Mystery111

Ok, I checked this, I agree. I know enough of General Relativity, but near to nothing of the EC theory. All I knew is that torsion becomes a prominent feature and just assumed it replaced curvature.

The one equation arises, (I think) from a superpositioning law.

Because the arguements against an arrow of time far outweigh any logical aruements suggesting such an abstraction even exists! Physics can easily demonstrate verbally at least that such a theory of an arrow is devoid of meaning. The only arrow which makes sense is a psychological arrow of time, which is directly linked to our sense of perception, the way events arise linearly in our perception. Not even a thermodynamic arrow is true. That arrow still assumes that time is linear, which it is not.

A particle can be many things which may not be classed as fundamental. An atom for instance, is often called a particle. However, to answer your question, a particle is a ''bit'' of matter. The most fundamental ''bits'' of matter are also particles, so this would include a photon which is simply the smallest known unit of energy.

So it is easier to believe in a non-EM interacting sea of exotic particles (located over the observable universe) than to believe this ''matter that we aint seeing'' is simply a collection of known phenomena? May I remind that we have only probed a very small part of space with observations. Granted there is a lot we can view in a single picture, but they are shots of a much larger picture. We surely have not been able to make an accurate reading - an approximation at best. Relativity doesn't need to break down. Ok, so I am refuting something which cannot be refuted. A bit of a paradox I've created.

Not without reason... The oscillation of a neutrino (that would be fluctuations between different electron states) may seem like an odd case. Here, I suggest these readings; http://carlbrannen.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/neutrino-oscillation-the-calculation/ Phys Rev D, vol 44 number 11 (Dec 1991) "When do neutrino oscillate ? Quantum mechanics of neutrino oscillations" by C. Guinti, C.W. Kim & U.W. Lee

Yes, they have different mass.

Do you wish to continue being pedantic, or are you interested in a serious discussion?

By the looks of it, we were off the mark more than what was first proposed. I assume this of course.

Why? It seems more likely such a large amount of error can be made up in these known phenomenon. I mean, without them all participating, we have revolutionary papers suggesting that maybe black holes alone are responsible. Which is more believable? The one where we have all phenomenon participate to errors large or small, or are we thinking along the lines of a single reason, such as black holes, or dark matter? See where I am coming from?

As I said to someone else, not long ago: ''Change means motion, Einstein's field equations generate motion in time that is a symmetry of the theory, not true time evolution. So there is a problem with believing the definition of time is change.''

Off shell particles are virtual particles which can have larger gravitational effects than a real particle. Besides that, yes, mainstream would disagree, but only because the main idea is dark matter, but then, I thought we would know this since the OP is really all about questioning it.

You do, of course, he wanted an interaction, I gave him one, as negligable as it is.... mind you, I don't think he will be worried about remedial mathematics.

Well you said ''distance'' see. I think that is different to saying ''distance is what clocks measure...'' - or maybe not. I mean, we do move in time afterall, there is some quality to it that we may associate to a distance in time?

You are Welcome.

This is actually so true. To any definition brought forth yet, I bow down.

No offense to the other posters, but no doubt I was a little confused by some of the comments... I thought your question was rather basic. As for new predictions, when the era came that relativity brought about the existence of black holes, were an extension itself of this theory. I think it was Russian Scientists who first outspokenly expressed their opinions on these objects calling them ''frozen stars.'' No doubt my history is incorrect there, and I challenge you to reference it, but essentially I knew that Einstein did not believe originally that black holes could exist in nature. As for new theories beyond that, there are a few alternative general theories, such as Scalar Field Theories, expanded by Nordstrom, or maybe even Littlewood, or even Page and Turner who expanded on this theory. There are what are called Bimetric Theories which contain both the normal tensor metric and the Minkowski metric. There are even Scalar-Tensor and Vector-Tensor Theories of General Relativity. It would be safe to say, Genereal Relativity has a lot of forms.

1) Yes, the UP applies to every quantum system. Every system like this have what are called ''complimentary observables'' which are canonical commutation relations. This physical meaning allows them to be expressed as inequalities. Neutrino's are subject to the same laws. 2) They interact gravitationally for one.

I might be disliked for this post... There may have been many discussions on this subject of what is the reasonable cause for these phenomena in the title, but I can't help think of ''great superfluous amounts of gravitational effects from Dark Matter (a strange class of particles),'' is a big jump to explaining extra gravitational effects. If I had been modelling an extension of the Standard Model, which these theories are hoping to do, I would have actually said it was a mixture or configuration even, of known phenomenon. In the case of Dark Matter atleast, surely the possible explanations could be: 1) Black Holes 2) Off-Shell Particles (because they exhibit different masses to real particles) 3) Motion of Stars and Galaxies that have not been taken a proper measurement of which will pertain to accurate gravitational and curvilinear measurement. In theory, the measurements we have a rough but loose approximation of gravitational influences that we can observe, arguably. 4) The early universe has thought to have been dominated by primordial black holes, which will have dissapated long before now, but they will have dominated gravitational effects only a fraction after the radiation era. So gravitational deformation of early universe should be taken into account. 5) On top of these, neutrino fields will also play a reasonable part, from my understanding. 6) For any other unexplained phenomenon that has not been accounted for or properly measured leaving more room for error Surely all of these examples of gravitational influences we have probably all taken into account at some time, could tally up graviational effects that we can't account for, atleast simply by looking at the whole? The fact there is a large gravitational distortion we cannot account for only presents to us that maybe a number of things are at work here. Does anyone else share my contentions on the Dark Matter field as not being simply the reason for all these discrepencies? PS. I was going to say something about dark energy, but I realized I didn't have enough to say against this idea of a negative energy exotic pressure. The only other case if this I know is present within small distortions of the zero point energy field, which actually produces a very small amount of negative energy which arises because as you enclose an area to very small degrees the space inbetween becomes increasingly negative. The space is energy.

*Way over my head*

I can think of extensions. Like the Einstein-Cartan theory where curvature is replaced with torsion.

1) They might travel ''like'' photons. In this respect, the Weyl equation reduces to two de-coupled equations with a limit of M=0, where mass is equal to zero. It has been suggested you may even view the (very) small mass of a neutrino may act more or less as though it were a particle with no mass. In this case, you can find positive and negative solutions to the weyl equation which will represent neutrino's and antineutrino's. On the other hand, if you are asking if they act like waves, then all matter in the standard model has the state vector which corresponds to the wave function of a particle. 2) Not in respect to EM charge.

Yes, I am interested. I know a little about the MACHOs definition, so I'd be interested in learning the fringe idea's.

Yes, I am under the impression our model does not have a sufficient amount of them... mind you, we are more or less awash with these speedy particles all around us. I think trillions of these particles pass my body in under a second. Do you know how much would account for the dark matter phenomenon... I've even read papers recently attributing dark matter to black holes.

Well correct me if I am wrong, but aint Neutrino's a form of dark matter? Technically dark matter does not interact Electromagnetically, and niether do neutrino's.