According to Wednesday's report, we are getting close to discovering the nature of the “mysterious
substance that is believed to hold the cosmos together:”
This amendment to
the Big Bang Theory had better be good, for it involves another $2 billion of
your tax money. Regressive physicists declare that they will soon know whether
the missing matter “could be the strange and unknown dark matter or could be energy that
originates from pulsars.”
First, let’s get rid of the idea that the missing matter “could be energy
that originates from pulsars.” Energy
does not exist. It is neither matter nor motion. Energy is a calculation (E=mc2) that
describes the motion of matter. Although it is one of the pillars of regressive
physics, “dark energy,” construed as matterless motion, likewise, neither
exists nor occurs.
Second, dark matter appears to be real. For 80 years,
astronomical observations have confirmed that many galaxies behave as if they
have many times as much mass as can be seen with telescopes. As most of you
know, gravitation between any two objects is dependent on their masses. Thus,
if a small galaxy were to pass by a large galaxy, it would be pushed toward the
larger galaxy. The curvature of its path would be dependent on its mass and the
mass of the larger galaxy. Astronomers calculate the mass of a galaxy by
estimating the number of stars that it has. For instance, our own star, the
Sun, has a mass of 2 X 1030 kg. There are about 200 billion stars in
are own galaxy, the Milky Way. The visible mass is about 4 X 1041 kg
and the total mass is about 3 times that. So, you can see that dark matter is a
problem.
But what is dark matter? In our book, "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe,”
Steve and I speculate that dark matter is ordinary (baryonic) matter. Vortex
theory implies that rotation produces particle size segregation following
Stokes Law. As you can see in our demonstration video at www.universalcycletheory.com,
large particles in a vortex are pushed toward the center and small particles
are pushed away from the center. Dark matter is the non-luminous stuff surrounding
spinning galaxies and galactic clusters. This stuff could be planets, asteroids, rocks, molecules,
atoms, or aether—anything that has mass. I would shy away from proposing aether
as a possibility, because it is the cause of gravitation, except for one thing:
aether too, has (immeasurable) mass, and must be entrained at especially high
densities in the outer edges of any spinning vortex. Note that globular
clusters are more or less spherical with almost no spin. As predicted by vortex
theory, they have little dark matter.
I find the silly comment about the “mysterious substance that is believed to hold the
cosmos together” to be nevertheless intriguing. At first thought, the infinite
universe doesn’t need anything to “hold it together.” Only a finite universe
(as proposed by the Big Bang Theory) would need that. On second thought, this
is a subtle admission that a push, rather than a pull, would be necessary to do
the holding. On third thought, that is exactly the concept that Steve and I proposed
in our book and summarized in Borchardt and Puetz (2012), although we see this “mysterious
substance” as aether-1 and being necessary for the gravitation of baryonic
matter anywhere in the infinite universe.
References
Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, S.J., 2012, Neomechanical
gravitation theory ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6529.pdf
), in Volk, G., Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 19th Conference
of the NPA, 25-28 July: Albuquerque, NM, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy,
MD, v. 9, p. 53-58.
Heilprin, J., and Borenstein, S., 2013,
Scientists find possible hint of dark matter ( http://m.apnews.com/ap/pm_5030/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=u25UmbFW
), Associated
Press, April 3.
Posts
7 comments:
This report seems to confuse three different "things".
Dark matter is mass that doesn't emit or reflect light. It certainly exists as dust particles and helps to explain why galaxies don't just "evaporate" into space. Dark matter may have positive or negative charge.
The term "Anti-Matter" is a misnomer, since massive particles with uncommon charge are still matter. An electron and a positron have the same mass, in a different configuration. Because they have the same mass, they have the same gravitational effect, whether as "light" or "dark" matter.
Cosmic Rays are just high-energy light: they have more mass than visible photons. However, they have no charge and therefore have no "anti" charge. They aren't "part of" dark matter, since they are "visible" to instruments, if not eyes.
The AMS module detects positrons ("anti-electrons"), not Cosmic Rays. The experiment is intended to determine whether positrons are a major component of "dark matter", particularly in "deep space", where Cosmic Rays form a "background" independent of visible stars and planets. The objective is to validate the presumption that the Big Bang produced equal amounts of matter and "anti-matter", which might still be detectable in the Cosmic Background Radiation.
Since all previously detected positrons were caused by Cosmic Rays striking atoms in the atmosphere (or pulsars, or in an accelerator), the experiment hopes to segregate a source of positrons distinct from those emitted by pulsars, in the background radiation. If they're detected, it won't change the quantity of "dark matter" (with gravitational potential) that "holds things together", but it may suggest a more equal distribution of matter/"anti-matter" in the "residue of the Big Bang", giving credence to the mathematical presumption of equal "creation" of both types of particles.
The "ideal" outcome would be to find equal "zones" of matter and "anti-matter" in the CBR regions. The probable outcome is that *some* positrons will be detected that can be differentiated from those produced by pulsars or atmospheric collisions. Whether the distribution is in "random" positions and tiny, or in definitive "zones" and large, the experiment will be considered a "success" and further confirmation of the Big Bang theory.
In either case, I don't see a correlation between the detection of positrons and your Vortex Theory.
Good critique of the newspaper report. I only have this to amend it:
“Cosmic Rays are just high-energy light: they have more mass than visible photons.”
[Sorry Bill, but neither cosmic rays nor “visible photons” have mass. Probably what you mean is that the high-frequency waves yield an m=E/c2 calculation that is greater than for visible light. Both cosmic and visible rays are not things, but the motions of things.]
[BTW: I agree that the term “anti-matter” is an oxymoron that should be banished along with “parallel universes” and “multiverses.” Also, I see electrons and positrons simply as aether vortices spinning in opposite directions. I suppose you could say that finding that they are equally plentiful does not prove our Vortex Theory, as I was using it to explain dark matter. Dark matter is simply the finer, more plentiful matter that must be at the distal portions of any vortex.]
I agree that rays are the motion of matter, but both rays are moving at the same velocity (c), so the only variable left is matter (m=mass).
If E=mc2 then how do cosmic rays have 10,000 times the energy of visible light, without having 10,000 times the mass?
Assuming an aether media, how does your wave acquire more energy at different frequencies? Even if it's a transfer of kinetic energy from particle to particle at velocity c, then doesn't the mass of the particles at different frequencies need to vary?
Remember, energy is a calculation; energy neither exists nor occurs. I hope that I never said that energy is "the motion of things." Energy is neither matter nor motion, but a description of matter in motion. Look at it this way. If you were hit by a boxer 10,000 times, that would need a description showing that the effect was greater than one punch even though each punch had the same velocity. That would not, however, mean that the motion of a punch was matter. The fist is matter; the punch is motion. Reread my E=mc2 paper again: http://scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E=mc2.pdf
Hello Dr. Borchardt-
I enjoyed reading the post asking if Dark Matter is the Universal Glue. It ‘forced’ me to respond with a comment and also inspired a new thought (thank you!). First the comment. While I agree with you that dark matter could be simply non-luminous baryonic matter, there may be another explanation that’s been overlooked. As you indicate, the “missing mass” (what you are calling dark matter) problem is real, but what if this puzzle is the result of an unquestioned assumption that Newton’s Universal Law of Gravity is truly universal. What if ‘Newton’s Law’ is actually incomplete and that, at certain distance scales, it requires modification? Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) seeks to explain the missing mass problem without invoking a new hypothetical particle that can’t be seen, felt, or tasted.
I sure don’t know, of course, but wanted to point out that the rush to postulate the existence of (and then the spending of billions of dollars searching for evidence of) a mysterious particle that only interacts with matter thru gravity is based on an unquestioned assumption (axiom) that Newton’s Law is invariant under all environments (micro and macro). It seems to me that your assumption of Relativism would suggest this is probably not true. It also seems to me that the history of science is replete with examples of unquestioned assumptions hindering further development. Critics of the Big Bang, General Relativity, and the search for a Higgs particle are some examples.
Your post also inspired a new (to me) thought you might find interesting (or amusing :-). Electro-magnetic induction is an interesting phenomenon. Moving a magnet thru a coil creates a current in the coil, and if the magnet’s motion stops, the current stops. In trying to imagine what’s going on, I envision a ‘field’ emanating from the magnet and interacting with the ‘electrons’ in the coil in a way that makes them move. Reversing the direction the magnet moves reverses the flow of the current, but it is the motion of the magnet that appears to create the field effect. The strength of the current in the coil also seems to be affected by the speed with which the magnet is moved. So it seems that motion and velocity of magnetized matter affect the strength/intensity of this outwardly-directed field.
I find it interesting to think of gravity as a similar phenomenon, but one in which the motion of matter produces a ‘field’ that is inwardly-directed rather than outwardly-directed as occurs in E-M induction. Staying with this analogy, the higher the velocity of matter-in-motion, the stronger the gravitational field would be. Since gravity is measured as mass, this would be equivalent to saying that, if a particle is accelerated its mass increases (as relativistic physics predicts). The distinction, however, is that it is not some inherent property of matter that creates gravity, but rather it is simply the motion of matter that produces the effect we define as gravity. If true, this might simply be an alternate way of envisioning gravity, and one that can (presumably) be described using the same mathematics. The ramifications of this alternative perspective, however, are not the same.
The new thought your blog post elicited was the comment that [in Vortex Theory], “large particles in a vortex are pushed toward the center and small particles are pushed away from the center”. This is an alternate explanation for the standard model theory that says larger particles have a greater gravitational attraction, but it attributes the presumed gravitational “attractive-force” to simply the motion of matter. Per your assumption of Inseparability (there is no matter without motion), some degree of ‘gravitational field’ will be associated with any material object because all matter is in motion, and ‘gravity’ will be ubiquitous because all matter in the universe is in motion.
Bill:
Thanks for the comment. Sorry to disappoint, but I don’t think that a modification of Newton will work this time. The key to the dark matter observation is the fact that only rotating galaxies have the discrepancy. Non-rotating galaxies do not. This means that the rotating galaxies contain more mass than accounted for by the luminous matter seen with telescopes. Steven and I (www.universalcycletheory.com) note that, in vortices, large microcosms are pushed toward the center and that small microcosms are pushed away from the center. In our theory, there is no limit to the small size of the distal microcosms. They could be extra-exoplanets, asteroids, or other forms of baryonic matter not part of a star system.
Regressive physicists and cosmogonists are having such a problem with this because they are by-and-large followers of the indeterministic philosophy of positivism. Positivism states that “if I can’t see, smell, taste, or feel it, it doesn’t exist.” Among other things, positivism is the foundation of aether denial. It was originally used by empiricists to confront the silly imaginings of the religionists, but, as you probably know, it has not been able to keep up with the theoretical demands required of the ever-expanding accumulation of new data in physics and astronomy. Positivism is ever under attack, what with many substitutes for aether being proposed. For instance, the Higgs boson (“god particle”) is supposedly part of the macrocosm that gives mass to ordinary particles. It better be, because it is certainly not a constituent—it has a mass 126 times that of a proton!
Luis:
Thanks for the comment. You are correct that positivists seldom have been very consistent. Here, it suits them to posit unseen dark matter to solve the missing mass problem in astronomy. As you mentioned, it does not suit them to posit unseen aether particles that populate gravitational and magnetic fields. They interpret the easily seen motions due to gravitation and magnetism as the magical result of unseen “attraction.” Even though attraction has been falsified by the LIGO observation (Blog 20160217), I doubt that many of them will refrain from continued cherry-picking when it favors the regressive party line. As the great positivist Einstein maintained, fields are “immaterial,” that is, they do not contain anything at all.
Post a Comment