TakenItSeriously

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Mass isn't due to  just one force. All forces and energy density contribute to mass. DM has mass its simply due to the weak force which it does interact with much like neutrinos has mass via the same mechanism. Hence the sterile neutrinos Vmedvil and I were discussing earlier

I know this article will be too technical however as it is on topic it would be good to add here

"The next decade of Stetile neutrino studies"

https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.495

"We review the status of sterile neutrino dark matter and discuss astrophysical and cosmological bounds on its properties as well as future prospects for its experimental searches. We argue that if sterile neutrinos are the dominant fraction of dark matter, detecting an astrophysical signal from their decay (the so-called 'indirect detection') may be the only way to identify these particles experimentally. However, it may be possible to check the dark matter origin of the observed signal unambiguously using its characteristic properties and/or using synergy with accelerator experiments, searching for other sterile neutrinos, responsible for neutrino flavor oscillations. We argue that to fully explore this possibility a dedicated cosmic mission - an X-ray spectrometer - is needed."

now one of the key details in that article is that in order to account for the quantity of DM you would need at least 3 sterile neutrino flavors.

I will note this comes back to the conjecture Vmedvil posted earlier that I wanted clarity on.

Once he described what he was thinking in better detail. I knew this was what he was referring to.

Well, this is where the real downside of my 2e condition kicks in. If I cant understand something as I’m reading it, I can’t retain it and Particle Physics seems like arbitrary facts to my mind. I understand that its not, mind you, I just can’t understand why its not.

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Everyday objects like tables, chairs are held together by the the EM force. DM cannot bind the same way.

I understand but thats kind of my point. If you remove all properties of matter but its mass , how is it different from saying matterless mass?

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Excellent explanation Janus, very accurate 

 

No he is describing one of the distinctive differences between baryonic (normal matter) and weakly interactive matter. Both have mass but the key is the lack of the electromagnetic interaction with the WIMP family.

But without EM forces, whats the difference?

30 minutes ago, Janus said:

The distribution of dark matter does match what you would expect given its properties. It does interact by gravity( both ways), but not by electromagnetic interaction. It is this difference that results in DM being spread out in a sphere while visible matter tends to collect into a more compact shape.   It means that dark matter can't 'collide' with visible matter or other dark matter. Dark matter just passes through everything, including other dark matter.    

When visible matter collides ( or even makes a close approach) it interacts electromagnetically. It can either be deflected or the colliding matter could stick together.  In either case, there is an acceleration which causes the matter to emit electromagnetic waves which come at the expense of kinetic energy,  Colliding matter will give off heat and the resulting combined mass will have less momentum than it started with.  If there is a deflection, the individual components will separate at speeds lower than what they approached at.  This lower speed means that they will be more likely to be drawn into further interaction.  A large collection of visible matter will, through al these energy shedding interactions will tend to collapse into a denser arrangement before it becomes relatively stable.  

When DM makes a close approach, it may have its trajectory changed by gravity,  but this acceleration does not result in the production of EM radiation and thus no subsequent loss of energy. The participants of the encounter end up leaving with the same total momentum that they started with.  Without this mechanism for shedding kinetic energy, a DM cloud has no tendency to condense into a denser structure.

It sounds like your describing matterless mass which is difficult for me to comprehend.

14 hours ago, Strange said:

I have not heard that before. Do you have a reference?

8 hours ago, Janus said:

Because the solar system has a high concentration of visible matter in it even compared to the local galactic neighborhood.  The local part of our galaxy has an average density of ~2e-9 kg/ km³.     If we take the total mass of the solar system and average it out into a sphere with a radius equal to Neptune's orbit, its average density works out to being ~5 kg/km³.  Much more tightly packed. The density of dark matter in the vicinity of the Solar system is ~6e-13 kg/km³.  Much less dense than even even the average galactic neighborhood. ( it works out that the expected amount of dark matter within the confines of the solar system is equal to about the mass of a small asteroid.

So if dark matter is so sparse, how can it have such a large effect on the galactic rotation curves?.  It's not confined to the galactic disk like the vast majority of the visible matter is;  it is spread out into a spherical halo in which the visible galaxy is embedded.  To work out how much gravitational effect it would have on a star orbiting a galaxy, you would need to calculate the total mass of DM contained in a sphere with a radius equal to the stars distance from the center of the galaxy.

With our own sun, some 26,400 ly out, and using the average density of DM in the local neighborhood, this work out to 2e10 solar masses, or a sizeable fraction of the galaxy's entire visible matter mass. (the real amount will actually be a bit more, since the dark matter density does increase a bit as you move towards the center of the galaxy.)

So while there would not be not enough dark matter in the solar system to measurably effect the motion of the planets, it would still add up to be more than enough to effect the galaxy as a whole.  

Solar system =  relatively heavy concentration of visible matter in a small region.  

Galaxy as a whole = lower concentration of visible matter, over a larger volume

 DM = even lower concentration of mass, but over even a huger volume.

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

I understand your points on the local sparsity of DM or how it creates a spherical halo surrounding galacies, which I assume have all been modeled to fit the rotation curves of visible matter. But that puts cause before effect which I don’t have a problem with if it results in resonable conclusions, except I dont see how the dispersal of DM could seem reasonable since gravity acting upon visible matter doesn't behave that way.

Its as if DM has one way properties of gravity that effects the motion of visible matter but is not itself effected by gravity or any of the laws of nature for that matter. Yet we know that the location of dark matter does seem to occupy roughly the same regions of space as visible matter in the very large scale based on the evidence of the lense effect so it must have some kind of tie to visible matter.

Now, if you take a step back and look at the described model as if it were a model of loop fields instead of particles of matter wouldn’t it seem to make more sense to you?

55 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Citing a site called altcosmology isn't what you want to do in a mainstream discussion. If the brown dwarf source is legit, cite that. But leave the self-identified alternative sources out of it.

 

I’m unfamiliar with the methods scientists use to cite sources. 

He gave names and years in parentheses in the body of the paper and gave a list of references but I didnt see any way to link the two.

Can you give me a hint as to what is required?

Also how to access research data if its possible, (I really didnt think it was stored in the public domain)

12 hours ago, Strange said:

Because the density is too low. It is only because the galaxy is large that there is enough dark matter to have an effect.

I have not heard that before. Do you have a reference?

I found it in this site’s data hosted Bernard Bligh where he provided sources 

http://altcosmology.com/The-Sun-is-Electrically-Positively-Charged.php 

It was part of his evidence for his hypothesis that the sun has a slightly positive net charge which, given the size of stars, is a large absolute value. He argues that the consequences are that there is no need for extra mass of DM to explain the orbits of Stars in spiral galaxies, based on EM forces, but I wouldn’t want to misquote him so I dont want to go into the details of his paper.

However, he also made a compelling arguement that the velocity profile of stars are not smooth but scattered and using DM to explain the motion would require a smooth curve.

The only model that I can think of that could provide that kind of scattered motion would be something analogous to loop inductance which behaves globally but but can interact locally. The analogy would end up as a near-field/far-field crosstalk effect. Its a very difficult property to easily explain.

16 hours ago, Strange said:

It does affect all matter: stars, dust, cold hydrogen, ...

If DM exists all around us, why do the planets in our solar system move in orbits that are predicted by visible matter alone?

Also Brown Dwarfs orbit galaxies at speeds far below the flat oribital velocities that hot stars orbit at.

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

Nothing wrong with your valid opening question. It is a good question to ask. Though it isn't a force but rather an unknown  form of matter 

That’s what I don’t understand.

How can we know that it couldnt be a force that we don’t yet understand?

Or if it were gravity from some kind of undiscovered particle that has the properties of a WIMP, why would the DM gravity only influence the motion of matter that was in a plasma state and not influence the orbits of planets or stars that were too cool to exist in a plasma state?

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

correct

I’m probably partly to blame. Speculation invites speculation I’ll try to be more careful.

Edit to add.

oops, I just read Vmedvl’s reply and I guess you were referring to his post?

Never mind.

51 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No this will require peer review support to be in the mainstream physics section.

Back this up with a peer review paper or I recommend it gets moved to its own thread under Speculation as  a personal model development.

First off quark antiquarks are not the generations. Secondly there is no supportive evidence that the three types of hypothesized DM particles are seperate generation particles. Nor can DM be comprised of quark combinations as that will allow interactions with all 4 forces.

All known mesons, leptons, Diquarks tetraquarks pentaquarks do so. As all quarks do so. This encompasses the baryonic familiy. DM is non baryonic.

Further more quarks belong to the boson family and DM matches fermionic characteristics the generations of the quark family is due to stages of symmetry breaking as the guage bosons. This process does not apply to the fermionic family. If you like I will supply the related formulas.

LCDM strongly supports the cold dark matter as the main candidate from the other two previously hypothesized variants.

Provide supportive peer review studies for the DM generations claim you have made.

Note Supersymmetric particles also do not change the above, so don't waste your time digging there for support.

Well, you should do what you feel is right.

However, I would like to understand your reasoning. Are you saying that the extra orbital motion of stars around their galactic centers are not induced by some kind of unknown force?

3 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Keep the pet theories out of other people's threads. 

 

!

Moderator Note

If you want to pursue this, I can move the thread to speculations, and you may present your model. You will be expected to follow the speculations guidelines.

But as long as this is in a mainstream section, stick to mainstream physics

 

Noted. Sorry about that.

Strange‘s arguement against the name change was that all hypothesis based on forces or fields alone have been shown to be logically inconsistent and only discovery of particles could explain the effects of DM.

I only used that hypothesis as an example to refute his claim, ie. it hasnt been proven to be inconsistent as he suggested, its just not been rigorously validated yet which I still hope to do some day. 

However, while I will probably introduce as a new hypothesis in speculations one day, I have no time on my plate to try and defend it right now, so there is no need to move it to speculations at this time.

Sorry again for any confusion I may have created.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Until you can show, in mathematical detail, that "electromagnetic loop fields" are able to explain all the evidence, then you might as well invoke unicorns.

Currently, only dark matter as a form of non-interacting matter is able to meet all the requirements.

Not true. Look up how loop inductance fields in the far field induces motion in neighboring loops of charged particles.

which would be the analog to DM  

While capacitance is the analog to gravity in the near field that radiates attractive forces according to

F = K⋅c₁c₂/r²

which can even divert the path of a light wave.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

It has to explain, consistently, the motions of galaxy clusters, the velocity curves of galaxies, gravitational lensing, the Bullet cluster, the patterns in the CMB, large structure formation, and so on.

Until you can show, in mathematical detail, that your ... erm... "model" is able to do that, then you might as well invoke unicorns.

Currently, only dark matter as a form of non-interacting matter is able to meet all the requirements.

I don't have to as their is a proper analog that already exists and can explain all those things which are the electromagnetic loop fields

6 hours ago, Strange said:

As there are dozens of alternative gravity (and other) theories being explored, that doesn't seem to be true. Unfortunately, one reason that there are so many is that none of them work: they just don't fit all the evidence. An unknown form of matter does, which is why it is still the favoured explanation. As Katie Mack puts it, "Dark matter: still the worst explanation. Apart from all the others."

42 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

Micro black holes in just all of the baryonic matter & energy could account for all mass in the universe, including that of dark matter. Higgs field demystified.

In teleparallel gravity, they could account for the other three fundamental interactions, or eigen values, as well.

& so much more involving LIGO's detection of gravity waves.

37 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

Oh you're gonna love how I edited that post before you quoted it 

I’ve never heard of teleparallel gravity but the name sounds like it could be related. Do you have a link to a good source?

Never mind, I found it in Wikipedia.

Very interesting, thanks!

2 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

Micro black holes in just all of the baryonic matter & energy could account for all mass in the universe, including that of dark matter. Higgs field demystified.

Maybe, but so could a far field gravity loop force such as the type that we know exists in Electromagnetic Fields theory.

1 minute ago, LaurieAG said:

Instead of talking about dark matter in universal matter calculations we could just say that our total calculated matter equals our total visible matter x 2  x Pi.

If you want to be really pedantic you could say that the thing previously known as universal dark matter equals (2 x Pi) x visible universal matter.

 

it’s not being pandentic to call a force a force and matter matter since they are not equivalents.

Using “Dark Matter” is an unwarranted assumption that creates a bias in peoples minds and causes scientists to look far particles when they should be focusing on unknown forces that may or may not be caused by matter.

BTW, here’s the pattern with the data included in case you were wondering. The numbers just got too large to easily display..

7 hours ago, TakenItSeriously said:

As I left this proof in the last post, I had believed that there was an even distribution of odd to even numbers within a Mersenne range that must eventually force a series to converge only my mistake was that I could only demonstrate that distribution existed in the y axis (positive integers) and not necessarily in the x axis (the series of integers created by the conjecture) as shown in Fig 1 in the second post.

However I noted that mersenne numbers and perfect squares showed a direct correlation such that given a mersenne number (2ᵐ-1) or aperfect square (2ᵐ) the series would initially expand with m+1 odd numbers in a row for the mersenne numbers but would contract directly to 1, with m even numbers in a row 

e.g. for m = 5, then  

MN = 31 and the PS = 32

their series would respectively begin as:

31, 47, 71, 107, 161, 245...

or 6 odd numbers

32, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1.

or 5 even numbers plus 1

showing that there must be something that linked the x axes to the y axes in terms of their odd or even results with respect to their exponential integers.

After following up on those clues:

I believe that I made a profound discovery that may provide the missing step to finishing this proof which is based on showing that a hidden symmetry exists between the x & y axes. However, I’m still uncertain of if or how it prooves that the distribution of odd to even numbers must force a convergence at least as far as I can understand it, at the moment, at least until I have had time to digest this rather odd discovery a little more.

Perhaps a mathematician can interpret it better.

Since the pattern itself clearly shows that an x to y symmetry exists without yet fully understanding how it works right now I will first just show the pattern I discovered:

Figure 2: the first 30 of 64 numbers in a series for n = 27 are shown.for a series produced by the collatz conjecture, bottom row.

The 30 x 30 matrix above represents 30 numbers in the y axis that each produce their own series in the x axis (first 30 only are displayed).

The function that produces the numbers for the y axis is:

*f(y) = 2ᵐ+n

for y = (1:30)

where

n is some positive integer

m is position in the series and also the exponential in the function.

* note: I’m sure I expressed that improperly, but I was in too much of a hurry to post to look up the proper symbology form which I can never seem to retain due to my disfunctional short term memory)

Note that one important consequence of this function is that for any position (m) in a series for any given number (n), you can calculate which numbers will produce the identical pattern of odd and even results up to that parcicular position, after which, the series will always diverge, taking independent paths.

eg.

for n = 31 and the 6th position in the series:

n = 31: 

31, 47, 71, 107, 161, 242, 121, 182

 

y = 2⁶+31 = 95

n = 95: 

95, 143, 215,  323, 485, 728, 364, 182...

e.i. both series begin with 5 even numbers and 1 odd but they diverge ofter that.

o,o,o,o,o,e,o,e

o,o,o,o,o,e,e,e

if we chose m = 7 then the pattern would be identical to 7 positions.

I hope to follw up  with a more detailed, and clearly stated explanation shortly.

 

Edit to add:

After reading through it again, the reason I found the math confusing is probably due to the fact that its not using known math that I’m familiar with. The function which typically describes a curve or relationship between x and y axes is actually describing a scale of the y axes.

I’m not sure this operation or methodology falls into any particular field of math so it may require some new form  math, though I’m certainly no expert in terms of math.

 

 Correction:

In case anyone tries to verify the results shown in the pic, I mislabled the odd and even numbers. the light blue cells should be even numbers while the peach colored cells would be odd.

In response to the OP before reading through the entire thread, your premise has already been covered in the thread that discussed my discovery of a prime factor harmonic matrix, though your misunderstanding concept of what causes the locations of primes numbers to be where they are.

The locations of primes are not directly distributed by the periodicity of their prime factors.

They are indirectly determined by the positions of the composite numbers that the periodicity of prime factors create.

Another words, Primality or the positions of prime numbers are only detemined by what’s left over after all composite number positions within a given range have already been determined. Which is exactly how number siev’s work. Note, that since a number sieve was the first image I used in that post, you can see it in the link I provided which is making me rethink the first image that I put in posts from now on, since it gives the impression that I’m describing a number seive and not a PFHM

That’s one of the reasons, though not the main reason, why it takes so long to calculate their positions when they get large and also why they seem to have a random like property in their distribution.

On 11/18/2017 at 6:32 PM, TakenItSeriously said:

You’re right.

I thought that there was a bounded symmetry within regions related to Mersenne and perfect numbers where the number of odd and even numbers must eventually be equal. While that’s true for the numbers in the vertical direction, it’s not necessarily true for the series in the x direction.

It’s not a valid proof as I’ve stated it.

It does reveal some interesting relationships though like any Mersenne number will begin with an odd series equal to the exponential. while perfect squares, of course, converge to 1 in the same number of series.

Also it seems like there should be an exponential function that could predict the point where the series drops below n, based on a persistant pattern I see that seems to relate to an exponential curve.

As I left this proof in the last post, I had believed that there was an even distribution of odd to even numbers within a Mersenne range that must eventually force a series to converge only my mistake was that I could only demonstrate that distribution existed in the y axis (positive integers) and not necessarily in the x axis (the series of integers created by the conjecture) as shown in Fig 1 in the second post.

However I noted that mersenne numbers and perfect squares showed a direct correlation such that given a mersenne number (2ᵐ-1) or aperfect square (2ᵐ) the series would initially expand with m+1 odd numbers in a row for the mersenne numbers but would contract directly to 1, with m even numbers in a row 

e.g. for m = 5, then  

MN = 31 and the PS = 32

their series would respectively begin as:

31, 47, 71, 107, 161, 245...

or 6 odd numbers

32, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1.

or 5 even numbers plus 1

showing that there must be something that linked the x axes to the y axes in terms of their odd or even results with respect to their exponential integers.

After following up on those clues:

I believe that I made a profound discovery that may provide the missing step to finishing this proof which is based on showing that a hidden symmetry exists between the x & y axes. However, I’m still uncertain of if or how it prooves that the distribution of odd to even numbers must force a convergence at least as far as I can understand it, at the moment, at least until I have had time to digest this rather odd discovery a little more.

Perhaps a mathematician can interpret it better.

Since the pattern itself clearly shows that an x to y symmetry exists without yet fully understanding how it works right now I will first just show the pattern I discovered:

Figure 2: the first 30 of 64 numbers in a series for n = 27 are shown.for a series produced by the collatz conjecture, bottom row.

The 30 x 30 matrix above represents 30 numbers in the y axis that each produce their own series in the x axis (first 30 only are displayed).

The function that produces the numbers for the y axis is:

*f(y) = 2ᵐ+n

for y = (1:30)

where

n is some positive integer

m is position in the series and also the exponential in the function.

* note: I’m sure I expressed that improperly, but I was in too much of a hurry to post to look up the proper symbology form which I can never seem to retain due to my disfunctional short term memory)

Note that one important consequence of this function is that for any position (m) in a series for any given number (n), you can calculate which numbers will produce the identical pattern of odd and even results up to that parcicular position, after which, the series will always diverge, taking independent paths.

eg.

for n = 31 and the 6th position in the series:

n = 31: 

31, 47, 71, 107, 161, 242, 121, 182

y = 2⁶+31 = 95

n = 95: 

95, 143, 215,  323, 485, 728, 364, 182...

e.i. both series begin with 5 even numbers and 1 odd but they diverge ofter that.

o,o,o,o,o,e,o,e

o,o,o,o,o,e,e,e

if we chose m = 7 then the pattern would be identical to 7 positions.

I hope to follw up  with a more detailed, and clearly stated explanation shortly.

Edit to add:

After reading through it again, the reason I found the math confusing is probably due to the fact that its not using known math that I’m familiar with. The function which typically describes a curve or relationship between x and y axes is actually describing a scale of the y axes.

I’m not sure this operation or methodology falls into any particular field of math so it may require some new form  math, though I’m certainly no expert in terms of math.

8 hours ago, steveupson said:

I’m quite sure that I understand what you’re getting at, and I think I understand the way that this should be properly explained (mathematically.)  We consider the basis of the sine to be a ratio (mathematically) when in real fact it is based on an actual quantity (mathematically.)

Work is currently being done on this front.  The distinction is very subtle, hence your inability to pin it down any better.  I just want to validate that what you say is correct, despite the reactions from the skeptics.  The new geometry which includes the turn as a base quantity is called synchronous geometry.

If anyone fails to understand the mathematical proof of the existence of a turn as a quantity, please feel free to ask questions.  If anything that I’ve said here (or elsewhere) can be falsified by any method whatsoever, I’d sure be interested to hear about it.

Thanks for the feedback.

Since my skills are strongly biassed towards logic but not necessarily math (depending on how you think about the two) providing a proper mathematical explanation could be a huge benefit towards a more widely based understanding, which I would have a very difficult time deriving completely on my own.