Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Photons

[ogr8bearded1]

I will start my theory here and hope to be moved to a real thread instead of starting in a physics or cosmology one and being moved here. I do not think I will be adding new physics or math with my theory, or speculation if you will, and believe that what I propose will still fit the current understanding of physics. I do not have a formal education in this area nor the ability to understand the math beyond a highschool level of physics or algebra and have had no training in geometry. If I violate a rule or formula I ask you try and explain with words or at least simple math. If more complicated math must be used I will rely on others to concur or refute. If you feel I have missed something or if something is not clear I will try to explain further with analogy or more precise wording. If we agree I have made a mistake I will look to determine if it was a simple error of statement or one which invalidates my proposal completely. I will be presenting some claims based on logic, some on supposition.

 

What I seek to prove:

Photons do not move as a single entity to their destination.

Inactive Photons are the source of Dark Matter.

Active Photons not in a visible light cone are the source for Dark Energy.

Inflation (Accelerated Expansion) does not exist.

 

As we all know, light is made of photons. The photon can be considered the particle of light. Light travels as both a particle and a wave as has been shown in many repeatable experiments. There is a second force in nature that also travels as both a particle and a wave. Sound. Sound travels by one air molecule vibrating the one next to it and in doing so is both a particle and a wave. I believe light does the same. Instead of a photon moving from a distant star and travelling to Earth it instead imparts its energy to the next photon in a continuous cycle to its destination. Just as there is a maximum speed for sound there is a maximum speed for light. Both of these processes depend on their medium for their maximum speed. Light can sometimes go faster than the speed of light through a medium which gives the result of Cherenkov radiation. This is lights sonic boom. Light can also reflect back. This is a light echo. The light echo is the reason a solar sail imparts motion. As you can see light and sound have many of the same properties and that has led me to believe they operate on the same principles.

 

How then does light bend around an object in space? This too is similar to how sound reacts and I will illustrate with the following analogy. You have a pond of still water. Sitting in the water is a protruding rock. When you toss in another rock waves radiate out, some striking the rock while others bend around and continue. When dealing with light there are two things happening however. The first is the natural bend of Newtonian physics. Einstein was able to show that only accounted for half of the bending that could be observed and showed that space-time was also curved to account for the other half. It is important to note that the light did not bend but that space-time itself was curved in that region. Why is this important? Because photons are spread throughout space-time much as air molecules are in the atmosphere. When the space-time region is curved, so are the photons that inhabit that region. The light still thinks it is following a straight line.

 

Where are all of these extra photons and why don't we detect them? We do detect them, we just can't see them. What do we call something we can detect but cannot see? Dark Matter. When a photon is not actively vibrating it cannot be seen. It has no rest mass (or at least smaller than we can detect) and no energy (momentum) and if I'm right then that would only leave spin. This spin is what we are detecting as Dark Matter.

 

Then what is Dark Energy? Just as our Sun is vibrating photons in every direction so are other stars. We only see the ones that vibrate in our direction. But the energy is still there and travelling outwards unseen and unmeasured. We calculate how much Dark Energy exists based on our numbers for how much matter we can see, how much Dark Matter can be detected and the remainder is called Dark Energy, something that seems to have to be there and we cannot detect.

 

So what is inflation and why do I say it does not exist. Inflation is the accelerated expansion of space. Inflation is used to explain how objects appear further away than can be explained under the Big Bang theory. Basically it says that an object did not move further away from us, but that instead the space between us became larger. This is very important to scientist because otherwise they would have to explain how a galaxy is moving away from us faster than the speed of light. It is also important to note that neither expansion nor inflation happens in regions of space that contains gravity bound matter. You remember I mentioned earlier that when space-time curves so do the photons that inhabit that area. By curving space, gravity changes the position of photons making their distance from each other slightly different. They are further away from each other. Space which is outside of a gravity bound region does not have its photons moved. They are closer together. This means that when light is travelling through that region there are more photons that interact with each other than in gravitation bound regions. Each interaction between photons changes the frequency of the light slightly. So there are more interactions within the non-gravitation bound regions and this is the cause of the observed red-shift. The object is not further away nor is it receding from us at faster than light speeds. The photon is merely aging more than expected due to the higher density of photons giving the appearance of having travelled further.

 

I believe I have done what I set out to show and look forward to your comments.

[ACG52]

Well, I suppose speculations is as good a place as any.

 

There's nothing in your post which seems to relate to actual physics. It's a wall of words spelling out incorrect concepts. I suppose, if I had the patience (as swansont does) I could go through your post line by line and paragraph by paragraph, pointing out the misconceptions and outright errors, but I don't.

 

Suffice it to say, none of it is correct.

[EdEarl]

You are not likely to find anyone who has studied physics and math to support your speculation. Get ready for much disagreement, and I hope you are open to learn and forget your ideas.

 

I suggest you start by searching youtube for photon, dark matter, history of the universe, electron, proton, neutron, etc., and view the videos. Many do not require math, others do. If you really want to learn, khanacademy.org is a good source. Until you know math, you cannot really understand physics. Of course, scientists know little about dark energy and dark matter, but since they do know math, they have a much better chance of understanding it.

 

http://www.youtube.com/

https://www.khanacademy.org/

[CosmosCranium]

I value people who can come up with speculations like this on their own, OP. And I must admit, whether I agree with it or not, it was entertaining to read.

I see where you are drawing these conclusions from, but this is what I think:
In a nutshell, dark matter is just matter in a higher dimension.

[ogr8bearded1]

Well, I suppose speculations is as good a place as any.

 

There's nothing in your post which seems to relate to actual physics. It's a wall of words spelling out incorrect concepts. I suppose, if I had the patience (as swansont does) I could go through your post line by line and paragraph by paragraph, pointing out the misconceptions and outright errors, but I don't.

 

Suffice it to say, none of it is correct.

I believe you mean actual physics as currently viewed and not what could actually be happening.

 

My post is not a wall of words as is commonly recognised by forum posters. A wall of words refers to someone who posts a lengthy thread with no paragraph breaks causing it to be hard to read.

 

You only suppose you could show the fallacy in my post and then state it is wrong. So let's see which system falls to Occam's Razor, the currently held concept that a photon travels as a single entity or mine.

 

An atom in a metastable state held in relative isolation can remain in that state longer than it should even if there is a lower energy state that would be more preferable. Under current science, this is something which just happens, but eventually it will move to the lower energy state. In my view, the atom cannot move to the lower state because there is not a photon nearby enough to transfer the energy which would allow it to move to the lower state and it does so when one becomes close enough. Einstein had a problem with causality, and much to his dismay had to drop it in favour of probability. ("The thing about causality plagues me very much, " Einstein wrote Max Born in 1920. [1: Walter Isaacson, “Einstein – his live and universe” page 324, Simon & Schuster]

Niels Bohr was also against Einstein’s opinion and countered to him, “ abandoning strict causality was the only way open." Einstein lamented, "but if all this is true then it means the end of physics." [2 : Niels Bohr,"Discussion with Einstein" in Schilpp, 205-206; Clark.202])* My system explains why a single exited electron will emit light just this time and just in a specific direction. While we may still need to use probability to determine the action, this is only because we cannot measure the position of the photon relative to the electron.

 

Current science holds that space that does not contain a gravitation bound object will inflate (accelerated expansion) through an unknown process and uses this to explain why some objects are receding from us at faster than light speeds. Since faster than light speeds would be impossible, they have to make up a system whereby some regions of space act differently from other regions of space. I instead postulate that space has a set amount of photons within its area. When gravitation bound space curves due to bodies being present, this leaves the same amount of photons with a greater area to cover. In unbound space photons are closer together. Each time a photon transfers energy to another photon an extremely small fraction of that energy is lost. Since unbound space has more photons in an area due to not being curved, more energy is lost while light travels there.

 

This also explains why light cannot escape a Black Hole. Remember, under my system, the amount of photons is set from creation and spread evenly across space. The gravity of a black hole bends space-time so much, that a photon is not near enough to another photon any longer to transfer the energy.

 

Normally when you have to balance (fudge) an equation to make it equal, the number added is very small. Yet in the case of the Universe, over 70% of what should be there has to be added to balance everything. And an almost additional 25% is thrown in because we can detect 'something' with no idea what that 'something' is. "Just the way it has to be, we don't know why or even what it is," says current science. My take explains why and what is causing this.

 

Let's view a time when there were only four elements, the classical Earth, Air, Water, Fire(light). Earth, Air and Water all respond the same way to applied energy. A shockwave is formed vibrating their atoms and transferring that energy to the next atom. But when we come to light, all of a sudden we are to believe it acts entirely differently and a single photon travels millions of lightyears.

 

If what I suggest is wrong and defies the math of current physics I would like to be shown, not dismissed out of hand. It seems to me science is going through a lot of suppositions that are more outrageous than what I propose. I don't change the math or what physics is doing. I am fulfilling what the maths and physics say have to be there and cannot explain simply because they view the photon in the wrong light. I have removed the need to fudge.

 

I value people who can come up with speculations like this on their own, OP. And I must admit, whether I agree with it or not, it was entertaining to read.

I see where you are drawing these conclusions from, but this is what I think:

In a nutshell, dark matter is just matter in a higher dimension.

Thank-you Cosmos, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

 

*The quotes and cites from Einstein are taken from a post by Wolfhart Willimczik

[ACG52]

I believe you mean actual physics as currently viewed and not what could actually be happening.

I mean actual physics, which has accurately provided predictions on the behavior of the universe.

 

If what I suggest is wrong and defies the math of current physics I would like to be shown, not dismissed out of hand

Since all you've provided is word salad with no math, and I don't have the patience of Job, you are dismissed.

[Bignose]

Just as there is a maximum speed for sound there is a maximum speed for light. Both of these processes depend on their medium for their maximum speed.

Light is known not to need a medium, which has been called 'the luminiferous aether'. The Michael-Morley experiment, and all the subsequent follow up experiments, pretty conclusively proved that light does not require a medium. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment to begin with. No aether has ever been found despite many different experiments to attempt to find one.

 

How do you reconcile your idea with this experimental result?

Edited June 3, 2013 by Bignose

[ogr8bearded1]

I mean actual physics, which has accurately provided predictions on the behavior of the universe.

 

Since all you've provided is word salad with no math, and I don't have the patience of Job, you are dismissed.

 

There is no math to provide as I am not changing any of the current math. I am proposing something that does not change the observations of what is happening but HOW it is happening. In doing so I have removed the need for a lot of fudging, inventing complicated explanations or just having to throw one's hands up and saying "That's just the way it is, we don't know why." Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is the best.

 

How do you reconcile your idea with this experimental result?

 

Here is an excellent visual of what I am saying happens. Get a paperback book and open it somewhere near the middle. For ten pages draw a line of ten circles like this O O O O O O O O O O on each page in the same relative position as the prior page. Now, fill in the first circle on the first page, the second circle on the next page and so forth so that each page has the corresponding circle darkened. Now flip through the page by fanning them. You will see the darkened circle appear to move from one circle to the next. This is what I say is happening. Now, go back and erase from each page any circle that is not darkened and flip through again. This is what we think we see. We cannot see the unexcited photon so it appears the photon alone is moving as we flip the pages.

 

I postulate that there is an aether and that this is what we are currently calling Dark Matter. Since the photon cannot be viewed except in an excited state there appears to be no aether. Dark matter can be detected but not seen and this has led to the belief that light does not need a medium to function. There is no motion to be detected as photons are integrated in place within space-time. There is a vibration only as one photon transfers it energy to the next at which point it falls back to being dark matter. Photons are not influenced by gravity, their place in space-time is set, however the curve of space due to gravity of a body does change the shape of space-time. This makes it appear the photon has moved further from the next photon when it is actually space-time that has curved. I am willing to concede there is no vibration and that the transfer could be similar to the way electricity can arc a gap between two poles, though it could be the vibration needed is so small as to be undetectable.

 

In a Black Hole environment either the curve of space is too great for a vibration of one photon to reach another or it is similar to two metal poles being moved far enough apart that electricity cannot cross the gap. The photon cannot 'fall' into the black hole as it is set in space-time. For a visual look at a concrete sidewalk. The pebbles you see are the photons and they do not move independently of the concrete. But if you could curve or bend the concrete they would appear to move further apart.

 

I will also concede that my explanation of Dark Energy is my weakest point and that could require more investigation.

 

Another proof of Occam's Razor I failed to mention in my prior post is the need for 'virtual photons.' Science currently says that a photon can be virtual, appearing from nothing and returning to nothing as long as it virtually exists for only a short period of time. Science also says that the longer it does virtually exist, the more it takes on the properties of a real photon. I don't need a virtual photon, my photon was always there. It doesn't appear from nothing, it gets excited. Neither does it disappear to nothing, it returns to its prior unseen state.

[Bignose]

I postulate that there is an aether and that this is what we are currently calling Dark Matter.

But, as best we can tell, there is Dark Matter all around us. See, e.g., http://phys.org/news/2012-08-plenty-dark-sun.html

 

The MM experiment or one of the following experiments should have picked it up. The wikipedia article above shows that in 2009 a very accurate version of an MM-like experiment showed at most a chance of 10^-17 difference in the speed of light due to some form of aether.

 

Also, this explanation of Dark Matter doesn't explain why DM seems to be necessary to hold galaxies together.

 

Can your model re-create the Dark Matter map? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=biggest-map-yet-of-universes Does it fit into any of the other known properties of Dark Matter?

 

Also also, tossing out virtual photons, you leave an awful lot of conversation of energy & momentum issues. Does your idea also fix all that? Please demonstrate this, if yes.

[pwagen]

You're misinterpreting Occam's Razor. It doesn't say the simplest idea is true, so you can't use it the way you do, as a way of confirming your hypothesis.

 

It says that "among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected". And to me, your ideas seem to include the assumption of an aether, which the current theories lack. Therefor, since you're not changing the math, as you say, doesn't that mean you're adding an assumption, thus making your hypothesis the less desirable one?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

 

Explaining your hypothesis the way you do is all well and good, but unless you either have maths to support it, or experimental evidence of its validness, it'll remain in the realms of speculation.

[ogr8bearded1]

1.But, as best we can tell, there is Dark Matter all around us.

 

2.The MM experiment or one of the following experiments should have picked it up. The wikipedia article above shows that in 2009 a very accurate version of an MM-like experiment showed at most a chance of 10^-17 difference in the speed of light due to some form of aether.

 

3.Also, this explanation of Dark Matter doesn't explain why DM seems to be necessary to hold galaxies together.

 

4,Can your model re-create the Dark Matter map? Does it fit into any of the other known properties of Dark Matter?

 

5.Also also, tossing out virtual photons, you leave an awful lot of conversation of energy & momentum issues. Does your idea also fix all that? Please demonstrate this, if yes.

(Numbers added by Ogr8bearded1)

1. Yes, in my model Dark Matter would indeed be all around us. I am willing to concede that what I propose is only one component of Dark Matter and that there may be others. Science seems to like to have many types of virtual particles in addition to virtual photons. I am confused by the statement in the article that Dark Matter is thought to make up 98% of all matter in the Universe. I thought it was closer to a 5 to 1 ratio of Dark Matter to Normal Matter which to me would indicate closer to an 80/20 distribution.

 

2. I fail to see why there should be a difference in the speed of light. What we think of as the speed of light and our measurement of it already includes any difference the aether could make so there is no reason for it to make more of a difference. You are trying to assume the current version of how we think light acts and then apply the assumption that an aether would require some sort of decrease to that speed. I stipulate that the speed we measure is the maximum speed, and that speed is unchanged from current view, when using aether and there is no way to measure light without the aether because there would then be no light. This does not mean my view alone is unfalsifiable from the other, but that both views are unfalsifiable to each other.

 

3. Science commonly state that a photon has no rest mass. This is the explanation given to a lay-person. What is actually said is that the photon has to have a mass below a certain amount (I can't find the paper I read that had it on order of being around 3 times lighter or more than an electron but that was because we couldn't detect lower than that.) There is a joke that Washington politicians say "A billion here, a billion there and soon you're talking real money."Of course, if there is a non-zero mass to a photon this would start to complicate current maths. So it would be more reasonable to say that some other component of Dark Matter causes that effect, though it could still be connected to the photon.

 

4. I would have to say I cannot state for fact that it could without more information. If the areas they show concentrated Dark Matter as being is the same as those areas of space that are in inflation (accelerated expansion) or relatively empty space with little influence of outside gravity, then yes, my Dark Matter (unexcited photons) would be more dense in those areas and appear to string out as an area of space came under the influence of larger gravity producing bodies. If they for the most part correspond I am still safe but could possibly need to further refine my theory by finding reasons for why some regions and not others. If they correspond to a degree equal or less than chance then my theory would be significant trouble and I would have to concede my view.

 

5. Not sure I understand, I think you mean conversion and not conversation and I will think on that and get back to you. Please do remember I am doing my best to explain to my ability and may need a chance to do some reading on those subjects to see if I'm violating a law. I know what I said at the top of my first post does in fact put me at a disadvantage in being believed. That said, on a standard MENSA entrance exams I do rank at an average of 137 IQ (139, 137, 136) so at the very least learning is not beyond my capabilities. Can I just take a page from some scientists and throw up may hands and say I don't know, its just the way it is? jk, I'll look into it.

 

 

It (Occam's Razor) says that "among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected". And to me, your ideas seem to include the assumption of an aether, which the current theories lack. Therefor, since you're not changing the math, as you say, doesn't that mean you're adding an assumption, thus making your hypothesis the less desirable one?*

 

 

Explaining your hypothesis the way you do is all well and good, but unless you either have maths to support it, or experimental evidence of its validness, it'll remain in the realms of speculation. *Parenthesis and bold type added by Ogr8bearded1

You are correct, I am adding an assumption. However, I have shown current science is adding more assumptions than I. This is why I am using the term.

Edited June 3, 2013 by ogr8bearded1

[Bignose]

ogr8bearded1, on 03 Jun 2013 - 16:11, said:

5. Not sure I understand, I think you mean conversion and not conversation and I will think on that and get back to you.

Autocorrect flubbed on me. I meant conservation of energy and momentum. Without virtual particles, there is a great deal of phenomena that do not appear to obey conservation of momentum and energy. Hard to ignore that since conservation principles are among the absolute strongest we know today.

[ogr8bearded1]

Autocorrect flubbed on me. I meant conservation of energy and momentum. Without virtual particles, there is a great deal of phenomena that do not appear to obey conservation of momentum and energy. Hard to ignore that since conservation principles are among the absolute strongest we know today.

No problem, I was fairly sure you meant something different and glad we cleared it up. Without doing any research yet and giving my brain a short time to subconsciously mull it over my gut says to go with entropy for the loss of any energy that causes a frequency or wavelength change in the light. This comes from when I stated it was the fact that in space viewed as inflating there are more photons transferring the energy to each other there than in gravity bound space. Also you should keep in mind there is no momentum as in movement of a particle as the photon is set, or locked in position, within the space-time Universe. If momentum included the gap jump of the energy then I will have to see how its effected. It is possible the unexcited photon has only spin if anything at all. If this is good enough we can consider the point answered. If not I will see if I can study and do better.

 

I would like to take the opportunity to thank-you for your questions and hope I am doing a good job of defending my position in an understandable way and don't appear to be a 'quack' practicing pseudo-science with my answers. To give you a picture of where this idea came from, I had the thought come to me and wrote my post all within an hour. Questions help me see where I may have been unclear or did not explain at all. I do have other ideas that probably are pure bunk, but this is the first time I felt I was on solid enough ground to propose one of my thoughts.

[Bignose]

my gut says to go with entropy for the loss of any energy

This is meaningless. Entropy and energy, while related, are two different things. Energy has units of energy (like Joules) and entropy has units of Energy per unit temperature (like Joules/Kelvin). One cannot account for the loss of the other.

 

Same thing with phrase like "If momentum included the gap jump of the energy", momentum and energy are two different, while related, things. If one is analyzing a problem and the momentum isn't balancing, you can't just add more energy to make up for it. There has to be sources or sinks of the correct conserved quantity to be meaningful.

[ogr8bearded1]

Okay, I'm looking at the maths and will see what I can do with it. Not sure how much math I'm going to have to learn on this so unsure how long will take so please bear with me. So far I've given a quick look over and may have a question at some point, if you don't mind, if I can't find something on the web which gives me a clear understanding but I think I will be able to do so. I don't know if I can do so and support what I've said or not, but then that's the whole point of you asking for it

 

In the meantime if you do have any other questions that come to you don't hesitate to post them.