Jump to content

Dark matter found?


tmdarkmatter
 Share

Recommended Posts

During the last decades, scientists have been searching for all kind of particles to explain the “dark matter” effect. But these particles are either too heavy, too rare, not transparent, or they combine to form more complex structures that would become visible.

But a couple of years ago, I discovered a much simpler solution to this problem, and I am offering it in my new book (still only in German) “Eine Lösung für das Geheimnis der dunklen Materie” (Author: Thilo Müller).

If light is manipulated by mass (see the Einstein rings) and our sun loses 4 million tons of mass per second, I think that light should have its own mass and that this mass is responsible for the effect of “dark matter”.

Because light is present everywhere in high amounts, it is transparent, it is very light, it does not combine to form more complex structures.

Many would say that light is not invisible. But how can you see billions of years of light that have not arrived at earth yet or billions of years of light that have already passed by? You can only see the light arriving directly at your eyes one instant at a time. Most light will always be invisible to us.

But when I offer this solution to scientists, at first, they have serious doubts about me as a complete outsider, then they say that light does not have a mass and finally they say that the mass of light would never be enough, because a star would never emit 4-5 times its own mass as light.

But before rejecting light mass as the cause of dark matter, there are several things to consider:

- The light mass created by our sun is negligible in our own solar system. (Just imagine being 3 light days away from the sun, what would you see at the sky? The sun would already be a small dot surrounded by millions of other dots. And 3 light days is still very far away from the limit of our solar system)

- The light mass created by the milky way and the andromeda galaxy contained within the sphere corresponding to them (a sphere with a radius of at least 25 million light years, because the next galaxy group is at least 50 million light years away) is negligible within this sphere when comparing it to the light provided by the billions of other galaxies surrounding us.

I took a “standard galaxy” of the size of our milky way and at a distance of 7 billion light years to see how much light it should provide to a cubic light year at a distance of 7 billion light years, multiplied the result with the number of all galaxies known so far and multiplied this total light mass with the volume of the sphere with a radius of 25 million light years surrounding our sister galaxies (milky way and andromeda) and came to the result that this sphere contains at least 11 times the mass of our milky way in the form of light mass (maybe enough to explain the effect of dark matter).

Please let me know what you think.

Kind regards,
Thilo Müller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Because light is present everywhere in high amounts

Is it? Show your work.

Quote

But when I offer this solution to scientists, at first, they have serious doubts about me as a complete outsider, then they say that light does not have a mass

It doesn’t, because photons are massless. They do have energy, though.

Quote

and finally they say that the mass of light would never be enough, because a star would never emit 4-5 times its own mass as light

Conservation of energy trivially tells you this.

Quote

I took a “standard galaxy” of the size of our milky way and at a distance of 7 billion light years to see how much light it should provide to a cubic light year at a distance of 7 billion light years, multiplied the result with the number of all galaxies known so far and multiplied this total light mass with the volume of the sphere with a radius of 25 million light years surrounding our sister galaxies (milky way and andromeda) and came to the result that this sphere contains at least 11 times the mass of our milky way in the form of light mass (maybe enough to explain the effect of dark matter).

Again, show your work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some issues with your idea:

It fails to explain why DM(Dark matter) is concentrated as spherical halos surrounding galaxies. Our own galaxy's DM halo only extends out to 210 thousand parsecs (compared to the 27 thousand parsec diameter of the galaxy itself). It is within this radius that the "extra mass" is needed to explain galaxy rotation curves.  If the majority of light is contributed by other galaxies, then it would not be concentrated in a region around us (or any other galaxy.) But the vast amount of dark matter mass would be evenly spread out through the universe.  Andwith this being the case, it would have no gravitational effect on individual galaxies' rotation. ( Mass evenly distributed throughout the universe has no effect locally, as the combined effects cancel each other out over "small"(compared to the size of the universe) regions.

Put another way, for things to work the way we see them happening, the extra mass of DM has to be mostly clumped around galaxies, and not spread out evenly through the universe.

And if that much light was concentrated in the region around galaxies, we would see it.  Even intergalactic space isn't completely empty, and the little material there would scatter enough of that light to produce a visible "glow"

It fails to explain why we have found some galaxies that seem to show little to no indication of DM. They produce just as much light as other galaxies, and are being bathed in just as much light, but do not behave the same.

Then there are observations like the Bullet cluster, where we are looking at the aftermath of galactic collisions.  Here we can use gravitational lensing to locate concentrations of mass, and have noted that after the collision, there is a region that shows a concentration of mass that is separate from any visible light source.  This is what one would expect if the DM was separated from its parent galaxy by the collision.  This is not something that could occur if DM was the result of the mass of light.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, thank you very much for sharing your opinions here. It is really an honor for me to see you writing here (on the same day!). Right now, I am very busy, but later today or tomorrow I promise that I will provide (possible) answers to all of your questions and post all my calculations so far. Of course, my ideas are very far away from being "confirmed/accepted", but I am trying to offer a new kind of solution. Anyway, I will show you that there are many more questions/anomalies to be considered when calculating the actual "mass of light" surrounding us. For example, the galaxies might generate much more light than we would think when only taking into account the light emitted by each star, because there is a big gas cloud in the center of almost each galaxie and when looking at the andromeda galaxy, you can see that this gas cloud seems to be shining much stronger than all stars of the galaxy together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dark matter is thought to be about 85% of the total mass in the universe. Radiation from a lamp is certainly not an 85% excess of the lamp's mass when it's turned off.

Also, DM is known not to interact electromagnetically, or strongly, or by weak decays. That's what people mean by "dark."

If DM interacted as photons do, it would cluster much more than it's known to do.

I was about to say more, but I think that's enough food for thought for the time being.

And Janus has given a pretty good account of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are my calculations concerning light mass surrounding our milky way without any anomalies:

The main problem is that as our neighbor galaxy andromeda is 2.5 million light years away, we think that the “halo” of the dark matter surrounding us should be somewhere in between at a distance of about 1.25 million light years. That would be correct, if there would be another 30 galaxies of the size of andromeda surrounding us at a similar distance and if there would be many more galaxies of the same type surrounding us every 2.5 million light years of distance, so in a sphere with a radius of for example 50 million light years, there should be at least some 32000 galaxies of the same size. But in that case, the night sky would be full of big galaxies and the light arriving at our planet would be so intense that we would not be able to sleep at night. It would also not be possible for us to distinguish or see planets like Mars or Venus.

Instead, we can see that the next group of bigger galaxies is about 50 million light years away. So, the sphere of dark matter/light mass surrounding us should have a radius of at least 25 million light years and in the middle of this sphere there would now be two galaxies of the size of the milky way. The total mass of these galaxies is at least twice the mass of the milky way, meaning that of course we also need twice as much dark matter.

Now, if we analyze the amount of light mass created by our milky way, the calculation is as follows:

1,3 10^14 (light mass per star) x 2,5 10^11 (number of stars) = 3,2510^25 tons of light mass per year.

If we now multiply this mass per year with the radius of the sphere of 25 million light years, the total mass created by our galaxy within this sphere is about 8,125 10^32 tons.

The total mass of our galaxy is calculated as follows:

1,5 10^12 (amount of sun masses) * 2 10^27 (mass of the sun) = 3 10^39 tons

But we are making a mistake here, because in the estimate of sun masses, we are already including the “dark matter”, so if we remove the “dark matter”, the mass should rather be:

1,5 10^11 * 2 10^27 = 3 10^38 tons.

If we compare the mass of the light created by our galaxy with the mass of our galaxy in the 25 million radius sphere, the light mass is still negligible:

8,125 10^32 tons / 3 10^38 tons = 2,70 10^-06

(Of course, if we multiply the mass of the galaxy by two (including andromeda), the mass of the light would also double.)

But here is the second mistake we are making:

We are completely ignoring the light mass created by the remaining billions of galaxies surrounding us.

If the galaxy that is farthest away from us is at a distance of 13,5 billion light years, we can for example think that an average galaxy is at a distance of about 7 billion light years. (Of course this should be more). But if for example we want to calculate the amount of light mass reaching us, coming from this “average” galaxy, the calculation is as follows (with “average galaxy” I mean a galaxy of the size of the milky way at a distance of 7 billion light years):

1,3 10^14 (light mass per star) x 2,5 10^11 (number of stars) = 3,2510^25 tons of light mass per year.

Area of a sphere at a distance of 7 billion light years:

4*3,14*(7 10^9 light years)2 = 6.15 10^20 square light years

So, the light mass provided by this distant galaxy to any square light year is:

3,2510^25 tons of light mass / 6.15 10^20 square light years = 52807,74 tons of light mass per year per square light year.

As the light travels at the speed of light, saying light per year per square light year is the same than saying a light year cube.

Now, if we multiply the mass of light generated by this average galaxy, affecting every light year cube of the universe with the number of galaxies found so far, the total mass of light per light year cube is as follows:

52807,74 tons * 1 10^12 galaxies = 5.28 10^16 tons

The volume of the sphere of 25 million light years surrounding our galaxy is as follows:

1.33333333 * 3,14 * (2,500,000)2 = 6,54 10^22 cubic light years

If we now multiply the number of tons provided by all galaxies with the number of cubic light years contained in the sphere with a radius of 25 million light years surrounding our galaxy, the calculation is as follows:

5.28 10^16 tons * 6,54 10^22 cubic light years = 3,45451 10^39 tons of light mass.

As you can see, if we compare the light mass provided by our galaxy with the light mass provided by all galaxies surrounding us contained in that sphere, the calculation is as follows:

3,45451 10^39 tons of light mass all galaxies / 8,125 10^32 tons of light mass from our galaxy = 2,352 10^-07

We can see that the light mass created by our own galaxy in the space surrounding our galaxy of a radius of 25 million light years is negligible when comparing it to the light mass provided by all other galaxies and even including the light mass of andromeda would not affect the total a lot. This situation makes sense if we think of what we would see in the night sky if we would be standing on a planet at a distance of 25 million light years from our galaxy. We would see a sky full of tiny dots (only galaxies) and just two of these tiny dots would be a little brighter and these would be our two sister galaxies.

If we compare the light mass provided by all galaxies with the mass of our milky way, the calculation is as follows:

3,45451 10^39 tons of light mass / 3 10^38 tons (mass of the milky way) = 11,51

That means that the total light mass created by all of these galaxies contained in this sphere with a radius of 25 million light years is 11,51 times the mass of our milky way.

Now, after having posted this, there are a lot of things to consider.

The main issue is of course the question if light has a relativistic mass or not and if this mass is atracting/manipulating other mass. 

The other issue is the quantity of light available, but there are many many anomalies to be considered before rejecting light as the best candidate for dark matter:

Here are some of them:

- How much light does our galaxy actually emit? If we observe the andromeda galaxy, we can see that most light comes from the center of the galaxy. The gas cloud in the middle can be responsible for a multiple of the light created by all the stars. This increase would also affect all the galaxies surrounding us, increasing the total mass of light considerably.

- How much mass has the infrared and ultraviolet radiation?

- How much mass has the background radiation?

- Are there more galaxies out there we did not find yet?

- Are there abnormal stars that emit much more light than regular stars, increasing the amount considerably?

- How much light passing through the sphere mentioned comes from supernovas occurring somewhere in the universe? If we count all the galaxies and the supernovas occurring in each galaxy every thousand years, there should be about 40 supernovas per second taking place in the visible area of our universe. That means that there must be many three-dimensional waves of intense light mass passing through our 25 million light years sphere right now.

- Are there any further radiations to be included?

- What influence has the relativity of time on the light mass traveling through a space with a much lower passage of time (the intergalactic space)?

- What influence has the relativity of space on the light mass traveling through this space?

- To what extent are all the objects with a high mass (stars, black holes, neutron stars, galaxies) capable of “holding back” light mass? Especially, the black hole should be able to withhold a considerable mass we might currently classify as mass pertaining to the black hole, but this mass might rather be just light mass. Maybe 99% of the mass of a black hole is only light mass and a big part of this mass might be leaving the black hole because it did not reach the event horizon. Maybe this light is circling around the black hole for many years, until it finally leaves.

- To what extent are stars, planets, moons, asteroids, comets etc. capable to reflect light back. Not all light would be able to leave our galaxy straightforward. I suppose that there is quite a lot of light mass passing several times through our galaxy before it actually leaves it. This would also increase the total amount of light mass.

- To what extent is light manipulated by mass, not only creating the effect of red shift but also reducing its intensity? The only way to check this would be sending a big telescope to the border of our solar system and sending another one to the border of our milky way. If we watch the andromeda galaxy and compare its intensity with the star Sirius, it is very suspicious that its intensity is only of about the intensity of about 21 billion times the light intensity of the sun, if the andromeda galaxy is really containing 1 trillion stars, so the light intensity might actually be reduced by surrounding mass. I know that you now might say that a reduced light mass would be against my theory, but it is actually the opposite, because it would mean that the actual light intensity of all galaxies would be much higher than we initially thought, but only a telescope outside of our solar system or outside of our milky way would prove that idea.

Joigus: First, thank you for joining us! My question is, if protons interact a lot with surrounding mass/space, why can we still see the light coming from galaxies that are far far away (13 billion light years)? Shouldn't these protons be so manipulated that the pictures arriving at our telescopes are completely blurred or shouldn't the light be completely deviated from its original path?

And Janus: I want to tell you that the light mass should be many times (thousands) more concentrated within our milky way and then start to decrease as we move away from it. It seems that this concentration of light mass might decrease even more if we move farther away from the big galaxy clusters. Maybe the "average light mass" in our universe is 100 million light years away or even more.

The other question is, if there should be objects "scattering" that light and producing a glow, why do we not see that glow around the moon? We are so extremely close to the sun that the effect of scattering would be most intense around the moon, far more intense than around some objects far away in the intergalactic space. Don´t forget that the mass of light should be billions of times higher being so extremely close to our star.

Concerning the idea if light has a mass or not, I want to tell you that we are looking for an incredibly tiny mass, something totally negligible.If the sun produces 4 millions of tons of light per second, only about 3.627 kilograms of that mass would hit earth per second. Now, if we stand in the sun, just compare how quickly our body temperature increases and our skin gets red with the idea of being hit by about 1,4 10^-11 grams per second. Nobody would ever notice that we are being "pushed" to the ground by that light mass. But of course we notice the heat and sunburn. Here you can see that light is of course almost only energy and only a very tiny (usually negligible) part should be (anormal) mass.

But please never take anything I am saying personal, I totally respect what you are telling me and if you are posting here, you must be some very smart guys with much more experience in this field than me. While I was chatting in a German forum, it was all the time about one person attacking the other. Instead, consider that I am just asking questions. My intentions are not to "harrass" people who think differently, but to learn from others and exchange ideas.

 

Edited by tmdarkmatter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

The total mass of our galaxy is calculated as follows:

1,5 10^12 (amount of sun masses) * 2 10^27 (mass of the sun) = 3 10^39 tons

But we are making a mistake here, because in the estimate of sun masses, we are already including the “dark matter”, so if we remove the “dark matter”, the mass should rather be:

No, the mass of the sun would only include dark matter in the vicinity of the sun. It’s based on the orbits of the planets. It would not include dark matter in other areas.

5 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

4*3,14*(7 10^9 light years)2 = 6.15 10^20 square light years

So, the light mass provided by this distant galaxy to any square light year is:

3,2510^25 tons of light mass / 6.15 10^20 square light years = 52807,74 tons of light mass per year per square light year.

 

You don’t appear to be accounting for the 1/r^2 nature of the light intensity. The amount of light far away from a source is smaller than near the source.

IOW, stars and galaxies are fairly dim compared to e.g. the sun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of photons perhaps having a tiny rest mass isn’t new - however, on a fundamental level this would create huge problems. Think about this for a minute:

1. Charge conservation in QED would no longer hold

2. Gauge invariance in QED would need to be violated (ordinary U(1) gauge invariance cannot give rise to photons with rest mass) - effectively meaning that QED and much of the rest of the Standard Model cease to be valid models

3. Photons would travel at different speeds (speed of light would depend on frequency), meaning for far-away events we would see more energetic photons arrive here first

4. Strength of the electrostatic force would be weaker over large distances as compared to small distances

5. There would be three (as opposed to two, for massless photons) possible modes of polarisation

And probably many more. Needless to say we do not observe any of these things in the real world, which is why we can say with very high confidence that photons are most likely massless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swansont: Yes, as you can see I am calculating light mass based on the surface of a sphere that expands. This surface increases exponentially, so the resulting light mass also decreases exponentially. Of course, the light mass is much higher when close to a star or galaxy.

Markus Hanke: Yes, this idea is very interesting. Maybe we did not see these things "yet", because as previously said, we are comparing a person being burned by our sun during 2227 years and a person being pushed down by one gram of light mass in 2227 years. This should be something extremely difficult to check/comfirm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Swansont: Yes, as you can see I am calculating light mass based on the surface of a sphere that expands. This surface increases exponentially, so the resulting light mass also decreases exponentially. Of course, the light mass is much higher when close to a star or galaxy.

So you can’t say that there is some value per unit area (or volume) since that varies with distance.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

This should be something extremely difficult to check/comfirm.

Some of these effects would be very obvious and easy to observe - for example the frequency dependence of the speed of (massive) photons. With modern telescopes we can observe objects and events at distances on the order of ~billions of LY, and for those distances the delay in arrival of photons near the blue end of the visible spectrum and ones at the red end would be on the order of months or even years. Effectively we would see high-energy photons arriving first, and lower-energy ones from the same source some ~months later. That’s evidently not what is happening. And if the effect doesn’t show up on scales of ~billions of LY, then any potential rest mass of the photon would be so vanishingly small as to be wholly unable to account for the observed DM effects (currently, upper limit for photon mass is on the order of 10^(-54)kg).

The other major issue is the impossibility of having a photon mass in the presence of U(1) gauge invariance, which is an integral part of the Standard Model. If this symmetry was broken - as it would have to be in order for photons to have any mass at all - then this would have consequences not just in the EM sector, but in all the rest of the Standard Model. It’s not immediately obvious exactly what would happen in the QFD and QCD sectors, but I think it is safe to say that the Standard Model Lagrangian would need to look radically different - this isn’t just some subtle deviation that we might have missed in our particle accelerators, but more like a completely different particle zoo. Yet, the experimental data we get from our accelerators is by and large in excellent agreement with the Standard Model as it currently stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, swansont said:

So you can’t say that there is some value per unit area (or volume) since that varies with distance.

I took a galaxy at a distance of 7 billion light years (maybe the average distance of all galaxies found so far) and calculated the mass this average galaxy would provide to a cubic light year at that distance. Of course, this is considering that the sun is losing 4 million tons per second as "light mass" and taking it as a "standard star" in a "standard universe" without having in mind a lot of anomalies that should be present too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Of course, this is considering that the sun is losing 4 million tons per second as "light mass"

That is a terrible assumption since all evidence indicates light has no mass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, visible light is a tiny fraction of total energy content of the universe, plus it comes in every direction approximately equally. So the idea is really a non-starter.

More than likely Kelvin, and many others, in the 19th century already considered it, and ruled it out almost immediately. Radiation does not cluster.

I think the idea fails on so many levels that it's difficult to give a complete account of all of them in a few words...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tmdarkmatter said:

I took a galaxy at a distance of 7 billion light years (maybe the average distance of all galaxies found so far) and calculated the mass this average galaxy would provide to a cubic light year at that distance. Of course, this is considering that the sun is losing 4 million tons per second as "light mass" and taking it as a "standard star" in a "standard universe" without having in mind a lot of anomalies that should be present too.

But most galaxies are more distant than that. A galaxy 14 billion LY distant only contributes 1/4 of this. A galaxy 21 billion LY away contributes 1/9. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

A galaxy 14 billion LY distant only contributes 1/4 of this. A galaxy 21 billion LY away contributes 1/9. 

I am sorry, but isnt the farthest of all galaxies discovered so far about 13,5 billion LYs away?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, joigus said:

More than likely Kelvin, and many others, in the 19th century already considered it, and ruled it out almost immediately. Radiation does not cluster.

Ín the 19th century, scientists were still not aware that there were more galaxies than just our milky way and that space would be at least 13,5 billion LYs big into all directions. That is a lot of space for a lot of light. Also, if for example a soccer field is our solar system, the sun would only be of the size of 2 blood cells and next to this soccer field there would be another soccer field containing alpha centauri, some more blood cells. Now check how many blood cells 1 ml of blood contains, if you put these blood cells on the ground in this soccer field, you would not notice them at all. The interstellar space is really enormous and in at least three dimensions, just try to fill this space with some light and you will understand why I am worried about scientists not finding dark matter after so many decades.

I think the main question is if light has mass or not. If it does not, that´s it. But what happens if it does? Many scientists are still argueing about this possibility. Some are strictly against it and other are in favor. I think that in a century, scientists will say: of course light has a mass, didn´t you know that? And maybe in two centuries, scientists will again say: no, light definitely has no mass! :)

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

He's rounded up.

No problem, we can expand the universe, but in that case, there would be more galaxies too.

2 hours ago, joigus said:

plus it comes in every direction approximately equally

No, it does not come equally. If you are close to a star, most light comes from that star. If you are within or close to a galaxy, most light comes from that galaxy. The same happens to galaxy groups and clusters and finally, whether you are close to the center of the universe (if there is a center) or far away.

But I must say that you are the first person telling me that light comes equally in every direction. Other scientists believe the complete opposite, they say that once you leave the galaxy, suddenly there is no more light! It is very interesting that you think exactly the opposite. I am happy to see smart people on both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2022 at 4:05 PM, tmdarkmatter said:

I discovered a much simpler solution

How is your idea falsified*? Please describe an observation and an outcome that would show your idea to be wrong.
 

 

*) The idea is obviously already falsified; just check answers above. I'm interested in OP's view on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tmdarkmatter said:

No, it does not come equally. If you are close to a star, most light comes from that star. If you are within or close to a galaxy, most light comes from that galaxy. The same happens to galaxy groups and clusters and finally, whether you are close to the center of the universe (if there is a center) or far away.

That gives a 1/r2 dependence with distance, as Swansont said. Not consistent with the virial theorem for the galactic speeds.

And still it is a tiny "contamination" compared to the barionic matter.

Crudely, but hopefully clearly, you need a much much bulkier thing, non-interacting --except gravitationally--, and reaching substantially well out of the galactic halos.

1 hour ago, tmdarkmatter said:

I think the main question is if light has mass or not. If it does not, that´s it. But what happens if it does?

I don't think that's the issue at all. That would be a minor rearrangement (in the cosmological model) of the matter/radiation/etc terms in the density. The photon having a mass, OTOH, would be something more than just a nuisance, because it would break gauge symmetry, as Markus said, and you would have to spontaneously break it with the Higgs mechanism.

By the way, individual photons don't have a mass, but a bunch of photons escaping away from each other do have a centre of energy, so you can infer a collective "mass" for them. They would have a collective speed of the centre of mass less than c. If you want to see it as a mass, that's OK. But that's not the issue. The most important issue IMO is that photons are a fluffly nothing thing in comparison with the enormous bulky mass that DM must be in order to explain galactic velocity distributions. It has to cluster, but it has to do it very dilutely.

I'm no expert on this, and I will re-read all the arguments and think more about them, and document more, but to me this attempt is hopeless, has been beaten to death many years ago as a possibility, and would require a total re-vamping of the standard model. I don't even want to start considering what it would do to the electroweak mixings.

And on top of that, it's an ugly alternative. But that, and that alone, is just my taste.

It's as if --if you allow me the joke-- you detected that there are 70 invisible elephants in your living room by using gravimetric methods, and the explanation you're offering is that somebody left the lights on. :) 

Edited by joigus
minor correction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, joigus said:

you detected that there are 70 invisible elephants in your living room by using gravimetric methods, and the explanation you're offering is that somebody left the lights on.

Ha ha, that was really funny! Somebody left the lights on! I will always remember that joke.

I think this crazy idea has to do with how crazy our universe is, it is so vast that we cannot imagine it.

Just the idea of light travelling for billions of years is very difficult to actually imagine. I know, they show us these videos where we quickly abandon our galaxy and thats it, but that is not the case, the light just keeps going and going and going, almost eternally. Maybe we should create a movie instead showing the light passing by earth after 8 minutes, passing by pluto after 5-6 hours, but then to the next star it is 4 years. Maybe after watching this movie for days or weeks, people would realize how the universe works and why we do not understand it. And the problem is that the sphere becomes bigger and bigger and the light has to fill all this three-dimensional space.

But the worst thing is, that we might need a big telescope at the edge of our solar system and at the edge of our milky way to better investigate this. Because it is possible, that after leaving our solar system or the milky way, we would suddenly see a lot more light around us, so we might have to increase our estimates of light produced by stars.

So, while most scientists are checking the living room for these invisible elephants with their magnifying glasses, I am just turning the light on and off lol

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

I discovered a much simpler solution

I think I used the wrong wording here. It should say: I am proposing a simpler solution, nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

I think I used the wrong wording here. It should say: I am proposing a simpler solution, nothing else.

You missed the important part: How is your idea falsified? Please describe an observation and an outcome that would show your idea to be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

You missed the important part: How is your idea falsified? Please describe an observation and an outcome that would show your idea to be wrong.

Yes, you are right. It would be falsified if light has no mass at all of any kind or if the "mass of light" coming from all light sources in our universe would be insufficient in order to replace at least a noticeable part of the so-called "dark matter".

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.