[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

Here is the original article about the Dark Flow by Kashlinsky:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/pdf/276176main_ApJLetters_20Oct2008.pdf

A recent article against it:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.0631v2.pdf
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/12/supernova-research-challenges-cosmic-dark-flow-mystery.ars

First data analysis from the Planck satellite seems to show a real Dark Flow (same as previous link above):
http://www.astronomy.com/~/link.aspx?_id=001cb59f-d985-4fd7-a01e-c31716287259

Other links or comments are welcome!

[JD7651]

Is this like the Landau theory of the quasiparticle: as n-well is to energy field could this also be gravator-at least in menkowski space-as n-well?

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

I don't know much about the Landau theory, my theory defines the ground state of elementary particles. I haven't thought much about vibrational energy but i don't see any contradiction with the existence of quasiparticle, particularly the phonon.

In my theory, everything comes from the expansion of electric charges. All elementary particles are made of two half charges, including the photon, rotating in a circular orbit having an angular momentum of h/2pi. It is the ground state. The electric charges are basically a superfluid unless there is a chaotic pattern of vibrational energy between them. So superfluid forms of matter and supraconductive materials are made of charges vibrating with a non chaotic pattern. For a supraconductor, you just need a vibrational pattern to liberate electrons for conduction so you can get it at a higher temperature than superfluid materials.

About the spin entanglement, both half charges are entangled since their creation with the entire universe. An elementary particle is thus entangled on spin with 50% on its left half charge and 50% with its right half charge. The spinning strings between particles have an infinite torsion rigidity (superfluid) permitting instaneous changes in spins (no time dimension for non-local interaction). There is no energy exchange unless a particle changes its spin by 90 degrees or more (?)...

Space is Euclidean, but the three dimensions we perceive are in fact relative distances between elementary particles connected by strings following the laws of Relativity. Space and time are related by energy, there is no absolute fabric of spacetime. Relativity is a subset of a Quantum unified theory and not the reverse. There is just three dimensions of space but many of energy in space. Time is quantized in Planck time multiplied by 2pi...

Do you have some links about the n-well? I suppose you mean graviton and not gravatar... All forces are mediated by photons...

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

Wow!!!

If it has not been already dismissed...

A hole in the universe???
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12546-biggest-void-in-space-is-1-billion-light-years-across.html

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0908v2.pdf

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110321.html

About a week ago, i was thinking that there should be such a hole in the universe...

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

Is the primordial form of the universe one dimensional? A black ring?

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-primordial-weirdness-early-universe-dimension.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3434

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

cosmological constant calculation is wrong:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-weve-cosmological-constant-wrong.html


Black holes as a source of electron-positron pairs production from gamma rays?  (photons and curvature) )

http://www.space.com/4837-source-mysterious-antimatter.html

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

A star gone Supernova into a black ring?

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/03/the-enigmas-of-supernova-1987a.html#more

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10867687

http://sci.esa.int/science-e-media/img/05/heic0704i.jpg

A special type of galaxy: (the galaxy is the yellow point in the middle of the two beams)
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/03/strange-1st-of-its-kind-galaxy-discovered-holds-clues-to-evolution-of-the-universe.html#more


Later about the photon's spin... How can a photon's spin be measured??? And it depends on polarization...

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

There is no higgs boson... Even if it's not a dark matter particle at around of 125 GeV...

Energy can't have a higher velocity than the speed of light because it is made of light. It is not that i wouldn't like to travel faster... but it is the way it is...

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-elusive-higgs-particle.html

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/apr/24/gamma-rays-hint-at-dark-matter

The fireball theory trying to explain gamma ray bursts takes a punch:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/apr/23/cosmic-ray-theory-gets-the-cold-shoulder

[Æthelwulf]

There is no higgs boson...

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-elusive-higgs-particle.html

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/apr/24/gamma-rays-hint-at-dark-matter

The fireball theory trying to explain gamma ray bursts takes a hit:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/apr/23/cosmic-ray-theory-gets-the-cold-shoulder

There is a situation where certain light rays come from a region with infinite curvature (time-like singularity) in field theories.

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

Infinite curvature is a mathematical aberration.

I invite you to read my entire theory and watch this BBC documentary: Who's Afraid of a Big Black Hole (For those who have not seen it).

[Æthelwulf]

I have read it all. This is all I have done at this place really for the last few days

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

There is a few mistakes i have to correct but no one is very important because they have no impact. But, i must say that though i am sure that space and time were there before the BigBang i am not sure about their true nature.  And I don't know much about the rate of expansion but it is due to the decrease in acceleration (or curvature) of our black hole of origin as it grew by eating matter around it. There was certainly some leftovers at the BB. It means that there is no energy cost to space expansion unless you can apply it when you throw a ball (locally). The red shift is due to gravity, relative velocity and; reflection and absorption-emission which are not as fundamental as the first two causes.

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

Is it a proof of retro-causality or a proof of an absolute instaneity? If it is instantaneity, then entanglement information is not limited by its entangled quanta of energy like i thought, so it can explain easily the two slit experiment and its other variants. Euclidean space seems to be possible after all... Usable information is still limited by the speed of light though...

http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4834

[Bengt]

All particles consist of nested strings.
Some of these string-nests are stable, others are not. Photons are examples of one of the smaller stable string-nests that we can easily observe. Examples of less stable string nests are the large number of short lived string entanglements that we see immediately after a high speed particle collision.
Dark energy is most likely primary strings floating around in the universe. Dark matter is most likely strings in early stages of entangling and bonding into particle embryos.
The acceleration of the expansion of our part of the universe is probably the result of the partial pressure of energy rich strings and string-nest embryos expanding into less energy-rich parts of the universe, despite local gravity between matter.     

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

A very interesting point of view of a philosopher with a very good physics background about the interpretation made by the standard model's advocates. Specially interesting near the end, talking about time reversal symmetry which obviously is in disagreement with the entropic principle...

http://bigthink.com/ideas/18091

Sorry Ben, but i have to read your theory to see what changes you have made since last year, because i had found a basic flaw in your last year version that couldn't explain the motion of celestial bodies...

[Pmb]

A quantum of light (a photon), may possess an infinitesimal energy and always travel at C in vacuum.

Why do you say infinitesimal energy? It is quite possible to have a photon with a finite energy.

Matter can be convert into light and light into Matter.

That needs more explaination than what you gave here. Under certain certain circmstances matter can be convert into light and under certain certain circmstances light can be changed into matter. You can't simply take an electron and change it into "energy"? Mostly because that's not quite physical description. If you are given a proton and an anti-proton then you can change it into two photons which has a particular energy and matter distribution.

Light is a very simple electromagnetic wave. It seems evident that light is the basic building block of everything.

That is not true. It's a very common misunderstanding based on a common misconception.

For those who would say that the electromagnetic force is not fundamental, i would reply that how can it be if a photon may have an infinitesimal energy?

A photon cannot have an infinitesimal energy. In fact nothing can.

I know it sounds too easy to be true and it turns everything upside down but it is logical and beautiful...

It doesn't sound too easy to be true since I don't seem that it's at all possible.

If a photon wave enter a highly curved spacetime region, it could catch its tail:the wave could close on itself.

You are operating on the misunderstanding that a photon has a spatial extention, it does not.

It would stop moving at the speed of light according to outside observers, it would appear to them as a particle and it would even create a gravitational field... You just need curving spacetime and light... Every type of particles and forces

General Relativity predicts that a photon of zero spatial extention will have a speed with is different to the valid c (where c is the speed of light in special relativity = 3.00x10^8 m/s). But the photon itself can curve spacetime to any desireable value. All one has to do is change the frame of reference and the speed is changed and this the curvature changes.

I have been thinking about this for many days now and i don't see any contradiction with existing proved theory that could deny this theory.

The contradiction is quite different than what your personal theory states. But this is probably due to your misundering of certain concepts in physics.

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

My theory evolved from the start, so there is no point to criticize the beginning.

Read it all and think before making any comment. The latest conclusions supersede the earliest ones.

By infinitesimal, i just meant there is no minimum limit to the energy of photons, not that it is not finite. Later, i have changed my mind...

You have no proof that everything is not made of light. All the universe is one wave of light, but you have to read my theory to understand what i mean by light...

How much you wanna bet?

You think i misunderstand some concepts of physics but i think you are more than i am... We obviously all are...

You are supposing GR is 100% right, which is obviously not. It is not a complete theory and you must understand than it has been extended by interpretations that are in no way proved but still integrated in the "official" knowledge of physics.

The problem is that if you know well the standard model and have accepted it, you will have difficulties to accept mine. If your mind is virgin and you look at the facts, not the standard interpretations, just the experimental facts, then it seems a better overall interpretation. You have to look at what has been really proved. W and Z bosons: no ; Spacetime: no ; unification of Strong and electromagnetic force: no ; space expansion: no ; acceleration of expansion: no ; gluon: no ; etc... Most people think it is all true, but the fact is there is only circumstantial proofs and often circular arguments... The nature of the Strong force is totally unknown...

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

One of the conundrum about the standard model of black holes is that time stop at the event horizon for an outside observer. So an outside observer will see an object being ripped and then standing still or smeared at the EH forever (until evaporation). The object is supposed to see nothing special (beyond being possibly ripped apart) and continue toward the singularity.

My first question is what happen to space contraction for the object? Isn't it supposed to be totally contracted? Gravitational potential and relative velocity have similar effects on time dilation and space contraction, and they are supposed to be real, contrary to the newtownian doppler effect, which is apparent (it is not affecting the properties of particles relatively speaking)...

The origin of gravity being unknown in Physics, the simplest solution is that matter stays stuck at the event horizon and this is where gravity comes from and is being generated. This is the limit...

The rest mass being a newtonian solution, if a black hole keeps only the rest mass, couldn't its solution be newtonian (half the schwarzschild radius)? It is strikingly equal to multiple Planck wavelengths having each the Planck mass; the total mass corresponding to the mass of the black hole having a ring shape...

If there is an absolute instantaneity like entanglement might show, taking account of the time travelled by light including relativistic corrections, what you see is what you get and matter is really kept at the event horizon... If you could see the event horizon...

[CPT ArkAngel (OP)]

If there is no timerate seen by an observer, there is no timerate for all observers who have one...

This is how it must be in Quantum Gravity. It just answers too many questions to be a mere coincidence.

You need to take some from Relativity and give some to Quantum Theory to get the answer. And the answer is in Black Rings... This is where GR meets QM and where it is unified into one force: The Strong Force!!!

No need for inflation, everything was connected into one ring. It explains why space is flat and why there was a Bigbang!!!

[BlueHorizon]

Is it a proof of retro-causality or a proof of an absolute instaneity? If it is instantaneity, then entanglement information is not limited by its entangled quanta of energy like i thought, so it can explain easily the two slit experiment and its other variants. Euclidean space seems to be possible after all... Usable information is still limited by the speed of light though...

newbielink:http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html [nonactive]

newbielink:http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4834 [nonactive]

CPT ArkAngel
I have been reading your model with great interest (I have sometimes wondered in similar vein but Physics is just a speculative hobby for me and I don't have the advanced Maths/Physics 'tools" to do more than that).

Is it possible to explain in layperson's terms how your model may better explain the double slit experiment (especially the one particle at a time variation).
I would like to say something sensible and thought provoking to a Physics group I tutor at the local highschool).

From the articles you referenced above I now understand that "entanglement theory" is the current explanation of "action at a distance" which seems to be involved here.
Would your model explain this differently? (Let's ignore the additional curiosity of  "the influence of future actions on past events" - that is still doing my head in. Unless of course you can explain that clearly as well!)