Hello ,

The present theory explores the behavior of the expression of relative mass M(v) with respect to the speed of light (v=c)\ and suggests that dark matter or dark energy could be composed of ordinary particles with mass that have reached the speed of light. 
The theory delves into a mathematical analysis of the series representing the relative mass function, M(v), and discusses its divergence at v=c, drawing parallels with the regularization of the Casimir effect using the Riemann zeta function, which gives M(c)=-M(0) at v=c. 
It proposes the existence of a natural phenomenon that accelerates ordinary matter with mass to the speed of light and transforms it into dark matter or dark energy with negative relative mass and finite energy.

1.Representation of the Divergence of Relative Mass at v=c:

Consider the function of Relative 

2.Application of zeta function regularization on the divergence of relative mass at :

 

You can just separate off the divergent part of  and define it via zeta function regularization.

Define:

4.Representation of the Divergence of Relative energy at v=c:

 

Due to the definition of the energy-momentum four-vector, in particular its time coordinate, we end up with the expression of the total energy of the particle in the laboratory reference frame, that with respect to which the particle is animated with the speed v because the energy depends on the frame of reference in which it is calculated!) in the form of:

If we interpret its results, there may exist particles with a mass m0 and a negative relative mass -m0, having a negative total energy and a positive rest energy, along with zero kinetic energy. These particles could be generated by a physical phenomenon that accelerates particles with mass to the speed of light and could be linked to dark energy or dark matter.

3.Analogy of the theory with Casmir effect:

Here is an example of using regularization via the zeta function in the Casimir effect:

Mathematical calculations lead to the famous divergent series 
1+2+3+4\ldots

However, the physical results do not correspond to infinite values for the energy of the moving plates.

To resolve this issue, we applied regularization through the Riemann zeta function. Eventually, we obtain a finite value of -1/12 for the divergent series1+2+3+4\ldots and this result provides a good explanation for the Casimir effect.

In analogy with the Casimir effect, it is possible that the value -M(0) obtained from the divergent series representing the relative mass at v=c,
 U0+U1+U2+U3..., has a physical meaning to explain 95% of the missing energy in the universe.

Hence, my hypothesis suggests the existence of a natural phenomenon that accelerates ordinary matter with mass to the speed of light and transforms it into dark matter or dark energy with negative relative mass and finite energy.

 

 

 

Could you please point out any possible errors in this new theory? The issue with the unit of measurement has been resolved.😀

 

Edited July 26, 20232 yr by Z.10.46

The Existence of a Physical Phenomenon that Accelerates Particles with Mass to the Speed of Light and then Transforms Them into Dark Energy and Dark Matter

 

So in layman's terms, what is the Physical phenomenon accelerating particles?

17 minutes ago, Z.10.46 said:

could be composed of ordinary particles with mass that have reached the speed of light. 

What happens next, does it stay still?

Yes, but they have a total negative energy -m0c^2.

That can explain dark matter or dark energy, as we can see its negative energy effect after this transformation by this phenomenon...

 

 

 

Edited July 26, 20232 yr by Z.10.46

I thought you weren't suppose to bring this up again.

3 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I thought you weren't suppose to bring this up again.

I have corrected the unit of measurement problem, so now the mathematical formulation of the theory is 100% correct. Now, I am seeking your opinion on how to interpret it.

 

1 hour ago, Z.10.46 said:

Could you please point out any possible errors in this new theory?

E =-m₀c^2 is just something you made up; it’s not what the equation says

!

Moderator Note

And you were told not to bring this up again.