Dark Matter will go away

[shellyhe]

A recent Newsweek article depicted a new mathematical model now justifying the MOND theory for the Cosmic Microwave Background. Therefore MOND now proves that new equations for gravity now are vindicated for Galaxies, Bullet Clusters, Gravitational Lensing and now the CMB. That should be it!

All of the tests for finding dark matter are coming up empty. I mean scientists have tried everything: It's not axioms, neutrinos, antimatter, photons or anything else. The only things left are out of science fiction such as something from another dimension popping in and out of existence!

So I am urging main stream science to default to the MOND theory for observing distant objects and make Dark Matter the new alternate theory.

I promise that if Dark Matter indeed is found in the future as a genuine substance or particle, I will be the first one to accept Dark Matter as real. But until that day comes, please accept the series of MOND interpretations as being the standard understanding of gravity.

 

[techman1]

Thanks for sharing this article!

Haven't seen this news, but this is a really good one to overthink

 

[COLGeek]

A recent Newsweek article depicted a new mathematical model now justifying the MOND theory for the Cosmic Microwave Background. Therefore MOND now proves that new equations for gravity now are vindicated for Galaxies, Bullet Clusters, Gravitational Lensing and now the CMB. That should be it!

All of the tests for finding dark matter are coming up empty. I mean scientists have tried everything: It's not axioms, neutrinos, antimatter, photons or anything else. The only things left are out of science fiction such as something from another dimension popping in and out of existence!

So I am urging main stream science to default to the MOND theory for observing distant objects and make Dark Matter the new alternate theory.

I promise that if Dark Matter indeed is found in the future as a genuine substance or particle, I will be the first one to accept Dark Matter as real. But until that day comes, please accept the series of MOND interpretations as being the standard understanding of gravity.

Do you mean this article?

New Model of the Universe Does Away With Dark Matter

The new research suggests a modified theory of gravity that can explain the large-scale structure of the Universe.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Helio]

That's interesting, but it may be a bit ad hoc, though I'm no physicist. If we start with an observation and keep tweaking our favorite model, eventually there is set of parameters or other dimensions, perhaps, that will match the observation. This was done by Ptolemy where he favored the Earth as the center.

That doesn't mean this version of MOND is wrong, of course. The better story will be to test the model in other applications.

It was Fritz Zwicky who, in the 1920's IIRC, discovered that galaxies in a cluster are moving too fast for their estimated masses. He coined the term Dark Matter to suggest we aren't seeing enough matter that would explain his observations.

Does this modified version of MOND explain the Bullet Cluster, and other DM related observations, thus explaining what Fritz saw?

The original MOND was weak because to explain cluster movements, it also required DM, though less of it.

This statement from the article is important:
"The team may have a long way to go before their MOND model convinces researchers to abandon dark matter altogether. Skordis himself points out he won't be stopping work on dark matter theories in favor of MONDs just yet."

 

[Atlan0001]

Lagrange points, and in a multiplicity of gravitational sources close by each other, strung strings of blurred points, from what I read and understand, are mighty big, mighty actively real, virtual entities. Mighty pushy -- a little "throw"-like -- in their way of playing keep away. That's what makes them such good points, such good "places," such good "crossroads", to orbit, close by.

 

[Atlan0001]

The above in my post #5 would not provide nearly enough influence to help with influences needed by MOND. They would more virtual, virtual particle-like, and as such speak to the existence of dark matter rather than MOND.

I did see something in the article coming close enough to matching what I've written concerning the gravity of the background infinity converting to a constant, and a smoothly spread constant influence, regarding the foreground universe as I see it to be. That kind of influence of the unit whole outside of the constituency making it up is mentioned in the article, as I read it, as a third dimensional presence of gravity immeasurable when simply summing up the observed constituency of the galaxy. It's somewhat akin to the gigantic magnetic field or bubble / magnetic mirror of the entire galaxy that would be an elastically connected, quantum entangled-like, singular entity rather than pluralistically divided into an infinity of unconnected -- and/or minimally connected -- independencies over the extents of the galaxy by a speed of light limitation. In other words, or in another way of looking at it, the galaxy would be one vast great gravity well unto itself rather than any average of the lesser wells of its numerous constituency.

 

[Captain Nemesis]

Why are you starting three dark matter threads in five days? One is enough.

Fact: there is a discrepancy in the movement of the stars and galaxies without visible cause. Dark matter is one explanation, MOND second. And there are many other explanations less familiar to the general audience.

Few thoughts about the dark matter: what makes the light reflects of any visible matter? How can light pass through something? This is a key ingredient here. We have glass which is transparent. Why is glass transparent? It mostly contains Silicon dioxide Si02 or quartz but it is the specific structure that makes it transparent not the chemical element itself because we have things made of the Silicon dioxide which are not transparent like Silica sand. You can not look through the sand. When enough heat and pressure are applied we get amorphous structure rather than crystalline. It is the specific structure that is responsible for the transparency not the chemical properties itself. The light passes through the tiny structural cracks in the glass. In the same manner, we can assume that the structure of the dark matter also must be amorphous. Can we make dark matter visible with the cooling?

Few thoughts about MOND: different scales result in different system dynamics. It is a known fact: small objects can travel faster and are more maneuverable while larger objects are sluggish and harder to change course. But the laws of the motion should be the same nevertheless. As soon as someone starts telling me that we should modify the laws of the motion to make it fit the theory model, I become sceptical. Why don`t you modify your theory instead?

That which is incomprehensible to the human mind does not mean it is not possible.

What do we know? Human civilization exists for several thousand years with first humans walking the Earth few millions years ago in contrast to the known age of the Universe which is 13.82 bn years. Before the advancement of the modern science forget about any conclusive evidence - just scribblings. Human existence is an insignificant period on the science macro scale, even with early scribbling ages included, therefore we have utterly no clue what is around the corner. It is chronologically too small sample to be considered valid. We need either dosens of millions years to search for the recurring pattern or we need the designe algorithm extracted from the spacetime fabric.

Article modification: It is the specific structure that is responsible for the transparency not the chemical properties itself. The light passes through the tiny structural cracks in the glass.

I wrote this and then I got aware that I actually know nothing about light transmission which I took for granted. Light passes through the glass and it is because of the specific structure of the glass? The structure may contribute but something else is the most important factor. What makes the light propagate through media? I spent few hours searching for an answer on the web and it is called "natural resonance of an object". Other explanations were mentioned as well like: density, smoothness, refractive index, grain boundaries, etc. It all reduces to this: Every atom and molecule vibrates at the certain frequency. Electrons have bands, not musical bands, but energy stages of a sort and allowed orbits around nucleus. When electron receive or lose energy it moves across energy bands. When photon comes at the surface of an object electron frequency decides what will the action be. Remember the Bose-Einstein statistics and Pauli exclusion principle? Many bosons can occupy the same place at the same time. Electron is fermion but there are electromagnetic force carriers inside an atom. Photon can be absorbed, reflected or transmitted. Everything depends on the wavelenght of the photon and the electrons in the matter. Short answer: light transmission is not photon passage through the media but transfer of the energy of the photons between adjacent electrons. The determining factor is wavelenght correspondence.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

What if dark matter/energy is simply the creation/destruction of temp particles by quantum fluctuations energy balance (conservation of energy)?
Dark matter and energy exist but only in temp format so pinning them down to a source will be very difficult since they are only temp items.
They both exist but they both don't exist as anything more than a constant universal amount of temp matter/energy/gravity.
A trivial amount of temp excess mass, gravity and energy per cubic M but a big universe=lots of it.
JMO

 

[Atlan0001]

What if dark matter/energy is simply the creation/destruction of temp particles by quantum fluctuations energy balance (conservation of energy)?
Dark matter and energy exist but only in temp format so pinning them down to a source will be very difficult since they are only temp items.
They both exist but they both don't exist as anything more than a constant universal amount of temp matter/energy/gravity.
A trivial amount of temp excess mass, gravity and energy per cubic M but a big universe=lots of it.
JMO

The infinite of Multiverse Universe (U) (the Big Mirror (the Looking Glass, so to speak) loses nothing and gains nothing, but the infinity (mirrored to) of paralleling universes (u), point and plane, do instantaneous, simultaneous, work in constant renewing (as a 'constant' of "rolling over" (being a work forever in progress)); thus, to repeat, the Cosmopolis of the Multiverse Universe (U) never loses nor gains. Never has. Never will. It cycles, but all the cycling is multi-dimensionally simultaneous in parallel. Dark matter could easily be a micro-verse virtual production simultaneous -- a duality of being in existence -- with macro-verse MOND.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

The infinite of Multiverse Universe (U) (the Big Mirror (the Looking Glass, so to speak) loses nothing and gains nothing, but the infinity (mirrored to) of paralleling universes (u), point and plane, do instantaneous, simultaneous, work in constant renewing (as a 'constant' of "rolling over" (being a work forever in progress)); thus, to repeat, the Cosmopolis of the Multiverse Universe (U) never loses nor gains. Never has. Never will. It cycles, but all the cycling is multi-dimensionally simultaneous in parallel. Dark matter could easily be a micro-verse virtual production simultaneous -- a duality of being in existence -- with macro-verse MOND.

Mond is much like string theory with endless dimensions to fill in the string theories problems.
Any theory that relies on another theory is probably going to be on shaky ground.
Endless dimensions need endless energy and same old but even bigger problem with Mond is you need that much more energy for it from what looks to be set energy values. (conservation of energy)

IMO Mond is a theory to try and make dark matter theory work and that is all it is.
Dark matter as just Temp needs no weird dimensions or conservation of energy cheats.
Just the visibility of conservation of energy in action as fluctuations particle creation process is in self check with only temp creation/destruction due to the energy balance already in place.

 

[Atlan0001]

VPE, I'm talking, in fact, a duality in being, where dark matter would be continuous virtual matter in production and being; an ever continuing dependency springing from MOND.... thus it never "will go away."

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

VPE, I'm talking, in fact, a duality in being, where dark matter would be continuous virtual matter in production and being; an ever continuing dependency springing from MOND.... thus it never "will go away."

My feeling is that duality has little to do with particles/waves but more the nature of traveling through different mediums of nothing.no space/time and normal space.

The universe is always the route question of E and how did it happen.
We might not like the idea of always was but it's quite possible that is the reason.
Or a simple natural mechanism and self correcting mechanism is the reason from nothing to E and set E.

Dark matter easily could be sub universes that we just can't experience but the same question of E for it is always going to make them difficult ideas with conservation of energy so set in all we see.

The jury is out on all ideas about how we got E to start so all ideas now have merit.
I like to break down things to the most simple format possible, simple reasons for complex problems.
Nature IMO will do the same simple route and simple laws or as simple as nature can be.

 

[Atlan0001]

VPE, I don't think we are all that far apart in basic views but I still stand leery of you in the matter of interpretive language. I'm never quite sure of exactly what you are seeing, saying and meaning. Never-the-less, I've enjoyed reading your view of things in the above, and elsewhere, well enough for thumbs up. You do try to see deeper into the picture. Don't ever stop.

 

[David-J-Franks]

What if dark matter/energy is simply the creation/destruction of temp particles by quantum fluctuations energy balance (conservation of energy)?
Dark matter and energy exist but only in temp format so pinning them down to a source will be very difficult since they are only temp items.
They both exist but they both don't exist as anything more than a constant universal amount of temp matter/energy/gravity.
A trivial amount of temp excess mass, gravity and energy per cubic M but a big universe=lots of it.
JMO

If these quantum fluctuations are all evenly distributed the dark matter from them and therefore the gravity will be even everywhere and so balance out, there won't be any net pulling from any particular direction will there? Maybe gravity from stars and galaxies concentrates quantum fluctuations?

By the way I like your idea about nature having simple laws, does this include quantum mechanics and general relativity and possibly string theory?

 

[David-J-Franks]

I'm never quite sure of exactly what you are seeing, saying and meaning. Never-the-less, I've enjoyed reading your view of things in the above, and elsewhere, well enough for thumbs up. You do try to see deeper into the picture. Don't ever stop.

Absolutely spot on!!!

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

If these quantum fluctuations are all evenly distributed the dark matter from them and therefore the gravity will be even everywhere and so balance out, there won't be any net pulling from any particular direction will there? Maybe gravity from stars and galaxies concentrates quantum fluctuations?

By the way I like your idea about nature having simple laws, does this include quantum mechanics and general relativity and possibly string theory?

I think all gravity sources will distort what quantum fluctuation does, bigger the gravity source the more the distortion.

Quantum fluctuation as a random source of field lines and random particle creation will in general be smooth across the universe.
Those temp creations of particles are being checked if they can exist or not, if E is in balance they can't stay in existence but the temp creation of them is temp matter/gravity/energy so across the universe we have a net + all the time.
Take away the stars and other formats of energy in the universe and you remain with quantum fluctuation filling in 99.9999etc of the universe so small amounts of particle temp creation= much more temp energy/matter/gravity than all the rest of permanent energy formats.

Quantum mechanics and Relativity IMO are simply following the laws of fluctuation.
Point A to point B in a medium of fluctuation=relativity.
Quantum mechanics just follow laws of quantum fluctuation.
Duality of particle/wave just movement through fluctuation.

String theory I'm not a big fan since to have the strings for it the theory requires so many dimensions and possible arrangements of basic blocks that it's a very messy complex idea that IMO self destructs.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

VPE, I don't think we are all that far apart in basic views but I still stand leery of you in the matter of interpretive language. I'm never quite sure of exactly what you are seeing, saying and meaning. Never-the-less, I've enjoyed reading your view of things in the above, and elsewhere, well enough for thumbs up. You do try to see deeper into the picture. Don't ever stop.

For sure all guess work and great ideas come from 1 person and not a crowd.
Who can say what idea is right of wrong.

As for the earlier post it was simply a problematic issue for (conservation of energy) adding more layers just adds more conservation of energy problems.
Same old chicken and egg question with another egg