Dark matter relativity (a theory of relativity based on DM)

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, DanMP said:

1. DM traveled with the stars of the galaxies, being near (possibly coincident with) the visible galaxies. In my model DM atmospheres travel with massive objects (stars, planets) ...

Why didn't it stick with the majority of the mass then?

Quote

2. DM particles are weakly interacting.

Yes. We know that already. That is one of the many reasons why your idea can't work.

 

Anyway. I give up. Good luck.

[DanMP]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Why didn't it stick with the majority of the mass then?

There is DM there, between gas particles, but not able to refract ("gravitational lensing"). There are no DM layers of increasing densities, like around a galaxy, or a star. 

 

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

Quote

2. DM particles are weakly interacting.

Yes. We know that already. That is one of the many reasons why your idea can't work.

If weak interactions are possible,  DM particles can collide, almost like gas molecules in air, resisting to compression. Remember that closer to the massive object the speeds are higher, due to the conversion of the potential energy in kinetic energy.

 

 

56 minutes ago, Strange said:

When an atom absorbs a photon and later re-emits it, the photon is emitted in a (largely) random direction. What doesn't happen is the photon emitted unchanged so the atom is invisible. The same is true when a photon interacts with a single photon. You have invented a magic process that only applies to your dark matter particles.

The atom is not an elementary particle ...

Again, not magic, just physics.

 

39 minutes ago, Strange said:

Anyway. I give up. Good luck.

Ok, thank you very much.

Also thanks for the information you provided, for your time and for your interest.

[beecee]

11 hours ago, DanMP said:

I didn't recognize what you claim. On the contrary, dark matter atmosphere is the "backbone" of my model. And it is very dense in number of particles per cubic meter, not in kg/m³. Mass density of DM is very low, as "observed".

Just as spacetime and the 4D universe is the backbone of GR, of which we have plenty of evidence supporting it, without any of your contrivance.

Just as you have here.......

On 8/29/2018 at 5:39 PM, DanMP said:

So what is your point? The drag may occur in the BH's darkmosphere far outside the BH. In fact, most of the drag would be from other massive objects darkmospheres rotating around the BH.

Quote

Read again. I said that the refraction in DM atmosphere is the reason for gravitational lensing.

And again I'm saying that any refraction is only a small part of what we see as gravitational lensing, and is readily observed and distinct from gravitational lensing with either intervening galaxies, stars, or BHs and DM. In other words any intervening matter between a light source and the observer, will warp or curve the spacetime and that which you seem to have dismissed. The reason for gravitational lensing is the warped spacetime in the presence of mass, as per GR, not as per DM. More contrivance at best and nonsense at worst.

12 hours ago, DanMP said:

It seems that you don't understand a lot of things (maybe because my wording is/was not very good and/or you didn't pay enough attention). As an example, i wrote:

Correct, there is much I don't understand, and those that do understand on this forum are always quick to correct any misconceptions that I may have. I do though have a reasonable understanding of spacetime, how its geometry is what we see as gravity, the invariant finite speed of light, and gravitational lensing and geodesic paths through spacetime.

I also understand that overall your hypothetical is superfluous at best and totally contrived at worst. 

But of course if you doubt my non expert opinion, and if you doubt the expert opinion of others on this forum, and you still believe what you are trying to get this forum to believe re DM and darkmospheres, then write up an appropriate paper along with the maths for professional peer review. 

[DanMP]

On 8/31/2018 at 11:52 PM, beecee said:

I also understand that overall your hypothetical is superfluous at best and totally contrived at worst. 

But of course if you doubt my non expert opinion, and if you doubt the expert opinion of others on this forum, and you still believe what you are trying to get this forum to believe re DM and darkmospheres, then write up an appropriate paper along with the maths for professional peer review. 

Beecee, thank you for your interest in my theory. You found it "superfluous at best and totally contrived at worst", but this may change with time. Einstein relativity was hard to grasp/accept to many people, and still is, after more than a century ... Experimental confirmation imposed it, and this may also be the case for my theory ...

I asked "expert opinion of others" from another forum, regarding the change in math if the invariance of c is explained instead of postulated, and they backed my opinion, so my theory may be as valid as Einstein's, because the math is the same.

I'll be back with more input, after I'll study the material offered here. From what I read so far, gas-like DM seems a good idea ...

[beecee]

3 hours ago, DanMP said:

Beecee, thank you for your interest in my theory. You found it "superfluous at best and totally contrived at worst", but this may change with time. Einstein relativity was hard to grasp/accept to many people, and still is, after more than a century ... Experimental confirmation imposed it, and this may also be the case for my theory ...

Actually SR as far as I know, was readily accepted, despite the fact that it appeared at first glance to be counter intuitive. GR was observationally evidenced in 1919. The confidence you have in your hypothetical, is nothing more then wishful thinking.

3 hours ago, DanMP said:

I asked "expert opinion of others" from another forum, regarding the change in math if the invariance of c is explained instead of postulated, and they backed my opinion, so my theory may be as valid as Einstein's, because the math is the same.

They most certainly did not support the claim you are making in this thread.

 

[Strange]

4 hours ago, DanMP said:

I asked "expert opinion of others" from another forum, regarding the change in math if the invariance of c is explained instead of postulated, and they backed my opinion, so my theory may be as valid as Einstein's, because the math is the same.

I see someone there referred to Lorentz Ether Theory. That was Lorentz’s attempt to provide a mechanical explanation for SR. Basically, he throws out Occam’s razor and invents a magic undetectable material with physically impossible properties as the “explanation”. 

You will, inevitably, end up in the same position. You are wasting your time. 

[DanMP]

On 11/2/2018 at 9:49 PM, Strange said:

I see someone there referred to Lorentz Ether Theory. That was Lorentz’s attempt to provide a mechanical explanation for SR. Basically, he throws out Occam’s razor and invents a magic undetectable material with physically impossible properties as the “explanation”. 

You will, inevitably, end up in the same position. You are wasting your time. 

You should know (you read the material I posted here, while they didn't, because they don't accept "speculations", nor links to them) that my theory is not really similar to Lorentz Ether Theory. I didn't invent dark matter ... And my gas-like DM model is not physically impossible, as you may see in the link above.

I don't think that my theory is a waste of time. A waste of time, and money, may be the mainstream approach to understand/detect dark matter ...

My theory can be fairly easy tested, and not only practical but also theoretical, as you could see in the first prediction. I have ideas for more such tests, as you may see soon.

[Strange]

32 minutes ago, DanMP said:

You should know (you read the material I posted here, while they didn't, because they don't accept "speculations", nor links to them) that my theory is not really similar to Lorentz Ether Theory. I didn't invent dark matter ... And my gas-like DM model is not physically impossible, as you may see in the link above.

It is, because you have invented properties for dark matter which contradict the existing definition. You need it to both interact and not interact. 

[swansont]

On 8/31/2018 at 2:49 PM, DanMP said:

It does happen. One particle alone cannot absorb a photon. See here why.

Why would you not expect scattering (like Compton scattering)?

[DanMP]

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is, because you have invented properties for dark matter which contradict the existing definition. You need it to both interact and not interact. 

The "existing definition"? Really?  Important is to be consistent with observations, and I think my model is.

 

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why would you not expect scattering (like Compton scattering)?

Because DM particles are neutral, unlike electrons in atoms, where we have both absorption/re-emission and Compton scattering.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, DanMP said:

The "existing definition"? Really?  Important is to be consistent with observations, and I think my model is.

I'm not going to go over all the ways you contradict the definition of dark matter, and how your theory cannot work. You ignored it all last time so it would be pointless.

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, DanMP said:

 Because DM particles are neutral, unlike electrons in atoms, where we have both absorption/re-emission and Compton scattering.

You have absorption and re-emission in atoms because it's a composite state (technically the atom absorbs/emits the light, even if the common description is of the electron states). But photons will scatter off neutrons, too, and they have no charge.

(see e.g. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1993ApJ...417...12G)

[DanMP]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

I'm not going to go over all the ways you contradict the definition of dark matter, and how your theory cannot work. You ignored it all last time so it would be pointless.

You didn't accept my answers (e.g. math is the same, at least for Lorentz transformation, when the invariance of c is explained instead of postulated) so, I agree, it would be pointless. Let's wait for my new input (theoretical tests). Maybe they'll prove me wrong ...

[DanMP]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

You have absorption and re-emission in atoms because it's a composite state (technically the atom absorbs/emits the light, even if the common description is of the electron states). But photons will scatter off neutrons, too, and they have no charge.

(see e.g. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1993ApJ...417...12G)

Yes, technically the atom absorbs/emits the light, but, as you may see in this conversation, I think that the electron in the atom receives the photon and then absorbs its energy and momentum together with the rest of the atom. More about my reasons for this approach you may find in my other "speculation".

I didn't know about "Neutron-photon scattering in the early universe" and I began to read the article you offered. Please read "2. Scattering cross section" and see that it is about magnetic moment/field ... Why should a DM  particle have an magnetic moment? This wouldn't imply interactions with normal matter? I don't have time to read more, at least not now. Thank you anyway for the link.

I found in wikipedia that:

Quote

An article published in 2007 featuring a model-independent analysis concluded that the neutron has a negatively charged exterior, a positively charged middle, and a negative core ...

... This gives the neutron, in effect, a magnetic moment which resembles a negatively charged particle.

That's why, in my opinion, we can have Compton-like scattering off neutrons, like we have off electrons, but we can not have Compton-like scattering off DM particles.

[swansont]

21 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Yes, technically the atom absorbs/emits the light, but, as you may see in this conversation, I think that the electron in the atom receives the photon and then absorbs its energy and momentum together with the rest of the atom. More about my reasons for this approach you may find in my other "speculation".

One problem here is that building one speculation on top of another is not really a legitimate way to proceed. (Also, I don't see the difference between the atom absorbing the photon and the electron "receiving" the photon and sharing the energy and momentum, especially with no model or explanation of what this means, and what the ramifications are.)

21 minutes ago, DanMP said:

I didn't know about "Neutron-photon scattering in the early universe" and I began to read the article you offered. Please read "2. Scattering cross section" and see that it is about magnetic moment/field ... Why should a DM  particle have an magnetic moment? This wouldn't imply interactions with normal matter? I don't have time to read more, at least not now. Thank you anyway for the link.

found in wikipedia that:

That's why, in my opinion, we can have Compton-like scattering off neutrons, like we have off electrons, but we can not have Compton-like scattering off DM particles.

Why would a photon interact in any way with a particle that does not interact electromagnetically? Photons are thought to be able to scatter with neutrinos, but AFAIK that's because of electroweak coupling.

[DanMP]

20 hours ago, swansont said:

One problem here is that building one speculation on top of another is not really a legitimate way to proceed.

Why not? My Fizeau/Sagnac explanation is correct (see the math), consistent with the observations and useful in understanding how photons travel through matter. In the beginning it was included in this theory, but I decided to split them.

You like it or not, dark matter will change many things/theories. The above is only the tip of the iceberg ... I have much more. And this is the way to do it, step by step, but interconnected, consistent with each other and with observations.

 

20 hours ago, swansont said:

I don't see the difference between the atom absorbing the photon and the electron "receiving" the photon and sharing the energy and momentum, especially with no model or explanation of what this means, and what the ramifications are.

I wrote in that conversation enough. Just read it. In short: the idea that the atom as a whole is absorbing the photon and then it transfers the energy to one electron in the cloud (in order to raise it to a higher orbital) implies that the energy can be shared to more than one electron, and this wasn't, in my opinion, really demonstrated. On the other hand, if you read my Fizeau/Sagnac explanation, you may see why I think that individual electrons in the electronic cloud are receiving the photons and then absorb them (together with the rest of the atom) in a trial and error process. When I say "together with the rest of the atom", I mean that momentum (and some energy?) may be transferred from the receiving electron to the rest of the atom by virtual photons, as you can read in Wikipedia:

Quote

An isolated electron at a constant velocity cannot emit or absorb a real photon; doing so would violate conservation of energy and momentum. Instead, virtual photons can transfer momentum between two charged particles. This exchange of virtual photons, for example, generates the Coulomb force.^[94] 

 

 

21 hours ago, swansont said:

Why would a photon interact in any way with a particle that does not interact electromagnetically?

Absorption + re-emission is something different than electromagnetic interaction. It doesn't necessarily imply electromagnetic forces. In Compton scattering there are such forces, that's why a charge or a magnetic moment is needed. Remember "2. Scattering cross section" and the magnetic moment/field? In my opinion, the photon, with its electromagnetic field, can reject a charged particle (Compton scattering) OR it can attract it or just neither of two (the absorption). With a neutral DM particle it would be always absorption, promptly followed by re-emission, due to conservation laws. That's why DM is "dark" (invisible, perfectly transparent).

[swansont]

44 minutes ago, DanMP said:

Why not? My Fizeau/Sagnac explanation is correct (see the math), consistent with the observations and useful in understanding how photons travel through matter. In the beginning it was included in this theory, but I decided to split them.

Claiming that it's correct is not a guarantee that it is. Building up a house of cards based on unconfirmed claims is a house of cards, but more to the point, our rules imply that we should be discussing the underlying speculation, not anything built from other speculation.

Quote

You like it or not, dark matter will change many things/theories. The above is only the tip of the iceberg ... I have much more. And this is the way to do it, step by step, but interconnected, consistent with each other and with observations.

If it's correct.

Quote

I wrote in that conversation enough. Just read it. In short: the idea that the atom as a whole is absorbing the photon and then it transfers the energy to one electron in the cloud (in order to raise it to a higher orbital) implies that the energy can be shared to more than one electron, and this wasn't, in my opinion, really demonstrated. On the other hand, if you read my Fizeau/Sagnac explanation, you may see why I think that individual electrons in the electronic cloud are receiving the photons and then absorb them (together with the rest of the atom) in a trial and error process. When I say "together with the rest of the atom", I mean that momentum (and some energy?) may be transferred from the receiving electron to the rest of the atom by virtual photons, as you can read in Wikipedia:

It's unclear to me how this is different from saying that the whole atom gets the energy and momentum, but insofar as you make specific predictions of the process, I have to ask how you would test this conjecture?

 

Quote

Absorption + re-emission is something different than electromagnetic interaction. It doesn't necessarily imply electromagnetic forces.

It doesn't? A photon interacts electromagnetically. That implies an electromagnetic interaction.

For the photon to interact, you must be positing either that the dark matter interacts electromagnetically, or that this is a gravitational interaction, in which case I would want to know what the interaction strength is.

Quote

In Compton scattering there are such forces, that's why a charge or a magnetic moment is needed. Remember "2. Scattering cross section" and the magnetic moment/field? In my opinion, the photon, with its electromagnetic field, can reject a charged particle (Compton scattering) OR it can attract it or just neither of two (the absorption).

I don't care about your opinion. I care about what you can show, with evidence, or a model that can be tested.

How do we know that Compton scattering occurs because of a repulsive interaction? What happens if the photon is attracted to the charge?  What are the circumstances for "neither of two"?

Quote

With a neutral DM particle it would be always absorption, promptly followed by re-emission, due to conservation laws. That's why DM is "dark" (invisible, perfectly transparent).

Atoms absorb and emit photons, changing the momentum and energy of each, and following conservation laws. "following conservation laws" by itself doesn't mean that the system is transparent.

[DanMP]

20 hours ago, swansont said:

It's unclear to me how this is different from saying that the whole atom gets the energy and momentum, but insofar as you make specific predictions of the process, I have to ask how you would test this conjecture?

Few indications towards my approach are mentioned in my Fizeau/Sagnac explanation. Maybe we should move & continue the discussion there, although I think it can wait. By the way, the F/S explanation is valid, no matter who (the electron in the atom or the atom/molecule as a whole) does the "absorption"+emission.

 

20 hours ago, swansont said:

How do we know that Compton scattering occurs because of a repulsive interaction? What happens if the photon is attracted to the charge?  What are the circumstances for "neither of two"?

Maybe I'll get back to this subject and answer your questions in a dedicated thread (my theory about the nature of light), but only when I'll finish with the main subject here.

 

Regarding the above discussed proprieties/behavior of DM particles, take them as defined like that. If the theoretical tests I mentioned above will confirm my predictions, then I'll get back to the subject. Until then it would be a waste of time. As I said to Strange, let's wait for my new input (theoretical tests). Maybe they'll prove me wrong ...