Theoretical Model Explaining Dark Matter and Dark Energy

reply to post by will2learn

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

I didn't comment on that because it didn't make sense to me. The only reason space has the property of expansion is because it is supposed to be filled with this mysterious dark energy. What my theory does is provide a precise explanation for what dark energy actually is. Instead of calling it dark energy we call it negative energy (which in some sense is the same thing) and we say that only exists in negative 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.

Perhaps you should read the read the opening post again because you don't seem to fully grasp it. Pay close attention to the first image. The negative energy causes the expansion (not dark matter) and it is spread out evenly between all the galaxies. It's the even distribution of that negative energy which makes it seem like the universe is accelerating from our frame of reference, because any object twice as far away as another object will have twice as much negative energy between it and us, thus the further away an object is, the quicker it will seem to be expanding. The only place where space doesn't seem to expand it inside our galaxies, and that is one of the places where we don't find much negative energy because it is repelled by our galaxies as shown in the diagram.

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.

Scientists have been trying for a long time to show that the vacuum energy is responsible for the expansion of space. The problem is that if you actually calculate how much vacuum energy there should be and how much expansion it should cause, there is a huge discrepancy between the result of that calculation and what we actually observe in the real world. That is why this is one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics, there is simply far too much vacuum energy. That's we need this huge but opposite term to cancel out the vacuum energy. But this new term must not entirely cancel out the dark energy, it must leave the amount we were looking for to account for the correct rate of expansion which we measure.

A major outstanding problem is that most quantum field theories predict a huge cosmological constant from the energy of the quantum vacuum, more than 100 orders of magnitude too large.[3] This would need to be cancelled almost, but not exactly, by an equally large term of the opposite sign.

Dark Energy

What my theory says is that overall the vacuum energy has no affect on space because they are canceled out by negative vacuum fluctuations in negative space. What actually causes the expansion of space between the galaxies is what I was just talking about, the negative energy. Now I haven't actually done any calculations to prove this all holds together so I would interested to see the results if anyone tries to do that.

I am sure you would agree that a theory that introduces less is preferable to one that adds new as yet unidentified quantities.

I can understand why you may feel that having a new negative space is undesirable but keep in mind that theories such as string theory require close to a dozen new hidden dimensions in order for them work properly. The main reason for having negative space is to allow the existence of negative energy without allowing it to interact with normal energy. The whole goal of negative energy is really to provide a mechanism for explaining how energy can come from nothing, that to me is the most important thing. Any theory of physics which cannot explain where the energy came from is clearly incomplete.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Chaotic

I didn't comment on that (space being anti-matter) because it didn't make sense to me. The only reason space has the property of expansion is because it is supposed to be filled with this mysterious dark energy. What my theory does is provide a precise explanation for what dark energy actually is. Instead of calling it dark energy we call it negative energy (which in some sense is the same thing) and we say that only exists in negative space.

Space has the property of antimatter, because it reduces the effect of mass (and charge and magnetic force). If you have one kg of mass in a cubic meter it has x attractive force, if its in 10 cubic meters the force is less. The same can be said for charge and any other force, its already embodied in the inverse square laws of force.
You rightly point out that currently anti-matter is just oppositely charged particles like the positron and the things like atoms that can be made with them. It says nothing about anti mass, which is what you are trying to get at with -ve space and -ve mass. Space already balances the mass imo and we agree mass/energy can be extracted from space without invoking -ve space or mass.

Perhaps you should read the read the opening post again because you don't seem to fully grasp it. Pay close attention to the first image. The negative energy causes the expansion (not dark matter) and it is spread out evenly between all the galaxies. It's the even distribution of that negative energy which makes it seem like the universe is accelerating from our frame of reference, because any object twice as far away as another object will have twice as much negative energy between it and us, thus the further away an object is, the quicker it will seem to be expanding. The only place where space doesn't seem to expand it inside our galaxies, and that is one of the places where we don't find much negative energy because it is repelled by our galaxies as shown in the diagram.

Any object twice as far away will have twice as much space between it. If expansion is an intrinsic property of space there is again no need to invoke -ve mass/energy.It will also have twice as many QM fluctuations which imo are the cause of the inflation. We know of space, QM fluctuationsm and expansion, it does not need further entities introduced. Afaik no one has invoke -ve mass/energy to explain QM flcutuations, but its possible I guess.

Scientists have been trying for a long time to show that the vacuum energy is responsible for the expansion of space. The problem is that if you actually calculate how much vacuum energy there should be and how much expansion it should cause, there is a huge discrepancy between the result of that calculation and what we actually observe in the real world. That is why this is one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics, there is simply far too much vacuum energy. That's we need this huge but opposite term to cancel out the vacuum energy. But this new term must not entirely cancel out the dark energy, it must leave the amount we were looking for to account for the correct rate of expansion which we measure.

That is interesting, I did not know there were calcs to that effect. I don't even know how they would guess how much energy it would take to inflate space tbh. I guess its linked to the reverse of the amount of mass needed to compress it. I don't personally think it takes energy to inflate space, I think it happens as a result of the space being converted to fundamental particles with the inherent quality of mass.
you can hardly criticize the physicists for their calculation failing when you've not done them yourself, tho I appreciate the complexity and effort required to form them. you may find you also have to little energy to expand the space, we will never know until the equations are formalized. Fortunately quantum foam to mass conversions are essentially geometric transforms which are a little easier to fathom.

What my theory says is that overall the vacuum energy has no affect on space because they are canceled out by negative vacuum fluctuations in negative space. What actually causes the expansion of space between the galaxies is what I was just talking about, the negative energy. Now I haven't actually done any calculations to prove this all holds together so I would interested to see the results if anyone tries to do that.

I agree on that point, the vacuum energy would have no effect on space (well until converted to mass). If it did affect space, we would be living in a very different universe, a rather floppy one

I can understand why you may feel that having a new negative space is undesirable but keep in mind that theories such as string theory require close to a dozen new hidden dimensions in order for them work properly. The main reason for having negative space is to allow the existence of negative energy without allowing it to interact with normal energy. The whole goal of negative energy is really to provide a mechanism for explaining how energy can come from nothing, that to me is the most important thing. Any theory of physics which cannot explain where the energy came from is clearly incomplete.

I am not a fan of string theory or any of its subsequent even more complex spin offs. I have watched it move to the center of thought and away with little to no product over two decades. Its successes are weak. All they seem to have succeeded in doing with string theory is tying physicists in knots.
I think most scientist think there will be an elegant simplicity to solving the problem of mass and ultimately unifying the forces. String, super string, M-string etc seem to go in the opposite direction. Imo its just a framework for holding the math together and the incomplete theory forces them to introduce other dimensions (which excites the alt crowds) and variables that have little to no bearing on any physical entity. Just my opinion.

Will

ImaFungi
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.

Ima

since black holes compress the space around them, they would be doing exactly the opposite of adding to the expansion of space. Though the observations and measurements might look similar.

I suspect the rate of expansion will be linked to some fundamental relationship at some point.

As for waiting for a planet to fluctuate into nothingness, don't hold your breath The QM fluctuations that generate particles have been observed at the sub atomic scale, but are unlikely ever to be seen on the macro scale. They can be induced with high voltage plates placed very close together.

Will

ChaoticOrder
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

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.

Please refresh my memory, you could have done so instead of writing what you did here. Why cant the small particles hit the slit at angles like the larger ones? And when there are 2 slits open, which way is the particle firer aimed?

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.

Im sorry but thats a logical fallacy.

We are not able to simultaneously measure the position and momentum of an object.
Therefore the object does not have a specific position or momentum.
When we observe it the object then has a specific momentum or position?

This is just terrible thinking. You are admitting we cant know information about a particle, and then with that admitted ignorance, saying in reality, objectively, the universe, the particles, do not contain that information, because we dont know it, they dont know it, because we dont know it, because they dont know it, because we dont know it, because they dont know it. You are assuming the particle does not have position and momentum in reality ONLY because of the uncertainty of our ability to measure it. This says nothing about the reality of the situation. ONLY our abilty to know reality. This says nothing about the true reality of whether or not particles have position and momentum. THIS ONLY is about our ability to know an aspect of reality. WE know we can only know limited aspects of reality, because when we measure we interfere with reality. It is a stupid assumption to say that reality has no aspects, because we cant measure them, because when we interfere with reality, we cant measure an aspect, there for it has no aspects. This is stupid.

reply to post by will2learn

Any object twice as far away will have twice as much space between it. If expansion is an intrinsic property of space there is again no need to invoke -ve mass/energy.

Of course there is no need to invoke negative space or negative energy if you want to believe that dark energy is an intrinsic vacuum energy. But then you also need to invoke an equally large but opposite form of energy to explain why all that vacuum energy doesn't cause space to expand rapidly, and that is a very hard thing to do without something like negative space. The whole point of this theory is to explain the accelerated expansion and dark energy in a more satisfying manner, in a way that makes full sense and leaves no unsolved mysteries.

I don't even know how they would guess how much energy it would take to inflate space tbh.

They do not "guess", there are equations by Einstein which allow us to calculate how space is warped by positive and negative energy. That is exactly why it's possible to mathematically model the warp drive. The only problem, as I mentioned, is getting negative energy. And if you're wondering why positive vacuum energy is supposed to expand space, well I'm a bit confused about that too. A good answer to that question can be found here on stackexchange. Apparently it has something to do with the density of the vacuum energy but it's a bit over my head.

I am not a fan of string theory or any of its subsequent even more complex spin offs.

I am not a fan of string theory either, I prefer loop quantum gravity precisely because it doesn't require extra dimensions and it's built on a very simple foundation. The point I was making is that having negative space is still much simpler than having many new dimensions like in string theory.

reply to post by ImaFungi

Why cant the small particles hit the slit at angles like the larger ones?

I considered writing several paragraphs on the multiple reasons we know that particles can act as waves and travel through both slits at the same time, but then I realized I'd just be wasting my time. I'm not going to argue what are commonly accepted facts. If you really want to understand wave-particle duality and how the conscious observer ties into reality then look up experiments such as the delayed choice quantum eraser.

You are admitting we cant know information about a particle, and then with that admitted ignorance, saying in reality, objectively, the universe, the particles, do not contain that information, because we dont know it, they dont know it, because we dont know it

I wouldn't interpret it like that. My view would be that the natural state of matter is to exist as a probabilistic wave function until we observe it. We can know if we look, it's just not determined until we look. So it exists as a wave until we look... that is why if you attempt to observe which slit the particle actually goes through in the double-slit experiment, the particle will go back to behaving like a normal particle, but if you don't look it acts like a wave. But that wave still has some sort of position, because it obviously travelled from the firing mechanism and went through the slits as a wave. The particle still exists in space and has some sort of position, it's just that the position is very ill defined, literally. If you look at the way electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom it's nothing like the way our planets orbit around the sun. It's better described as a wave, to the point where spherical harmonics can be used to calculate the shape of the waveforms. At the heart of reality nothing is really "real" in the way you desire it to be.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


I didnt ask for multiple paragraphs... give me one reason why the small particles cant hit the slit at angles like the larger ones?

That excuse, "I was going to tell you and prove you wrong, but I dont even feel like it because your wrong because your so wrong I cant even tell you why because I know your wrong" does not work in your favor, it just makes it seem like you dont know what you are talking about, and dont know how to simply answer my question and prove me wrong.

ChaoticOrder

I wouldn't interpret it like that. My view would be that the natural state of matter is to exist as a probabilistic wave function until we observe it.

Why would you have that view. How would you know how the natural state of matter exists? What evidence do you have that the natural state of matter is a probabilistic wave function (what does that mean exactly anyway, what is the probabilistic aspect of the term?)?

If you look at the way electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom it's nothing like the way our planets orbit around the sun.

Ive never had the privledge to look at the way electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom, what did you see when you looked at them?

It's better described as a wave, to the point where spherical harmonics can be used to calculate the shape of the waveforms. At the heart of reality nothing is really "real" in the way you desire it to be.

Oh imo waves are real, and waves exist. It would be way impressive if a wave existed that didnt exist. Which you are saying is the case. Also a wave existing that doesnt exist somewhere, also a very impressive display if illogicality.

reply to post by ImaFungi

I didnt ask for multiple paragraphs... give me one reason why the small particles cant hit the slit at angles like the larger ones?

And I didn't ask for a debate on the basics of quantum mechanics with someone who clears knows nothing about QM or is even willing to consider the implications of QM. In reality you might be able to come up with some elaborate scheme which creates the pattern by having the particles bounce off at angles, but many people have tried and failed to create such a mechanism which fits all observational evidence. The pattern which shows up on the board is clearly an interference pattern and it can be described precisely by the mathematics of waves. Like Susskind says, why would you attempt to create some stupid elaborate mechanism to explain the interference pattern when it's obviously explained by waves? There are countless other experiments besides the double-slit experiment which clearly show how particles can behave as waves. If you deny this very basic rule of particle-wave duality there is simply no hope to ever making you grasp QM.

What evidence do you have that the natural state of matter is a probabilistic wave function (what does that mean exactly anyway, what is the probabilistic aspect of the term?)?

Sigh... the evidence that particles behave like waves can be found in countless quantum mechanical experiments. The probabilistic aspect of the term is the reason why the universe doesn't define the exact position of a particle until we measure it. The natural state of the particle is to be spread out over space, and the probability of finding that particle in any given position in space can be calculated with QM. It is a truly random aspect of reality, we absolutely cannot predict some behavior of particles, such as particle decay for example. The way particles decay follow the probabilistic rules of QM. Regardless of how much you know about that particle, its age, its makeup, its position and its momentum, you can never predict with 100% accuracy exactly when the particle will decay. And that is the very core reason for why reality is not deterministic, the outcome of quantum mechanical events are never entirely predictable, and that includes the position of a particle as it moves through space.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

Of course there is no need to invoke negative space or negative energy if you want to believe that dark energy is an intrinsic vacuum energy. But then you also need to invoke an equally large but opposite form of energy to explain why all that vacuum energy doesn't cause space to expand rapidly, and that is a very hard thing to do without something like negative space. The whole point of this theory is to explain the accelerated expansion and dark energy in a more satisfying manner, in a way that makes full sense and leaves no unsolved mysteries.

I don't know what Dark energy is, does anyone? I suspect it is related to the vacuum, but thats just because under the energy/matter from the vacuum all energy and matter is sourced there. Its not necessarily the reason for the expansion of space as my simple point about space expanding relatively evenly regardless of where the dark energy is, kind of proves.
I think the expansion occurs as a byproduct of the space to matter/energy conversion. Its a geometric thing, not requiring extra types of energy or space. Less is more.

I don't even know how they would guess how much energy it would take to inflate space tbh.

They do not "guess", there are equations by Einstein which allow us to calculate how space is warped by positive and negative energy. That is exactly why it's possible to mathematically model the warp drive. The only problem, as I mentioned, is getting negative energy. And if you're wondering why positive vacuum energy is supposed to expand space, well I'm a bit confused about that too. A good answer to that question can be found here on stackexchange. Apparently it has something to do with the density of the vacuum energy but it's a bit over my head.

My quote is out of context, on the next line I guessed pretty much the same as you are saying, good to agree.

I am trying to think of an energy form that has an impact on space, apart from mass I am drawing a blank. So we might be agreeing here too. Mass is the only thing that squeezes space so it might follow from logic that the formation of the fundamental building blocks of matter might have a hand in its expansion.

I am not a fan of string theory either, I prefer loop quantum gravity precisely because it doesn't require extra dimensions and it's built on a very simple foundation. The point I was making is that having negative space is still much simpler than having many new dimensions like in string theory.

Glad we agree on the Strings, loop quantum gravity (?) doesn't require extra dimensions sounds great to me. It seems closely linked to the quantum foam ideas, but I will read a little more on it.

Will

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Ok then, when you are dealing with EM radiation, particles dont exist. The term particle refers to ' one created wave'. If the EM field is a medium, in which when a charged particle is accelerated, this medium vibrates/waves according to the physical circumstances of the particles acceleration and momentum, how is it explained that this field exists as an energetic medium? how does it behave like a field of liquid, yet have no components like liquid?

For me to understand easier, I can accept the answer to this question; If instead of a wall or screen behind the double slits, have 2 (separated by some distance) radio antennae (experiment done in vacuum)(each antenna lined up behind a slit), also inside the experiment there being no way for the projected particle of radio wave to be deflected and bounce around after received by either or both antennas. And so a device which fires the most minor, quickest, shortest, particle like burst of radio signal, just one (in these experiments where is the firing device aiming, in between both slits?). And according to your interpretation of quantum theory and the experiments, what would be the results of this; the point is, you are saying at least some times, both antennas will detect the radio burst, and this proves that EM phenomenon is a wave.

Ok that is totally fine then, I just dont agree that it has anything to do with particles then. Only in the sense of discreteness and mathematical incrementation in reality. Vibrate an electron once, even though this creates a wave in the em field, 1 of those waves is called a particle, this is the semantics of it that bothers of me. Because vibrate that electron multiple times, and now its a wave function related to how you vibrated it, and all the peaks of this wave are 'separate' particles. Vibrate that same electron with twice the velocity and now its a photon/wave with higher energy. I understand then if that is the way reality is. Now whats left to understand is the nature of EM fields. How they exist in reality, what they are made of, how it is coupled to itself, how waves are possible in it. etc.

reply to post by ImaFungi


The double-slit experiment applies just as well to electrons as it does to photons. We can even observe superposition in macroscopic objects under very controlled conditions. The strange effects of QM simply fade away as you move into large scales because you're dealing with a large group of smaller quantum mechanical objects.

Vibrate an electron once, even though this creates a wave in the em field, 1 of those waves is called a particle, this is the semantics of it that bothers of me. Because vibrate that electron multiple times, and now its a wave function related to how you vibrated it, and all the peaks of this wave are 'separate' particles.

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. If you vibrate an electron it will produce an EM wave, which you can also describe as photon particles, but photons are really just quantized wave-packets. Vibrating the electron multiple times has nothing to do with the wave function of the electron. The electron exists as a wave function when it is not being observed, the peaks in the wave describe the areas where you are most likely to find the electron if you look. Each peak does not correspond to a separate particle because the electron truly has no exact position until we measure it, it's more like the position of that single electron is smeared out over space and it no longer moves like a single particle, it moves through space like a wave.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


So the electron field is intimately coupled to the EM field, and EM radiation is a rippling of the EM field caused by an electron which is a ripple in the electron field. And quarks have charge like the electron field, but are they coupled to the EM field?

ImaFungi
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

So the electron field is intimately coupled to the EM field, and EM radiation is a rippling of the EM field caused by an electron which is a ripple in the electron field.

If you want to believe that every particle is the result of an underlying field then yes. I'm not really sure if I like the idea that every particle has its own field and is caused by a ripple in that field but it is becoming a popular theory, especially with the apparent discovery of the Higgs boson, which is supposed to be caused by a ripple in the Higgs field.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Well that is the basis of the standard model and quantum 'field' theory.

ImaFungi
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

Well that is the basis of the standard model and quantum 'field' theory.

Yes I know but it still doesn't make perfect sense to me. All these particle fields must have a certain energy which needs to be accounted for, and it's not clear why we have this exact set of particle fields and not a different set of particle fields. As I've said, I prefer to view particles through the lense of loop quantum gravity and similar theories which describe particles as braids of quantized space time. Because then we can unify everything into one underlying substance; space-time. And from there we can develop "emergent quantum geometry" which explains why we have the particles that we have and not some other particles, and where the energy for those particles comes from.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


And in that theory quantized space time is not a field?

ImaFungi
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

And in that theory quantized space time is not a field?

It could be considered a field in some sense but it's the only field, in which all energy and particles exists. Particles are the equivalent of "ripples" or "braids" in the fabric of space-time, different types of braids produce different types of particles. So it is very similar to the standard idea of particle fields but it only has a single field, which is space-time its self.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


And what about Em radiation? And electric and magnetic phenomenon? And gravity? And no higgs field?

ImaFungi
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

And what about Em radiation? And electric and magnetic phenomenon? And gravity? And no higgs field?

Well this is where things get beyond my level of knowledge, as I said earlier I'm not an expert on particle physics. I'm just using the basic assumption that all energy and particles are caused by the warping of space-time. But based on what I do know, the charge of certain particles can be described by the number of twists in the braids and the way they interact with each other has to do with their shape. And there is a reason it's called loop quantum gravity, the force of gravity naturally arises from the geometry of the theory. There are also some versions of loop quantum gravity capable of explaining photons and bosons. And if the bosons can be described in this fashion then I don't believe there is any need for the Higgs field.

The simplest braid possible in Bilson-Thompson's model looks like a deformed pretzel and corresponds to an electron neutrino (see Graphic). Flip it over in a mirror and you have its antimatter counterpart, the electron anti-neutrino. Add three clockwise twists and you have something that behaves just like an electron; three anticlockwise twists and you have a positron. Bilson-Thompson's model also produces photons and the W and Z bosons, the particles that carry the electromagnetic and weak forces. In fact, these braided ribbons seem to map out the entire zoo of particles in the standard model.

Dreadlocks in Space