APOD and General Astronomy Discussion Forum
https://asterisk.apod.com/
I was just trying to surmise that dark matter could be the non-interacting “space-holder” that gravity could give its electro-magnetic properties to resulting in the photon.geckzilla wrote:You know, I don't know that much about quantum physics but the feeble understanding I do have is reacting strongly and telling me that idea makes zero sense. Possibly less than zero sense.What are you trying to say, Ron?
I think that’s why we could justify the need for a non-interacting “space-holder” in current theory.Chris Peterson wrote:The energy carrier of all electromagnetic radiation is the photon. It is a well understood particle. While many physicists would like to reconcile gravity with the other forces, no such unified theory has yet been described. There appears no reason to link light with dark matter in any way. Indeed, the primary defining characteristic of dark matter appears to be its lack of interaction with the electromagnetic force.Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:Is it possible that dark matter interacts in our universe gravitationally as the electro-magnetic wave phenomena we call light?
I don't see how your conclusion follows from my comments. In fact, nothing in current theory requires a "space-holder". You are perhaps proposing a new hypothesis, but you need to show how it improves upon existing theory.Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:I think that’s why we could justify the need for a non-interacting “space-holder” in current theory.Chris Peterson wrote:The energy carrier of all electromagnetic radiation is the photon. It is a well understood particle. While many physicists would like to reconcile gravity with the other forces, no such unified theory has yet been described. There appears no reason to link light with dark matter in any way. Indeed, the primary defining characteristic of dark matter appears to be its lack of interaction with the electromagnetic force.
What makes this "odd"? (And it's not really true; neutrinos don't fail to interact with most matter because they "travel singly", whatever that means, but because they carry no electrical charge. Electrons don't exist in pairs, except in a limited sense inside of atoms, and there only as a consequence of their spin.)Does anyone else find it odd that a neutrino exists singly (goes straight through most matter), electrons in pairs* (only two per shell; each with opposite spin) and baryonic quarks in groups of three (bound tightly forming ordinary matter)?
As long as I was attempting to make up a new hypothesis - why not a new word? I meant single-ly (as a single unit). I thought neutrinos mostly traveled from their origination along a straight line. Their properties and history are quite interesting and I discuss them only with a very limited knowledge. I do know they are capable of interacting but in comparison to other matter, they do so rarely. I was just describing them in a way to make the point their usual domain is as traveling along a single dimension most of the time. Relatively speaking.travel singly", whatever that means
You mean like electrons generally travel in free space?Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:As long as I was attempting to make up a new hypothesis - why not a new word? I meant single-ly (as a single unit). I thought neutrinos mostly traveled from their origination along a straight line.
I'm pretty sure that he best way to describe the path of a neutrino- or any other particle- is in four dimensions... all of the time.I was just describing them in a way to make the point their usual domain is as traveling along a single dimension most of the time. Relatively speaking.
What is contradictory? Current theory suggests that space is acted upon by two "forces", gravity and dark energy. Gravity is attractive and its effects diminish with increasing distance. Dark energy is repulsive, and its effects increase with increasing distance. The Universe is seen as exhibiting a primary expansion that isn't driven by any force, but is simply the result of the Big Bang and inflation. This "passively" expanding universe is then modified by the effects of gravity and dark energy.Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:Another thing that appears contradictory about space is that over large distances it is expanding but not on smaller scales. It seems that something about it must be fundamentally different. Is it the range of gravity? That point must be some sort of anti-event horizon.
Dark energy is not fueled by inflation. (And it's the universe that is expanding, not dark energy.) Inflation is happening, and would have stopped eventually (or so cosmologists thought.) Then, under the influence of gravity, the universe would have shrunk back down to nothing, more or less. But once we humans had acquired the ability to see things that suggested the universe was not only expanding but that this expansion was accelerating, an explanation for this peculiar observation was required, and it was called Dark Energy. More than that, proponent knoweth not.Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:I could not conceive of why dark energy, fueled by inflation, would continue to expand at an increasing rate.
Yup, apparently.Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:As the range of the electro-magnetic and gravitation force is infinite, wouldn't their contribution would be negligible at a great distance and dark energy would effectively be a constant?
Not a million dollar question. Much cheaper, in fact. Energy applied at a constant rate causes acceleration. Basic physics. Why it's being applied at all is the real question.Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:The million dollar question – why the continuous increasing rate of expansion?
I hope you didn't take that pamphlet seriously. The author is widely regarded as a crackpot. He is particularly well known for his "Pi=4 Theory".As for my previous question on dark matter as photons…
http://milesmathis.com/massless.pdf
I'm not sure if this is what you meant to say. Dark energy is not expanding, and is not fueled by inflation. Dark energy manifests itself as a repulsive force that operates only over large distances, and is responsible for the observed increase in the expansion rate of the Universe that has been present for the last few billion years.Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:I could not conceive of why dark energy, fueled by inflation, would continue to expand at an increasing rate.
The range of the effect of dark energy is also infinite... or perhaps, infinitesimal would be a better word. It's just that the actual "force" created by dark energy is very small over short distances, making the effects of gravity dominant. The effects of gravity are very small over large distances, making dark energy dominant. There's no place with no effect.I was viewing it in light of two of the forces – an effect over a given distance; then no effect. As the range of the electro-magnetic and gravitation force is infinite, wouldn't their contribution would be negligible at a great distance and dark energy would effectively be a constant?
Dark energy is what causes the rate of expansion to increase. That's the "fuel". It isn't treated as energy for nothing.The million dollar question – why the continuous increasing rate of expansion? It would seem logical that something has to be consumed to fuel expansion/give rise to an inflation that “kept on going.”
If you want to learn useful science, avoid the writings of pseudoscientists and Internet crackpots. If you want your own ideas taken seriously, avoid quoting them or linking their sites.As for my previous question on dark matter as photons…
http://milesmathis.com/massless.pdf
I can rest assured that the idea has been properly entertained by mass media and others.