Jump to content
Grochola

New Hypothesis On Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Recommended Posts

So after getting out of academia I must miss it... just after Christmas, this new year I was thinking about issues in cosmology and all this Dark Matter and Dark Energy theories, and had this crazy idea that's within Einstein's GR- maybe, but more so, it's within a non-flat curvature quantum theory, which we don't have so all this is speculation, but i thought perhaps tiny fluctuations in spacetime curvature (from moving masses in sub-atomic particles from distant parts of the universe), travelling in the same direction, in the same region of space, over billions of years, would interact and form very sharp curvatures in spacetime  - on the scales 10e-18m to 10e-15m.


The idea is that this would disrupt gravitation over the very long range. From this I think one can postulate 4 force effects, 3 gravitational and 1 radiation pressure. Two of the gravitational effects are a type of re-blooming of the gravitational potential, in fact the whole idea is really a type of localized gravitational potential by-pass and re-blooming effect, but not necessarily a quantized version gravity, still continuous just localized spacetime packets.


I called it Fine Structured Spacetime (FiSS) because well - it would make matter FiZZ :)


The thing is, at least to me, this idea seems to have an astounding potential to fix problems in cosmology. Every major problem I looked at, FiSS seemed introduced a force or effect that at least moved the problem in the right direction:  it seems to explain Dark Matter, explain Dark Energy, rotation curves of galaxies, predicts a linear Tully Fisher relationship (although the math on this is a bit shaky, haven't done math now in 10 years as I'm out of the academic field), it's consistent with the bullet cluster, explains stability of spiral arms, barred galaxy structures, star formation in trailing gases for "Jellyfish Galaxies," weird ring galaxies like Hoag's object, partly resolves the "vacuum catastrophe" problem, possibly resolves the Hubble constant and the "Crisis in Cosmology," explains the "Cuspy-Core" problem, predicts the nature of voids, maybe explains "The Great Attractor" and "Dark Flow"... and it just goes on.. and on. 


I've probably just spent 3 weeks in cognitive bias looking for evidence for it, but I'm seeing it everywhere now... clearly I've lost all impartiality -  I'm too invested in the idea, and that's when you need to step back and let others take a look and form their own option and give you some feedback. 


I wrote it up as manuscript and submitted to a few journals, a couple of weeks back, hoping to get a peer reviewer to look at it, but due to its early speculative nature, it was not accepted. Also sent the unpublished manuscript to a number of researchers in the field for some feedback, but they get bombarded with claims of solutions for Dark Matter, so I still haven't heard back from them.

So I've decided to let it go, and just post the unpublished, un-peer reviewed manuscript on a few Physics and Astronomy forums, you can find the idea here:


https://www.ecoonline.com.au/content/FiSS.pdf


I'd love to get some feedback on it... anyone here that is intimately familiar with what's possible within a non-flat curvature quantum theory?

Kind Regards
Dr Gregory Grochola


PS: yes I see there are lots of untrained people posting "theories", I'm well aware of the Scientific Method, you can check my track record as a scholar below, 20 of those papers I wrote myself over a period of 10 years...


https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=aKhLFkwAAAAJ&hl=en :)
 

FiSS.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grochola said:

but i thought perhaps tiny fluctuations in spacetime curvature (from moving masses in sub-atomic particles from distant parts of the universe), travelling in the same direction, in the same region of space, over billions of years, would interact and form very sharp curvatures in spacetime  - on the scales 10e-18m to 10e-15m.

 

The idea of local sharp curvatures is interesting but I fail to see how temporary interactions between travelling massive particles 'build up' to such levels.

I see two difficulties with this idea.

Firstly, in a static situation,  the curvature increases with one particle and decreases with a conjunction of two or more as their individual fields interact. For example Lagrange points.

Secondly if we now release these particles and let them travel, then any conjunction leading to increased curvature will soon lead to decreased curvature as the particles recede from each other. These variations are, just as you say, non permanent fluctuations.
Dark matter and dark energy on the other hand requires a permanent presence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey:) not sure I understand but think more in terms of an unless sea of an unimaginable number of superimposed fluctuations from distant objects, from all manner of sub atomic particles... normally any such fluctuations would average out right, and spacetime would be perfectly smooth, but what about as they travel half way across the universe, the superimposed peaks that are confirmed to the same space in the same direction, need only phase shift 10e-18m and they have billions of years to do so, and vola you've got fine structure in your curvature.

Then when it hits normal matter is re-blooms the gravitational potential, and you've got what appears like dark matter

and yes, before you pick up on my statement, I know from GR time is froze for such fluctuations... but maybe there is some mechanism that allows the peak to move 10e-18m  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 Ok first off spacetime itself isn't a substance or medium. The fabric of spacetime is only used in an analogy for laymen.

 Secondly this has far too many similarities to an eather theory to possibly ignore. If you had some medium flow the speed of light would not be constant. So the Michelson Morley experiment itself would falsify this theory.

Spacecurvature involves the mass density of the standard model of particles. If you remove all SM particles  (including virtual particles) you would have zero curvature. Including fluctuations as spacetime itself is just volume with time given dimensionality of length under a geometry basis.

The only commonality between DM and DE is the word dark as a placeholder. They have completely different influenced and characteristics.

A directional flowing field will not generate the scalar field that describes the cosmological constant. Regardless of  how minute the fluctuations are. You would have a vector field of quantum fluctuations and not a scalar field.

There are numerous other considerations and corrections to be made in your proposal but let's start with the above.

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mordred, no it's not an eather based hypothesis, it's still spacetime curvature in the standard GR sense, it's just that I'm suggesting there are finer curvatures embedded, structure is used in the scientific sense, i.e. "there is structure in this signal"

 

if you had a mass and moved it around, and a detector, would spaectime curvature not change, if course it would, a time varing change (I'm not talking about gravitational waves that carry with them gravitational radiation energy)

 

However what you say here ...

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

A directional flowing field will not generate the scalar field that describes the cosmological constant. Regardless of  how minute the fluctuations are. You would have a vector field of quantum fluctuations and not a scalar field.

 

 That I'll have to look into...

 

There is one very simple prediction the hypothesis makes, in section 6.30


Galaxy collision approach speeds must show a correlation to the projected area each galaxy sees of each

other, hence spiral galaxies that approach edge first should, have a slower approach speed than flat side

first approach...  by Eq 1, whereas in the lambda CDM model, a spherical dark halo wouldn't show such

a correlation...


This would be easy to do right, and it would completely falsify the hypothesis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don't your understanding. It doesn't make sense to apply smaller fluctuations to what amounts to strictly a volume.

If you remove all particles you have strictly volume. The curvature term arises when you add those particle fields. 

A spacetime field devoid of all other fields would be static with zero curvature term. Ie an Einstein vacuum.

The Stress energy momentum tensor which tells spacetime how to curve would be

[math]T_{\mu\nu}=0 [/math]

There would also be no time dilation. Spacetime by itself isn't a thing it the environment the Standard model of particles reside in.

Think of it this way spacetime curvature is the effect caused by the sum of the mass terms of the SM particle fields. Mass being resistance to inertia change or simply resistance to acceleration.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

“Space-time tells matter how to move; matter tells space-time how to curve”

John Wheeler

 

move subatomic matter and spacetime curvature changes, it doesn't get much simpler, I'm only suggesting spacetime has finer higher curvatures i.e. structure, this is still with GR prescription, what's not within GR is, the interaction of such high curvatures when they hit baryonic matter, that's within a non-flat curvature quantum mechanical prescription, and quite frankly all the forces I suggest are rank guesses, I can't prove them or derive them, I dare say no one will for some time, even if FiSS effects are observed and proven true, because we simply don't know how quantum sub-atomic particles work in highly curved spacetime.

 

BWT yet more evidence, of this crazy S-FiSS shade casting effect, I'm seeing it everywhere https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.8178.pdf

they found satellite galaxies orbiting a main galaxy are orbiting in an unexplained correlated planar arrangement around these galaxies, whereas the standard dark matter model Lambad-CDM does not or only very weakly predicts this, see Fig 1 of their work.

Whereas in FiSS this is predicted because opposing satellite galaxies orbiting around a main galaxy core would cast a gravitational potential well extending to the opposing satellite.

Edited by Grochola

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Grochola said:

So after getting out of academia I must miss it... just after Christmas, this new year ...

… (although the math on this is a bit shaky, haven't done math now in 10 years as I'm out of the academic field),...

?

I did not understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Grochola said:

not sure I understand but think more in terms of an unless sea of an unimaginable number of superimposed fluctuations from distant objects, from all manner of sub atomic particles.

What don't you understand?

I don't understand why you specifically mention not only  "sharp curvature" but "very sharp curvature"

yet you describe your 'effect' as resulting in "fine structure".

How is very sharp also fine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Grochola said:

a non-flat curvature quantum theory, which we don't have

QFT can be generalised to curved space-time backgrounds, so we do know quite a bit about this.

23 hours ago, Grochola said:

perhaps tiny fluctuations in spacetime curvature (from moving masses in sub-atomic particles from distant parts of the universe), travelling in the same direction, in the same region of space, over billions of years, would interact and form very sharp curvatures in spacetime  - on the scales 10e-18m to 10e-15m

Did you consider the fact that the dynamics of gravity are highly non-linear? Gravitational fluctuations do not superimpose linearly, as (e.g.) EM waves would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Grochola said:

 

move subatomic matter and spacetime curvature changes, it doesn't get much simpler, I'm only suggesting spacetime has finer higher curvatures i.e. structure, this is still with GR prescription, 

However it is not within the GR descriptive nor within QFT which employs GR. 

You cannot curve a volume

The quantum fluctuations of QFT involve particle fields.

Can you not see the difference. You require particle fields to have a curvature term. The curvature describes the particle Worldline from point A to point B.

This worldline follows the path of least action. Your paper doesn't encompass any of the Langrangian which are used to determine the path integrals. Nor did I see any of the relevant GR formulas.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Grochola said:

“Space-time tells matter how to move; matter tells space-time how to curve”

John Wheeler

Think carefully of what I have been stating and the above expression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys let's just step back a bit from the details for a little while, cos I fear were getting lost in the details and what's possible... in answer...

 

14 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Gravitational fluctuations do not superimpose linearly, as (e.g.) EM waves would.

No I have not considered this, I'm not sure GR can be applied to the proposed scales 10e-18m... but I'd love to hear your option on this.... 

 

so Mordred... I probably miss spoke, I'm not at all sure this is within GR. We know for sure GR is a macroscopic approximation, albeit an amazingly successful one, but ultimately there has to be something deeper....

I'm trying to follow you but, I'm having a hard time, you say...

11 hours ago, Mordred said:

Your paper doesn't encompass any of the Langrangian which are used to determine the path integrals. Nor did I see any of the relevant GR formulas.

You're not going to like my answer but ... I'm going to leave that to you guys :)

 

So lets just step back a bit first... look at the proposed forces summarized in Table 1, and Eqn 1, 6 and 7... and let me ask you the following questions:

 

1) Do these forces describe Hoag's object?

2) Do these forces describe spiral arms?

3) Do they describe and explain the Linear Tully Fisher relationship

4) What do you make of the astounding ability for this model to fit issues in cosmology today?

 

putting ASIDE the details of how FiSS might have formed or it's form...

 

lastly, there is one very simple prediction the hypothesis makes, in section 6.30


FiSS predicts galaxy collision approach speeds must show a correlation to the projected area each galaxy sees of each

other, hence spiral galaxies that approach edge first should, have a slower approach speed than flat side

first approach...  by Eq 1, whereas in the lambda CDM model, a spherical dark halo wouldn't show such

a correlation (correct me if I'm wrong)


This would be easy to do, and it would completely falsify the hypothesis

 

if you saw evidence of this, that the velocities of galaxy pairs were strangely correlated to the projected area orientation that each galaxies  sees of each other and not just correlated to the amount of matter in the galaxy... would that change your mind and give you pause about FiSS? 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well stepping back from my perspective your missing a huge amount of detail.

You don't need quantum fluctuations or FIZZ to explain spiral arms is a good example. You don't even require GR. Macroscopic  processes does an adequate job. Do you need DM to avoid Kepler rotation absolutely. Will FIZZ help explain galaxy rotation

Not from what you presented thus far.

 I am starting you from the basics as you have a lot to learn. GR maybe a macroscopic theory however as Markus mentioned were well equipped with current theories to handle fluctuations. 

However what causes the fluctuations is the issue I have been stressing. Spacetime by itself cannot cause anything. It is simply the arena where particles reside. It is the particle fields that causes what we term spacetime curvature.

The second sentence " matter tells spacetime how to curve" is a vital clue. It is the property of particle fields that influencedthe curvature term. Mass arises from the 18 coupling constants of the SM model.

The problem is your declaring solutions to numerous problems without understanding the basics of spacetime or QM/GR.

By itself spacetime cannot cause any action upon any particle. It is other fields that cause the effective action.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

and ... "if you saw evidence of this, that the velocities of galaxy pairs were strangely correlated to the projected area orientation that each galaxies  sees of each other and not just correlated to the amount of matter (dark and baryonic) in the galaxy... would that change your mind and give you pause about FiSS? "

 

I'm seriously considering putting US$10K up, for anyone that can falsify FiSS based on the above 

 

lastly, so just so we know where we stand, in your option, 1) FiSS is not possible, and/or 2) the hypothesized proposed forces in Table 1, produced by the interaction of baryonic matter with high spacetime curvatures on the scale 10e-18m, wouldn't work that way... is this your position?  

Edited by Grochola

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I can already falsify FISS, I have been doing so by the details I have posted thus far.

There is no reason to pay me. Spacetime by itself without other particles or fields cannot have fluctuations.  A study of GR will tell you that. However if you want to get intensive a study of the Langrene and principle of least action will also do so.

Now if you stated that particle fields can cause fluctuations in worldline paths via the Principle of least action which the standard model physics already states then there is no need for FISS. As those fluctuations ate already included by the Langrene of the path integrals of the SM model.

The difference is What causes the fluctuations at each Infinitisimal position along a particle worldline path.

Take this thought experiment. Start with a volume of spacetime devoid of all other particles. Then have a single particle travel from point A to point B.

Will the particle path fluctuate from a true straight line path ?

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Spacetime by itself without other particles or fields cannot have fluctuations.

So wait, let's distinguish between two spacetime fluctuations,

 

1) If I wave my fist around, I'm sending infinitesimally small time varing spacetime fluctuation to my coffee mug

2) Two black holes in a merger give off radiative gravitational energy via a time-varying quadrupole moment

 

You don't believe in either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If you wave your hand in an absolute vacuum of spacetime. You will send no variations. Spacetime isn't a medium. It has zero substance or energy. It will not carry sound or vibrations. As it has no medium properties by itself.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just an update Prof. Jeremy Mould, Editor-in-Chiefs at Astrophysics and Space Science just reviewed the manuscript,  he said that while he doesn't recommend the paper for publication in ApSS, I should talk to people at Mel Uni, and that the suggestion I had in the manuscript ....

 

"FiSS predicts galaxy collision approach speeds must show a correlation to the projected area each galaxy sees of each

other, hence spiral galaxies that approach edge first should, have a slower approach speed than flat side

first approach...  by Eq 1, whereas in the lambda CDM model, a spherical dark halo wouldn't show such

a correlation...


This would be easy to do right, and it would completely falsify the hypothesis."

if I did that work it would be "more likely to get a hearing from reviewers and editors"

 

he also said "and remember, you can always send your paper to arxiv.org where there is no peer review."

 

which tell me he didn't find any great blunder on my part that disqualifies it imminently, I'm hopeful to get a meeting at mel uni...  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well good luck then. Just remember that peer review doesn't require a paper to be correct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.