Crazy Idea about dark matter and Quantum Theory

[Edgard Neuman]

Hi,

I love science, but I am not a professional, just a free thinker.

I have this crazy theory in my head for years, and I don't know where to find somebody to disprove it (or acknowledge its plausibility)

If you a reason to think it's absurd right away : please explain it to me !

Here it is :

1) Matter and antimatter would have a positive mass.

2) We are all wrong about the nature of Quantum physics : instead of being a strange generator of particules and antiparticules, void would be filled with a great quantity of matter and antimatter equally, constantly interacting.

All sum of charges of those particules would be exactly equal to zero. They wouldn't have to behave as strangely as Quantum theory suggest : they just wouldn't be stable at all : constantly annihilated (matter + antimatter -> photons ) and recreated (matter + antimatter <- photons), and could still be regular localized particule : charges and movements we observe would be supernumerary above the average, and wouldn't be carried simply be carried by one of them, but constantly redistributed, and would behave just as we observe them : like waves..

3) All the mysteries of QT we observe could be easily explain by statistical effects :

- for instance, the tunnel effect would occur when a particle meet a local antiparticle, they annihilate perfectly : an other particle would suddenly be supernumerary somewhere else.

- the " wave " behavior would only be explain by the fact that charges could be randomly distributed in the mess of annihilation / recreation. For instance, if you add a unique very fast particle into a gas with no initial global speed : after a time it's movement would statically be distributed between all gas particles. The "localization" of the added movement would be spread. And if you add another fast particle in the opposition direction, after a time, the gas would restore its global 0 speed.

4) the void, being filled with matter and antimatter would still have gravitational mass and density : it would be what we observe as dark matter density. Like a gas, it would spread, but would still be subject to its own gravity : giving dark matter halos distribution that we know of.

There's a way to check if this theory true :

- calculate the matter/ antimatter density required in the void to reproduce dark matter density

- then estimate the density of it and the spread it would have, the quantity of annihilation / creation by unit of time it would have.

- see if the dark matter scale and distribution is coherent with those properties.

- maybe from this : estimate statistical property this void would have and check if it matchs quantum theory maths

Edited April 27, 2016 by Edgard Neuman

[swansont]

Hi,

 

I love science, but I am not a professional, just a free thinker.

I have this crazy theory in my head for years, and I don't know where to find somebody to disprove it (or acknowledge its plausibility)

If you a reason to think it's absurd right away : please explain it to me !

 

Here it is :

1) Matter and antimatter would have a positive mass.

2) We are all wrong about the nature of Quantum physics : instead of being a strange generator of particules and antiparticules, void would be filled with a great quantity of matter and antimatter equally, constantly interacting.

All sum of charges of those particules would be exactly equal to zero. They wouldn't have to behave as strangely as Quantum theory suggest : they just wouldn't be stable at all : constantly annihilated (matter + antimatter -> photons ) and recreated (matter + antimatter <- photons), and could still be regular localized particule : charges and movements we observe would be supernumerary above the average, and wouldn't be carried simply be carried by one of them, but constantly redistributed, and would behave just as we observe them : like waves..

That sounds a lot like quantum theory to me. Virtual particle and antiparticle pairs continually being created and annihilating.

 

3) All the mysteries of QT we observe could be easily explain by statistical effects :

- for instance, the tunnel effect would occur when a particle meet a local antiparticle, they annihilate perfectly : an other particle would suddenly be supernumerary somewhere else.

This would be a problem, I think. What prevents this new particle from popping up just anywhere, rather than what we expect from tunneling?

 

- the " wave " behavior would only be explain by the fact that charges could be randomly distributed in the mess of annihilation / recreation. For instance, if you add a unique very fast particle into a gas with no initial global speed : after a time it's movement would statically be distributed between all gas particles. The "localization" of the added movement would be spread. And if you add another fast particle in the opposition direction, after a time, the gas would restore its global 0 speed.

There are many ways we see wave behavior. Matter diffracts and interferes.

 

4) the void, being filled with matter and antimatter would still have gravitational mass and density : it would be what we observe has dark matter density. Like a gas, it would spread, but would still be subject to its own gravity : giving dark matter halos distribution that we know of.

Dark matter doesn't interact via the same methods — it only interacts gravitationally.

 

[Edgard Neuman]

That sounds a lot like quantum theory to me. Virtual particle and antiparticle pairs continually being created and annihilating.

 

 

This would be a problem, I think. What prevents this new particle from popping up just anywhere, rather than what we expect from tunneling?

 

 

 

The idea here is that particle and antiparticule are wearing a real mass/energy and don't appear or disappear but transform into photon and back. So the energy in the void is mesurable and finite, with a variable density such as dark matter. There would be no difference between real and virtual particles. The particle wouldn't pop up. The void would have : 1000 particles, 1000 antiparticle, constantly interacting but still equal. So we would still call it "void". And then a supernumerary particle would have a position a charge etc. It would be interacting (classicaly) with the 2000 other particles so its mass and momentum would be distributed, but still supernumerary (which make it real for us). It wouldn't really appear and disappear individually, but just be stable above the average. (sorry if i repeat myself too much). The fact that it's stable is because it is supernumerary on average. So if we cut space in regions : the particle wouldn't appear in any region, because in average, those part would still be at equilibrium between matter and antimatter : thus void. But in a local region, any given particle constantly interacting wouldn't have to be perfectly positioned. We would have something that corresponds to QT : the probability that a particle is still supernumerary in a region depend of the scale of the region : the probability of tunneling would diminish like the inverse of the number of particle in the sphere : if I'm not wrong, it would be 1/d² like in QT.

 

 

Matter diffracts and interferes.

 

 

Imagine you have a gas chamber full of spherical mechanical particles. Particle have momentum, but the total is null (the gas is at equilibrium). Then you add a fast particle, which would interact of course instantly with the other present (like on a snooker table). Maybe at first it would share it's speed with a first ball, and then the two would share it with two other new etc..

You agree that after a time, the added momentum would make the total not null anymore. So were is the new momentum ? After a long time, it would be statistically distributed. But before that ? Imagine we try to estimate the average speed of different region of the chamber. Just after you add the fast new particle : the region close to where it enter would have a higher probability of having a none null average speed. If we try to characterize the average momentum of each sub regions at any time, we would probably see a wave, and of course, these would actually interfere and diffract : because trajectory of balls would react (for instance to a wall like in Young experiment). The wave would represent only the distribution of average momentum/charges, and not a unique particle. Let say that the new momentum after hitting several particle is distributed between 16 particle. Those 16 particle (with different direction : like the balls after the first shot in a snooker party) hit a wall : they all bounce (classically) so now the new momentum of speed is spread across space..

In my idea you have to forget the idea of unity of matter, it would be only average supernumerary properties in a sea of chaos : those property would also interfere and diffract, because they would be distributed.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Edgard Neuman

[swansont]

 

The idea here is that particle and antiparticule are wearing a real mass/energy and don't appear or disappear but transform into photon and back.

 

 

That violate conservation of either energy or momentum, depending on which way you look at it. One photon can't transform into two massive particles, or the reverse, in free space.

[Edgard Neuman]

That violate conservation of either energy or momentum, depending on which way you look at it. One photon can't transform into two massive particles, or the reverse, in free space.

 

My mistake I meant photons

I think this idea (at least the concept) can be tested quite easily : you make a 2d simulation of a very big snooker table, filled with random classical balls moving (like in a gas), and a wall with 2 holes to recreate the Young experiment.

Then you had a fast ball coming form the side.

During the simulation, you make stats about the average speed of particles in each cell of a 2d+time grid. Then you repeat the operation from the beginning a large amount of time.

This way you would see the average effect of the added fast ball on the average speed distribution, in space and time : you would almost certainly see something like a wave.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Edgard Neuman

[swansont]

My mistake I meant photons

You end up with all photons at some point, since in the annihilation the energy gets divided in half every time. You still can't create a particle/antiparticle pair with a single photon and nothing else, so would need a two-photon interaction, which is uncommon

[Edgard Neuman]

You end up with all photons at some point, since in the annihilation the energy gets divided in half every time. You still can't create a particle/antiparticle pair with a single photon and nothing else, so would need a two-photon interaction, which is uncommon

I thought these interaction were fully time symmetrical.. if not I see the problem (and the energy is conserved : two particle creates two photon, two photons create two particles, the energy is always conserved in every interaction)

 

I'm not sure about the exact "how" of this idea. It would have to be fully compatible with known QT somehow.

One reason for me is the "continuity" with higher structural organization of matter :

- like charges in metal, they would by supernumerary above opposites charges in a equilibrium state

- like in a gas, chaos would emerge from a number of particle with no long time stable effect , but only short time.

 

- no need for particles to magically appear or disappear from and to the void.

- information could be stored and restored from the void, existing independently from matter for short term

 

- it could also explain negative energy : such a void filled with matter and antimatter would probably like a gas, have a tendency to expand by itself, carrying the real matter with it.

 

thanks anyway

Edited May 2, 2016 by Edgard Neuman

[swansont]

 

I thought these interaction were fully time symmetrical.. if not I see the problem (and the energy is conserved : two particle creates two photon, two photons create two particles, the energy is always conserved in every interaction)

 

 

 

Two photons creating two particles is an exceedingly rare interaction. Unlike charged particle/antiparticle pairs, the photons don't attract.

 

Also, the charges will tend to radiate, as they will undergo acceleration, so you will create even more photons. Entropy increases, which means the whole process is not time symmetric.

[Edgard Neuman]

Two photons creating two particles is an exceedingly rare interaction. Unlike charged particle/antiparticle pairs, the photons don't attract.

Yes, but given that matter and antimatter would be very dense, the actual quantity of photon (not that we see, but also those that would be considered "virtual" otherwise) would still result of a equilibrium.

 

Let's say we have, in a finite volume :

 

 

n particle of antimatter

n + o particle of matter

p photons

 

 

n and p could be a very big number : it wouldn't change anything (if photon directions are randomly distributed, they have no effect on charges, on average)

 

 

we have the two reaction

 

so we are always in a state between the 2 extremes:

 

o particule of matter

p+(2*n) photons

 

and

 

n + (p/2) particle of antimatter

n + (p/2) + o particle of matter

 

The state would be given by the relative probabilities of the 2 reactions.

 

If photon - photon interaction are rarer, it just means that p >> n.. but in average the medium would still be in a equilibrium state (because the more photons, the more photon - photon interactions occures)..

 

 

The entropy is given by the number of photons, so it's not relevant here. If the matter-antimatter reaction is symmetrical to the opposite, the effect on entropy must be opposite to.

 

 

And when charge accelerates, energy of the system has to remain the same. (I mean, because of energy conservation laws)

 

When a charged particle transfert momentum to another, the energy sum is null.

If suppose that E.M. potential energy is lowered by the acceleration changes.. while acceleration vectors are opposite.

In that case there would also be some equilibrium, given that when a particule is accelerated away from another, it's also accelerated toward some others, so global potential E.M. energy would stay the same.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Edgard Neuman

[swansont]

The photon energy after pair annihilation will be lower than the photon energy that created the pair. Entropy is going to win.

[Edgard Neuman]

The photon energy after pair annihilation will be lower than the photon energy that created the pair. Entropy is going to win.

All reactions respect the conservation of energy principle ? no ?

It wouldn't be true at big scale if it wasn't at particle level. (and entropy is not a form of energy). When one say that "energy decay" it means that it change from one form to another form, with entropy increasing also.

If the photon/photon reaction exist, it mean it must be decreasing entropy. Given that its a equilibrium state, it would be at a maximal entropy state (but still not only made photons though), and stable.

 

The 2 reactions are symmetrical by T (therefor identical in reverse).

 

Entropy here can remain constant in all those reaction without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Entropy is a measure of a statistical property of a system, not a thing by itself.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Edgard Neuman

[swansont]

All reactions respect the conservation of energy principle ? no ?

It wouldn't be true at big scale if it wasn't at particle level. (and entropy is not a form of energy). When one say that "energy decay" it means that it change from one form to another form, with entropy increasing also.

If the photon/photon reaction exist, it mean it must be decreasing entropy. Given that its a equilibrium state, it would be at a maximal entropy state (but still not only made photons though), and stable.

 

The 2 reactions are symmetrical by T (therefor identical in reverse).

 

Entropy here can remain constant in all those reaction without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Entropy is a measure of a statistical property of a system, not a thing by itself.

 

 

AFAIK, the reactions increase in probability with higher energy. Photons whose energy exceed the rest energy (by a fair amount) of the matter/antimatter pair are the one likely to interact. But you will be trading these for the lower-energy photons of pair annihilation; the massive particle will shed their excess kinetic energy as they scatter and emit bremsstrahlung.

 

Entropy will not stay constant. It will increase. Why would photons decrease the entropy?

[Daecon]

So some of the energy from the original photons will be lost as the kinetic energy of the particles, before being converted back into photons again?

[imatfaal]

So some of the energy from the original photons will be lost as the kinetic energy of the particles, before being converted back into photons again?

 

As a guess I would say no - not quite. KE is not necessarily lost energy; KE would be lost when for instance two particle collide and scatter off each other, this causes a rapid change of direction - a deceleration, charged particles under deceleration give of a special and fascinating form of radiation called bremsstrahlung. The photons of bremsstrahlung will be well under the energy needed to continue creating pairs - and in effect remove energy from the creation/annihilation system

 

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

[Edgard Neuman]

First, any quantum reaction respect those laws :

- charges are conserved,

- energy is conserved.

So if there is for instance an (a+b) electron and (a) positron (b is in the "o" part of my example), b will never disappear into photons, what ever the way it interacts.

The reason why I suppose that "photon + photon => matter + antimatter" reaction decrease entropy is just because I simply reverse time. If a reaction create entropy, the reverse decrease entropy. If "entropy" is the somehow a measure of the nature of energy (more photon meaning more entropy) then less photons mean less entropy.

Even if you consider "bremsstrahlung", this is just a form of changing the form of energy from being "charge momentum" to "photon". The new photon would just increase the probability of "photon - photon" reaction in the global mix.
All the E.M. theory is based on charged particule converting some of their speed into photon and the opposite. That's the one and only way charged particule interact.
Fields measure the properties of the space, properties given by the particles that are in it.

[swansont]

First, any quantum reaction respect those laws :

- charges are conserved,

- energy is conserved.

 

So if there is for instance an (a+b) electron and (a) positron (b is in the "o" part of my example), b will never disappear into photons, what ever the way it interacts.

 

The reason why I suppose that "photon + photon => matter + antimatter" reaction decrease entropy is just because I simply reverse time. If a reaction create entropy, the reverse decrease entropy. If "entropy" is the somehow a measure of the nature of energy (more photon meaning more entropy) then less photons mean less entropy.

 

Processes where entropy is not constant are not reversible. Entropy does not spontaneously decrease.

 

Even if you consider "bremsstrahlung", this is just a form of changing the form of energy from being "charge momentum" to "photon". The new photon would just increase the probability of "photon - photon" reaction in the global mix.

All the E.M. theory is based on charged particule converting some of their speed into photon and the opposite. That's the one and only way charged particule interact.

Fields measure the properties of the space, properties given by the particles that are in it.

 

The photons emitted in the bremsstrahlung process will be relatively low energy and cannot participate in a photon-photon interaction that might produce another particle/antiparticle pair. Energy is conserved, so there is a minimum energy required in order to undergo the process.

 

It also represents an increase in the total number of photons, reducing the average energy of each, which is where an increase in entropy arises.

[Enthalpy]

One difficulty with dark matter is that we need it elsewhere, but not where we live. That is, the fall of apples, the paths of the planets and the space probes exclude additional mass in our solar system to a great accuracy. More accurately, dark matter doesn't concentrate where ordinary matter does.

 

But already at galactic scale, we need additional mass (and not little!) to explain the speed of globular clusters and the strength of gravitational lensing - which also tells that this missing mass isnt' always centered on the visible one.

 

And at the Universe's scale, we need more additional mass, possibly of a different nature from the galactic dark matter.

 

----------

 

I wouldn't call tunnelling a "mystery". I pleased with waves to explain, predict and accurately compute it.

Edited June 6, 2016 by Enthalpy

[Strange]

One difficulty with dark matter is that we need it elsewhere, but not where we live. That is, the fall of apples, the paths of the planets and the space probes exclude additional mass in our solar system to a great accuracy. More accurately, dark matter doesn't concentrate where ordinary matter does.

 

 

The density of dark matter is so low that its effects would not be detectable at these scales. It would be quite bizarre if we were in an area devoid of dark matter.

 

 

And at the Universe's scale, we need more additional mass, possibly of a different nature from the galactic dark matter.

 

Do we?

[swansont]

 

The 2 reactions are symmetrical by T (therefor identical in reverse).

 

 

It's the reactions that you are ignoring that are the problem.