Jump to content

Dark Matter ?


interested
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Gravitational waves are not quantum fluctuations.

''Recent observations of gravitational waves have put an upper bound of 1.2×10−22 eV/c2 on the graviton's mass.''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton#Gravitons_in_speculative_theories

 

 

 

Can I play mod for once, and say, ''please contain yourself within mainstream physics?''

 

Certainly, quantization of gravitational waves have been considered. 

But I like how you think, I don't think they are gravitational fluctuations either... but that wouldn't be mainstream, eh? To be fair all options appear to be open, that would be more mainstream. 

Maybe it might be fairer if we establish what we are allowed to talk about in the speculations section. If it is published, is it good enough?

Or is experimental evidence required? In which case, why are these topics reserved for speculation?

certainly, if quantization of gravity is certain, which it isn't, but let's imagine it was, if gravitational waves were not composed of gravitons, they could not be gravitational waves under any quantization, (which), suspiciously enough) indicates two different aspects of a single theory and it certainly wouldn't make sense to me. But I tell you, you don't even need a graviton, to understand gravitation in physics, and whilst that might be a surprise, it's been a glaring fact since relativity was first formulated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Nope. 

They are.

There is no difference (again) between the effects of gravity and the presence of matter or energy. This means even for a single particle, must exert a force albeit very small. Any presence of the stress energy tensor, is non-zero when dealing with particles, it does not vanish. All forms of energy affect the vacuum. 

Edited by Dubbelosix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dubbelosix said:

There is no difference (again) between the effects of gravity and the presence of matter or energy.

Irrelevant. The fact that the presence of energy causes space-time curvature / gravity and also results in quantum fluctuations does not mean that space-time curvature and quantum fluctuations are the same thing. 

That is like saying that rain causes wet ground and rainbows and therefore wet ground and rainbows are the same thing. 

(I don’t think the uniform vacuum energy causes gravity anyway.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it isn't.

 

The issue is non-trivial, if you have any quantity of matter or energy, the stress energy tensor has to be non-zero. 

But this is purely educational and actually, is good. 

On 06/11/2017 at 6:58 PM, interested said:

I think Swansont is big enough to answer the question him self, without your assistance.

Ref quantum fluctuations and citations if you google the subject I dont know which link to post for you so I suggest you google it your self

Mind you, you are not making things easy on yourself...

 

..alas, neither am I, but guess what,  I am in your words, ''big enough'' to answer questions myself. The problem is, you can't... you are not coherent at all and I am struggling my friend. 

Edited by Dubbelosix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

The issue is non-trivial, if you have any quantity of matter or energy, the stress energy tensor has to be non-zero. 

No one is denying that. I was just pointing out that “space-time curvature” and “quantum fluctuations” are not the same thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are. Give me a situation in relativity that doesn't involve special flat cases where energy or matter does not contribute to space time background distortion?

 

No such matrix exists. And in fact, to add for flavor, gravity is non-vanishing, no matter what location a physical object exists in. The same situation was found in the weak equivalence principle and indistinguishable situations are simply, non-trivial, if 

1) the physics has associations with the ascribed model and that

 

2) Relativity cannot deal with curvature without matter or energy. Give me a situation it can and prove me wrong. 

This is lighter talk. I like this, we have/..... what is you guys call it, chillaxing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion, chillaxing huh, I have only been putting forward the views of others I have googled up until now. 

This is my speculation, and may it easier to follow what I am thinking at the moment ref dark matter etc.

I have a suspicion / speculation that dark matter is virtual particles, or quantum foam in space. Dark matter and Dark Energy is required by relativity to make relativity work. Quantum foam in space may be the source of Dark Energy according to one source I posted. The absorbtion of Quantum foam may be the source of gravity according to another of my posts. Quantum foam causing more space to appear between objects as a source of Dark Energy, or Quantum foam being absorbed by mass or smoothed out by objects moving through it could be the cause of gravity, either way gravity is caused  by the stretching or absorption of space. Both would look the same

Dark matter can not be detected because it may just be virtual particles or photons that exist everywhere, and people are looking for some thing exotic to explain it all.

From the link on page four http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/10/quantum-foam-virtual-particles-and-other-curiosities/

"The life of an electron is much more complex than that, though. In addition to the usual quantum craziness, where an electron is both a particle and a wave and the position of the electron is generally indeterminate, electrons are surrounded by virtual particles. For instance, an electron can briefly emit a photon. That photon will be reabsorbed quickly in such a way that the energy and momentum conservation laws aren’t violated. But it gets crazier than that. The virtual photon can also turn into a virtual electron/positron pair. Thus, for a brief moment, what was once just an electron becomes an electron plus an additional electron and positron. As long as the virtual particles coalesce before the universe notices, it’s all within the rules. Indeed an electron never exists as a single “bare” electron. Rather, it is always enshrouded in an ephemeral cloud of virtual particles, flickering in and out of existence, and vastly complicating what an electron “really” is."

Virtual particles in space could be the source of dark matter, and are therefore undetectable at the other side of the universe or on the outer edges of galaxies. On average virtual particles exist in space FACT on average they will have some effect on gravity and may be the dark matter predicted by relativity, they could also be the source of dark energy and the expansion of the universe. 

Virtual particles could also be the source off all matter in the universe prior to any big bang.

Now the above is what I call speculation or is it now chillaxing?.

 

Edited by interested
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dubbelosix said:

They are. Give me a situation in relativity that doesn't involve special flat cases where energy or matter does not contribute to space time background distortion?

 

No such matrix exists. And in fact, to add for flavor, gravity is non-vanishing, no matter what location a physical object exists in. The same situation was found in the weak equivalence principle and indistinguishable situations are simply, non-trivial, if 

1) the physics has associations with the ascribed model and that

 

2) Relativity cannot deal with curvature without matter or energy. Give me a situation it can and prove me wrong. 

This is lighter talk. I like this, we have/..... what is you guys call it, chillaxing?

Except for one exception... I think there are fundamental reasons why the stress energy tensor should vanish for point particles. I am beginning to wonder whether this is true for a divergence problem solution, that is, infinities could be avoided if (and only if) we reverse the relativistic rules. I noticed correlations: All three theories of physics forbids point particles, they are:

 

 

1) Phase space does not allow them -  von Neumann showed that points cannot exist definitive, as they would be smeared over space, which early literature called a Planck cell. 

 

2) They are forbidden by singularities in relativity as well, they would have infinite curvature, this cannot be right. 

 

3) They are finally even unphysical in classical theory. If you reduce a particles radius to zero, it has infinite energy. 

 

 

These are good reasons to suggest the gravitational field should vanish in these extremes instead of assuming they take on infinite values in renormalization theory. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You could call it, the ''new aged geometry''

If where infinities show up and are reduced to zero somehow requires

 

1) a new theory in how to give boundary to the unphysical situations

 

2) Infinities are actually unphysical, no one has ever measured one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dubbelosix said:

''Recent observations of gravitational waves have put an upper bound of 1.2×10−22 eV/c2 on the graviton's mass.''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton#Gravitons_in_speculative_theories

Can I play mod for once, and say, ''please contain yourself within mainstream physics?''

Certainly, quantization of gravitational waves have been considered. 

Gravitational waves are a prediction of GR, which is a classical theory.  You do not need to invoke quantum anything to explain them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2017 at 8:26 PM, swansont said:

Gravitational waves are a prediction of GR, which is a classical theory.  You do not need to invoke quantum anything to explain them.

 

Dark matter and Dark Energy are a prediction of GR, which is a classical theory. Without quantum something what do you think dark matter or even dark energy is? Something is required to explain them.

 

 

 

On 11/10/2017 at 5:55 PM, Strange said:

No one is denying that. I was just pointing out that “space-time curvature” and “quantum fluctuations” are not the same thing. 

Absorbtion of quantum fluctuations or quantum foam by mass is the cause of space time curvature according to some theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, interested said:

Dark matter and Dark Energy are a prediction of GR, which is a classical theory. Without quantum something what do you think dark matter or even dark energy is? Something is required to explain them.

Not a prediction, per se. GR doesn't have a say about the way the energy of the universe is split up, AFAIK.

The theory requires it because the amount and distribution of "normal" matter is observed to fall short of what is required, and because of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. But nobody was looking for dark matter or dark energy based solely on GR.

5 minutes ago, interested said:

Absorbtion of quantum fluctuations or quantum foam by mass is the cause of space time curvature according to some theories.

What theories, and are they part of mainstream science?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2017 at 5:43 PM, Dubbelosix said:

Well, it isn't.

 

The issue is non-trivial, if you have any quantity of matter or energy, the stress energy tensor has to be non-zero. 

But this is purely educational and actually, is good. 

Mind you, you are not making things easy on yourself...

 

..alas, neither am I, but guess what,  I am in your words, ''big enough'' to answer questions myself. The problem is, you can't... you are not coherent at all and I am struggling my friend. 

You might note I am asking questions not answering them, and have largely avoided speculating myself except for the little bit of fun above.

At what stage should we give up asking questions or thinking. I am certain know one knows for sure what dark matter is or the cause of dark energy, or even the cause of the big bang, but it is interesting to think about it.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Not a prediction, per se. GR doesn't have a say about the way the energy of the universe is split up, AFAIK.

The theory requires it because the amount and distribution of "normal" matter is observed to fall short of what is required, and because of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. But nobody was looking for dark matter or dark energy based solely on GR.

What theories, and are they part of mainstream science?

I posted various ideas already posted on this forum by others and dug up a few others, see early on this thread. Links to Loop Quantum Gravity, and MOND theories were both posted earlier on along with some others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, interested said:

You might note I am asking questions not answering them, and have largely avoided speculating myself except for the little bit of fun above.

You are doing a whole lot of insisting that certain things are true. That's not asking questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, interested said:

Absorbtion of quantum fluctuations or quantum foam by mass is the cause of space time curvature according to some theories.

Citation needed. 

3 hours ago, interested said:

I posted various ideas already posted on this forum by others and dug up a few others, see early on this thread. Links to Loop Quantum Gravity, and MOND theories were both posted earlier on along with some others.

I can’t help feeling you have completely misunderstood what they have said. 

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swansont you are talking nonsense, and Strange you have been wrong so many times on this forum, I suspect you misunderstand more than most but do not realize it.

I suspect a straw man argument is being attempted and will cease commenting further. 

Thanks to those who posted interesting links.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, interested said:

I suspect a straw man argument is being attempted and will cease commenting further. 

!

Moderator Note

OK, thread closed then.

 
1 hour ago, interested said:

Swansont you are talking nonsense, and Strange you have been wrong so many times on this forum, I suspect you misunderstand more than most but do not realize it.

Pretty bizzaro. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.