strings are composed of particles that trandmit strong, weak and EM force and closed strings composed of gravitons which display gravity) the graviton is not attached to this or any other universe, making it possible that dark matter could be matter from another universe. In astronomical observation, could one find that most of this dark matter, is located in helos around galaxies due to the alignment of galaxies from two different universes? What effect would that have on other near by galaxies that would have their darkmatter grativational pull blocked by another galaxy? [???]
-
I think that there may well be several elements in the dark matter/dark energy explanations. The ones that I think are most likely are
1 A particle or particles that only interacts through gravity. This could be a sub planck sized black hole its event horizon is so small that no other particle can get in or out of it so it has to be stable. the mass could be anyting from that of a neutrino to the planck mass and the number and speed depenant on the mass there may even be several types of these particle with different masses.
2 a gravitational deviation as a result of the finite size and existence time of the universe, for example electromagnetic reactions are changed by the presence of a cavity which restricts the allowed modes slow gravitational interections between very widely spaced relatively light objects like stars could involve extremely low energy ie low frequency gravitons that have not yet had time to exist in our universe so because of this grafity fades out slower with distance than might be expected (this could be an explanation for MOND.
3 The really wild card. some aspects of quantum mechanics notably entanglement suggest that the universe is very tiny and the calculations suggest that it is very dense and the constants are all wrong. well maybe it IS and the appearance of a large flat universe is a product of a combination of intense gravitiational fields and extreme velocities and it is just that this aspect of the universe is not visible because all the particles in the universe are behaving in a coherent manner because they are all orbiting coherently in a three dimensional membrane in space time. starting from a rather incoherent tiny structure and gradually becoming more coherent with respect to each other as the universe cools down
-
SO what do those of us who give a hairy rats arse about the possibilities proceed? Where do we find "authoritative answeres? And how many universies for the strings should we use - 1 or 12 or somewhere in between (Unless more have now been postulated)? And what about all the other limitations imposed by Quantum theories?
Is it possible to devise a theoretical set of paramaters in which to develope a half-way decent aproximation of what might be going on with dark matter?
Or is it a useless exercise? I think it could be challenging and a great leaning experience.
-
SO what do those of us who give a hairy rats arse about the possibilities proceed? Where do we find "authoritative answeres? And how many universies for the strings should we use - 1 or 12 or somewhere in between (Unless more have now been postulated)? And what about all the other limitations imposed by Quantum theories?
Is it possible to devise a theoretical set of paramaters in which to develope a half-way decent aproximation of what might be going on with dark matter?
Or is it a useless exercise? I think it could be challenging and a great leaning experience.
Yes... dark matter is a joke and based on lazy assumptions. Planck's constant is where the 'c' was derived ....
Yes ... there is a model, what would you like to know!
"virtue was the most valuable of all possessions; the ideal life was spent in search of the Good. Truth lies beneath the shadows of existence, and that it is the job of the philosopher to show the rest how little they really know." Socrates