Matter/anti-matter asymettry, Dark matter, dark energy and how they relate

[jasondoege]

There are three major holes in our current understanding of cosmology including the big bang(inflation). Scientists are dying to know the answers to them. our current model predicts many specific things that have been confirmed repeatedly to extremely accurate levels, but a refinement is needed for this theory and I know it sounds crazy of me but I feel like ive done it simply and logically in a way that a high school kid could understand. If this interests you but you don't know physics, here is a simple explanation of the three main holes so that you can simply grasp the rest of a refined straightforward hypothesis that if correct would be groundbreakingly huge.

The first problem is whats known as matter/anti-matter asymmetry. when we look at the visible universe we see no anti-matter and have no idea why, it should be making up its half of its own random galaxies. This is a huge problem to solve, the largest one.

The second problem is Dark energy, its sounds spooky but all it means is the expansion of space. its not an energy at all. I explain simply why this happens and relate it clearly to the last problem

The last problem is dark matter. its just like the previous problem it has a daunting sounding name but really its just the fact that galaxies have a strange attractive force running through them that is similar to gravity but actually gets stronger the further out you go in the till it gets the strongest and the edge in a galaxies spiral arms.

Physicists called the last two forms of matter and energy when clearly theyre just measurable unexplicable effects the universe has on itself.

If the enormity of these problems and a curiosity about the origins and current state of our universe interest you feel free to read my theory because Im confident you have the brain matter to understand at least almost all of it. If this idea holds up it will be bigger than I can imagine at the moment. if anything doesn't make sense to you feel free to ask me about it. Thank you to the few if any of you who read this. (The link is to support the hypothesis not describe it) https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/images/astronomers-find-dark-energy-may-vary-over-time.html?fbclid=IwAR0v2HYRlolhyjZ_wcb0IhBYOIGHmtcRVSR-OHuKbXPbJ6-yKjgot3jmt08

This hypothesis aims to explain the nature of dark matter as an effect resulting from an exponential reduction in the area of matter and an area of space around it inversely related to dark energies exponential growth and gravitational time dilation's inverse effect on both processes. By doing so it appears to solve the nature of dark matter and the matter/anti matter asymmetry problem(the largest problem In astrophysics) with the standard model and deeply refine our understanding why and how the big bang occurred that determines there wont be a big freeze but instead logically arrives at a new result.

Recent discoveries by many professional agencies have observed that dark energies rate is not only increasing like we already know because spatial expansion generates more space for itself to generate more space for itself ad infinitum. But its been confirmed that the rate of increase is increasing too. (a specific form of quintessence, the dark energy Chandra result) this could be due to two factors I explain later in this hypothesis.

This is confirmed by widespread recent professional studies and is yet another a discrepancy the current model fails to account for.

If the generation of space grows exponentially the further it is from mass then as you get closer to the mass it's growth slows until this theory posits the opposite of dark energy happens where the area of space eventually starts being reduced including the area of the matter present in it. The reason space is expanding and contracting exponentially is that it is infinite, infinite means expanding without bounds in all directions(including inward)

Since the size of the vantage point we measure from is defined by that contraction these two inverse effects specific rates can be described entirely by the recent exponential growth figures of the dark energy chandra results.

Dark energies exponential growth rate happens as times rate increases because there is less gravity that we know effects the passage of time thanks to Einstein's brilliant insights and due to a result I derive from my description of the diminishing areas of matter and the areas of space surrounding it and its diminishing ability to negate the effects of spatial expansion because Spatial expansion is feeding off itself exponentially and the dark matter is diminishing its ability to combat that inversely by shrinking its area of counteractive effect.

Even though the amount of matter in locations tends to be centralized due to the effects of gravity the rate of its shrinking would slow exponentially as you approached the center of mass and the massive objects it exists as including galaxies because time would be moving more slowly and there would be less space to be reduced in the smaller more centralized areas by the dark matter constant. Its “gravitational" effect would result from the fact that the further away from the center mass you measure from more space would be shrinking along the distance from the center causing a cumulative effect of loss of distance. Consider dark matters growing effect at the edges of a galaxy.

We can only describe the intensity of dark matter and dark energy as two inversely related constants that can be measured by exponential growth and reduction formulas.

Since dark energy can only be defined in terms of its relationship with its inverse means in a universe occupied only by completely empty space dark energy will be an infinite immeasurable force where time and space are generated at an infinite rate. Virtual particles constantly being generated by virtual foam become actual particles the longer they are separated by an external force like dark energy. At t=0 all of space would have this property. This would cause infinitesimal areas of space(cubes, because space is 3 dimensional and flat, that occur because the generation of virtual particle pairs happens in randomly directed lines) with heights and widths slightly smaller than the space virtual particle pairs have between each other when they are generated by a fluctuating string. These cubes would eject virtual pairs randomly on opposite halves of the randomly rotating cubes(which generates a sphere of effect) instantly around them as it generated exactly enough or slightly more space than they needed for them to occupy.

This random distribution would leave an asymmetry in the amount of matter/anti-matter produced on opposite randomly aligned halves of the infinitesimal spheres. The dominantly generated particle or anti-particle in randomly determined areas up to an entire half of all the space generated would annihilate its neighboring opposite. This would account for the matter/anti-matter asymmetry problem.

The empty generated space and the space left when annihilation occurs would also have slightly less intense but similar levels of spatial expansion rates as the original cubes and would rapidly generate more space and matter until enough generated matter was present to combat these effects. This accounts for inflation.

The annihilated mass would generate a lot of cmbr. Almost all the mass/space-time generated by each original point in space would never reach what their neighboring original points generated but their cmbr would. This accounts for cmbr being measured coming to us equally in all directions.

This is concurrent with what we know about the big bang. Lots of generated mass/energy, lots of expansion. That slows rapidly, where as we are observing dark energy slowly take over again as its acceleration compounds relative to the space/time that's still being generated due to the effects of the levels of mass in the area.

This means the original points would generate matter until inflation stopped due to its presence and slowly the imbalance between the amount of empty space, and dark energies exponential area expansion rate(modified by gravitational time dilation as well) became strong enough to create much smaller bangs than the original in the pockets of empty space between distant galaxies. The bangs would be much smaller because they would not start at an infinite expansion rate only the rate necessary to produce matter from virtual foam. These little bangs would stutter on repeat over and over again as the universe didn't exactly enter a big freeze but instead continually made most likely insignificant pops for eternity. Don't be disheartened by the conclusion of the fate of our physical universe, if you want to get into the purpose and possibilities of our existence through a singularity in the future well that's another forum on another day but if you read this far thank you very much I hope you could comprehend and enjoy

 

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations

 

[jasondoege]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations

 

The state of the current scientific community and its resistance to outside ideas is abhorrent. theres another notch on the scoreboard

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

The second problem is Dark energy, its sounds spooky but all it means is the expansion of space. 

No, that is not what it means. 

 

16 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

its just the fact that galaxies have a strange attractive force running through them that is similar to gravity but actually gets stronger the further out you go in the till it gets the strongest and the edge in a galaxies spiral arms.

Also not correct. 

 

17 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

We can only describe the intensity of dark matter and dark energy as two inversely related constants that can be measured by exponential growth and reduction formulas.

Also wrong

[jasondoege]

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

No, that is not what it means. 

 

Also not correct. 

 

Also wrong

Say why, don't just say nuh uh, youre a moderator of a FORUM 

 

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

The state of the current scientific community and its resistance to outside ideas is abhorrent. theres another notch on the scoreboard

This is not "the scientific community" and all I have done is move your thread to a more appropriate part of the form. You are free to discuss it, and provide more details such as the mathematical model and the evidence.

2 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

ay why, don't just say nuh uh, youre a moderator of a FORUM 

Sorry. I was on my phone. And being a moderator has nothing to do with it.

If you don't know about things like dark energy, dark matter, etc. it would be better to ask questions.

Anyway,

32 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

The second problem is Dark energy, its sounds spooky but all it means is the expansion of space. its not an energy at all.

Dark energy was hypothesised to explain the accelerating expansion (the fact that the universe is expanding has been known for about 100 years and does not need dark energy to explain it.

The easiest way to explain the acceleration is to add an energy term. But, you are right in the we don't know what it is.

34 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

The last problem is dark matter. its just like the previous problem it has a daunting sounding name but really its just the fact that galaxies have a strange attractive force running through them that is similar to gravity but actually gets stronger the further out you go in the till it gets the strongest and the edge in a galaxies spiral arms.

Dark matter is an extra attractive fore, which behaves exactly like the presence of extra matter throughout and beyond the galaxy. It is densest (and therefore the force is strongest) towards the centre of the galaxy. 

All of the many lines of evidence for dark matter are consistent with it being a form of matter. It is still possible it will turn out to be something else, but increasingly unlikely.

Quote

We can only describe the intensity of dark matter and dark energy as two inversely related constants that can be measured by exponential growth and reduction formulas.

Dark energy and dark matter are unrelated. The amount of dark matter in the universe appears to be constant. The amount of dark energy appears to be increasing as the universe expands. Neither is changing exponentially.

 

Now, back to your idea. Can you show that it matches what is observed? For example the rate of acceleration of expansion or the rotation curves of galaxies?

[jasondoege]

 

 

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

This is not "the scientific community" and all I have done is move your thread to a more appropriate part of the form. You are free to discuss it, and provide more details such as the mathematical model and the evidence.

Sorry. I was on my phone. And being a moderator has nothing to do with it.

If you don't know about things like dark energy, dark matter, etc. it would be better to ask questions.

Anyway,

Dark energy was hypothesised to explain the accelerating expansion (the fact that the universe is expanding has been known for about 100 years and does not need dark energy to explain it.

The easiest way to explain the acceleration is to add an energy term. But, you are right in the we don't know what it is.

Dark matter is an extra attractive fore, which behaves exactly like the presence of extra matter throughout and beyond the galaxy. It is densest (and therefore the force is strongest) towards the centre of the galaxy. 

All of the many lines of evidence for dark matter are consistent with it being a form of matter. It is still possible it will turn out to be something else, but increasingly unlikely.

Dark energy and dark matter are unrelated. The amount of dark matter in the universe appears to be constant. The amount of dark energy appears to be increasing as the universe expands. Neither is changing exponentially.

 

Now, back to your idea. Can you show that it matches what is observed? For example the rate of acceleration of expansion or the rotation curves of galaxies?

 

Yes that's exactly what I said dark energy is. but you said nuh uh

Dark matter has none of the properties of matter, it does not clump, it does not interact with anything, it has no values other than its "gravitational effect as far as im aware. Its effect is greater on the edges of galaxies not in the center.

I explain why the amount of dark matter appears to be constant. I explain it simply and clearly in the beginning of the idea

I have no idea what you mean by your last comment, youll have to clarify. the idea shows many things that are currently known and unexplained that it answers, that was the whole point of it

Edited May 10, 2020 by jasondoege

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

Yes that's exactly what I said dark energy is. but you said nuh uh

You said, and I quote: "The second problem is Dark energy, its sounds spooky but all it means is the expansion of space."

5 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

Dark matter has none of the properties of matter, it does not clump

It "clumps" around galaxies, in exactly the way that matter which does not interact electromagnetically would. 

6 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

I have no idea what you mean by your last comment, youll have to clarify. the idea shows many things that are currently known and unexplained that it answers, that was the whole point of it

OK. We get maybe 1 person a month on average with their ideas explaining dark matter and/or dark energy (or why GR is wrong or ...). They can't all be correct, because some of them are contradictory. On top of that, working scientists have many different hypotheses about the nature of dark matter and dark energy. They can't all be correct either.

So how does science distinguish between all these ideas? We need some way to test them. So scientists build mathematical models that'd describe their ideas, from these they can make predictions about how dark matter, for example, should behave or what effects it should have. Then they can test these predictions by making measurements, either in experiments or observations.

So, in order to test or confirm your idea, you would need to show that it predicts, mathematically, exactly what we observe. 

Or, another way of putting it: what would prove your idea wrong?

 

BTW, I'm afraid you only get 5 posts on your first day (a rather ineffective anti-spam measure) and you only have one left. Don't waste it!

[jasondoege]

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

You said, and I quote: "The second problem is Dark energy, its sounds spooky but all it means is the expansion of space."

It "clumps" around galaxies, in exactly the way that matter which does not interact electromagnetically would. 

OK. We get maybe 1 person a month on average with their ideas explaining dark matter and/or dark energy (or why GR is wrong or ...). They can't all be correct, because some of them are contradictory. On top of that, working scientists have many different hypotheses about the nature of dark matter and dark energy. They can't all be correct either.

So how does science distinguish between all these ideas? We need some way to test them. So scientists build mathematical models that'd describe their ideas, from these they can make predictions about how dark matter, for example, should behave or what effects it should have. Then they can test these predictions by making measurements, either in experiments or observations.

So, in order to test or confirm your idea, you would need to show that it predicts, mathematically, exactly what we observe. 

Or, another way of putting it: what would prove your idea wrong?

 

BTW, I'm afraid you only get 5 posts on your first day (a rather ineffective anti-spam measure) and you only have one left. Don't waste it!

IF youre going to differentiate the exelerating expansion and the expansion of space to simply invalidate my theory you are just splitting hairs man. you know what I mean. thank you though ill clarify

By clump imean get more dense. cmon your point does not invalidate my hypothesis

My idea has nothing to do with other peoples nonsense and even bringing it up is a low blow and yes another notch on the scientific communities state

The way you test it is by logically seeing is if answers the problems that have already been observed! jesus man how are you a moderator on this forum

I cant reply to you. this is hilarious. 
 

Edited May 10, 2020 by jasondoege
omg i cant even post, notch squared

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

My idea has nothing to do with other peoples nonsense and even bringing it up is a low blow and yes another notch on the scientific communities state

So other people's ideas are nonsense, but we should take your seriously?

12 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

The way you test it is by logically seeing is if answers the problems that have already been observed!

But you need to do that with some level of quantitative measure. For example, there are two mains types of ideas to explain the rotation curves seen in galaxies: some unknown form of matter (*) or some sort of modification to the our understanding of gravity. Now, the way science tries to decide between them is to look at which can most closely predict the behaviour.

Now we could take your "logically seeing is if answers the problems that have already been observed" and the two sides would say:

"It is modified gravity, that logically explains why the outer stars go faster than expected"

"It is some extra matter distributed through the galaxy, that logically explains why the outer stars go faster than expected"

And there is still no way of deciding, on the basis of this "logic" which is the better theory.

So we have to go a step further. The two teams have to produce mathematical models and show what the exact distribution of speeds in a galaxy would be. And, guess what, dark matter as matter can do that. Modified gravity theories cannot (without the presence of some dark matter).

If you cannot provide that level of detail, then you are not doing science.

But, the other question is just as important, and possibly easier: what would prove your idea wrong?

(*) And there are / have been many ideas about what this "dark" matter could be. Neutrinos seemed a possibility; they seem to meet all the requirements until modelling showed that dark matter is "cold"; i.e. moves at much less than the speed of light. Lots of very small black holes have been suggested, but no one has been able to observe their effects (there would need to be enough that we should see gravitational lensing). And many more...

 

Look forward to hearing from you tomorrow

[joigus]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

BTW, I'm afraid you only get 5 posts on your first day (a rather ineffective anti-spam measure) and you only have one left. Don't waste it!

Thankless job you people do here, that's all I can say.

[swansont]

18 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

IF youre going to differentiate the exelerating expansion and the expansion of space to simply invalidate my theory you are just splitting hairs man. you know what I mean. thank you though ill clarify

By clump imean get more dense. cmon your point does not invalidate my hypothesis

That’s one reason science uses mathematical models. Do you have one? How does one test and possibly falsify your idea?

18 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

My idea has nothing to do with other peoples nonsense and even bringing it up is a low blow and yes another notch on the scientific communities state

Please spare us your indignation. Posting here means following our rules. And our rules require a certain level of scientific rigor.

 

18 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

The way you test it is by logically seeing is if answers the problems that have already been observed!
 

A necessary but insufficient requirement.

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, joigus said:

Thankless job you people do here, that's all I can say.

That depends the five post first day limit prevents a lot of spam.

In regards to physics theories I'm positive you recognize the need for mathematics for an effective model.

As a Cosmologist I have yet to see anything that makes any testable predictions beyond conjectural word play. 

Properly modelling DE for example could be done by using the FLRW metric without then with DE.

The metrics themself is rather simple (far simpler than GR).

Dark matter one should look at the NFW profile compared to the originally expected Kepler curve for mass distribution of galaxy rotation curves.

Baryogenesis and leptogenesis however is a far far more complicated issue as one must prove an assymetry between matter and antimatter. Good luck without extensive research and mathematics. 

Edited May 10, 2020 by Mordred

[Strange]

4 hours ago, jasondoege said:

This hypothesis aims to explain the nature of dark matter as an effect resulting from an exponential reduction in the area of matter and an area of space around it

Can you explain exactly what "area of matter" means? Do you mean "volume of matter"? Why don't we see the area/volume of matter reducing?

And although you say "exponential" reduction, can you be more specific. What is the exponent? Over what timescale is this change happening? (In other words, we need some math.)

4 hours ago, jasondoege said:

The reason space is expanding and contracting exponentially is that it is infinite, infinite means expanding without bounds in all directions(including inward)

1. We don't know f space is infinite or not.

2. Being infinite doesn't imply expansion in all directions (Newton nicely proved that the universe must be infinite because it wasn't, as far as he knew, expanding or collapsing)

3. What does "expanding inward" mean? Surely, something can only expand outwards? Isn't that the definition of expansion?

4 hours ago, jasondoege said:

The annihilated mass would generate a lot of cmbr. Almost all the mass/space-time generated by each original point in space would never reach what their neighboring original points generated but their cmbr would. This accounts for cmbr being measured coming to us equally in all directions.

We already have a very good explanation for the CMBR. It was the piece of evidence that confirmed the big bang model and eliminated alternatives.

So if you are saying our current explanation for the CMBR is wrong, then you are claiming that a vast amount of very basic physics is wrong.

 

3 hours ago, jasondoege said:

I cant reply to you. this is hilarious. 

I did warn you!

[swansont]

3 hours ago, jasondoege said:

I cant reply to you. this is hilarious. 

5 post, first day limit, a rule you were made aware of when you joined. 

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

That depends the five post first day limit prevents a lot of spam.

In regards to physics theories I'm positive you recognize the need for mathematics for an effective model.

As a Cosmologist I have yet to see anything that makes any testable predictions beyond conjectural word play. 

Properly modelling DE for example could be done by using the FLRW metric without then with DE.

The metrics themself is rather simple (far simpler than GR).

Dark matter one should look at the NFW profile compared to the originally expected Kepler curve for mass distribution of galaxy rotation curves.

Baryogenesis and leptogenesis however is a far far more complicated issue as one must prove an assymetry between matter and antimatter. Good luck without extensive research and mathematics. 

Hi, Mordred. I don't think this should be addressed to me. I was just thanking the moderators for sparing me the trouble to read all that nonsense. It really is a thankless job. That's all.

[Mordred]

Understood most of my reply was directed at the OP to provide a few insights.

 I am aware of one peer reviewed and professional possible solution to all three of the items described by the OP. However further research into the Higgs field is a huge requirement.

 In so far as I have encountered numerous articles done by professional physicists that are conjecturing the possibility the Higgs field may help solve DE, DM and the matter/antimatter assymetry problem. 

Lol might need another decade or two of research but such is science.

(Higgs field is still relatively new in cosmology applications so that's to be expected).

Anyways here is a few papers on the topic. (I didn't include the CPT related papers)

DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119
http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301
http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954

Higg's inflation possible dark energy

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738
http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755
http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801

Edited May 11, 2020 by Mordred

[MigL]

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

professional physicists that are conjecturing the possibility the Higgs field may help solve DE, DM and the matter/antimatter assymetry problem. 

It will be interesting to see how they plan to test for that, as we can barely establish the existence of the Higgs field.
I don't think, after the 'cost' of this pandemic, a collider larger ( more energetic ) than the LHC will be built anytime soon.
It will have to be a more 'nuanced' approach.

[Mordred]

Yeah the CERN and LHC would ideally be able to achieve higher energy scales for testing. As you stated were barely testing the tip of the iceberg on the seesaw mechanism and the Higgs metastability. We certainly cannot achieve the energy scales during electroweak symmetry breaking when the three items mentioned by the OP would drop out of thermal equilibrium. However the added datasets even at the range we can test can yield some viability or falsification data.

 Lol it's an interesting challenge fitting the Higgs scalar field into the LCDM metric. Lol particularly if one tries to merely Google the energy density of the Higgs field specifically the average search would give the energy density of the Cosmological constant which is based on the critical density formula. However that value would be a mean average value with the combination of matter and radiation fields as well as Lambda.

 

Edited May 11, 2020 by Mordred

[jasondoege]

On 5/10/2020 at 11:41 AM, Strange said:

So other people's ideas are nonsense, but we should take your seriously?

But you need to do that with some level of quantitative measure. For example, there are two mains types of ideas to explain the rotation curves seen in galaxies: some unknown form of matter (*) or some sort of modification to the our understanding of gravity. Now, the way science tries to decide between them is to look at which can most closely predict the behaviour.

Now we could take your "logically seeing is if answers the problems that have already been observed" and the two sides would say:

"It is modified gravity, that logically explains why the outer stars go faster than expected"

"It is some extra matter distributed through the galaxy, that logically explains why the outer stars go faster than expected"

And there is still no way of deciding, on the basis of this "logic" which is the better theory.

So we have to go a step further. The two teams have to produce mathematical models and show what the exact distribution of speeds in a galaxy would be. And, guess what, dark matter as matter can do that. Modified gravity theories cannot (without the presence of some dark matter).

If you cannot provide that level of detail, then you are not doing science.

But, the other question is just as important, and possibly easier: what would prove your idea wrong?

(*) And there are / have been many ideas about what this "dark" matter could be. Neutrinos seemed a possibility; they seem to meet all the requirements until modelling showed that dark matter is "cold"; i.e. moves at much less than the speed of light. Lots of very small black holes have been suggested, but no one has been able to observe their effects (there would need to be enough that we should see gravitational lensing). And many more...

 

Look forward to hearing from you tomorrow

You were the one pointing out that their theories cant all be correct. i was just saying that has no correlation to if mine is or not and there was no reason to bring it up.

I wasnt under the impression that dark matter can be described as matter simply having the same effect as gravity, isnt its effect additive, doesnt it get stronger the further out from the center mass you go in a galaxy? that doesnt sound like matter at all to me and thats the whole point of this hypothesis.

i can provide that level of detail i just need to take the time and effort to do it. Im completely removed from the physics community and spend very little time on it so this takes me a good deal of effort. If the general mathematical descriptions and the complete concept behind the theory and the fact that it solves the 4 major holes in astrophysics doesnt interest you then maybe i came to the wrong forum.

What could prove my model wrong is any logical conceptual issues you guys find with it at the moment. or a complete inability to create detailed mathematical descriptions to align it with the observations i already laid out in my hypothesis(dark matters additive "gravitational effect" and the area of space we define it to effect coorelated to the area of empty space being effected by dark energy/the natural expansion of space(which i seriously doubt will happen because these descriptions can be modeled to already align with those observations, but ok ill take the time to write those out if i can, thanks for pointing that out)

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by jasondoege

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

You were the one pointing out that their theories cant all be correct. i was just saying that has no correlation to if mine is or not and there was no reason to bring it up.

I was pointing out that we need an objective way of deciding which are correct; ie. which best match observations and experimental measurements. That is why you need a mathematical model.

15 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

I wasnt under the impression that dark matter can be described as matter simply having the same effect as gravity, isnt its effect additive, doesnt it get stronger the further out from the center mass you go in a galaxy?

The orbital speeds of stars in a galaxy at various distances from the centre does not fall off in the way that we would expect just from the visible mass (stars and gas). The speeds correspond to there being extra mass distributed through the galaxy, but more concentrated near the centre. So the force doesn't increase towards the outside, it just decreases less quickly than expected. 

Nicely, the distribution of dark matter required to explain the speeds, corresponds to the distribution you get from modelling matter than only interacts gravitationally.

Here is a good description:

Quote

From standard Newtonian dynamics, we expect the velocity of stars to fall as you move from the near the center of mass of a galaxy to its outer edges. But when studying the Andromeda galaxy in the 1960s, Vera Rubin and Kent Ford found something very different: the velocity of stars remained approximately constant, regardless of how far they were from the galactic center.

This and many future observations of the velocities of stars in spiral galaxies hinted that the mass of the galaxy must not be entirely defined by the objects we could see with our telescopes, which Rubin and Ford presented at an American Astronomical Society meeting in 1975. If instead a large fraction of the galaxy’s mass resided in a diffuse dark matter ‘halo’ that extended well beyond the edges of the luminous matter, the observed galactic rotation curves could be explained.

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/five-reasons-we-think-dark-matter-exists-a122bd606ba8

That article summarises all the other evidence for dark matter, which is all consistent with dark matter being a form of matter.

 

[jasondoege]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

The orbital speeds of stars in a galaxy at various distances from the centre does not fall off in the way that we would expect just from the visible mass (stars and gas). The speeds correspond to there being extra mass distributed through the galaxy, but more concentrated near the centre. So the force doesn't increase towards the outside, it just decreases less quickly than expected. 

Nicely, the distribution of dark matter required to explain the speeds, corresponds to the distribution you get from modelling matter than only interacts gravitationally.

Here is a good description:

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/five-reasons-we-think-dark-matter-exists-a122bd606ba8

That article summarises all the other evidence for dark matter, which is all consistent with dark matter being a form of matter.

 

Thanks your description is a better way to put it. have you read my hypothesis? do you have any thoughts on its logical consistency?

2 hours ago, Strange said:

I was pointing out that we need an objective way of deciding which are correct; ie. which best match observations and experimental measurements. That is why you need a mathematical model.

 

I think i showed how you can do this in two facets. can we take a bit to analyze the first way(conceptual, logical) and then if we determine its worth merit get into more specific refined mathematical details?

 

On 5/10/2020 at 11:52 AM, swansont said:

That’s one reason science uses mathematical models. Do you have one? How does one test and possibly falsify your idea?

Please spare us your indignation. Posting here means following our rules. And our rules require a certain level of scientific rigor.

 

A necessary but insufficient requirement.

 

I gave general mathematical descriptions. I think its a good idea to analyze the hypothesis for logical inconsistences while i put the time and effort into making those refined detailed descriptions youre asking about. 

sorry about the indignation getting intelligent individuals to even read my hypothesis has been a very frustrating ordeal so far. I over reacted. sorry again

whats insufficient? im confused by this statement

Edited May 12, 2020 by jasondoege

[Strange]

41 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

have you read my hypothesis? do you have any thoughts on its logical consistency?

I couldn't make much sense of it, I'm afraid. I asked a few questions/comments earlier. In case you missed them, I'll post them again:

On 5/10/2020 at 5:32 PM, jasondoege said:

This hypothesis aims to explain the nature of dark matter as an effect resulting from an exponential reduction in the area of matter and an area of space around it

Can you explain exactly what "area of matter" means? Do you mean "volume of matter"? Why don't we see the area/volume of matter reducing?

And although you say "exponential" reduction, can you be more specific. What is the exponent? Over what timescale is this change happening? (In other words, we need some math.)

On 5/10/2020 at 5:32 PM, jasondoege said:

The reason space is expanding and contracting exponentially is that it is infinite, infinite means expanding without bounds in all directions(including inward)

1. We don't know if space is infinite or not.

2. Being infinite doesn't imply expansion in all directions

3. What does "expanding inward" mean? Surely, something can only expand outwards? Isn't that the definition of expansion?

On 5/10/2020 at 5:32 PM, jasondoege said:

The annihilated mass would generate a lot of cmbr. Almost all the mass/space-time generated by each original point in space would never reach what their neighboring original points generated but their cmbr would. This accounts for cmbr being measured coming to us equally in all directions.

We already have a very good explanation for the CMBR, entirely based on very well-understood and well-tested physics. (It was the main piece of evidence that confirmed the big bang model and eliminated alternatives.)

So if you are saying our current explanation for the CMBR is wrong, then you are claiming that a vast amount of very basic physics is wrong.

 

45 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

I think its a good idea to analyze the hypothesis for logical inconsistences

Well, for example, "expanding inwards" appears to be self-contradictory and therefore logically inconsistent.

[jasondoege]

40 minutes ago, Strange said:

I couldn't make much sense of it, I'm afraid. I asked a few questions/comments earlier. In case you missed them, I'll post them again:

Can you explain exactly what "area of matter" means? Do you mean "volume of matter"? Why don't we see the area/volume of matter reducing?

And although you say "exponential" reduction, can you be more specific. What is the exponent? Over what timescale is this change happening? (In other words, we need some math.)

1. We don't know if space is infinite or not.

2. Being infinite doesn't imply expansion in all directions

3. What does "expanding inward" mean? Surely, something can only expand outwards? Isn't that the definition of expansion?

We already have a very good explanation for the CMBR, entirely based on very well-understood and well-tested physics. (It was the main piece of evidence that confirmed the big bang model and eliminated alternatives.)

So if you are saying our current explanation for the CMBR is wrong, then you are claiming that a vast amount of very basic physics is wrong.

 

Yes i meant volume. thank you for the refinement. im completely removed from the scientific community and do many other things in my life so ive made a lot of small errors and you guys are def helping with that.

1. I cannot fathom a universe that is not infinite. one not being so either requires dimensions to somehow curve back around on themselves or requires a boundary between empty space and what your are referring to as nothing. The things that our universe was born from(mathematics, logic, a multiverse of potential) are infinite. It logically follows to me that what we find ourselves in is too. Whether the universe is infinite or not is an open question, so any hypothesis considering these issues has to choose one or the other and its necessity to do so does not invalidate it.

2. Youre right about this. and its another thing that has to be refined in the description of the theory. We know that there are different levels of infinity. my selection for which one we are dealing with in this hypothesis is one that constantly transverses those levels. basically i think i should refine it by saying it is the infinite level of infinity

3. expanding inward or better known as reduction(the exponential reduction you ask about in another spot) is a reference to the infinite amount of values between two numbers. its a further refinement im adding about the concept of infinity, but youre right this does not mean that the matter that occupies space would be affected by this. Its something i definitely need to think about more but if the rest of the hypothesis holds up we can at least say that it does happen we just dont know why. same thing for things like why matter warps space time through gravity.

Maybe my knowledge of why cmbr exists is incorrect. but as far as im aware scientists think its due to the anihilation of a large amount of matter and its anti pair during thebig bang. But from my understanding a big bang occuring from a singular point would mean the universe has a center and would mean that all the cmbr would have moved away at light speed from it leaving us with none.

40 minutes ago, Strange said:

I couldn't make much sense of it, I'm afraid. I asked a few questions/comments earlier. In case you missed them, I'll post them again:

Can you explain exactly what "area of matter" means? Do you mean "volume of matter"? Why don't we see the area/volume of matter reducing?

And although you say "exponential" reduction, can you be more specific. What is the exponent? Over what timescale is this change happening? (In other words, we need some math.)

1. We don't know if space is infinite or not.

2. Being infinite doesn't imply expansion in all directions

3. What does "expanding inward" mean? Surely, something can only expand outwards? Isn't that the definition of expansion?

We already have a very good explanation for the CMBR, entirely based on very well-understood and well-tested physics. (It was the main piece of evidence that confirmed the big bang model and eliminated alternatives.)

So if you are saying our current explanation for the CMBR is wrong, then you are claiming that a vast amount of very basic physics is wrong.

 

To be more clear, Time is the subjective process we experience by being part of a universe that is infinity trans versing its infinite levels

Edited May 12, 2020 by jasondoege

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

Maybe my knowledge of why cmbr exists is incorrect. but as far as im aware scientists think its due to the anihilation of a large amount of matter and its anti pair during thebig bang.

No that isn't the source of the CMBR.

For a long time the universe was filled with a hot, dense plasma. This was so dense that light could not travel any significant distance. After about 380,000 years it cooled enough that the plasma was able to form atoms (mainly hydrogen) and so became transparent. At that point, the light was able to travel vast distance across the universe. And that is what we now perceive as the CMB. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

Quote

But from my understanding a big bang occuring from a singular point would mean the universe has a center and would mean that all the cmbr would have moved away at light speed from it leaving us with none.

The Big Bang was not an explosion at some point in space. It was the expansion of the universe. So, the universe is currently full of hydrogen gas, with occasional "clumps" (galaxies and similar structures) but on a large enough scale it is uniformly full of matter. It has always been full of matter. It was just denser in the past.

20 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

1. I cannot fathom a universe that is not infinite.

And there are many people who insist it can't be infinite "because that is not possible". As it is, we have no evidence either way (and I'm not sure we can every know).

21 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

one not being so either requires dimensions to somehow curve back around on themselves or requires a boundary between empty space and what your are referring to as nothing.

That is correct. Whether the universe is finite or infinite, it is "unbounded" has no boundary. Which would imply that it "wraps around" (like a Pacman screen).

22 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

The things that our universe was born from(mathematics, logic, a multiverse of potential) are infinite.

The universe was "born from" a hot dense state. We don't know how that came about. Maybe from the collapse of an earlier version of the universe. Maybe it had been in that state for an infinite time. Maybe it was created by a quantum fluctuation. 

24 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

Whether the universe is infinite or not is an open question, so any hypothesis considering these issues has to choose one or the other and its necessity to do so does not invalidate it.

Fair enough. I guess no one can argue with you using it as a working assumption to build your model.

25 minutes ago, jasondoege said:

3. expanding inward or better known as reduction

Contraction?

What evidence is there for any such thing?