beecee

Claiming myself as an old bastard is irreverent Aussie slang... GR of course is overwhelmingly supported, as it so far matches observational data and has its predictions continually being validated. No theory as yet is all encompassing and the singularity aspect is simply marking the boundaries in which GR is applicable. By the way, most cosmologists do not accept the mathematical singularity leading to infinite concepts. Again DM is evidenced and is the reason why the difficult search for it goes on. I found this today......https://phys.org/news/2017-11-physicists-dark-strategy.html Physicists from Brown University have devised a new strategy for directly detecting dark matter, the elusive material thought to account for the majority of matter in the universe.Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-11-physicists-dark-strategy.html#jCp ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: the paper: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.181303 Dark Matter Detection Using Helium Evaporation and Field Ionization ABSTRACT We describe a method for dark matter detection based on the evaporation of helium atoms from a cold surface and their subsequent detection using field ionization. When a dark matter particle scatters off a nucleus of the target material, elementary excitations (phonons or rotons) are produced. Excitations which have an energy greater than the binding energy of helium to the surface can result in the evaporation of helium atoms. We propose to detect these atoms by ionizing them in a strong electric field. Because the binding energy of helium to surfaces can be below 1 meV, this detection scheme opens up new possibilities for the detection of dark matter particles in a mass range down to 1  MeV/c2. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" yes, newer hypothesis are surfacing every day; that's science...that's the scientific methodology, and when a hypothesis surfaces that describes what we observe better then the BB theory, then that will be taken on board and the BB theory discarded. But as yet the BB stands unchallenged as the prevailing explanation for the evolution of the universe/space/time from a hotter denser state, starting at t+10-43 seconds. In fact I have been informed by an astronomer acquaintance of mine, that when a validated QGT is formulated, it will most likely encompass the BB theory and simply extend the parameters beyond that t+10-43 seconds. And of course any theory, such as the BB and the evolution of life all gain in certainty as they continue to align with observation and make successful predictions.

Because photons/light are simply part of the EMS and always has the universal maximum "c" momentum, following geodesics in spacetime.

Don't take it so hard! These things happen.

I don't know, but other experiments are operating in an effort to discover the true nature of DM: Due to its properties, ( or lack thereof) it is proving difficult. The evidence from astronomical observations is telling us DM is out there, and that is why scientists are persisting in the search.

The LHC was created for science to gain new knowledge on predicted particles including the Higgs Boson and other unknown physics questions that include DM. DM remains unknown at this time simply due to the fact that it only interacts gravitationally, no matter how long it has been since the BB. The LHC is another scientific tool for gaining knowledge, and as such is well worth the time, effort and money.

Thanks for the extra info jimmy....The link Strange gave giving the more lay person's explanation, was given in the OP just before the link to the paper.

Totally agree! All analogies are limited, but also most are very helpfull ways in describing an otherwise difficult situation or scenario, to a non scientific person. If that person then has more then just a passing interest in the subject, he will make more inquiries, and ultimately when asking more complicated questions, will realize that analogies are limited. IMO one of the most helpful analogies is the river/waterfall model of a BH by Professor Hamilton...see https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0411060.pdf Analogies certainly got me interested and off the bottom rung of the ladder so to speak!

What can be clearer then less matter, less spacetime curvature/gravity. You may well then ask why, which is really unanswerable at this time.

Yes, less mass, less gravity: It's that simple, despite your obfuscating. You seem to be using unfamiliar scientific words such as "pinned." Again simply put gravity/spacetime curvature is generally centered around matter/mass that has altered the geometry of that spacetime and which we interpret as gravity.

As a retired old bastard, I also have plenty of time to think, and the first step in thinking is being familiar with the current incumbent models and the empirical evidence that validates them, along of course with any inconsistencies. The second step is to research the interpretations by our professionals and experts and the reasons for that. Third step is to agree that general musings by the likes of you and me, on public science forums, open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, while being fun and sometimes a vehicle for learning, is really highly unlikely to be correct if it disagrees with the generally held incumbent model. And finally the fourth step is to recognise that professional cosmologists never take anything for certain, and are continually researching and amending models and theories as new empirical evidence comes to light.Hence the additions of DE and DM.

But that isn't gravity "wearing out" that is simply because some of the Sun's mass is radiated away and gravity being dependent on mass in the real world, its effects are lessened somewhat. The Moon is also moving away from the earth for different reasons, but still dependent on mass, which effects the gravity as a result of the earth water tides, and "pulls" the Moon into a slightly higher orbit. Again an example of the change in mass distribution, affecting gravity.

I read what you posted, and the general consensus of scientific evidence tells us that a form of matter exists that only interacts gravitationally and that has been labeled DM, BHs are also supported by the bulk of scientific evidence, particularly with the discovery of GWs from four binary BH encounters. Let me also add that based on empirical observational evidence, if BHs were to not exist, we would need something far more sinister and weird to explain those observations. Do you have any suggestions?

No probs, I had every intention of sharing the reply. Note carefully, he does not say anything about gravity creating matter, and which I specifically asked.

Speculative stuff at best. Show some empirical evidence of what you claim, which you have not imo done as yet.....just claims and alternative interpretations. PS: Just receieved a reply from Professor Geraint Lewis.... I wrote.......

You seem rather sure of that...Perhaps you should submit a proper scientific paper for peer review, and let the world know how you have solved one of our greatest cosmological problems. You may even be in line for the next Physics Nobel. No the SMBH at the center of our galaxy is just that...a SMBH that all galaxies seem to possess. To say there is nothing their is pretty silly.

Already E-Mailed him and the reply will be posted when I receive it. I don't see how the duel nature of light supports your hypothesis. I think you are grasping at straws. If the Sun was magically removed, it would take 8.25 minutes before earth flew off at a tangent. Gravity in GR propagates at a speed equal to "c". That does not mean that gravity can create mass/matter. Simarilly, when you look at Alpha Centauri system tonight, you are seeing it, as it was 4.5 Years ago. That also does not support what your hypothesis says in any way. It's simply a fact that light/photons have a fixed finite, maximal universal speed.

Could??? I doubt it...I doubt it very much. But I do have an astronomer friend who works in this field, and I will certainly put this to him for a reaction and opinion. I have asked for evidence that shows primacy of matter before gravity. If you have this proof I would like to examine it. Without it, we cannot say that mass gives rise to gravity with any more certainty than we can say that gravity gives rise to mass. Mass and gravity appear simultaneously to each other. The idea of matter fields suggests that matter arises from fields (like the Higgs field). Changes in fields are associated with waves. It is the fluctuating wave that creates the matter. The idea of matter fields lends support to the idea of primacy of the wave before the matter. https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/fields/chicken-and-egg-matter-and-field/ In his book Tales of the Quantum, Understanding Physic's Most Fundamental Theory, Art Hobson says (p95) "You'll soon see that both matter and radiation are made of quanta and and that each quantum is extended spatially and must be classified as a wave in a field." Fields fill the entire universe. So we have a field giving rise to matter. Here is an example of precedence. This is from the University of Cambridge "From Fields to Particles If you look closely enough at electromagnetic waves, you'll find that they are made out of particles called photons. The ripples of the electric and magnetic fields get turned into particles when we include the effects of quantum mechanics. But this same process is at play for all other particles that we know of. There exists, spread thinly throughout space, something called an electron field. Ripples of the electron field get tied up into a bundle of energy by quantum mechanics. And this bundle of energy is what we call an electron. Similarly, there is a quark field, and a gluon field, and Higgs boson field. Every particle your body --- indeed, every particle in the Universe --- is a tiny ripple of the underlying field, moulded into a particle by the machinery of quantum mechanics." http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/whatisqft.html But photons are the EMF. I'm sure you do not believe there is any evidence at all of matter not giving rise to gravity: There is none because matter giving rise to gravity is an everyday occurrence and readily evidenced. And I'm not sure your "simultaneously" answer is factual. Do gravitational waves appear at the exact moment of BH collision?? Or does the gravitational radiation stem from the source of the collision and the violence/force of the collision. Does the Lense Thirring effect begin at the precise moment angular momentum starts with a massive body? and does the same Lense Thirring effect speed up as angular momentum increases? No and yes I say, which is more evidence against your proposal. Yes the existence and effects of gravity when mass is present. Let me put it this way...gravity follows mass: eg: two BHs orbiting one another before colliding. Please show me anywhere where you move the gravity, (the spacetime curvature) and having the mass/matter magically follow it. I believe that onus rests on your shoulders.

I don't see it as baryonic in nature at all, and I havn't the foggiest idea what it could be! We maybe getting off topic, but DM despite reasonable evidence supporting that concept, is still debatable among our professionals and of course GR is not a final theory. That's science. ps: Apologies re the "off topic" remark...I'm getting this DM thread confused with the other DM thread that seems to be producing matter via gravity.

We can say that mass effects the geometry of spacetime which we see and interpret as gravity, as evident and dictated by GR: We certainly cannot say that what we interpret as gravity, (curved spacetime) gives rise to matter...period! Your last sentence is a misquote> What I pointed out was While GR is a highly supportive and powerful predictive model, we do not see evidence of any of the above, and nor do we see evidence of any situation where gravity "magically" makes mass/matter: The eternal BH again is a thought experiment where we "magically" remove the mass/singularity, and reason following GR edict, that no signal can travel back out to inform the EH that the mass/singularity has "magically" disappeared. Where the hell do you get this crazy notion that gravitational waves can create BHs? Gravitational waves, a prediction of GR has now been confirmed 5 times by two different methodologies involving collisions/mergers of BHs and Neutron stars. The mass in any BH resides at a level where GR breaks down, that being the quantum/Planck realm, and which we consequently call a singularity: Most scientists/cosmologists today do not believe that any singularity of any infinite quantities such as spacetime curvature and density really exists.

Agreed, but even with hawking Radiation, nothing is actually crossing from inside the EH to outside.

It wouldn't matter what speed two BHs were approaching each other: If their EH's merged, so to would their singularities, and nothing other then gravitational waves would escape, subtracting of course from the overall total mass of the two BHs.

Again, I see it as a play on words. Mass changes the geometry of spacetime, thereby exhibiting what we know as gravity. Again, as far as gravity is concerned, field lines are simply an illustrative means associated with the model. No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that gravity/space/time, (the same thing) is non linear and that along with the gravity field of a BH being a fossil field, explains how gravity gets out of a BH. Take away the mass, and you take away the gravity. There are no examples of gravity fields without any mass in reality. The Bullet cluster observation shows that to be false in my opinion...as does gravitational lensing. DE whatever it is, is a property of flat spacetime over the largest scales, overcoming the gravity of curved spacetime over smaller scales such as our galaxy, local group and cluster of galaxies. Let me add to elaborate on my statement, A while ago I did come across a definition of an eternal BH, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/EternalBlackHole.html This of course though is simply a highly theoretical idealised solution to Einsteins equations, much as worm holes, white holes, and ERBs are. None are evidenced in the real world.

Physicists propose test of quantum gravity using current technology October 27, 2017 by Lisa Zyga Proposed experimental setup to probe the effects of noncommutative structure. Credit: S. Dey et al. ©2017 Nuclear Physics B Physicists have proposed a way to test quantum gravity that, in principle, could be performed by a laser-based, table-top experiment using currently available technology. Although a theory of quantum gravity would overcome one of the biggest challenges in modern physics by unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics, currently physicists have no way of testing any proposed theories of quantum gravity. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-physicists-quantum-gravity-current-technology.html#jCp the paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S055032131730319X Probing noncommutative theories with quantum optical experiments Abstract One of the major difficulties of modern science underlies at the unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics. Different approaches towards such theory have been proposed. Noncommutative theories serve as the root of almost all such approaches. However, the identification of the appropriate passage to quantum gravity is suffering from the inadequacy of experimental techniques. It is beyond our ability to test the effects of quantum gravity thorough the available scattering experiments, as it is unattainable to probe such high energy scale at which the effects of quantum gravity appear. Here we propose an elegant alternative scheme to test such theories by detecting the deformations emerging from the noncommutative structures. Our protocol relies on the novelty of an opto-mechanical experimental setup where the information of the noncommutative oscillator is exchanged via the interaction with an optical pulse inside an optical cavity. We also demonstrate that our proposal is within the reach of current technology and, thus, it could uncover a feasible route towards the realization of quantum gravitational phenomena thorough a simple table-top experiment.

Actually I don't believe anything you have posted is supported in any way...particularly your nonsense re the universe being stationary. And of course it would be nice if you could acknowledge all the errors that you have made here and elsewhere. NB: I'll keep reading your posts as sometimes a laugh is good for one's constitution.