Jump to content
Science Forums

Geometry As A Unifying Idea


Dubbelosix

Recommended Posts

Why should any model need dark matter. Dark Matter has never been observed, it is required only to explain things that the maths otherwise can't explain. It ius the weak link in EFE's

 

If you dont know what is causing an observational effect in space, stating it must be dark matter, is like stating I havent got a clue, why that happens. Except that if I add in RANDOM amounts of matter, the existing theory still works. To support an otherwise very accurate theory add Dark Matter and hope no one notices something might be wrong with the math.  

 

To talk about Dark Matter as something that is real, that must be included to explain how space time dimensions x,y,z,and t work, might be a bit lacking. Looking at including extra dimensions to cover ER=EPR entanglement and wave particle duality features might be the way to go. The question is will going from 4 to 5 or more dimensions improve any model, or understanding. String theory might be a bit OTT. But derived from that IF gravity works via entanglement as suggested by Verlinde and others with less successful ideas that use the Holographic principle originating from string theory and quantum mechanics. Then maybe 5 or 6 dimensions will give a better model, many people have gone this route and have had success. 

 

If dark matter is real, and many scientists are convinced of this, will need to explain why it isn't present in the early universe - for instance, a fundamental matter-field cannot just appear from no where and certainly not four billion years into the future history of the universe. Before these conversations, I was not aware that Verlinde's theory will explain dark matter, but can it say where it was during the early phases of the universe? Problem is, I am not aware of any model that can sufficiently claim dark matter with addressing this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Particle creation models do not require inflation as a priori, there are other ways to create particles in the early phases of a universe. Gravitational creation processes can happen in strongly curved spacetimes.

 

As for a reference,

 

https://www.livescience.com/64724-hubble-constant-measured-precisely-with-quasars.html?fbclid=IwAR2gLQKneM9gkx9I7s-ZcFFiqYV3eWnJcJf3sZeeZlIAdhGqD0GEhPcF9eo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should any model need dark matter. Dark Matter has never been observed, it is required only to explain things that the maths otherwise can't explain. It ius the weak link in EFE's

 

If you dont know what is causing an observational effect in space, stating it must be dark matter, is like stating I havent got a clue, why that happens. Except that if I add in RANDOM amounts of matter, the existing theory still works. To support an otherwise very accurate theory add Dark Matter and hope no one notices something might be wrong with the math.  

 

To talk about Dark Matter as something that is real, that must be included to explain how space time dimensions x,y,z,and t work, might be a bit lacking. Looking at including extra dimensions to cover ER=EPR entanglement and wave particle duality features might be the way to go. The question is will going from 4 to 5 or more dimensions improve any model, or understanding. String theory might be a bit OTT. But derived from that IF gravity works via entanglement as suggested by Verlinde and others with less successful ideas that use the Holographic principle originating from string theory and quantum mechanics. Then maybe 5 or 6 dimensions will give a better model, many people have gone this route and have had success. 

 

I want the stop you there, Dark Matter has been observed with Gravitational lensing, we know something is there we just don't know the how Dark Matter is created, light does bend around Dark Matter in the Galaxy the gravitational effects of Dark Matter are known to exist. Math is not just the only evidence of Dark Matter that is out there, the particle physics of Dark Matter is the only unknown. Dark matter is trying to be included into the Standard Model with Sterile Neutrinos and WIMPS, just it is hard to see the structure of invisible matter which has no Electromagnetic Interaction. Below is a Image of Dark Matter via using gravity to map it out. Just because Dark Matter is invisible doesn't mean we don't have means to detect Dark Matter in the universe.

 

darkmatterhalos-display.jpg

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want the stop you there, Dark Matter has been observed with Gravitational lening, wDark Matter in the universe.

 

 

I don't think "observed" is really the right word.  More accurate would be "inferred."

 

Because dark matter remains to be conclusively identified, many other hypotheses have emerged aiming to explain the observational phenomena that dark matter was conceived to explain...

 

A suitable modification to general relativity can conceivably eliminate the need for dark matter. The best-known theories of this class are MOND and its relativistic generalization tensor-vector-scalar gravity (TeVeS),  f® gravity,] negative mass dark fluid, and entropic gravity. Alternative theories abound...

 

there have been some scattered successes for alternative hypotheses, such as a 2016 test of gravitational lensing in entropic gravity.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Gravitational_lensing

Edited by Moronium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes, I am very aware of gravitational lensing, but space is not nothing either.

 

The question is whether this so-called lensing is strong enough evidence to support a dark matter claim; the other issue, is where this matter was during the first four billion years, since that matter should have been present at all times in the universe.

 

This ''gravity'' we see from simple deduction, cannot be associated to dark matter, because its absence in early phase is a real problem.

Edited by Dubbelosix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which particle creation models are you talking about. Particle creation requires virtual particles to rapidly become separated via strong gravitational fields, inflation, or electromagnetic means.

 

The link shows the universe is expanding 8% faster than originally measured. It raises a question ref the Standard Model, but does not attack it. How does that support your claim ref inflation not happening?

 

You don't need separation at large distances, you just need a quantized operator version for gravity.

 

During the extremely strong gravitational epoch only a moment after the initial stage of big bang, particles could have been created in a very short burst of irreversible dynamics. The quantization of a gravitational field will give rise to Bogolubov transformations which is basically a set of creation and annihilation operators. This same quantization method is used for particle creation on the horizon of a black hole. As you can see in these cases, it involves no separation of space, just a strong gravitational field and quantum mechanics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have also wondered whether the spin of a black hole will result in only right handed (normal particles) in a creation process, but the implications are weird. It is a type of Lorentz violation in the particle creation process based on the chirality of a black hole. If a black hole spins in an opposite direction, we may expect antiparticles being released instead of normal matter. But these are idea's I have been meddling with to answer the antimatter problem.

 

A recent investigation found a decay asymmetry for quarks in context of explaining why the universe preferred right handed particles, but I haven't been so convinced it answers anything. If anything it points to an asymmetry that is probably conserved in the space of rotations.

Edited by Dubbelosix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't need separation at large distances, you just need a quantized operator version for gravity.

 

During the extremely strong gravitational epoch only a moment after the initial stage of big bang, particles could have been created in a very short burst of irreversible dynamics. The quantization of a gravitational field will give rise to Bogolubov transformations which is basically a set of creation and annihilation operators. This same quantization method is used for particle creation on the horizon of a black hole. As you can see in these cases, it involves no separation of space, just a strong gravitational field and quantum mechanics.

 

 

Let me find you an excerpt from my gravitational research foundation paper, which explains this in some short math.

 

''

The flux of relativistic mass across a surface is equivalent to the density of the i'th component of linear momentum,

 

[math]T^{0i} = T^{i0}[/math]

 

and the components

 

[math]T^{ik}[/math]

 

represents the flux of linear momentum and the remaining component after [math]T^{ii}[/math] which represents the pressure, then

 

[math]T^{ik}[/math]

 

represents the shear stress. Knowing this we can write it under standard convention:

 

[math]\tau = g^{ik}\ \frac{c^4}{8 \pi G} \mathbf{G}_{i k} = g^{ik}\ \mathbf{T}_{i k} = g^{ik}\ \frac{c^4}{8 \pi G}[\partial_{i} \cdot \mathbf{D}_{k} + i \sigma \cdot (\Gamma_{i} \times \mathbf{D}_{k})][/math]

 

And that sums up the shear stress - as for the elasticity of spacetime, it allows me to conveniently introduce the Einstein-Hilbert action and hone in on unification theories involving particle production in curved spacetime.

The action of spacetime depends on the curvature as

 

[math]S® = -\frac{c^4}{16 \pi G} \int\ \sqrt{|-g|}\ R\ d^4x[/math]

 

[math]A = \sqrt{det|-g|}\ dxdy[/math]

 

[math]d^4x = dx\ dy\ dz\ dt[/math]

 

and

 

[math]-\frac{c^4}{16 \pi G} \int\ dz\ dt =\ action[/math]

 

so the action can be given as:

 

[math]S® = \int\ \mathcal{L}\ d^4x = -\frac{c^4}{16 \pi G} \int\ \sqrt{det|-g|}\ R\ d^4x[/math]

 

It is stated by Sakharov that the presence of the action leads to a ''metric elasticity'' of space.

Sakharov identifies the action with the change in the action of quantum fluctuations of the spacetime metric when it is curved. It was once assumed that the energy momentum tensor of the quantum fluctuations of the vacuum and the corresponding action, formally proportional to a divergent integral of the fourth power over the momenta of the virtual particles is zero:

 

[math]\hbar c \int\ k^3\ dk = 0[/math]

 

But interesting things happen in the curvature of spacetime, such a condition doesn't need to hold. The dependence of the action of quantum fluctuations on the curvature of space, could have significance for an early model of cosmology and the production of particles in strongly curved spacetimes.

 

Expanding the curvature as powrs of a geometric series we have:

 

[math]\mathcal{L}® = \mathbf{C} + \hbar c\ \int\ k\ dk \cdot R + \hbar c\ \int \frac{dk}{ k^{n-1}}R^2[/math]

 

(with R the Ricci curvature)

 

C is a renormalizing constant set to zero for flat space (see Arun and Sivaram) and you can see the third term as a correction to gravity.

 

Lorentz Violating Model for Quantum Cosmology

 

It is believed that when the universe was very young, the universe had an extremely dense gravitational field and it is this ‘’seemingly’’ obvious fact could lead to a dynamic theory of particle production. From Sakharov, who showed that fluctuations can become long lived in a gravitational field, to attempts to quantize a gravitational potential to yield Bogoliubov transformations (involving creation and annihilation operators), there is a large context of literature now supporting how particles can be created, especially within context of an early cosmology.

 

The quantization of the gravitational potential simply looks like:

 

[math]\hat{\phi} = \sum_k (u_ka_k + u^{*}_ka^{\dagger}_k)[/math]

 

[math]\hat{\phi} = \sum_k (v_kb_k + v^{*}_kb^{\dagger}_k)[/math]

 

As an attempt to quantify the role of gravity and the production of particles (as a short case of energy non-conservation), it does seem pretty and appears to work out in the theoretical sense. One particular model for spacetime I became interested in was the topic of a primordial rotation attributed to the universe as a whole. There were some serious discussions I brought forth concerning the possible validity behind such a theory. One important consideration was a centrifugal force and considerations of torsion fields round supermassive black holes.''

Edited by Dubbelosix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have also wondered whether the spin of a black hole will result in only right handed (normal particles) in a creation process, but the implications are weird. It is a type of Lorentz violation in the particle creation process based on the chirality of a black hole. If a black hole spins in an opposite direction, we may expect antiparticles being released instead of normal matter. But these are idea's I have been meddling with to answer the antimatter problem.

 

I should also state, it could give an answer to the information paradox. But this is just an intuitive notion for the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gravity does not occur without particles. Its a candy store of ideas.

Yes Blackholes with huge gravitational fields can apparently convert virtual particle pairs into real particles

Black holes according to the standard model appeared after the Big Bang. However with QLG BH's caused a big bang. 

I will go and find some links on bogolubov, is this unruh effect/Hawking radiation or similar?

 

Edit This will amuse me for some time https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221912878_Modern_Classical_Electrodynamics_and_Electromagnetic_Radiation_-_Vacuum_Field_Theory_Aspects

 

Yes, the Hawking radiation uses the same Bogolubov transformations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dark Matter possibly was not a dominate player in the early universe if Dark Matter is indeed created from sterile neutrinos or W.I.M.P.S. dubbel it would have taken this long or that much Dark Matter to have built up in the universe that we Infer by gravitational lensing to be out there, to have a understanding of why it took 4 billion years for a decent amount of Dark Matter to have be constructed we first must understand the synthesis of Dark Matter from that we could understand why it has taken that long. There is the possibility that it is an extremely rare process in the early universe that generates Dark Matter thus it slowly has been building up or maybe we are missing another epoch of the universe before the synthesis of Dark Matter was widely viable just like the Dark Energy Epoch when vast amounts of Dark Energy was made. Here is the physics of the Dark Energy dominated Epoch https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0503099.pdf , Maybe we are approaching such for Dark Matter, which according to the trends of the universe may be the case as the universe is currently mainly Dark Energy and Dark Matter from the percentages and not much visible matter. Mainly it is Dark Energy from this Epoch and Dark Matter in its current state or we have vastly miscalculated something about the universe.

 

121236-New-Pie-Charts720.png

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...