What is Dark Matter? Even the Best Theories Are Crumbling

By Korey Haynes | September 21, 2018 5:00 pm
The interior of the LHC's ATLAS experiment

The Large Hadron Collider is looking for dark matter candidates. Credit: CERN

Dark matter research is unsettling. Scientists were unnerved when they first noticed that galaxies don’t rotate by the same physics as a spinning plate. The stars at a galaxy’s edge rotate faster than expected. And their motion can only be explained by a lot of invisible matter that we can’t see.

That was exciting more than unsettling when the field was new and ideas were plentiful and had yet to be proven wrong. Researchers consolidated the possibilities into two main camps, complete with clever acronyms: MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects) and WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles).

MACHOS Aren’t the Answer

Brown dwarfs are an example of a MACHO, but they don't exist in large enough numbers to solve the dark matter problem. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Brown dwarfs are an example of a MACHO, but they don’t exist in large enough numbers to solve the dark matter problem. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

MACHOs are the less exotic possibility. You and I don’t glow or reflect light terribly well, so it’s perfectly reasonable to suggest that space and galaxies contain lots of stuff — planets, stars not quite big enough to turn on and light up, world-gobbling space worms — that we simply can’t see because they are literally dark and we don’t have a big enough flashlight.

Except we can detect some of those objects out there (not the worms) because they’re so massive that they bend light around them. They do exist, and we know they’re there despite their darkness. And yet there’s just not enough of them to make the galaxy-rotation math work. The same problem pops up if we imagine a universe littered with black holes. We would need to see these light-bending gravitational lenses everywhere and we don’t, even when we look very hard.

The search for WIMPs

A map showing dark matter in blue and galaxies in gold.

Hubble Space Telescope observations of galaxies (gold) and their movements allowed scientists to calculate where the dark matter (blue) lies. Credit: J.-P. Kneib/ESA/NASA

So the astrophysics community mostly moved on to WIMPs. Rather than big objects, maybe the universe is full of little things we can’t see. These would be swarms of objects like atoms that just don’t reflect or absorb light or any other kind of electromagnetic energy, unlike all the matter we can touch and measure and see around us on Earth. This concept is more unsettling, or it should be if you remember that one of the rules of science is that it’s supposed to work the same everywhere in the universe. We do know that neutrinos exist: tiny, mostly mass-less particles that barely interact with the universe around them. The problem there is that they’re mostly mass-less. We can’t figure out how there are enough of them to make up the 84 percent of the universe’s matter that we can’t see.

So maybe dark matter is a different object we haven’t observed at all yet, something called a neutralino. Researchers have come up with a plausible description of such a particle, how the Big Bang as we know it might have created them, and how they would fit into the standard model of particle physics without breaking everything else along the way.

Is Dark Matter the New Ether?

Two scientists work on the XENON experiment.

Researchers hope the XENON experiment will directly detect dark matter particles. Credit: XENON


But we’ve been looking for them for a while. We’ve built incredibly sensitive, bizarre instruments to look for them. These include vats of liquid xenon stored miles underground, and telescopes looking for dark matter particles decaying into things we can see and measure, like gamma rays. It includes the Large Hadron Collider, one of the most expensive science experiments ever built. And we haven’t found them. We haven’t found the WIMPs themselves, and we haven’t found convincing evidence that they exist.

Except, of course, for the persistent evidence we can’t ignore that says the universe is heavier than what we can see.

At this point, the unsettling feeling is growing again. Decades ago, scientists were confident about the existence of the “luminiferous aether” as a medium to carry light. Now, that’s looked back on as a clumsy belief that should have been dropped far earlier than it was. Scientists persisted because they were sure that light, like sound, required a medium to move through in spite of the evidence piling up against that concept. Having been fooled once, scientists have to ask: Is dark matter the new ether?

For decades, a few rogue scientists have stood hopefully at the edge of respectability, offering their theory called Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or MOND. Essentially, it says that physics doesn’t work as we know it at the largest scales. It says we’ve been drawing the wrong conclusions, and dark matter isn’t required to explain the universe. No one has managed to develop a theory of MOND that adequately explains the universe around us, but it occasionally gains converts simply because the competing theory of dark matter has a glaring flaw: we can’t find it.

Perhaps we’re wrong about something in the standard model that defines how the tiniest particles in the universe behave and interact, and dark matter exists, but in a very different form than we’re expecting. Or perhaps we are wrong about the laws of gravity.

Or perhaps, maybe even tomorrow, an experiment will turn up a neutralino exactly where researchers say it should be. A particle will strike a tank of supercooled xenon. The LHC team will discover a new particle. Science is hard, and seen against the long story of scientific progress, we only started looking for dark matter yesterday. Until something changes, we’ll have to rest uneasy with the unsettling possibility that physics as we know it might be very wrong.

Korey Haynes is a Discover magazine contributing writer.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Space & Physics, Top Posts
MORE ABOUT: cosmology
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Michal Rosa

    Been calling it the new ether for a while now – it’s such a fashionable little hypothesis with absolutely no observational data to support it. Perfect for modern day physicists.

    • Great Scott Not

      Ummm, what hypothesis are you referring to? “Dark Matter” is a term to describe that there is something going on that we don’t yet understand. The observational data is that we can’t account for the rotation of galaxies. Dark Matter is an umbrella term… there are various theories that are being tested to determine more specifics. Scientists admit that no one knows for sure what exactly is going on.

      • Mad Mikey

        I’d buy that if the situation were called Unexplained Rotation Speed. I’ve heard way, way, way too many researchers confidently state something along the lines of, “we know dark matter exists, we just don’t know what it’s made of exactly yet.”

        • Film@11

          Let’s just ignore the gravitational lensing caused by this *not*to*be*called*dark*matter* while we’re at it. Otherwise we’d need to call the phenomena Unexplained Rotation Speed With Gravitational Lensing Effect.

          While our understanding is by no means complete, we generally conclude that matter and gravity are intertwined. Where you observe multiple gravitational effects that exceed what you can account for with visible matter you naturally conclude that there might be some non-visible matter. So, maybe we should call it non-visible matter then?

          Remember that Dark Matter is a theory. When we have a theory we look for solid proof before declaring it a fact. The only thing that has been declared as fact so far is that there are unexplained gravitational effects.

          • jonathanpulliam

            Gravitational lensing is the more likely reason. The same problem with different gradients of air temp contributed to HMS Titanic crew loss of situational awareness

          • CapitalG151

            Look at my post above. My theory explains the lensing effect perfectly

        • Great Scott Not

          Mad Mikey, you are correct that “Dark Matter” is a bad name. Neil deGrasse Tyson agrees as he would call it “Dark Gravity”. No one can definitively say what this phenomenon is, but evidence does point toward particles that don’t interact with each other or “normal” matter. The OP was off base with his assertions, but you are correct that the naming is bad.

          As far as the researchers you cite, I’ve yet to see one that emphatically states that they know what Dark Matter is. If they do, they aren’t qualified to be researching the subject.

      • Michal Rosa

        That’s why it’s a hypothesis yet treated by a lot of people as something real. Have you actually read the article?

        • Great Scott Not

          Yes I read the article. I’ve read many, many others about dark matter over the past several years. Apparently you don’t understand the article or my response. Dark matter is real. There is no doubt about that. It is misnamed as other respondents (and other scientists) have noted. What is not fully understood is what is the cause of this phenomenon.

        • 7eggert

          Treating it as something real is the only way to test a hypothesis:

          Bends light like this, attracts matter like that … if that fits, dark “matter” or rather “mass” IMO; GSN calls it Dark Gravity, is a good name to temporarily describe an observable phenomenon.

    • Film@11

      Luminiferous aether? A discredited theory that might be making a comeback, like the cosmic constant seems to be.

  • mpc755

    Dark matter is a supersolid that fills ’empty’ space, strongly interacts with ordinary matter and is displaced by ordinary matter. What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter. The state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter is gravity.

    The supersolid dark matter displaced by a galaxy pushes back, causing the stars in the outer arms of the galaxy to orbit the galactic center at the rate in which they do.

    Displaced supersolid dark matter is curved spacetime.

    • vaccinia

      If we define energy as spacetime curvature per unit distance, and particles as essentially complex standing waves composed of light, alot of things start to make sense. Wave particle duality for one, and the equivalence of energy and matter for another. Mass does not curve spacetime, mass IS curved spacetime!

      • James Fowler

        Interesting…I tend to think the answer lies in a better understanding of what “spacetime” actually is. What exactly is curving, when spacetime is curved?

      • mpc755

        Ordinary matter displaces the supersolid dark matter. Displaced supersolid dark matter *is* curved spacetime.

        There is evidence of the supersolid dark matter every time a double-slit experiment is performed as it is the supersolid dark matter that waves. Wave-particle duality is a moving particle and its associated wave in the supersolid dark matter.

        In a double slit experiment the particle always travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the supersolid dark matter passes through both. As the wave exits the slits it creates wave interference which alters the direction the particle travels as it exits a single slit. Over time the particles form an interference pattern. Strongly detecting the particle exiting a single slit destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave, the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling and does not form an interference pattern.

        The supersolid dark matter ripples when galaxy clusters collide and waves in a double-slit experiment, relating general relativity and quantum mechanics.

        • vaccinia

          No need for the different types of matter….matter is bent spacetime,

          • mpc755

            The Earth displaces the supersolid dark matter. The displaced supersolid dark matter is gravity.

          • jonathanpulliam

            folded 11-dimensional branes

          • vaccinia

            I agree that the continuum is 11 dimensional.

      • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

        Inconsistent units. Meaningless.

        • vaccinia

          When you change the paradigm and redefine the units, such as defining what energy actually IS (and not as a base unit in itself), it is meaningless, perhaps, in terms of current theory, yes. NOT, however, in terms of the new structure.

      • happy loser

        Vacinna I think you are on the right track imo

      • 7eggert

        No, mass is the measure of curvature of spacetime, gravity is curvature spacetime.

        • vaccinia

          Not if you really know the true nature of reality, if you only think about current paradigm then you are correct.

      • mpc755

        If we define particles as condensed dark matter which exist in and displace the dark matter, then we define spacetime curvature as the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter and we define wave-particle duality as a moving particle and its associated wave in the supersolid dark matter.

        • vaccinia

          Interesting! But not exactly Occams Razor though, is it? How do waves propagate in a supersolid? Actually what IS a supersolid?

          • mpc755

            The supersolid dark matter ripples when galaxy clusters collide and waves in a double-slit experiment, relating general relativity and quantum mechanics. Can’t get much more Occam’s Razor than that.

            A supersolid is a material that has properties of both a fluid and a solid. For example, if you place a bowling ball into a tank filled with a supersolid the bowling ball displaces the supersolid. However, the bowling ball doesn’t displace the supersolid equally everywhere in the tank. If, prior to placing the bowling ball into the tank, you put tape around the tank at the water line, and then place the bowling ball in a corner, the supersolid will be displaced above the line of tape where the bowling ball is more so than it will the further from the bowling ball you get. Think of the supersolid as really, really cold, but not frozen, honey. If you place the bowling ball into the corner of a tank filled with really, really cold, but not frozen, honey, the honey will not be immediately displaced everywhere equally by the bowling ball. Now, if the honey remained in this state regardless of what temperature it was, you would be on your way to having a supersolid. The other important property of a supersolid is that there is no loss of energy in the interaction of an object with the supersolid. You are in a swimming pool filled with a supersolid. You push the bowling ball through the supersolid. The bowling ball displaces the supersolid. The bowling ball requires energy, your pushing it, to displace the supersolid. As the supersolid fills-in where the bowling ball had been the supersolid displaces the bowling ball (ie. the supersolid pushes the bowling ball). The supersolid returns the same amount of energy to the bowling ball as the bowling ball had used to displace the supersolid and the bowling ball will move forever through the supersolid.

            Q. Is the bowling ball displacing the supersolid, or is the supersolid displacing the bowling ball?

            A. Both occur simultaneously with equal force and the bowling ball moves forever through the supersolid.

    • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

      www(.)iep.utm(.)edu/fem-stan/
      … Standpoint theory
      netwar(.)wordpress(.)com/2007/07/03/feminist-epistemology/
      Luce Irigaray sources physics’ defects.

    • 7eggert

      Then there would not be galaxies with much and with little DM.

      • mpc755

        ‘Astronomers Discover New Galaxy That Is 99.99% Dark Matter’

        > A relatively large fraction of the stars is in the form of very compact clusters, and that is probably an important clue.

        The more compact the cluster the greater the displacement of the supersolid dark matter connected to and neighboring the cluster, the greater the displaced dark matter pushes back and exerts pressure toward the cluster, the faster the stars in the cluster move.

        ‘Scientists Thought All Galaxies Had Dark Matter, but They Just Found One Without It’

        > DF2 upends current theories about how galaxies form, which predict that the gravity of dark matter is necessary for early galaxies to hang together.

        The reason for the mistaken notion the galaxy is missing dark matter is that the galaxy is so diffuse that it doesn’t displace the dark matter outward and away from it to the degree that the dark matter is able to push back and cause the stars far away from the galactic center to speed up.

        It’s not that there is no dark matter connected to and neighboring the visible matter. It’s that the galaxy has not coalesced enough to displace the dark matter to such an extent that it forms a ‘halo’ around the galaxy.

        A galaxy’s halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling with the galaxy. A galaxy’s halo is the state of displacement of the dark matter.

      • mpc755

        ‘Astronomers Discover New Galaxy That Is 99.99% Dark Matter’

        > A relatively large fraction of the stars is in the form of very compact clusters, and that is probably an important clue.

        The more compact the cluster the greater the displacement of the supersolid dark matter connected to and neighboring the cluster, the greater the displaced dark matter pushes back and exerts pressure toward the cluster, the faster the stars in the cluster move.

        ‘Scientists Thought All Galaxies Had Dark Matter, but They Just Found One Without It’

        > DF2 upends current theories about how galaxies form, which predict that the gravity of dark matter is necessary for early galaxies to hang together.

        The reason for the mistaken notion the galaxy is missing dark matter is that the galaxy is so diffuse that it doesn’t displace the dark matter outward and away from it to the degree that the dark matter is able to push back and cause the stars far away from the galactic center to speed up.

        It’s not that there is no dark matter connected to and neighboring the visible matter. It’s that the galaxy has not coalesced enough to displace the dark matter to such an extent that it forms a ‘halo’ around the galaxy.

        A galaxy’s halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling with the galaxy. A galaxy’s halo is the state of displacement of the dark matter.

        • 7eggert

          I recently saw a presentation of astronomers explaining that one galaxy had about no dark matter and a similar galaxy did have.

          • mpc755

            Which is what I was referring to in my previous post. There is dark matter associated with both galaxies. One galaxy is too diffuse to displace the supersolid dark matter into a halo.

            It’s not that the galaxy doesn’t have dark matter, it’s that the galaxy is too diffuse to displace it to such an extent that it forms a halo. The galaxy is too diffuse to displace the dark matter to such an extent that it displaces the supersolid dark matter to a point where the dark matter is able to push back and cause the stars in the outer arms to speed up.

            The 99% dark matter consists of a galaxy where stars exist in multiple compact clusters. The stars in the compact clusters displace the dark matter to such an extent that it is able to push back strongly and cause the stars in the cluster to move faster than expected.

            Diffuse galaxy = does not displace the dark matter enough to push back and cause the stars to speed up.

            Compact cluster of stars = greater displacement of the dark matter than ‘normal’ galaxies, causing the stars in the cluster to speed up more than in a ‘normal’ galaxy.

          • 7eggert

            I was talking about galaxies being considered equal, they should defuse DM equally. Or if it’s one of the MOND theories, it should be wrong equally. Also no matter weather the diffusion works, they should bend the light according to the distribution of DM (but let’s say we can explain that with displacement, too).

            If I want to explain the observed phenomenon with diffusion, what would diffuse the DM in one scenario and not the other? There would need to be something unseen acting like matter, I’d need Dark Matter version II. Possible, but by Occam’s reasoning unlikely.

            I’d prefer MOND as it’s Occam’s first choice, but as it seems, I’d be wrong.

          • mpc755

            If they are equal then they would displace the dark matter equally, the displaced dark matter would push back equally, and the stars in the outer arms would rotate about the galactic center at the same speed.

            This is not what the two articles are referring to. In one article the stars are group together in clumps. In the other, the galaxy itself is diffuse.

          • mpc755

            What the astronomers mistake for the amount of dark matter is the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter. If the galaxy is diffuse it doesn’t displace the supersolid dark matter into forming a halo. The astronomers are mistaking this for the galaxy not having any dark matter. If the stars exist in compact clusters then they displace the dark matter a lot and it pushes back with a greater force, causing the stars to move faster than expected. They mistake this for the galaxy being 99% dark matter.

            What the astronomers mistake for the amount of dark matter associated with a galaxy is actually the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter.

          • mpc755

            What the astronomers mistake for the amount of dark matter is the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter. If the galaxy is diffuse it doesn’t displace the supersolid dark matter into forming a halo. The astronomers are mistaking this for the galaxy not having any dark matter. If the stars exist in compact clusters then they displace the dark matter a lot and it pushes back with a greater force, causing the stars to move faster than expected. They mistake this for the galaxy being 99% dark matter.

            What the astronomers mistake for the amount of dark matter associated with a galaxy is actually the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter.

      • mpc755

        What physicists mistake for the amount of dark matter is the state of displacement of the supersolid dark matter connected to and neighboring the galaxy.

  • Film@11

    QUOTE : “Scientists were unnerved when they first noticed that galaxies don’t rotate by the same physics as a spinning plate.”

    IIRC the problem is that galaxies do rotate like spinning plates but shouldn’t. We used to think that stars near the center of galaxy would orbit much faster about the center of the galaxy than stars out at the edge. Observations showed the stars out at the edge orbiting the galaxy much faster than they should, almost like the galaxy was asolid disk.

    • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

      The observation included hydrogen extending another third galactic radius beyond the visible edge – the Tully-Fisher relation.

      • 7eggert

        Calculating how Einstein’s universe would look like when converted to Newton’s universe may be a source for Dark Energy.

        • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

          Newton tacitly assumed lightspeed is infinite; Plank’s and Boltzmann’s constants are zero. You have ended special relativity, quantum mechanocs and quantum field theory, and statistical mechanics. Tch, tch.

    • Julius513

      you are right …they don’t rotate faster than expected …thy mystery is that he galaxy stays together given the speed that they rotate…but what we expect them to rotate is something we measure so the blog is incorrect and I believe you are right

    • Eric Simpson

      “Either dark matters exists, or MOND is correct.” No. Why can’t we just say it’s something we don’t understand? It could be anything, but at this point we don’t have a clue.

      • Ken Mitchell

        Bingo. There is so little that we know, that it hardly makes sense to come up with “explanations” that are based on the little that we think we know. At some point, we need to admit “We don’t know – yet.”

        It’s likely that the information we need is available OUTSIDE of the Solar System’s gravity well.

        • OWilson

          Humans have been contemplating the nature of reality for thousands of years.

          It was much simpler in the old days.

          At the metaphysical level, Ra/Apollo/God/ “works in mysterious ways!”, and we went about our business.

          But that won’t get you a research grant, or even a gig on T.V.’s “Horizon” or “Nova”!

          Multiverses, hidden dimensions, branes, noodles are where it’s at today! :)

        • Steve SanFrancisco

          the “electric universe” theories explain a lot of this by simply including the effects of magnetism and electricity at cosmic scales. All the standard cosmology models omit electricity and magnetism in their cosmic evolution modeling and that’s a big part of what’s missing. This information is not outside our solar system gravity well, it’s just outside of settled science and mainstream science because it is harder to understand and model than a simple gravity model of the universe.

    • CapitalG151

      I have came up with a simple equation to answer this whole issue. The particles we know as cosmic-rays are largely made of alpha particles like protons and a small portion of heavy element nuclei such as iron or other radioactive super heavy particles. That is the first part of the equation, this accounts for a small portion of unseen mass as it is in a state of high excitability such as having directional velocity near “MC” and containing “little” mass. Now the second part of the equation that is my take on it. These particles on their own are in unknown locations at any moment and not of sufficient mass to for matter or pro to matter of any complexity to be seen in a static location affecting visible matter. The gravity produced by large visible and invisible objects such as black holes, wolf-rayet class stars & rapidly spinning neutron stars(though not massive in trad. terms I’ll explain its purpose in this group). When these massive objects move in any direction, be it spin, velocity relative to galactic center or two/three stars or massive objects orbiting one another rapidly , they produce a phenomenon we are just now measuring, GRAVITATIONAL WAVES! when these waves meet they will either create interference waves and cancle creating a grav. “vacuum” or as two waves collide they will propagate and create a gravitational force larger than the sum of the two waves. This would create an object in space of gravitational pull where in reality there is no object. It is “empty” space but is the meeting point of two large grav waves. In this model we should see the galaxy as a huge pond and all stars are constantly and infinitely like rock dropping in the water, not once to create a ripple but repeatedly until the whole system is awash in gravitational anomalies.

      • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

        I have came up with a simple equation to answer this whole issue.” Read this, then get back to us,
        .
        Gravitation, Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne, John Archibald Wheeler; 1333 pages; ISBN9780691177793

        • sovemp

          Lol best comment ever. Though that text is somewhat dated by now. I’d suggest Sean Carrol’s text.

      • 7eggert

        Wikipedia has a good graphics about what proportion of DM is explained by various kind of rays, including photons (light) mass.

      • iThinker2

        I like this possible explanation. So, perhaps the affects of gravitational waves interacting at the edge of galaxies produce the observed results.

        • jonathanpulliam

          The new Trump space force has designs on Uranus

  • AbedPeerally

    My two books and a dozen papers in vixra archives peerally talk anout the theory of everything and its conclusions and predictions. One if them is that dark matter and dark energy do not exist. . The theory of everything however does explain what they could be using a different concept. The book will be published by early next year.

    • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

      :vixra” Not even the Ig Nobel Prize.

      • AbedPeerally

        Numerous science papers in so called well publicized
        journals have been reported as fake. For such reasons among others most European countries are going for free access. My first relativity paper in SAJS was vetted by one world renowned scientist who published a book wit Hawking. I have good reasons to prefer free access for my Theory of Everything papers. For your information none of Einstein’s papers was reviewed before publication. I dont trust several reviewers.You are entitled to your views. My TOE WILL BE PUBLISHED SOON.

      • AbedPeerally

        The modern tendency is to go towards open access publications. The whole world academics is taking that trend. My first Einstein relativity paper was refereed by a world very famous cosmologist who coauthored a major book by Hawking and the paper was accepted within three days of submission to SAJS. THERE IS NOBODY THAT CAN REFEREE PAPERS ABOUT THE TOE AND THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS. HENCE MY APPRECIATION OF VIXRA. SEE HOW MANY INDEPENDENT DOWNLOADS OF MY PAPERS.

  • enantiomer2000

    Dark matter is a special form of hydrogen called hydrino. Randell Mills is making a dark matter engine called the Suncell which is going to change everything.

    • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

      The giant flying spaghetti monster filling the whole universe with its noodley presence is dark matter. Resurrected Mormons ruling planets are dark matter. Dark matter is an apparition fomented by the Devil to fool us.

      Dark mater is an observational anomaly caused by the Earth being truly being flat (and cylindrical so the oceans to not spill).

      • Boris

        And hey, they just discovered that the insides of neutron stars have been touched by The Noodly Appendage. Look up Nuclear Pasta, it’s all over the news!

        • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

          It’s true! Now…parameterize (curve fit) and publish.

          • Boris

            And they’ll print it, too. Might ask for more.

      • 7eggert

        And a cork at the top :-) Thanks for the picture.

        • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

          …and the bottom – the frozen poles.

    • jonathanpulliam

      False. Randell Mills’ hoax is B-grade at best

    • Danny Hurley

      I’m afraid enantiomer2000 you’re way ahead of the curve on this one… … like Galileo. .. you’re only going to be met with a load modern flat Earthers and Inquisitioners!
      “NO-ONE EXPECTS THE RANDELL MILLS IAN INQUISITION!!!” 😉

  • Zephir

    In dense aether analogy of space-time the dark matter corresponds the collective effects of tiny ripples and turbulences at the water surface: the scalar waves and high/low spin solitons of the vacuum. These fluctuations are of unparticle character of random noise. We can also observe many dark matter analogies in socioeconomical phenomena (like the ignorance of breaktrough findings and ideas). The hype curve of dark matter acceptation by scientific community therefore exhibits its own dark matter effect.

  • OWilson

    Humans will always be limited by human perception. We have been likened to eternally living in a dark cave, seeking to explain the shadows we see on the walls from the outside world.

    We assume matter is something that occupies empty space, when in fact empty space is a human construct, to explain Newton’s laws.

    Einstein the invoked “space time” and Heisenberg gave birth to quantum fluctuations, fields, vacuum energy, spontaneous particle creation. It turns out empty space is a very busy place indeed, today’s ether.

    Can humans conceive of empty space, of “nothing”?

    Conventional wisdom has barred galaxies evolving into spiral galaxies due to differential vortex rotation, or the “winding” effect, a concept we can easily understand.

    If the new theories are correct, there is no way for these presumably younger barred spirals to “mature” into homogeneous elliptical shapes, and no explanation for the obvious “smearing” vortex pattern we are so familiar with.

    The search for understanding has given us many new hypotheses, each one raising new questions, but we, the latest great apes, can never really separate ourselves as detached objective observers of this weird universe that apparently has no reason to exist.

    We can however, like the spiders in the cave, utilize our localized experience to build our webs, and exploit the local environment.

    And wonder!

    • 7eggert

      I can imagine an empty space: According to Einstein, if you take everything out, there will be no space. So you can imagine a cavity that does not exist, anything flying in will emerge without having to pass a certain distance at all.

      If you want a picture, think with portals.

      • OWilson

        Space is an observable phenomena, brimming with a perhaps infinite amount of particles, waves and fields, and ambient virtual energy that can be be converted to mass.

        “Nothing” is a relative descriptive concept! If there is nothing, there is nothing to be conceptualized! :)

    • jonathanpulliam

      There a a number of interesting spiders quite proximate your present location

  • andrewp111

    What if the “dark matter” is actually numerous collections of galaxies, star clusters, and stars in billions or trillions of parallel universes, with the gravity of each of them leaking a little bit into all the parallel universes that they are coincident with in space? The parallel universes could even be alternate quantum histories of our own, and separated by extra time dimensions.

    • tailhook

      That sound going off means its time to take your meds, Andrew.

      What If, Assuming, all while wrapping a riddle inside of an enigma.

    • happy loser

      Andrew very interesting idea.

    • jonathanpulliam

      Brane leakage

    • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

      Try reading refereed literature. You are not even wrong.

      • jonathanpulliam

        It’s done such wonders for you, right??

    • Andy Bonnar

      How would the gravity of mass in different dimensions “leak” into other dimensions? Wouldn’t it only exist in that particular dimension?

      • jonathanpulliam

        The frequency of the excitations of the relevant brane. One may observe the “anti-particle”, briefly, but it can be observed prior to annihilation. Protons vs. Anti-protons, etc and until one gets to the various constituent sub-atomic particles they are hyper symmetrical, but at the sub-atomic scale they cannot be both both analogous and yet precisely identical owing to the difference is manifest is in lack of symmetry, with regard to their, these sub-atomic particles, respective “spins”, ie i/3 of a spin 2/3 spin, and so on.

      • http://www.theenlighteningbook.com Kevin Goczeski

        In my view, space/time exists as a continuum throughout the entire hyper-dimensional universe. For example, the portion of the Milky Way that we can observe from our own reference frame (i.e. from our own physical “dimension”) obviously carries gravitational influence within our own frame. However, since the space/time continuum extends throughout all reference frames, our own gravitational influence continues beyond our own reference frame/ dimension. The gravity produced by our own physical dimension of the Milky Way also extends, at a much lower level, into adjacent, extra-dimensional reference frames (and, theoretically, across the entirely of space/time, at increasingly vanishing levels).

        In turn, our own reference frame is awash in an extra-dimensional gravitational “soup” which results from the totality of gravitational forces exerted by the vast majority of the Milky Way, which exists in different physical reference frames, or “dimensions”, from our own. More plainly stated, most of the Milky Way is traveling at velocities above “c” (light speed), relative to us. We cannot directly perceive those extra-dimensional portions, but they have left us their gravitational calling card, which has reached into our physical realm via the hyper-dimensional space/time continuum. This calling card is what we refer to as “dark matter”.

        When Albert Einstein developed his gravitational field equations, dark matter was unknown, and his theories of Relativity and Special Relativity only deal with what we observe within our own reference frame of space/time. Because of that limitation, the field equations do not take any extra-dimensional gravitation into account. Therefore, the gravitational sources of dark matter have remained a mystery to us, as we are looking in all the wrong places, assuming there must be some sort of exotic “mystery particle” which will explain it all.

    • polijunkie100

      I’ve been thinking something along the same lines. The ‘extra’ dimensions required by string theory took a hit recently, but they aren’t completely gone. The theory of alternate universes popped up again also. Since we don’t know what ‘particle’ transmits gravity, it is possible it could be small enough to pass through one or more of the extra dimensions to gravitationally bind us to other universes.

    • http://www.theenlighteningbook.com Kevin Goczeski

      Andrew, this idea of multiple dimensions being the primary source of dark matter is spot on, although in a less exotic manner than one might expect. I am convinced that extra-dimensional mass/energy is identical to mass/energy which exists within our own space/time reference frame, with the only difference being the relative velocity of that extra-dimensional mass/energy, compared with our own frame of reference. I describe exactly how it happens in my book, The Enlightening, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere in the comments section of this blog post.

      Despite Uncle Al’s contention earlier in the thread, and despite tailhook’s reflexive poo-pooing, this sort of theoretical possibility has been floated within the academic astrophysical community, on occasion. However, nobody has previously figured out the details of these additional physical reference frames, or dimensions. The solution involves taking another look at relativity theory– special relativity, in particular—and moving forward from that point, based on what has been revealed by more recent astronomical observations.

      I am in the early stages of trying to get the word out about what I refer to as the hyper-dimensional universe, and I have included those ideas within the pages of my book (The Enlightening), available on Amazon for anybody who might want to check it out. I think any open-minded individual interested in the dark matter enigma, or anybody interested in the multi-dimensional nature of our own Milky Way galaxy, might find it very interesting, if not conclusive, reading.

      Thanks, Kevin Goczeski

  • mostlynew

    Dark matter seems a stab in the dark held up as theory. No doubt Federal grants were awarded to spin the wheels

    • OWilson

      To be fair, while Dark Matter/Dark Energy it is a kludge, like Big Bang “inflation” to make a hypothesis work, think of it as a “placeholder”, until something better comes along? :)

      • mostlynew

        Learned an new word – kludge. Your perspective sets a good example for cheerful, well informed rebuttals and constructive contributions to reader comments.

        • OWilson

          Thanks, hopefully we are all here to learn what we don’t know.

          Thanks too, to the Mods here who allow all points of view on the subject matter!

  • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

    … 1) Baryogenesis, post-Big Bang excess matter over antimatter, violates conservation laws via
    … 2) Sakharov criteria (arXiv:hep-ph/9901362). Trace chiral anisotropic vacuum is selective to hadrons, cooling hadronization beginning at T ≈ 156 MeV, DOI:10.1038/s41586-018-0491-6)
    … 3) Trace vacuum chiral anisotropy allows trace Noetherean leakage of angular momentum conservation. Milgrom acceleration and the cosmological constant (arXiv:1607.01128) emerge. No dark matter.
    … 4) Simultaneous microwave rotational spectra of extreme geometrically divergent molecular enantiomers in 3:1 right:left ratio are dipole opposite shoes embedded within a vacuum left foot with different energies. Respective spectral lines cannot exactly superpose. 3:1 asymmetric line broadening is sufficient..
    … 5) The performed experiment, DOI:10.1002/anie.201704221 Observe crafted analytes,

    www(.)mazepath(.)com/uncleal/d3QMGR.pdf
    … Two optimized molecules, stereograms. LOOK

  • Tom Aaron

    I studied geology. Now 45 years later can say that I know as much about dark matter and dark energy as if I had majored in physics…nothing. I know as much about quantum entanglement as the leading theoretical physicists…nothing.

    This is not a criticism. However, brilliant minds seem bogged down on some vision of reality. It may be the best approach we have to understanding this reality but makes me glad I specialized elsewhere. Seems physicists are ‘stuck’ trying to hold on to threads. All fascinating.

    Breakthroughs in understanding reality will likely come via AI technology rather than physicists studying dark matter, etc. Google and Apple will lead the way rather than Berkeley and Cambridge.

    • jonathanpulliam

      You compulsion to prognosticate is duly noted. Get me a coke please.

  • Julius513

    In my opinion …gravitational waves took 100 years to be discovered ….and no one thought they were another “false ether claim’ …the ether claim had something more wrong with it then just something that was not observed. Maxwell’s equations predicted that light did not need the “ether” so the “ether” was something that if if did not exist would not have been a surprise. ( with much ado and loss of generality :-) But if dark matter does not exist then that will be a surprise because observations show there should be something there…the opposite was true of the “ether”

    • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

      Reality is not a peer vote.

      • 7eggert

        In fact, it is. People will change their reality based on the opinion of their peers. You can even make people be wrong by creating a group of people, some will pretend that 2+2=5 and the test subject in that group will doubt himself and agree.

        • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

          The product of all primes, 2×3×5×7×… = 4(pi)^2
          The sum of all positive integers, 1+2+3+4+5+… = -1/12
          The product of all positive integers, 1×2×3×4… = (infinity)! = sqrt[(2)(pi)]

          johncarlosbaez(.)wordpress(.)com/2018/09/20/patterns-that-eventually-fail/

          However,

          To prove: 2=3
          4 – 10 = 9 – 15
          Add 25/4 to both sides,
          4 – 10 + 25/4 = 9 – 15 + 25/4
          Write sides as complete squares,
          (2 – 5/2)^2 = (3 – 5/2)^2
          Take the square root of both sides
          2 – 5/2 = 3 – 5/2,
          add 5/2 to both sides
          2=3

          is crap.

          • 7eggert

            And yet, when put to the test, many people will say: “The people you asked before me and who answered 2 == 3 all agree, so that must be true”.

            Perception is just a narrative that needs to fit well enough to sensory input, to keep you alive and to have a next generation. We don’t know what people see when they call a color “red”, we assume it’s the same thing they see, and repeat the word they use for things like that.

            Other cultures have different words, they actually see different colors and they can colors apart which we don’t (need to) distinguish. They voted on a different reality.

          • OWilson

            And if their peers happen to be wrong, they’ll all pay the price.

            Evolution at work! :)

          • 7eggert

            We can never know weather we are right, unless we know we are wrong. The best science can do is telling us: This is our best formula, we know it’s wrong by this and that, so avoid using it here and there.

          • OWilson

            I wish your caution, that is often expressed by scientists themselves, would temper the rush to judgement of politicians and the MSM, who dispense speculative opinions, as uncontroversial fact, to the great unwashed (that’s you and I), where it can have an inordinate powerful influence over public policy.

          • iThinker2

            2 NE 3

          • TomD

            Ha! The Mathematical Association of America once reported on some graffiti at Princeton Univ: “2+2=5 for large values of 2”. The joke, of course, is due to the conceptual difference between a number and a numeral.

          • Steve SanFrancisco

            @Xemist:disqus

            when you take the square root or exponent of an equation you have to give each side an independent +/- value. 2^2=4 but so does (-2)^2=4.

            I reworked your proof to show this below.

            2=2
            multiply each side by -3
            -6 = -6
            add in substitutions -6=4-10 to left side and -6=9-15 for right side of equation.
            4 – 10 = 9 – 15
            Add 25/4 to both sides,
            4 – 10 + 25/4 = 9 – 15 + 25/4
            Write sides as complete squares,
            (2 – 5/2)(2 – 5/2) = (3 – 5/2)(3 – 5/2)
            (2 – 5/2)^2 = (3 – 5/2)^2
            notice on the left side of the equation we have a negative number that you are taking the square root for. On the right side we have a positive number we are taking the squire root for.
            +/-(2-5/2)i = +/-(3-5/2)
            -.5i = .5
            i=-1

            or if the above equation using “i” is not formatted correctly, I did it with +/- nomenclature for more clarity.

            +/-(2 – 5/2) = +/-(3 – 5/2)
            add 5/2 to both sides
            5/2+/-(2 – 5/2) = 5/2+/- (3 – 5/2)
            5/2 +/-(-1/2) = 5/2 +/- (1/2)
            could be any one of these 4 combinations.
            5/2 +1/2 = 5/2 + 1/2
            5/2 +1/2 = 5/2 – 1/2
            5/2 -1/2 = 5/2 + 1/2
            5/2 -1/2 = 5/2 – 1/2
            to get
            6=6
            6=4
            4=6
            4=4

            p.s. once long ago I had an Erdos number of 2. but I took a different path and explored the world instead of following in the footsteps of my math instructor and becoming a protege. Now I solve problems of economics and poverty with the skills I learned in number theory.

            it’s still crap, but not for the reasons you suggest. sorry if my math is sloppy. I’m pleasantly high and not in the habit of being rigorous anymore. I think what I wrote should be a clue that makes sense to you. There’s still something deeply wrong with math and it makes one wonder how many mathematicians are making mistakes like this.

      • bwana

        Hell, “Reality” may not even by reality, much less a peer vote!

      • jonathanpulliam

        Dee de Dee

    • 7eggert

      It would be a surprise because we calculated deveral distributions of DM and found galaxies appearing to have more DM than others.

      If it was just a factor on an equation, our old equations might be wrong.

    • hairspray

      “Maxwell’s equations predicted that light did not need the “ether” “.
      Actually, this is the opposite of what his equations predicted. … It was the appearance of Maxwell’s equations that prompted everyone to start searching for the ether.

  • http://patriceayme.wordpress.com Tyranosopher

    And the answer may well be that Quantum Mechanics met its maker, on a cosmic scale, and found it wanting… I have argued (links delayed by moderation) that it is Quantum Mechanics, not gravity (“MOND”) which has to be modified…

    • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

      Quantum mechanics can be falsified by Hund’s paradox. Blow a cold homochiral molecular beam through a grating. If no pattern obtains or if the effluent is not racemized, quantum mechanics is falsified. Markus Arndt (matter gratings); Anton Zeilinger (photon gratings). Analytical chemistry sells what physics cannot imagine.

      A pair of shoes’ wavefunction (Schrödinger’s cat) sums two kets – non-superposable parity plus inverse parity – zero! Any attempt to localize diffraction plus interference, tracing pathways, looking at the cat, collapses the emergent pattern. No dissipation! Hundt’s Paradox requires continuous wavefunction collapse to maintain a chiral cat. Grating near-field traversal has the cat in a box. Chirality cannot exist. There can be no chiral bias on the exit side of the grating.

      www(.)mazepath(.)com/uncleal/d3QMGR.pdf
      … Stereograms of two extreme chiral-divergent test molecules.

      Hund’s paradox, DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.023202, DOI:10.1088/1361-6455/aa5115, DOI:10.1039/C2CP40920H

      … General Relativity can be no worse than Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble. All interpretations of quantum mechanics must be defective, DOI:10.1038/s41467-018-05739-8 Table III.

      foundations(.)ethz(.)ch/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/renner.pdf

  • CapitalG151

    I have came up with a simple equation to answer this whole issue. The particles we know as cosmic-rays are largely made of alpha particles like protons and a small portion of heavy element nuclei such as iron or other radioactive super heavy particles. That is the first part of the equation, this accounts for a small portion of unseen mass as it is in a state of high excitability such as having directional velocity near “MC” and containing “little” mass. Now the second part of the equation that is my take on it. These particles on their own are in unknown locations at any moment and not of sufficient mass to for matter or pro to matter of any complexity to be seen in a static location affecting visible matter. The gravity produced by large visible and invisible objects such as black holes, wolf-rayet class stars & rapidly spinning neutron stars(though not massive in trad. terms I’ll explain its purpose in this group). When these massive objects move in any direction, be it spin, velocity relative to galactic center or two/three stars or massive objects orbiting one another rapidly , they produce a phenomenon we are just now measuring, GRAVITATIONAL WAVES! when these waves meet they will either create interference waves and cancle creating a grav. “vacuum” or as two waves collide they will propagate and create a gravitational force larger than the sum of the two waves. This would create an object in space of gravitational pull where in reality there is no object. It is “empty” space but is the meeting point of two large grav waves. In this model we should see the galaxy as a huge pond and all stars are constantly and infinitely like rock dropping in the water, not once to create a ripple but repeatedly until the whole system is awash in gravitational anomalies.

    • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

      The particles we know as cosmic-rays are largely made of alpha particles” empirical idiot

  • RayJ1984

    Quantum physics states that particles can literally be in more than one place at a time, correct? Running with that idea, wouldn’t it make sense that the same particles would be counted more than once and our math is off? Or maybe dark matter is actually ordinary matter in a different plane of reality. Multiverse theory in one giant universe.

    • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

      “Quantum physics states that particles can literally be in more than one place at a time, correct?” Wrong. The wavefunction can be universal. it instantaneously universally collapses into a discrete observable when you look.

      One can strangle quantum mechanics on consistency. Consider a pair of shoes. The wavefunction is two kets – non-superposable parity plus inverse parity – summing to zero, hence Hund’s paradox. And testable, below. If you prefer pure theory to observation, that also fails, DOI:10.1038/s41467-018-05739-8

  • President Beavis Cornholio

    Uh oh. The universe is a simulation and we’ve discovered a bug. It’ll be fixed in the next patch. None of us will remember this.

    (sarcasm)

    (…or is it?)

  • Reddog

    I don’t know about you, but I’m in the dark on this one.

  • MyDisqussion

    Making up dark matter so that the equations balance and galaxies don’t go flying off into the universe probably means that something is wrong with your equations. I like Erik Verlinde’s papers on gravity. Some say gravitational waves put an end to the theory, but at this point, no one knows.

    At some point, if you can’t find a basis for a theory, it is time to move on to something else.

    • 7eggert

      Problem is: Our theory is wrong, but ist too good at being wrong to not use it in favor of something else.

      Maybe you don’t have the recipe for mother’s cookies, but using the recipe from the book, they don’t taste that bad.

    • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

      Dark mater curve fits the observed Tully-Fisher relation. One can curve-fit a sine wave with an odd polynomial as closely and as extensively as desired. The curve fit goes off the deep end at the boundary condition. As with economics, one can perfectly explain everything and accurately predict nothing.

      Milgrom acceleration can be sourced on a bench top within 24 hours with commercial equipment and analytical chemistry. If my entire science could be undone by an undergrad sitting on his butt, waiting, I’d be against it too.

  • Kurt Stocklmeir

    spring constant of time and space is not linear – time and space are elastic not linear – this can be compared to a rubber band – at first it is simple to expand a rubber band but it gets more hard to expand it because spring constant is not linear – any force that shape of time and space creates decreases less fast than 1/rr – as distance from mass increases it is more simple to make time and space have a shape that creates a force – all forces get stronger as they travel – gravity gets stronger as it travels there is not any dark matter – magnetic fields of a galaxy do the same thing – magnetic fields decrease a lot less than 1/rrr in a galaxy – magnetic fields between galaxies decrease a lot less fast than 1/rrr – magnetic fields a big distance from cluster of galaxies are extreme strong – there is not any Doppler effect of any force – how strong gravity is does not change depending on speed and direction – all forces move at an almost infinite speed – all forces are tachyons – all forces slow down as they go through time space and the vacuum all forces get stronger as they travel – George said if gravitons are tachyons they have negative momentum and that can explain attraction of gravity George was the first person to explain attraction of forces – weak force does not change depending on speed and direction like fission does not change depending on speed and direction – strong force does not change depending on speed and direction like fusion does not change depending on speed and direction Kurt Stocklmeir

  • Ryan Helfter

    the loss off mass is stored in the universe as energy… if we could convert all of the energy to mass back into the universe, we would account for the missing mass. DM does not exist…

    • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

      That is already in the spreadsheet. The entire universe, all its stuff less its potentials, sums to nothing. Zero. There is no glass to be half full or half empty.

      • Ryan Helfter

        Right, but starting from the big bang, the universe is constantly accelerating, striving to reach the speed of light, yet never actually quite reaching the speed of light. the mass is of the universe only seems heavier as it gains momentum and kinetic energy. The mass we can’t find is an illusion.

  • Whatever910

    There’s still the hypothesis of the matter/energy from other dimensions ( from the 5th to the 10th ) we can’t observe leaking their gravity through the dimensional barriers. We know from string theory that gravitational forces aren’t confined to the dimension where they originate like electromagnetism and the others.

    Mind you, it doesn’t mean it’s the right hypothesis, it just means were left at least with this one for now.

    • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

      More interactive dimensions demand more spectral degrees of freedom (re Group Theory). There are none to at least 15 decimal places. “Dark matter” acts at the tenth decimal place, DOI:10.12942/lrr-2012-10, arXiv:1112.3960.

      You are empirically wrong.

      • Whatever910

        Go tell that to the very serious and knowledgeable scientists in their field of expertise who have been pushing forward that hypothesis for years, not me.

  • Livefire

    More people need to work on SVT, Superfluid Vacuum Theory makes to much sense for it not to be true. Quantum Vortex Turbulence can explain every particle and force perfectly in SVT.

    • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

      www(.)youtube(.)com/watch?v=rLDgQg6bq7o
      … One minute, 49 seconds.

  • RayJ1984

    Time and gravity go hand-in-hand. If dark matter is actually dark gravity would that mean that there is an alternate form of time? Eternity in a single moment? The lack of time? Either way, an eternal moment or zero time it makes chronological time meaningless. What if we can’t measure dark matter (gravity) because our chronological lives literally can not understand it?

    • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

      Read this, then propose an experiment,
      .
      Gravitation, Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne, John Archibald Wheeler; 1333 pages; ISBN9780691177793

      • RayJ1984

        I just purchased the text on Amazon (only $54). If I remember to respond once I finish reading it I will let you know. Thank you for the advice.

  • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

    The universe contains more matter than antimatter via baryogenesis (arXiv:1505.01076). This requires Sakharov criteria (arXiv:hep-ph/9901362). Non-conservation of angular momentum (Milgrom acceleration) is Noetherean leakage given trace chiral anisotropic vacuum creating the matter-antimatter imbalance. No dark matter.

    Detect Sakharov criteria. The experiment (DOI:10.1002/anie.201704221) ran for a different reason in 2017. Load a pertinent molecule, and LOOK.

    www(.)mazepath(.)com/uncleal/d3QMGR.pdf
    … Stereograms of two pertinent molecules.

  • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

    xkcd(.)com/2050/
    … Dark matter, trivially explicated.

  • iThinker2

    “their motion can only be explained” we must accept that some other cause. Dark Matter = C

  • bwana

    I lean towards the much more believable scenario that “Or perhaps we are wrong about the laws of gravity.” It would take a very small change in the way gravity functions over large distances to replace dark matter!

  • StanChaz

    It doesn’t matter.
    We’ll all be dead soon anyway.
    Cheers!

  • Rick Bliss

    Ok, have you ever watched the Illustris supercomputer simulation of the universe on youtube? There is a clue there.

  • Rick Bliss

    Dark Matter has a large-scale filament-like structure that is fairly consistent over time. It likely has a non-zero commutator, meaning we can’t detect or measure it.

  • https://www.facebook.com/app_scoped_user_id/YXNpZADpBWEVHZAWxzaVVMeVdmWDA5Vm85cUFldndlek9EQ2UybDlscS1IQUs0LW5aQWttbHhpeGpGMTE0cXF2N3plOFktdUhCRWZACSTlVWlBJNVpqLTc3a2tNZAnIzMV9WRkNMTUN5SDRC/ Tim Newton

    Dark matter its very dense matter that has slipped through our membrane of reality and sits between two branes. It is so dense its gravity effects can be felt in both universes but can not be seen. Newton CC.

  • Golgolta

    Ever consider if the galaxies are not in equilibrium? Then it doesn’t follow equilibrium dynamics

  • Richard Smith

    . Some very massive but elusive particle is needed to explain
    how Dark Matter can constitute 24% of the mass of the universe. Up and Down quarks combine to form all the protons and neutrons in atoms, yet could Dark Matter be particles formed by other combinations of quarks?

  • http://www.theenlighteningbook.com Kevin Goczeski

    A lot of people have postulated, in a very general sense, that there are additional, unseen physical dimensions to the universe which comprise the mysterious “dark matter”. I have spent an enormous amount of time researching this subject through peer-reviewed journals and published astronomical observations, and I have seen just about every idea that’s been floated by anyone in the field. Although my lack of proper academic credentials apparently disqualifies any ideas I might have (in the eyes of most physicists), I am, in fact, offering a solution to this great mystery, as well as several other major quandaries such as wave-particle duality, quantum entanglement and the matter/ anti-matter discrepancy in the universe, to name just a few more.

    I am convinced that the galaxies we observe, including our own Milky Way, are truly multi-dimensional, and extra-dimensional mass/energy provides the gravitational assist, aka Dark Matter, that we observe in our own space/time reference frame. The difference here is that I can explain exactly how it all works, starting with a new way of looking at Lorentz’ relativistic velocity transformation equations, which provide the underlying basis of special relativity.

    It is easy to simply stick the label of “crackpot” or “crank” on me, which I know all too well, believe me. I am expecting to see replies to this post (by people who are offering no solutions themselves), stating just that. Nonetheless, I wrote a book which details exactly what my ideas are. Albert Einstein once said that if you truly understand something, you should be able to explain it in clear, simple language, and I feel I have done just that.

    Anyone truly interested in unraveling and understanding the mysteries of dark matter might want to check it out. The book is called The Enlightening, by Kevin Goczeski, and it is available on Amazon as a printed book or as an e-book. To put it into a more understandable and enjoyable context, and maybe to poke a little fun at my own status as an alleged “crank”, I folded my ideas into what I call a “hybrid novel” format. It is a radical new way of looking at our hyper-dimensional universe, wrapped inside of what seems to be, on the surface, a science fiction-type novel. If I am going to be a rebel, I thought I might as well go all the way…

    Thanks for reading.

    Kevin G.

    • jonathanpulliam

      You are a crank. There is no solution.

      • http://www.theenlighteningbook.com Kevin Goczeski

        Thanks for replying. I was wondering if anybody reads this stuff. Sort of restores my faith in humanity somewhat.

        • jonathanpulliam

          My comment was poor gruel. Maybe you are on to something.

  • https://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.nl/ Leo Vuyk

    They are crumbling, ( the theories) because Imo, reality is more crazy then everybody can imagine,
    If we live inside the material bubble universe instant connected with at least one ANTI material bubble universe. called the entangled Raspberry multiverse.

    • http://www.theenlighteningbook.com Kevin Goczeski

      I appreciate your out-of-the box thinking regarding the Raspberry multiverse, as you’ve coined it, but I find the ideas difficult to follow. From my perspective, I don’t consider the physical reality of the universe to be much more complicated than what we already observe within our own space/time reference frame. Regarding dark matter, I am proposing a model where the “dark matter” is nothing more than ordinary mass/energy, existing in entirely separate physical dimensions of space/time simply due to differences in relative velocity. I believe a sharp high school student could understand the basic gist of it quite easily. I don’t have any charts or diagrams in my book, and only a single passing reference to an equation (mass/energy equivalence). All the observations and equations necessary to divine what is really occurring already exist. That being said, I do think my ideas open a window to a fairly simple tweaking of the gravitational field equations, as well as opening up an entire range of hyper-dimensional mathematical possibilities, down the road. I am happy to leave all that for others, though.

      As far as predictive aspects of my ideas, I do have an ace-in-the-hole which nobody else has. The MUSE instrument on ESO’s Very Large Telescope in Chile recently discovered 72 anomalous galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field, which had even escaped the imaging of the Hubble Space Telescope. The electromagnetic energy which has reached us from these 72 very distant galaxies only exists within a single wavelength—intriguingly, in the Lyman-Alpha range, of all things. This is an unprecedented observational detail which I can easily explain, based on the physical structure of our universe as I describe in my book, The Enlightening. It is NOT red-shifted gamma radiation, as has been weakly suggested.

      • https://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.nl/ Leo Vuyk

        I suggest these 72 galaxies to be BHs.

  • jonathanpulliam

    Trump has worked his tiny fingers down to the nubbins probing for dark matter.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+