New Theory Unifies Dark Matter & Dark Energy

Cheetah

Master Poster
Cheetah
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
2,934
Location
South Africa
From The Conversation:

Bizarre ‘dark fluid’ with negative mass could dominate the universe – what my research suggests


Article:

A unifying theory of dark energy and dark matter: Negative masses and matter creation within a modified ΛCDM framework


A new extended version of LambdaCDM unifies DM and DE into a Dark Fluid with negative gravity.
It's effect on the universe is apparently exactly like the cosmological constant and DE, driving expansion. According to computer simulations this negative matter forms halos around galaxies and explains the rotation curves.
The only weird thing is the addition of a creation tensor so the fluid does not get diluted as the universe expands.
It predicts a cyclic universe with a time-variable Hubble parameter as well as several other testable predictions.
Very speculative, but it does explain the observed distribution of dark matter in galaxies from first principles.
 
Cheetah said:
From The Conversation:

Bizarre ‘dark fluid’ with negative mass could dominate the universe – what my research suggests


Article:

A unifying theory of dark energy and dark matter: Negative masses and matter creation within a modified ΛCDM framework


A new extended version of LambdaCDM unifies DM and DE into a Dark Fluid with negative gravity.
It's effect on the universe is apparently exactly like the cosmological constant and DE, driving expansion. According to computer simulations this negative matter forms halos around galaxies and explains the rotation curves.
The only weird thing is the addition of a creation tensor so the fluid does not get diluted as the universe expands.
It predicts a cyclic universe with a time-variable Hubble parameter as well as several other testable predictions.
Very speculative, but it does explain the observed distribution of dark matter in galaxies from first principles.
Click to expand...

My bold. Let's see it tested then....
 
Diablo said:
My bold. Let's see it tested then....
Click to expand...


Yeah, it might even be possible to get an idea with further analysis of available data.


You can download a copy here, it's very readable and interesting.


It's quite a simple idea. A universe that contains negative mass, with M+ M+ interactions corresponding to the baryons, M+ M- interactions to DM and M- M- interactions to DE.
 
"addition of a creation tensor"

So just like the steady state universe it has a means to keep resupplying this mystery material?

However, Dr. Farnes' research applies a 'creation tensor," which allows for negative masses to be continuously created. It demonstrates that when more and more negative masses are continually bursting into existence, this negative mass fluid does not dilute during the expansion of the cosmos. In fact, the fluid appears to be identical to dark energy.
Click to expand...

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-universe-theory-percent-cosmos.html#jCp
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
"addition of a creation tensor"

So just like the steady state universe it has a means to keep resupplying this mystery material?
Click to expand...


Yes, that just seems wrong.


What would be amazing though is if the presence of negative matter particles does explain the distribution of DM accurately (as well as the expansion of the universe). It's simple and elegant and adds a symmetry to gravity that has been lacking before.

Simple and elegant doesn't mean anything, but it might be a step closer in discovering what DM and DE actually is. It might spark some new ideas. Negative matter has not really been seriously considered before, has it?

Plus, negative matter is cool and if you just collect some and contain it properly you could build an Alcubierre warp drive. ;)

I'll stick to the LambdaCDM untill the SKA finds out which best explains galaxy distributions etc.
 
"However, Dr. Farnes' research applies a 'creation tensor," which allows for negative masses to be continuously created. It demonstrates that when more and more negative masses are continually bursting into existence, this negative mass fluid does not dilute during the expansion of the cosmos. In fact, the fluid appears to be identical to dark energy"​

Negative mass? Hmm. Where have I heard that term before?

Ahhh, yes, of course...

"The Alcubierre drive or Alcubierre warp drive (or Alcubierre metric, referring to metric tensor) is a speculative idea based on a solution of Einstein's field equations in general relativity as proposed by Mexican theoretical physicist Miguel Alcubierre, by which a spacecraft could achieve apparent faster-than-light travel if a configurable energy-density field lower than that of vacuum (that is, negative mass) could be created."​

Its the missing bit needed for warp drive :thumbsup:


*** slinks away in the night ***
 
I don't believe dark matter or dark energy exist. They're placeholders for 'we don't know' or, more likely, euphemisms for 'we got it wrong'.
 
baron said:
I don't believe dark matter or dark energy exist. They're placeholders for 'we don't know' or, more likely, euphemisms for 'we got it wrong'.
Click to expand...

You may well be right. As far as DE is concerned, all we know is that the data doesn't fit the theory. I think there are modifications to the theory which fix the problem (without DE) but they cause other problems.

I think it's "we don't know yet, but we're working on it".
 
baron said:
I don't believe dark matter or dark energy exist. They're placeholders for 'we don't know' or, more likely, euphemisms for 'we got it wrong'.
Click to expand...


Regarding DE, why do you believe the expansion of the universe is not accelerating? Or do you believe the universe is not expanding at all?


Regarding DM, something, we don't know what, is out there acting exactly like invisible matter.
It bends light, it affects the orbits of stars, it affects velocity dispersion in galaxies and many more. Completely different galaxy cluster mass estimates are in agreement, there is something there, a lot of it.
What do you think we got wrong?
 
Cheetah said:
Regarding DE, why do you believe the expansion of the universe is not accelerating? Or do you believe the universe is not expanding at all?


Regarding DM, something, we don't know what, is out there acting exactly like invisible matter.
It bends light, it affects the orbits of stars, it affects velocity dispersion in galaxies and many more. Completely different galaxy cluster mass estimates are in agreement, there is something there, a lot of it.
What do you think we got wrong?
Click to expand...

DE: see above.
DM: Tell us what it is.
 
Diablo, baron: tell me what baryons are, or chickens, or beauty ...

No surprise, this connects fairly directly to what your view of science is, instrumentalist? Realist? Idealist? ...
 
JeanTate said:
Diablo, baron: tell me what baryons are, or chickens, or beauty ...

No surprise, this connects fairly directly to what your view of science is, instrumentalist? Realist? Idealist? ...
Click to expand...

Try telling us what DE and DM are....
 
Diablo said:
Try telling us what DE and DM are....
Click to expand...
OK, one at a time.

DM: a term used to describe something, observed in several different astrophysical regimes, which is consistent with a form of mass (as defined in GR) that interacts with other forms of mass via gravitation only.
 
DE: a form of energy (per GR) which is consistent with Lambda in (insert GR-based equation here), and consistent with several, different, sets of observational data.
 
Diablo said:
Try telling us what DE and DM are....
Click to expand...

Step one - identify that something exists.

In the case of DM and DE this has been done. Each has been shown to have an effect on large scale properties of the universe.
- DM has been identified as the substance that, for example, holds galaxies together. Distribution of DM around galaxies has been mapped.
- The expansion velocity of the universe is known to be increasing. DE has been identified as the process causing the expansion.

Step two - Investigate the properties of the processes that have been shown to exist to determine what they are and how they act.

- This is ongoing. The results to date of one such investigation are the topic of the OP in this thread.

Yes, DM and DE are shorthand placeholder names for causes/processes that little is known about. This will change as more properties of DM and DE are discovered. Or the names may be kept as an easy identifier of very complex substances/processes, similar to the name "big bang".
 
Steve said:
Step one - identify that something exists.

In the case of DM and DE this has been done. Each has been shown to have an effect on large scale properties of the universe.
- DM has been identified as the substance that, for example, holds galaxies together. Distribution of DM around galaxies has been mapped.
- The expansion velocity of the universe is known to be increasing. DE has been identified as the process causing the expansion.

Step two - Investigate the properties of the processes that have been shown to exist to determine what they are and how they act.

- This is ongoing. The results to date of one such investigation are the topic of the OP in this thread.

Yes, DM and DE are shorthand placeholder names for causes/processes that little is known about. This will change as more properties of DM and DE are discovered. Or the names may be kept as an easy identifier of very complex substances/processes, similar to the name "big bang".
Click to expand...

Or new theories may be developed which render DE and DM unnecessary. Your last para says it all really.
 
Diablo said:
Or new theories may be developed which render DE and DM unnecessary. Your last para says it all really.
Click to expand...


How do you get that?


If the expansion is accelerating, something (for now called DE) is causing it, no matter what theory is devised. You have to deny the acceleration to get rid of DE.


Also no better theory can explain all the different observations of the effects DH has.
Modifying gravity has basically been ruled out as an option.
It curves spacetime and cause gravitational lensing, how will a new theory get rid of that?
 
Diablo said:
Or new theories may be developed which render DE and DM unnecessary. Your last para says it all really.
Click to expand...
Um, no ... I think you have quite misunderstood what DM and DE mean, when used by an astrophysicist or cosmologist.

A new theory of gravity, say, might mean adjusting how either, or both, is described, but that’s all.

For a particle physicist it may be different: if they conclude, from the definition of DM, that it must be a new, undiscovered kind of particle (or particles, or known particles with different properties, such as a heavy, sterile neutrino), then a different theory of gravity would (or may) make their hypothesis moot.

I must say I’m struggling to make sense of your, to me, far too terse comments.
 
Diablo said:
Or new theories may be developed which render DE and DM unnecessary. Your last para says it all really.
Click to expand...

I understand that both DM and DE are hypotheses at this point. There is insufficient knowledge of either to form actual scientific theories. Theories are what the current research is working toward. So yes, new theories will eventually be developed. These theories will describe the processes and/or substances in scientifically repeatable and verifiable terms. The underlying observed effects (gravitational for DM and expansion for DE) will still exist.
 
Steve said:
I understand that both DM and DE are hypotheses at this point. There is insufficient knowledge of either to form actual scientific theories. Theories are what the current research is working toward. So yes, new theories will eventually be developed. These theories will describe the processes and/or substances in scientifically repeatable and verifiable terms. The underlying observed effects (gravitational for DM and expansion for DE) will still exist.
Click to expand...
Nitpick: so far the theory which explains DE is the GR of Einstein from many decades ago, namely, it’s Lambda. One line of observation that has been pursued is whether DE varies with time (or if you prefer something closer to data, redshift); so far Lambda works (I.e. no variation of DE with time).
 
JeanTate said:
Nitpick: so far the theory which explains DE is the GR of Einstein from many decades ago, namely, it’s Lambda. One line of observation that has been pursued is whether DE varies with time (or if you prefer something closer to data, redshift); so far Lambda works (I.e. no variation of DE with time).
Click to expand...

Nitpick accepted and understood. I was trying to get the basic point made without being too technical.
 
Cheetah said:
Regarding DE, why do you believe the expansion of the universe is not accelerating? Or do you believe the universe is not expanding at all?
Click to expand...

Neither.

Cheetah said:
Regarding DM, something, we don't know what, is out there acting exactly like invisible matter.
Click to expand...

I don't think we do. Seems to me, taking a layman's perspective, that if you discover that the equations you once believe described the universe only describe five percent of it, there's something wrong with those equations. Cosmologists seem to be tying themselves in knots by trying to shoehorn observations into existing theory. As I say, I don't know the maths, but that's not how I envisage science should work. First stop should be to go back to the drawing board. It wouldn't be the first time Einstein was wrong.
 
baron said:
Neither.



I don't think we do. Seems to me, taking a layman's perspective, that if you discover that the equations you once believe described the universe only describe five percent of it, there's something wrong with those equations. Cosmologists seem to be tying themselves in knots by trying to shoehorn observations into existing theory. As I say, I don't know the maths, but that's not how I envisage science should work. First stop should be to go back to the drawing board. It wouldn't be the first time Einstein was wrong.
Click to expand...

Are they? Can you provide evidence of this? And would that be all cosmologists?

It has been previously suggested that if some brilliant scientist thinking "outside the box" was able to completely overturn a widely accepted theory, ie; relativity, they would instantly become world renowned, very wealthy, and be recorded in history alongside the giants of science. Why would all the scientists working in cosmology continue to follow existing methodology when they could take your advice, scrap relativity and start over? I suggest that, just maybe, they are a little more knowledgeable than yourself in their chosen fields.
 
baron, like Diablo, you seem to have misunderstood what DM and DE are, as terms used by astrophysics, astronomers, cosmologists, and at least some particle physicists.

Yes, your understanding may be consistent with what, inaccurately, is portrayed in some popular press stories, but here in the SMM&T part of the ISF, we surely should try to get close to what scientists are actually doing and saying, shouldn’t we?

On top, you mistakenly conflate DM and DE (“only describe five percent of it”): as I said above, DE is consistent with Lambda in GR, so the “only describe” can refer to DM only, no? And for this, the number is more like 25% ...
 
Steve said:
Are they? Can you provide evidence of this? And would that be all cosmologists?

It has been previously suggested that if some brilliant scientist thinking "outside the box" was able to completely overturn a widely accepted theory, ie; relativity, they would instantly become world renowned, very wealthy, and be recorded in history alongside the giants of science. Why would all the scientists working in cosmology continue to follow existing methodology when they could take your advice, scrap relativity and start over? I suggest that, just maybe, they are a little more knowledgeable than yourself in their chosen fields.
Click to expand...

No ****, do you reckon? I thought I had far more knowledge of cosmology than the cosmologists. from just reading a few books. :rolleyes: Still, I do understand that your idea of a single scientist 'overturning' existing theory and being hailed a hero is somewhat naive, to say the least. The inertia of widely accepted scientific theory is no minor force, and there is great resistance, and often hostility, to those challenging the status quo. You don't need to be a cosmologist to know that, just have a little knowledge of history.
 
JeanTate said:
baron, like Diablo, you seem to have misunderstood what DM and DE are, as terms used by astrophysics, astronomers, cosmologists, and at least some particle physicists.

Yes, your understanding may be consistent with what, inaccurately, is portrayed in some popular press stories, but here in the SMM&T part of the ISF, we surely should try to get close to what scientists are actually doing and saying, shouldn’t we?

On top, you mistakenly conflate DM and DE (“only describe five percent of it”): as I said above, DE is consistent with Lambda in GR, so the “only describe” can refer to DM only, no? And for this, the number is more like 25% ...
Click to expand...

If 70% of the universe is supposed to be DE and the other 25% DM, that leaves 5% comprised of 'stuff' the scientists understand and the behaviour of which they can predict. What's wrong with that?
 
baron said:
No ****, do you reckon? I thought I had far more knowledge of cosmology than the cosmologists. from just reading a few books. :rolleyes: Still, I do understand that your idea of a single scientist 'overturning' existing theory and being hailed a hero is somewhat naive, to say the least. The inertia of widely accepted scientific theory is no minor force, and there is great resistance, and often hostility, to those challenging the status quo. You don't need to be a cosmologist to know that, just have a little knowledge of history.
Click to expand...

Ok, I accept that you have insufficient knowlege to discuss this topic. You could have just said that.
 
baron said:
No ****, do you reckon? I thought I had far more knowledge of cosmology than the cosmologists. from just reading a few books. :rolleyes: Still, I do understand that your idea of a single scientist 'overturning' existing theory and being hailed a hero is somewhat naive, to say the least. The inertia of widely accepted scientific theory is no minor force, and there is great resistance, and often hostility, to those challenging the status quo. You don't need to be a cosmologist to know that, just have a little knowledge of history.
Click to expand...
Counter fact: lots of scientists have worked on alternatives to Lambda as an explanation of DE, and quite a few on alternative theories of gravity (I’d put the number of the latter in the thousands).

Counter fact: those who challenged the status quo on DE met ~no resistance or inertia among their colleagues, beyond the usual checking and doing their sums twice. These fields of science are quite unlike the psychology of a decade ago.

Other than me, do you know any working astronomers?
 
baron said:
Neither.
Click to expand...

That doesn't even answer the first question. The answer to "why" can never be "no".

Steve said:
Ok, I accept that you have insufficient knowlege to discuss this topic. You could have just said that.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Baron is a super-expert in physics! I know because he told me he was despite not knowing about some pretty well-known QM stuff.
 
Nutrinos are an example of drak matter. Theoreticians don't think there are enough of them to cause the rotation curves, hence the suggestion of more massive WIMPS
 
baron said:
If 70% of the universe is supposed to be DE and the other 25% DM, that leaves 5% comprised of 'stuff' the scientists understand and the behaviour of which they can predict. What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...
Because you mischaracterize DE, and “scientists understand and the behavior of which they can predict”. Maybe because you have a poor understanding of both?
 
Belz... said:
That doesn't even answer the first question. The answer to "why" can never be "no".



What are you talking about? Baron is a super-expert in physics! I know because he told me he was despite not knowing about some pretty well-known QM stuff.
Click to expand...

:blush: :D
 
Pushing force is ok.

Inside visible universe is it expanding pushing force.

Too much for you.

I am sorry about that.

🤔
 
Pixie of key said:
Pushing force is ok.

Inside visible universe is it expanding pushing force.

Too much for you.

I am sorry about that.

��
Click to expand...

Well that sums it up nicely!

ETA: on behalf of the other posters and myself - Apology accepted.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom