Early rejection of light mass replacing dark matter idea

[tmdarkmatter]

About a month ago, I posted my idea of the possibility that if light has a mass, it is the best candidate to replace dark matter, because it is transparent, well distributed in the entire universe, does not combine with other particles to form "visible" matter and (most important) it is the only type of particles/energy/mass we know for sure is present everywhere in space. Please don´t forget that we are searching for particles present everywhere (like water) instead of searching for some rare elements (like diamonds), because "dark matter" should be responsible for about 80% (40% - 99% according to the author) of the entire mass of the universe.

For those who think that light is "visible" and can therefore not be "dark matter", I can tell you that we can only see light one instance at the time, but we cannot see millions of years of light travelling through space.

But the main issue proposed here is that the "light mass", if light has a mass, would not be enough and that a star can never produce more light mass than its own mass. Well, in that regard I propose that the universe should rather be trillions of year old or even older and that the material of dead stars should have been recycled many (maybe millions) of times.

Another problem is that when people calculate the mass of light of the solar system or a galaxy, they always calculate the light mass based on the light produced by this sun or galaxy and they do not take into account the light produced by the billions of galaxies out there. It is the light coming from all these galaxies that is arriving at each point of our universe. But my calculations of enough light mass surrounding us were of course ignored here.

What should also be taken into account is a long list of all kind of anomalies that should increase the total amount of light present in a galaxy, this means light be holded back by big masses, light bouncing off other objects (example: our moon), most of the mass of a black hole maybe being just light, light produced by other objects than stars (example: Jupiter), etc. One very important discovery related to this is the fact that the intensity of light increases when leaving our solar system, as detected by the New Horizons probe. This is because we are surrounded by all type of dust and masses and are therefore at a very bad observation point to observe space. But the more the real intensity of light coming from stars is, the higher the amount of light mass can be.

I have written a book about this new idea in German ("Eine Lösung für das Geheimnis der dunklen Materie"), but I suppose that this topic here will be closed immediately, because I am ruining the current favourite model of the universe. The last time the excuse for closing it was that I did not provide any formulas and that I should "prove" my ideas. The problem is that in order to "prove" my ideas, we would need to send a big telescope not only to interstellar space, but also to the intergalactic space. Our civilization not being able to measure the light mass travelling between the stars does not mean that my idea can be easily rejected. But I think that my idea makes more sense than keep searching for other "invisible" particles for the next decades, particles that are far too rare to be dark matter.

[Markus Hanke]

1 hour ago, tmdarkmatter said:

but I suppose that this topic here will be closed immediately, because I am ruining the current favourite model of the universe

No. The issue is, rather, that the concept of photons having rest mass is a pretty old idea, and has already been extensively tested in numerous high-precision experiments. Here’s the current status for both mass and charge for photons:

https://pdg.lbl.gov/2020/listings/rpp2020-list-photon.pdf

As you can see, the currently applicable upper bound is on the order of \(m<10^{-26}eV\), which is way too small by many orders of magnitude to account for the observed dark matter effects. It has also been pointed out already that a massive photon would have other consequences within the Standard Model, none of which we observe in the real world.

Thus, as things stand at the moment, the idea is a non-starter from the beginning.

Edited December 14, 2022 by Markus Hanke

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

I have written a book about this new idea in German ("Eine Lösung für das Geheimnis der dunklen Materie"), but I suppose that this topic here will be closed immediately, because I am ruining the current favourite model of the universe.

!

Moderator Note

Since this is a "new idea", I'm moving this to Speculations. It will only be closed if you continue to try to sell your book, or if you can't support the idea with evidence. We welcome your attempt to "ruin" a model that works so well, but you can't do that by waving your hands. Show us some evidence that can be analyzed, and we can discuss the science.

 

[tmdarkmatter]

Ok, thank you. What does "support with evidence" mean?

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Ok, thank you. What does "support with evidence" mean?

!

Moderator Note

Do your claims have any basis in science? Is there any evidence for massive photons? Can you support the idea of photons at rest?

Science isn't looking for "proof". Science is all about the best supported explanations for various phenomena.

 

[tmdarkmatter]

45 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

As you can see, the currently applicable upper bound is on the order of m<10−26eV

According to the current calculations of the mass our sun is (currently) losing per second, we would have to stand in the sun for over 2000 years in order to get hit by 1 gram of light mass. But this light mass would still be enough considering the enormous size of space. Our sun has the size of 2 red blood cells surrounded by a soccer field of "not so empty" space (our solar system). But this was already discussed in my previous post, so I am not going to repeat it all. Before answering, please try to imagine the universe. Try to imagine light created during billions of years travelling through an enormous (very hard to imagine) space and your no-starter position might change.

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Do your claims have any basis in science? Is there any evidence for massive photons? Can you support the idea of photons at rest?

Ok, my basis in science is as follows:

- The sun is emitting light and we can see it. (proof) So light is travelling through space and it is almost everywhere.

- The Einstein rings show us that light is beeing manipulated by gravity. (it should have a mass, even if Einstein is only talking about mass bending space/time).

- The Pound-Rebka experiment shows us that light is being red shifted by gravity, so it is being manipulated by gravity. (it should have a mass)

- The sun seems to be losing 4 million tons of mass per second, where does all this mass go to? Does it just disappear? (not possible according to the laws of thermodynamics)

You will also have to provide me with a definition of science. What is science? Is only the theory of relativity science? Is only quantum mechanics science? Who is the owner of science?

The volume of our solar system is of about 9,14 * 10⁴⁹ cubic meters and each of these cubic meters contains the light coming from at least 10²² stars.

[Phi for All]

52 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Ok, my basis in science is as follows:

- The sun is emitting light and we can see it. (proof) So light is travelling through space and it is almost everywhere.

- The Einstein rings show us that light is beeing manipulated by gravity. (it should have a mass, even if Einstein is only talking about mass bending space/time).

- The Pound-Rebka experiment shows us that light is being red shifted by gravity, so it is being manipulated by gravity. (it should have a mass)

- The sun seems to be losing 4 million tons of mass per second, where does all this mass go to? Does it just disappear? (not possible according to the laws of thermodynamics)

You will also have to provide me with a definition of science. What is science? Is only the theory of relativity science? Is only quantum mechanics science? Who is the owner of science?

The volume of our solar system is of about 9,14 * 10⁴⁹ cubic meters and each of these cubic meters contains the light coming from at least 10²² stars.

Apparently you spent 4 pages NOT supporting this idea in that other thread: 

 

!

Moderator Note

You were told not to bring it up again if you didn't have anything more to support it. You ignored people telling you the reasons why your concept was wrong, and we're not doing THAT again. Theories are the best supported explanations we have for a particular phenomenon. They aren't laws, but in order to supercede them, you need something that explains the phenomenon at least as well, if not better. Your idea doesn't explain anything, you have no evidence to support it, and others have pointed out your flaws. 

Study some more science, or ask questions, but don't bring this topic up again. The idea is demonstrably WRONG.