Dark matter found?

[tmdarkmatter]

Well, what I suppose with the lamp is the following:

The lamp shines for billions of years, until it goes out or explodes. Then after a couple of millions of years, the remains of the first lamp combine with the remains of another destroyed lamp and create another (different) lamp that shines for another billions of years, until this second one goes out or explodes as well and combines with other remains until a 3rd, 4th, 5th......9999th lamp generates, creating more and more light.

If we would be able see the universe from outside, it would start containing a lot of lamps at the beginning and almost no light and end with only one lamp (or rather a huge black hole) in the middle surrounded by a huge amount of light.

[joigus]

8 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Well, what I suppose with the lamp is the following:

The lamp shines for billions of years, until it goes out or explodes. Then after a couple of millions of years, the remains of the first lamp combine with the remains of another destroyed lamp and create another (different) lamp that shines for another billions of years, until this second one goes out or explodes as well and combines with other remains until a 3rd, 4th, 5th......9999th lamp generates, creating more and more light.

If we would be able see the universe from outside, it would start containing a lot of lamps at the beginning and almost no light and end with only one lamp (or rather a huge black hole) in the middle surrounded by a huge amount of light.

I think this is more or less equivalent to what  @Janus already mentioned about the old "tired light" hypothesis:

7 hours ago, Janus said:

The first argument is just a rehash of the old "Tired light" argument which has been dismissed because it is not consistent with observations. 

More or less what I meant when I said,

34 minutes ago, joigus said:

[...] and somehow stays thereabouts.

 

Although I don't know how light being red-shifted amounts to it becoming 6 times the mass of baryonic matter through the billions of years. Red shift is not the same as photons "staying around."

This argument, or similar ones, are bound to be reborn in the minds of people who think they understand the problem. It was ruled out long ago, and I must confess I've never considered it because it's so off the mark in so many directions.

DM is a big unknown today. It could be exotic matter, or it could be "quintessence" or... who knows.  But it's not light. We do know that much today. Astrophysicists say it's not baryonic, nor EM --so no photons--, nor weak-interacting[?]

Quote

Dark matter is called "dark" because it does not appear to interact with the electromagnetic field, which means it does not absorb, reflect, or emit electromagnetic radiation and is, therefore, difficult to detect.

The Wikipedia quote is, in fact, incomplete: It does not appear to interact with charged particles. Keep in mind the EM field interacts with itself only too weakly. It does not scatter off electrons or ions AFAWK. DM does not interact electromagnetically at all. Photons do.

Maybe a mixture of different things... Perhaps.

It's either something that clusters very, very loosely, or just a deviation from Einstein's equations.

I don't know and, so far as I can tell, you don't know either.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

If we take a galaxy that is very far away (13 billion light years), it means that the light traveled during 13 billion years. Well, as we are supposing, during that time all these stars lose at least part of their mass as light/energy, so actually galaxies should become lighter and lighter. So when this light finally arrives at our earth, all galaxies (including ours) are a little lighter than at the beginning, so the light now gains less frequency when arriving at the mass of our galaxy.

The next step is to quantify this to see how much on effect there is.

[tmdarkmatter]

5 hours ago, joigus said:

It's either something that clusters very, very loosely, or just a deviation from Einstein's equations.

Hi again,

I am sorry, but it was already late yesterday, so I could not tell you what I wanted to tell you.

You are always talking about one lamp that is shining and losing all the light at once and straightforward. But please have a look at the Andromeda galaxy and tell me what you see. You might say, ok, there are billions of stars, each one has a certain size and a certain gravitation field. And that´s not all, each of them is surrounded by many more planets, moons, asteroids, comets, even small rocks and dust. Now I want to ask you, when you look at the center of our milky way, can you perfectly see it? No. Why are we so sure that we have asteroids around us? Because the light of our sun hits them and is being reglected, otherwise they would all be invisible. The same happens with planets and moons. All these different objects are not only able to reflect light, they also have their own gravity and can deviate light at least very little. All this might be negligible when observing each object isolated, but on a large scale like galaxies, this effect might actually be responsible for retaining some light for a little longer than expected. So, if you would be able to turn the light of our galaxy on and observe it at distance with several cameras at different angles, you might see that the first light might arrive "almost" straightforward at the speed of light, then there would maybe be a second wave of all the light that had to pass by just smaller objects, than the light that had to pass by or was reflected by at least 1 star and got deviated, then light that had to pass or was reflected by at least 2 stars and got deviated twice, then 3 stars, 4 stars, 5, 6, 7,....9999 stars (maybe light that comes from the center) and then there is light that never made it out of the galaxy because it was captured by the black hole.

Now, you might say that this effect should be negligible and that this light would never be enough for the elephants needed. The problem is that all the light coming from all the galaxies surrounding us also has to enter our milky way, pass by all these stars, get lost somewhere in the labyrinth of all the objects contained in our milky way until it finally comes out on the other side, gets deviated as well, or gets lost in one of the black holes.

If the light is so perfect and can get through galaxies so quickly (near perfectly), why can we neither see our milky way nor the Andromeda galaxy well as we should (in the Andromeda galaxy they say that the center should be much brighter)? This is a proof that there is something else going on and that the effect is not negligible. If it was negligible, we would see an almost perfect galaxy.

And this is not the only anomaly, but let me prepare my messages with time, because otherwise I would not be using a smart, logical wording, but would rather offend you with text of bad quality or without logical reasoning.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

The next step is to quantify this to see how much on effect there is.

Yes, we should definitely check this situation. But if confirmed, it would definitely cancel the big bang idea. But as time goes by, our universe also changes.

So, your elephants are not just elephants, they are made of billions of little dots surrounded by all types of dust and material and it seems as if the light that was left on invades these elephants and needs some extra time to come out again.

But please, this is only the proposal of a solution.

[tmdarkmatter]

By the way, I really like the guidelines of this place, especially the section 1 sentence.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Yes, we should definitely check this situation. 

Yes, you should. How much of an effect is there on the sun? How much lighter does it get, as a fraction of its current mass, every billion years?

[Ghideon]

On 11/13/2022 at 11:14 PM, tmdarkmatter said:

It would be falsified if light has no mass at all of any kind or if the "mass of light" coming from all light sources in our universe would be insufficient in order to replace at least a noticeable part of the so-called "dark matter".

Does the light, per your idea, originate from stars? For instance the light we see from the moon originates from the sun. I need to know where you think the vast majority of the light comes from to further comment on your idea.

[swansont]

On 11/13/2022 at 5:14 PM, tmdarkmatter said:

Yes, you are right. It would be falsified if light has no mass at all of any kind or if the "mass of light" coming from all light sources in our universe would be insufficient in order to replace at least a noticeable part of the so-called "dark matter".

Since the energy of the light can't exceed the mass energy of a star, and the mass of dark matter exceeds the mass of "normal" matter, this seems trivially falsified.

Take the example of the sun, which you should have worked out. 4 x 10^9 kg/s converted to photons, which means about 1.2 x 10^16 kg/year, or ~ 10^25 kg per billion years. The sun's mass is 2 x 10^30 kg. There just isn't enough light.

[tmdarkmatter]

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

Does the light, per your idea, originate from stars? For instance the light we see from the moon originates from the sun. I need to know where you think the vast majority of the light comes from to further comment on your idea.

Hi, yes, all stars generate a lot of light. What I am saying is that if we look at the sky while standing on earth, obviously most light comes from the sun. But we are only 7 light minutes away from the sun. The "average distance" from our sun within our solar system (the actual border should be somewhere between the sun and the closest stars) should be about 2-3 light years away. So, if you sit in a spacecraft at that distance from the sun and look at the sky, the sun would only be a little dot surrounded by millions of other little dots you would also see and which would have a similar brightness than the sun. Therefore, I am supposing that most light contained within our own solar system does not come from the sun itself, but from all these other stars and galaxies.

As a result, I wanted to highlight that light itself can be a candidate too. But, as you can see above, my ideas are still having a lot of issues and so far, unfortunately, we still have to consider that "nothing" is the best option for "dark matter", unless we discover that the light has actually other characteristics we do not know so far or if we really can change several of the so far quite well established theories.

For example, light must definitely have a mass (there must be no doubt!) and there must definitely be enough light (80% of the total mass). I calculated that there might be enough mass in a sphere of 25 million light years around us, but this might still not be enough. Maybe in the future we make new discoveries that change it all. Unfortunately, we will have to do very difficult things like travelling outside of our solar system with a telescope, travelling close to a black hole, travelling to the border of our galaxy and maybe waiting some millions of years in order to confirm that galaxies are really moving away and at a certain speed etc.

I prefer to be be modest instead of trying to impose ideas that can be totally wrong. Of course, other (even well established) theories can be wrong too, but I am not in a position to throw stones at others.

Only nature decides if I am right or wrong (but there is only one right and there can be an almost infinite amount of wrongs!) and thousands of scientists are in charge of reading what nature (or if you prefer the creator) is telling us.

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

Take the example of the sun, which you should have worked out. 4 x 10^9 kg/s converted to photons, which means about 1.2 x 10^16 kg/year, or ~ 10^25 kg per billion years. The sun's mass is 2 x 10^30 kg. There just isn't enough light.

Yes, but there are a lot of things to consider:

- I don´t think that the sun will always emit the same amount of light. Instead, it will increase from time to time.

- Maybe the universe and/or the sun is much older or will get much older than we currently think. Just try to imagine how our milky way was formed in only 70 spins! If earth needed 500 millions years (spins) only to cool down, it does not seem to be realistic that its shape was created in only 70 years (spins). And the structure of the milky way is far more complicated. (it is always funny to see the big bang and suddenly the galaxies appear in a perfect shape without any development)

- Not all light in the universe is generated by stars (just have a look at the Andromeda galaxy and tell me where most light comes from). Even Jupiter emits more light than it absorbs.

- What about all the light bumping against other objects (a clear example is our moon). If light is reflected, its mass counts twice!

- What about all the light that is getting deviated like with the Einstein rings? Is it possible that there is much more light in space being slightly deviated and we just do not detect that? Imagine light travelling from one group of galaxies to another group of galaxies and coming back because it was deviated. This light counts twice  Obviously, this would also suggest that there are several galaxies we might be watching twice! (there are actually galaxies where this was already confirmed)

- What about the real mass of the (heavy) stars, black holes and galaxies? How much of their mass is really intrinsic mass and not holded back light mass?

- What about the relativity of time? What effect would a different passage of time have on light?

- What about the relativity of space?

- Etc. etc. etc.

 

Edited November 15, 2022 by tmdarkmatter

[Ghideon]

10 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

yes

Ok. As a consequence of your idea fusion of nuclei should result in a great reduction of mass. Please provide an explanation why this is not observed. 

 

(Hint: Read @swansont's post above and think of it in microscopic terms if that helps. The output from the sun is the sum of reactions on particle level. Mass differences between nuclei can be observed on microscopic levels and the result scaled up, applying established models/mathematics to stellar proportions.) 

[tmdarkmatter]

17 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Ok. As a consequence of your idea fusion of nuclei should result in a great reduction of mass. Please provide an explanation why this is not observed. 

Yes, it is interesting to analyze this with nuclei. What I think in this regard is that we might think that we have already found all types of atoms and that we have already completed the periodic system. The question is, what type of atoms do we have close to the black hole? If the mass/gravity is extremely high and there is a lot of heat/pressure there and in the surrounding stars, isn´t it possible that there are many more elements we did not find yet or where not able to artifically create? Maybe the stars are able to perform much more reactions with much more complex atoms, so there are many more fusion steps we still do not know. So far, we know that most of the elements are produced in stars and that the more complex ones are produced at the end of the lifetime of a star. But also here we might be wrong. Maybe there are more complex reactions already taking place in the center of the stars. By the way, we also do not know exactly what is going on inside earth, so far, we only drilled some 12 km. There might be a black hole inside earth of the size of a tennis ball and we would not be aware of that. A supernova might not be a process to create a black hole, but a supernova might be an attempt of a dying star to get rid of its black hole!

I think the beginning of the story is hydrogen atoms and the end of the story is the singularity. Also, nature has shown us that it is much more efficient than we are with our machines, so I think that nature will also complete this story very smoothly and slowly.

[Ghideon]

37 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Yes, it is interesting to analyze this with nuclei.

Then please do so, using established theories.

 

43 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

What I think in this regard is that we might think that we have already found all types of atoms and that we have already completed the periodic system.

Note: adding new speculations does not support a falsified idea. Now you have moved the problem; if your variant of tired light requires a new periodic system I think you need to establish the new periodic system first.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Yes, but there are a lot of things to consider:

- I don´t think that the sun will always emit the same amount of light. Instead, it will increase from time to time.

By how much? Enough to make the mass loss significant? It could go up by 10x and you still wouldn’t get to 1%

3 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

- Maybe the universe and/or the sun is much older or will get much older than we currently think. Just try to imagine how our milky way was formed in only 70 spins! If earth needed 500 millions years (spins) only to cool down, it does not seem to be realistic that its shape was created in only 70 years (spins). And the structure of the milky way is far more complicated. (it is always funny to see the big bang and suddenly the galaxies appear in a perfect shape without any development)

“What if” isn’t a model with evidence. It’s a guess.

3 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

- Not all light in the universe is generated by stars (just have a look at the Andromeda galaxy and tell me where most light comes from). Even Jupiter emits more light than it absorbs.

You really need to get in the habit of running the numbers behind your claims.

 

3 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

- What about all the light bumping against other objects (a clear example is our moon). If light is reflected, its mass counts twice!

Why? 

3 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

- What about all the light that is getting deviated like with the Einstein rings? Is it possible that there is much more light in space being slightly deviated and we just do not detect that?

How does this affect redshift?

3 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Imagine light travelling from one group of galaxies to another group of galaxies and coming back because it was deviated. This light counts twice  Obviously, this would also suggest that there are several galaxies we might be watching twice! (there are actually galaxies where this was already confirmed)

Coming back?

3 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

 

- What about the real mass of the (heavy) stars, black holes and galaxies? How much of their mass is really intrinsic mass and not holded back light mass?

- What about the relativity of time? What effect would a different passage of time have on light?

- What about the relativity of space?

- Etc. etc. etc.

In physics we quantify claims. Hand-waving doesn’t count for much.

[joigus]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Since the energy of the light can't exceed the mass energy of a star, and the mass of dark matter exceeds the mass of "normal" matter, this seems trivially falsified.

Seems to me that this is an insurmountable objection. It is what I would call a zero-order problem with the OP's idea. IOW: The hypothesis is not even designed to do the job it's intended to do.

[tmdarkmatter]

11 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Note: adding new speculations does not support a falsified idea. Now you have moved the problem; if your variant of tired light requires a new periodic system I think you need to establish the new periodic system first.

Yes, you are right. I am sorry, I was very tired yesterday. I have a lot of work to do this week and I am just too busy.

I am sorry, but in most cases I can just tell you the ideas. It is often not possible to get concrete numbers yet, so there is not a real hypothesis yet, only speculations. The idea of light mass replacing dark matter is still only a supposition. The help of many scientists would be needed to confirm/reject anything.

I know that I should now provide new calculations like I did at the beginning by calculating the aproximate light mass in a sphere of 25 million light years. I will do that when I have more time. For example, it would be interesting to calculate how much light (a percentage) should be reflected by a galaxy taking into account the "area" of the sky each object (billions of star systems) would occupy at a certain distance. Another calculation would be to calculate how much light would be deviated by a standard star und by how much it would be deviated (degrees). This effect should then be multiplied by all the stars. But at the same time, a galaxy as a whole should also deviate light. All these calculations should be highly complicated.

 

10 hours ago, swansont said:

How does this affect redshift?

No, I am sorry, this time I was not talking about redshift. Instead, I am talking about anomalies that would increase the light mass surrounding us.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

In physics we quantify claims. Hand-waving doesn’t count for much.

But what happens if in the next 1000 years we will only be able to chose between hand-waving and "dark matter"?

12 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I think you need to establish the new periodic system first.

Ok, lets flight to a black hole first and then we continue with this discussion.

As you can see, I would need a lot of help. But at the same time you are right, before publishing my ideas, I should have kept calculating for years to provide at least some more data. But maybe you can help me. At the end, the only thing I am trying to do is to find new answers to the question "what is dark matter?" And before I die, I wanted to give you or somebody else my ideas and draw the attention to the situation "that somebody left the light on in a living room full of invisible elephants".

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Coming back?

If you have light from our sun travelling towards an asteroid field and the light comes back, you will have the same light travelling through the same space in between twice, so the same light would provide twice as much mass as it should when only travelling into one direction. The same would happen if a very heavy object is able to make light spin around it and releasing it into the same direction where the light originally came from (like the sun is doing with comets).

[joigus]

2 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

But maybe you can help me. At the end, the only thing I am trying to do is to find new answers to the question "what is dark matter?" And before I die, I wanted to give you or somebody else my ideas and draw the attention to the situation "that somebody left the light on in a living room full of invisible elephants".

A Zen master once said,

Light is what allows you to see the elephants. Light is not the elephants. Dark is not light. Light is not dark. Light is light.  

And there's nothing lighter than light.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

If you have light from our sun travelling towards an asteroid field and the light comes back, you will have the same light travelling through the same space in between twice, so the same light would provide twice as much mass as it should when only travelling into one direction. The same would happen if a very heavy object is able to make light spin around it and releasing it into the same direction where the light originally came from (like the sun is doing with comets).

Not all of the light reflects. In fact, very little of it does. Same for gravitational deflection.

In any event, twice a very small number is still a small number. 

[tmdarkmatter]

2 hours ago, joigus said:

A Zen master once said,

Light is what allows you to see the elephants. Light is not the elephants. Dark is not light. Light is not dark. Light is light.

This Zen master would also say:

"Stop searching for dark matter! It does not make sense to waste time on it. Just leave the gods alone, they just made a small mistake while designing the universe!"

2 hours ago, swansont said:

In any event, twice a very small number is still a small number

But maybe almost infinite times a very small number is a huge number.

Well, let´s say that an alien from another planet told me that light mass is actually dark matter, but as he was not a scientist, he could not explain it to me.

But this graph shows a little more, what I mean with gravitational deflection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shapiro_delay.gif

Now imagine the amount of extra light mass surrounding a black hole.

And this effect should be observed around every object in space, from little rocks to entire galaxies. Some create almost no effect at all, others create a very small effect and the black hole is the object with most effect.

Somebody should create this same graphic but with millions of stars and each one with a much lower effect, so we can see what happens if light is slightly deviated by millions of stars. If light has to cross the milky way from the sides, it would have to pass by 20.000 stars that are 0-5 light years away to reach the other side. How probable would it be that this light remains on track after passing by so many stars?

Each time light is being deviated or reflected that means an increase in total light mass.

But the worst thing is that the mass of the light mass itself can be responsible for deviating light mass! So we have an invisible elephant attracting smaller elephants that attract even smaller elephants and so on.

Edited November 16, 2022 by tmdarkmatter

[swansont]

2 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Now imagine the amount of extra light mass surrounding a black hole.

No. “imagine” is inappropriate here. 

You need to calculate the amount, using mainstream physics.

 

Quote

 

But this graph shows a little more, what I mean with gravitational deflection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shapiro_delay.gif

 

That’s depicting what happens near a black hole. Most of the volume of a galaxy is not made up of a black hole.

“The Schwarzschild radius of the supermassive black hole at the Galactic Center of the Milky Way is approximately 12 million kilometres” (less than a light-minute)

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

Quote

Each time light is being deviated or reflected that means an increase in total light mass.

By how much? The Shapiro delay from the sun was 200 microseconds. Do that 20000 times, and you get a delay of 4 seconds. 

 

The rules of speculations require more rigor than you are providing. 

[tmdarkmatter]

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

The rules of speculations require more rigor than you are providing. 

Yes, you are right. There are a lot of calculations to do.

I am just checking how small the deviation actually is. At a distance of 100 km away from the sun, the angle is not even a 1/1000th degree. Anyway, I should use light at a "standard distance" to stars travelling through a "standard galaxy" to calculate a "standard angle" of deviation created by all stars in a row adding also the mass of the "light mass" contained within this galaxy. With this "standard angle" it should be possible to estimate the increase of mass created by this deviation effect within a galaxy.

32 minutes ago, swansont said:

By how much? The Shapiro delay from the sun was 200 microseconds. Do that 20000 times, and you get a delay of 4 seconds. 

Anyway, the Shapiro delay is only the delay detected between Earth and Venus. The longer the distance, the higher would be this delay. Of course, again this effect gets lower and lower exponentially when we go away from the sun, so again I would end up adding "almost nothing" to "almost nothing"...

[swansont]

1 hour ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Anyway, the Shapiro delay is only the delay detected between Earth and Venus. The longer the distance, the higher would be this delay. Of course, again this effect gets lower and lower exponentially when we go away from the sun, so again I would end up adding "almost nothing" to "almost nothing"...

With Venus being on the far side of the sun. Also done with Mercury. The delay is only appreciable close to the sun. If the path is grazing, the delay is 200 microseconds. If the path is 35 solar radii away, it drops to 60 microseconds. So yes, the additional distance to Venus (or beyond) adds nothing within measurable precision.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shapiro-time-delay-EN.svg

[tmdarkmatter]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

With Venus being on the far side of the sun. Also done with Mercury. The delay is only appreciable close to the sun. If the path is grazing, the delay is 200 microseconds. If the path is 35 solar radii away, it drops to 60 microseconds. So yes, the additional distance to Venus (or beyond) adds nothing within measurable precision.

Yes, but what would happen, if it would be possible to have for example two planets each one two light years away from the sun in an almost perfectly opposing position and repeating this experiment, of course again sending the light as close as possible passing by the sun. Obviously, in this case, the planets (or the sun) might move during these 4 years rendering the experiment impossible, but if the objects would be hypothetical "static" objects, by how much would these 200 microseconds increase? To 250 microseconds? To 400 microseconds? Or to 5 hours? Venus and Earth are at most 14 light minutes away from each other, so how much would the effect be during 4 light years (of course summing a lot of "negligible values")?

They should have used the Voyager spacecrafts to do this kind of experiments.

[swansont]

44 minutes ago, tmdarkmatter said:

Yes, but what would happen, if it would be possible to have for example two planets each one two light years away from the sun in an almost perfectly opposing position and repeating this experiment, of course again sending the light as close as possible passing by the sun. Obviously, in this case, the planets (or the sun) might move during these 4 years rendering the experiment impossible, but if the objects would be hypothetical "static" objects, by how much would these 200 microseconds increase? To 250 microseconds? To 400 microseconds? Or to 5 hours? Venus and Earth are at most 14 light minutes away from each other, so how much would the effect be during 4 light years (of course summing a lot of "negligible values")?

They should have used the Voyager spacecrafts to do this kind of experiments.

Compare the results from bouncing off Mercury and Venus. That tells you how much of an effect there is. Or look at the equation, and do the math.

Also, it’s only the light in the tiny region near the sun that’s affected. 

[tmdarkmatter]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

Compare the results from bouncing off Mercury and Venus. That tells you how much of an effect there is. Or look at the equation, and do the math.

I think that we are again measuring what is happening around some blood cells while ignoring the soccer field surrounding us. But please, this is only my opinion.

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, tmdarkmatter said:

I think that we are again measuring what is happening around some blood cells while ignoring the soccer field surrounding us. But please, this is only my opinion.

!

Moderator Note

No offense, but opinion isn't what we discuss in Speculations. You've been given the tools to find some evidential support for your idea, which is what we're really interested in. Please do some analysis and see if that helps to support what you're proposing, and elevate that opinion to actual evidence.