what's Dark Matter to you?

[J77]

But the light's not spiralling - your frame of reference is?



As far as I see, the universe could expand "straight outwards" on a global scale but local observers could see what they want???

 

[merlin wood]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that just because a photon travels much much much much faster? What would happen if you were comparing photons and rockets taking off from a stationary planet, out in the wilderness of intergalactic space, for instance?

What I was talkong about is what overall form would the very early universe take as it expands. And I considered that this would contain the entire mass of all the matter/energy in the cosmos concentrated in a very small volume.

Therefore, due to the inward pull its own gravity, all the contents of the cosmos could only move out spirally rather than more or less staight ou like photons travelling out from the Earth with its relatively very weak gravitational strength. This would mean that if the comos expanded at the speed of light its spiralling contents would actually be travelling at faster than the speed of light. But then, according to the proponents of cosmic inflation theory, such speeds are possible.

 

[Crispy]

What I was talkong about is what overall form would the very early universe take as it expands. And I considered that this would contain the entire mass of all the matter/energy in the cosmos concentrated in a very small volume.

Therefore, due to the inward pull its own gravity, all the contents of the cosmos could only move out spirally rather than more or less staight ou like photons travelling out from the Earth with its relatively very weak gravitational strength. This would mean that these contents would actually be travelling at faster than the speed of light. But then, according to the proponents of cosmic inflation theory, such speeds are possible.

Why does it have to spiral? I'm sorry, but unless there's some force perpendicular to the path of the particle, how could it possibly curve its trajectory? Gravity acts in line with any particle heading directly away from the center, therefore there is no 'sideways' force.

Besides, as mentioned upthread, you're talking about the expansion as if it was a bomb, spewing out all the matter of the universe into space. The theory goes that it's space itself that expanded. Ananlogies with orbits and rockets are pretty useless in this context.

 

[merlin wood]

Why does it have to spiral? I'm sorry, but unless there's some force perpendicular to the path of the particle, how could it possibly curve its trajectory? Gravity acts in line with any particle heading directly away from the center, therefore there is no 'sideways' force.

Besides, as mentioned upthread, you're talking about the expansion as if it was a bomb, spewing out all the matter of the universe into space. The theory goes that it's space itself that expanded. Ananlogies with orbits and rockets are pretty useless in this context.

You don't need a sideways force for objects to move sideways the attractiv force of gravity pulling the object produces the tendency for the object to move sideways..

Even if it's space itself expanding as the early universe expands, why should this prevent the paths of matter and energy particles spiralling as the cosmos expands?

 

[Crispy]

You don't need a sideways force for objects to move sideways the attractiv force of gravity pulling the object produces the tendency for the object to move sideways..

Now you've got me. How does a force acting in line with the vector of a particle change its direction?

Yes, if you 'aim' your particle off-center then you will get some force at an angle to the vector, but only by an insignificant amount while the angle is small. Anyway, given that the universe started at dimensions of 0 by 0 by 0 (by 0 by 0....) then how could you 'aim' in any direction apart from directly away from the center? All lines drawn from the center of a sphere intersect the surface at right angles.

 

[merlin wood]

Now you've got me. How does a force acting in line with the vector of a particle change its direction?

Yes, if you 'aim' your particle off-center then you will get some force at an angle to the vector, but only by an insignificant amount while the angle is small. Anyway, given that the universe started at dimensions of 0 by 0 by 0 (by 0 by 0....) then how could you 'aim' in any direction apart from directly away from the center? All lines drawn from the center of a sphere intersect the surface at right angles.

Well the fact is that a space vehical travelling at escape velocity does spiral out due to gravity without any sideways force needing to be exerted and thus so would a particle spiral out in the early cosmos due to the total gravitational force of the cosmos itself.

 

[Crispy]

Well the fact is that a space vehical travelling at escape velocity does spiral out due to gravity without any sideways force needing to be exerted and thus so would a particle spiral out in the early cosmos due to the total gravitational force of the cosmos itself.

That's because a rocket flies sideways! And why? Because it wants to get into orbit, where you need to build up lots of horizontal (relative to the surface of the earth) speed. Sheesh!

If you fly straight up at escape velocity from a non-rotating object then you continue to fly straight. Gravity does not bend your path. It can only slow you down (which, if you're going faster than EV, it will never quite manage)

See attached image for clarification. What is the mystery force (???) ?
Even if you remove Thrust, there is still no sideways motion. Now, if Thrust points in a different direction relative to Gravity, you move sideways. Seeing as you are standing on the surface of a sphere, it is easy to point Thrust at an angle to Gravity. However, If you are a singularity about to explode into being the universe, you can only travel directly away from the origin.

 

[J77]

Now we're getting somewhere

Crispy's spot-on - not even 60000 words can beat the might of Physics!

Of course, there is a Coriolis force but this force is "make-believe" - it's an apparent force generated due to the rotating body, in this case the Earth. The rocket will seem to bend due to a force, but will be moving in a straight line in inertial space.

 

[Crispy]

Now we're getting somewhere

Unfortunately, I'm not sure if we really are. I get the feeling that Merlin has this theory very well sorted out in his own head and can therefore happily ignore any testing or criticism. I would be very happy to be proved wrong, and get some more discussion going.

 

[J77]

If the explosion causes particles to deviate from a straight line.

If the 'core of the explosion' has enough potential to draw these particles back towards the explosion and therefore create a curved path.

I still don't see why this should be a spiral...

Unless this core is possibly rotating and the explosion wasn't instantaneous, in every direction...

But why would such a singularity as the 'big bang' choose a 'direction' in which to start and a 'rate' of continuous bangs?

 

[merlin wood]

If the explosion causes particles to deviate from a straight line.

If the 'core of the explosion' has enough potential to draw these particles back towards the explosion and therefore create a curved path.

I still don't see why this should be a spiral...

Unless this core is possibly rotating and the explosion wasn't instantaneous, in every direction...

But why would such a singularity as the 'big bang' choose a 'direction' in which to start and a 'rate' of continuous bangs?

It would be the inward pull of gravity as against the outward momentum of the particles that would produce the spiral trajectory and this spiral path would be in any direction for a given particle, not a sngle direction for all particles.

Actually, given that you would have a hugely dense mass of particles moving outwards in the very early Big Bang with the atomic forces surrounding the matter particles, the situation would be more complex than one where you consider the trajectory of a single isolated object.

Probably by considering this problem alone, if at all, it
would only be settled by a computer simulation. Although given that there is the unique factor mentioned above that the expanding universe is creating it own space, then perhaps you could never settle the matter for sure.

But then what I'm arguing really is that, given a theory of a non-locally acting cause, quantim wave behaniour is itself evidence that the early Cosmos was in the form of a multi-directional outwardly moving spherical vortex. Because it is this form that works as a detailed explanation for the quantum wave if you consider this vortex universalised on the small scale as a non-local causation that pervades all space.

So such causation explains the form and different polarisations of the quantum wave, the variation in its energy according to length, which would be due to the decrease in energy density of the early cosmaos, the indefinite spatial extension of the wave laterally around each travelling particle and the increasing width or amplitude of the proxy wave of radiation over astronomical distances.

While I also propose that spiral galaxies are and remain in this form because of the non-local causation acting on the large scale.

The causal univeralisation is made possible by the extra-dimensional action of the cause, with the early form of the cosmos reflecting off a further spatial dimension. While the existence of this universalising property is supported by the rest of the theory, which illustrates how the form of each material composite of subatomic particles, as atoms or molecules of a given element or species of organism is maintained as universally constant by the causation.

 

[merlin wood]

Hmm...another thread stopping post i see. And probably in large part because the above looks cranky or at least querky.

But then orthodox physics has never seriously addressed the problem of explaining the natural organisationof matter and radiation at the fundmental level, and mostlybecause a theory of natural organisation cannot be deduced in the first instnce by measurement and calculation.

So from the physicists point of view it seems thst nothing can be described of cause in answer to the quenstion: how canmatter be and remain organised as atoms and molecules - and indeed living organisms -given the action of the forces?

And then also, even if you manage to construct a detailed enough quantum hypothesis in answer to this question you can only justify this by making leaps into Big Bang cosmology, astronomy and the nature of mind and consciousness.

But I do hope to obtain the loot to set up and run a decent website sometime later this year.

 

[Crispy]

Hmm...another thread stopping post i see. And probably in large part because the above looks cranky or at least querky.

But then orthodox physics has never seriously addressed the problem of explaining the natural organisationof matter and radiation at the fundmental level, and mostlybecause a theory of natural organisation cannot be deduced in the first instnce by measurement and calculation.

That's because without those two things, it ain't science.

I know that the spiral motion of a single particle isn't the basis of your hypothesis. But the fact that you argued so vehemently for this behaviour of one particle says to me that you don't really have a full grasp of the science. (says the man who got it flat wrong about rocket efficiency!)

 

[Jorum]

New scientist has an article about a new hypothesis for dark matter, dark energy and black holes all in one from two physicisists.

The current way of "calculating" black holes requires quantum mechanics to be put to one side.
However, based on ideas about quantum phase change they modelled the collapse of a massive star but didn't allow deviation from quantum mechanics. Instead of collapsing to form a black hole, the star forms a "quantum phase change shell" (!) with a diameter almost identical to the event horizon of a black hole.
As the rest of the matter from the star (and any other matter that comes along later) passes through the shell it would be converted into energy.
Inside the shell would be a vacuum with energy (like the vacuum energy of normal space). Apparently this energy would have a repulsive effect, and account for dark energy.
So the "dark stars" would account for dark matter, dark energy, and would have almost indentical observable effects currently attributed to black holes (accreation disks etc,) but not have 'impossible' things like singularities, freezing of time and destruction of information.

 

[merlin wood]

New scientist has an article about a new hypothesis for dark matter, dark energy and black holes all in one from two physicisists.

The current way of "calculating" black holes requires quantum mechanics to be put to one side.
However, based on ideas about quantum phase change they modelled the collapse of a massive star but didn't allow deviation from quantum mechanics. Instead of collapsing to form a black hole, the star forms a "quantum phase change shell" (!) with a diameter almost identical to the event horizon of a black hole.
As the rest of the matter from the star (and any other matter that comes along later) passes through the shell it would be converted into energy.
Inside the shell would be a vacuum with energy (like the vacuum energy of normal space). Apparently this energy would have a repulsive effect, and account for dark energy.
So the "dark stars" would account for dark matter, dark energy, and would have almost indentical observable effects currently attributed to black holes (accreation disks etc,) but not have 'impossible' things like singularities, freezing of time and destruction of information.

See
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925423.600.html

' ....small versions of these stars could explain dark matter. "The big bang would have created zillions of tiny dark energy stars out of the vacuum," says Chapline, who worked on this idea with Mazur. "Our universe is pervaded by dark energy, with tiny dark energy stars peppered across it." These small dark energy stars would behave just like dark matter particles: their gravity would tug on the matter around them, but they would otherwise be invisible.'

Two big problems I can see with the idea of such "dark stars" as dark matter.

1) even given that they would be invisible the vast quantities of thse stars that would need surround galaxies including the Milky Way in place of dark matter particle halos would surely obscure the view.

2) why shouldn't such stars be detectable on or around the Earth?

 

[merlin wood]

That's because without those two things, it ain't science.

I know that the spiral motion of a single particle isn't the basis of your hypothesis. But the fact that you argued so vehemently for this behaviour of one particle says to me that you don't really have a full grasp of the science. (says the man who got it flat wrong about rocket efficiency!)

please explain in detail please how you know a theory of natural organisation is any less science than any other scientific theory.

I claim that such a theory can and needs to be justified only, first of all, by justifying and constructing diagrammatic methods of representing the action of a non-local cause from the quantum findings and then supporting this by examining together a wide range of readily available larger scale natural evidence of where such a cause can be considered to act in addition the forces.

Whereas superstring theory, for example, is supported by very little available evidence, and you'd think that after several years of careful experimenttion there would be be found at least some directly detected and convincing
evidence of the existence and nature of dark mstter.

 

[merlin wood]

Actually I've just found this pdf file that lists 18 experiments that have attempted to directly detect non-baryonic dark mattersince 1987.

 

[merlin wood]

Actually I've just found this pdf file that lists 18 experiments that have attempted to directly detect non-baryonic dark mattersince 1987.

And here's an HTML file that lists of 154 sets of data from something like 30 different 'WIMP' or non-bartonic dark matter experimental detection sites. And still no dice.

Ever thought there just ain't no such thing as this stuff? that it's the Emperor of Orthodox Physics' invisible suit of clothes?

[edit]sorry. try here instead and click on "Interactive Plotter for WIMP Dark Matter Limit/Direct Detection Data."