Theoretical Model Explaining Dark Matter and Dark Energy

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Chaotic

A couple of questions;

I fully agree with the distinction you make between antimatter and its lack of a negative mass, it might be a route to balance out the equations. However have you asked what would negative mass look like and what would its properties be? Creating a whole new negative space is a bit redundant when we have space itself.
Negative mass would reduce the effect of mass, well thats pretty much what space does. The more of it you have the less of an effect the mass has. This also applies to electrical charge and magnetic forces. Its already entwined in the laws of force.

You mention QM fluctuations and then 'all energy was created during the big bang'. whats stopping QM fluctuations all the time, thus adding to the energy and ultimately mass all the time. Its a contradiction, especially when they are known to occur now.

If space itself is expanding or inflating then don't you have the same affect as negative matter or space? I've no idea why it would be expanding tbh.

I guess the million dollar q. is what is dark matter? There are plenty of possibilities between the basic building blocks of matter and the creation of negative space, but -ve space is as good a thought as any. For what its worht, I think its depleted regions of space that has been converted via QM fluctuations into the building blocks. That might be what you consider negative space, but it does not have to have -ve dimensions.

As NorEaster says, how do you show the existence of -ve space. you can't measure it?

Interesting approach all the same

Will

ChaoticOrder
No anti-matter is not negative matter because anti-matter doesn't have a negative mass and it exerts a normal gravitational pull

I support this claim. This is confirmed by my model as well.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


I dont know why I ever even slightly did after receiving similar sensations of your simple mindedness but now I will be sure not to take one of your childish thoughts seriously again. If there was one word that expressed the quality of one thinking they are smarter then they really are, and being so much less smart then they think they are, that they cannot even grasp how not smart they are, I would send that word to you instead of this reply. I know it seems like I am offended or something but I really am not, just wanted to express your lack of intelligence as the last thing I say to you, so maybe if even for a moment you will question your easily excreted ideas before you except them as ultimate truths.

ImaFungi
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

I dont know why I ever even slightly did after receiving similar sensations of your simple mindedness but now I will be sure not to take one of your childish thoughts seriously again.

Woah, Imafungi, I'm sure Chaos didn't mean any harm. I think that he/she is refering to the fact that according to Quantum model, the Uncertainty principle introduce a level or "graininess" in the universe - meaning, empty space itself can have virtual energy. In fact this "quantum jitter" (as it is called) is a candidate for Dark Energy. In a sense, according to QM, nothingness can create "something". Chaos is not simple minded, he/she actually follows the book.

Don't forget Einstein too was against quantum model. As for me, I'm not sure. QM does show promises... but I agree with Einstein on certain points too.

reply to post by swanne

Chaos is not simple minded, he/she actually follows the book.

Correct. With respect to what I am saying about quantum fluctuations, I'm not saying anything controversial at all. Many prominent scientists believe that quantum fluctuations created the energy of the big bang. ImaFungi just likes popping into every single thread which promotes the idea that energy can be created from quantum fluctuations and he/she shoots them down, acting like it's a crazy idea to think that energy can come from nothing, when in fact what is even crazier is believing that the energy has always been here like he/she apparently proclaims to believe.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

Many prominent scientists believe that quantum fluctuations created the energy of the big bang.

That's right. The thing is, we can't know for sure, since we can't observe spacetime matter past a limit. So maybe virtual energy do exist. After all, a gravitational field itself can never reach absolute zero.

ImaFungi just likes popping into every single thread which promotes the idea that energy can be created from quantum fluctuations and he shoots them down

Well... I know ImaFungi and he's actually very devoted at finding out the truth. As I said, some find QM illogical, some don't.

I say, let's consider both possibilities equally possible, until we know better... that way we can't ever be wrong!

reply to post by will2learn

However have you asked what would negative mass look like and what would its properties be? Creating a whole new negative space is a bit redundant when we have space itself.

The reason I chose to create a whole new negative space will become clearer if you read before the big bang. It's really based on the principles of loop quantum gravity, the theory assumes that all energy is created by the stretching of space-time. But it goes a step further than LQG and says that the fabric of space-time can also stretch into "negative dimension" and that is how negative energy is created, and that is why we are unable to directly detect any negative energy within our own dimension.

Keep in mind that dark energy is a negative energy though, because it exerts a negative pressure on space and causes it to expand. However we can only infer the existence of dark energy because we can see that the space between the galaxies is expanding, but we can't detect any type of negative particles which make up the dark energy field. Nor can we actually detect dark matter particles, we can only infer the existence of dark matter by observing the large amount of hidden mass around galaxies. My theory explains why that is the case.

You mention QM fluctuations and then 'all energy was created during the big bang'. whats stopping QM fluctuations all the time, thus adding to the energy and ultimately mass all the time. Its a contradiction, especially when they are known to occur now.

Again, I would recommend reading before the big bang, a possible mechanism is explained in some detail within that thread. However it should be noted that quantum fluctuations do happen all the time, that is what causes vacuum energy to exist. What you need to take into account is how likely some types of fluctuations are compared to others.

reply to post by swanne


quantum jitter or fluctuations, is not nothing. It is something. Also there is a 'reason' why they are jittering, that reason is energy. Energy is not nothing. If nothing existed, energy would not exist. Energy exists. Nothing cannot turn into energy. Energy cannot turn into nothing.

ImaFungi
reply to post by swanne

 

quantum jitter or fluctuations, is not nothing. It is something. Also there is a 'reason' why they are jittering, that reason is energy. Energy is not nothing. If nothing existed, energy would not exist. Energy exists. Nothing cannot turn into energy. Energy cannot turn into nothing.

Hm, good point. But energy has indeed no mass... if one would only perceive mass, one would assume energy was indeed nothing.

Let's imagine two planets, with, in-between, a perfect vacuum. Gravitons (carriers of gravitational force) would still travel through this space, even though this space is by definition empty.

Thus nothingness can indeed be populated with energy.

Also, If a minimal Planck Length exists (to resolve Zeno's Paradox), then it would mean space itself has a frequency. Thus, energy...

Nothingness would be something!!

Weird, I agree. But a guy (was it Asimov? Can't remember) once said that science is even weirder than fiction...

reply to post by will2learn


But speaking of vacuum energy you have reminded me of something important which I originally meant to include in the opening post. Another one of the huge unsolved problems in physics is why doesn't the vacuum energy cause a dramatic expansion of space as we would expect. The answer to this problem is that vacuum fluctuations are not just creating energy in our own dimension, there are also negative fluctuations happening in negative space in virtually identical quantities, and they cancel each other out. Physicists are trying to find this huge opposite term to cancel out the vacuum energy but they just can't seem to find a way to cancel it out so the vast majority of physicists just ignore the problem of vacuum energy or they weed it out of their equations with renormalization.

ImaFungi
reply to post by swanne

 

quantum jitter or fluctuations, is not nothing. It is something. Also there is a 'reason' why they are jittering, that reason is energy. Energy is not nothing. If nothing existed, energy would not exist. Energy exists. Nothing cannot turn into energy. Energy cannot turn into nothing.

Quantum fluctuations are only "something" during the time the energy of the jitter is in existence. But the energy only exists for an extremely small period of time. According to the rules of thermodynamics, the energy must disappear back into the vacuum very shortly after it appears, whether you believe the jitter is made up of virtual particles or something else that is always true. The vacuum energy is not actually like little vibrating bits of energy with a consistent position, they randomly appear and disappear all over the place. And the core rules of quantum mechanics tell us that we cannot predict where they will appear, and those same rules also tell us that they are appearing because the vacuum its self is subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

In other words, even the fabric of the vacuum is subject to the randomness of quantum mechanics and it will not stay at the zero energy level, hence we get zero-point-energy/vacuum energy. And we don't get it because the vacuum is vibrating with an energy, we get it because the energy of the vacuum is uncertain, and the smaller you go, the more apparent it becomes. According to the rules of quantum mechanics it perfectly fine for vacuum energy to pop out of no where. That's the same reason why it's perfectly fine for a small particles to quantum tunnel through solid objects without actually travelling through them, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle rules over everything. What you are saying essentially leads one to have a deterministic outlook on reality, which is clearly false.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


I have a deterministic out look on reality for everything that exists besides that which can be considered conscious. You are mistaking models and principles created by man for reality itself. That would be like a caveman refusing to believe rocks and trees and rivers existed until they were given names. You are using the information gathered by man, such that man is uncertain of a particles qualities, and stating that therefore the universe is uncertain of itself. Every minute detail obeys cause and affect according to its physical characteristic and according to law. If we view particles popping in and out of existence, then something caused them to do that. We dont know what that something is? Does that mean it is logical to conclude that the blank space of our knowledge in regards to the cause of why particles pop in and out of existence is an actual physical blank space? I dont think so. I could take your point of view, so easily, it would be so easy to agree with you, but whats the point of that when my logic and reason and rational disagree with your conclusions and thoughts, and I have doubts of the validity of your statements. 2 replies ago I asked you some questions and you refused to detail answers, if you cant explain how your theory would even be theoretically or hypothetically possible, how could your theory be theoretically or hypothetically or realistically possible? How can it be anything other then a simple spur of the moment thought, that was not followed up with a thought through.

reply to post by ImaFungi

You are using the information gathered by man, such that man is uncertain of a particles qualities, and stating that therefore the universe is uncertain of itself.

What you don't seem to understand is that QM does not imply our ability to measure something is imprecise, it explicitly states that the thing we are trying to measure is in fact imprecise until the moment we actually measure it. That's why particles behave like waves until we actually observe them, and then they go back to acting like normal particles. The very mathematics used in quantum mechanics tells us that indeed the universe is uncertain of itself until we check to see what it is actually doing. And that of course is an extremely strange thing to wrap you head around, but that is why QM is so strange and controversial.

How can it be anything other then a simple spur of the moment thought, that was not followed up with a thought through.

Don't all ideas start as spur of the moment thoughts? Like I said in the opening post, I've been sitting on this idea for quite some time and mulling it over in my head, putting all the pieces together and making sure it seems to hold up to logic. So far I have explained at least 5 or 6 different unsolved problems in physics using this theory, and I've done so using concept and logic that even a child could understand. If that isn't at least slightly impressive than I don't know what is. I thought a theory like this would be more appreciated on ATS but now I'm coming to regret my posting it here. If you can point out the flaws in my idea with consistent logic then I will listen, but you need something more than "energy cannot come from nothing". Try finding other flaws in the idea.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


That is not what the uncertainty principle implies. "In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously. For instance, the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa". This is only a statement about our ability to measure and interfere with nature in the process of measurement, and our subsequent uncertainty of the details of physical properties of that particle such as momentum or location.

Your argument that something can come from nothing is eternally automatically wrong. Good look getting more simpleminded people to fall in the trap you feel so cozy inhabiting.

ChaoticOrder
If you can point out the flaws in my idea with consistent logic then I will listen, but you need something more than "energy cannot come from nothing". Try finding other flaws in the idea.

edit on 3/10/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

I already did by asking multiple questions you ignored, refused to answer, or could not answer because your theory is illogical, impossible, nonsensical, a shadow of already excepted theories but with an impossible, unexplainable and fathomable fantasy like twist.

reply to post by ImaFungi


I would suggest that you actually watch some proper lectures on quantum mechanics so that you can actually understand what it implies. Although the following video isn't a proper university lecture, but it does get into the details of why the universe is unsure of its self until we make an observation:

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Im only 6 minutes in, where it is discussing why the smaller balls in order to create a wave pattern when shot 1 at a time must go through both holes, and I must ask; If the larger balls could be explained having a sprayed affect on the wall by bouncing off the holes at angles, why could this not be the reason the smaller balls 1 at a time have a similar pattern? I will continue watching, and yes I have seen quite a few lectures on quantum mechanics and modern cosmology, mainly Leonard Susskind lectures on Stanford youtube channel.

oh and a little before 12 mins. they disprove your understanding of what the uncertainty principle means.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Chaotic

you did not comment on the idea that space itself has the same properties as anti-mass rather than -ve space?

The space between the galaxies is expanding, but its expanding everywhere, not just where the dark matter is. Isn't it just a property of space itself, as opposed to space - dark matter interactions. If it wasn't some places would not be expanding and others would.

QM fluctuations are bound to some BB models, but I suspect they just tied them to it to provide a starting event to the BB paradigm. It does not confirm the BB, its more of a damp squib. The fact QM fluctuations happens all the time (regardless of likelihood, there's a lot of space) suggests mass and energy are constantly created. The randomness of this would explain the distribution of matter in the universe as opposed to the centered model, tho it is obvious things exploded all the time.

In your second response ' Another one of the huge unsolved problems in physics is why doesn't the vacuum energy cause a dramatic expansion of space as we would expect. The answer to this problem is that vacuum fluctuations are not just creating energy in our own dimension, there are also negative fluctuations happening in negative space in virtually identical quantities, and they cancel each other out. Physicists are trying to find this huge opposite term to cancel out the vacuum energy but they just can't seem to find a way to cancel it out so the vast majority of physicists just ignore the problem of vacuum energy or they weed it out of their equations with renormalization.'

The physicists may come to the conclusion that vacuum energy is causing the expansion of space. If space converts to matter geometrically its highly probable. Again no need to invoke -ve space. the fact that the vacuum energy is zero over great distances explains the relative consistency of space, excepting the matter. Vacuum energy s integral to space - matter conversion. It might also help with the expansion.

I am sure you would agree that a theory that introduces less is preferable to one that adds new as yet unidentified quantities. Quantum foam with a space - matter conversion element introduces no unknown entities unless the vacuum energy is though unknown. It points to an ether model, which I guess is a big problem. You seem to be following the string theorists in introducing particle balancing acts, which whilst it seems to have worked for the fundamental building blocks. It does not seem to have worked in tying up the loose ends.

Will

reply to post by will2learn


I wonder if there is a proportion or correlation between the expansion and entropy. Or similar rates between supermassive black holes destroying structured matter, and the space between galaxies expanding. The more galaxies spin the more time passes, this is obvious but I would rather look for some pull and tug kind of give and take yin and yang relationship between the energy of expansion and some unknown total energy of the universe, rather then saying the universe has infinite amounts of energy at its disposal and can accelerating expand forever because (must be a reason why it expands at the exact rate it does...if there was no reason I would ask then why doesnt it expand 9999x faster and more, or 99999x less). I can use that same arguement for those that say there is no reason, material or energetic cause as to why particles or waves of energy fluctuate in and out of existence, I would say why just particles, why dont planets fluctuate in and out of existence? They would say, they do! The whole universe, all the planets fluctuated at the same time into existence for nothing. I would say, you are quite a foolish person, but anyway, if all the material and energetic contents of the universe were derived from an area of absolute nothing, why dont we experimentally verify this hypothesis by get a few different sections of nothing and either waiting and/or forcing a single planet out of that nothingness, if we are lucky maybe we can get 9999999999999999999999999999999999 planets like the universe did.

reply to post by ImaFungi

If the larger balls could be explained having a sprayed affect on the wall by bouncing off the holes at angles, why could this not be the reason the smaller balls 1 at a time have a similar pattern?

If you had really watched enough of Susskind's QM lectures you would know why it cannot fully be explained in that way. The double slit experiment isn't the only experiment which shows how a particle can also behave as a wave.

oh and a little before 12 mins. they disprove your understanding of what the uncertainty principle means.

How so? At 12:17 they say "not only are we not able to simultaneously measure the position and momentum of an object, the object does not even have a specific position or momentum until we observe it", which is exactly what I was saying. And then further in the video they expand on that concept of why the universe is unsure of its self until we make an observation. It's not just my damn understanding ok, what I am saying is the mainstream interpretation of QM. The mainstream explanation for vacuum energy is that it is caused by the uncertainty principle. Nothing at the quantum scale is truly certain until we measure it.