9 replies to this topic

[Olimad]

Recent theory, pointing out the failure of the search of Dark Matter, proposed that a Dark Big Bang occured at the beginning of the Universe.

 

The assumption/obligation was to stay within Λ⁢CDM framework.....

 

Here a small abstract:

"By requiring that the dark big bang model is consistent with standard Λ⁢CDM cosmology and all available relevant cosmological observations, we fully determine the parameter space of the dark sector tunneling field potential."

 

Here the paper:

https://journals.aps...RevD.110.103522

 

 

This choosen path shows that they take for granted all the assumptions that are at the basis of Λ⁢CDM (GR is one of them).

 

They propose "Dark WiMPs" to reside in the Dark sectors: 

"Dark WIMPs are analogous to the well known WIMP model for particle dark matter, the difference being dark WIMPs annihilate into dark radiation that resides in the dark sector" (from the paper).

 

Meaning for them that It is normal not to find the WiMPs or Dark WiMPs. If we, hypothetically,  find something It would only be the Dark radiation......

 

---

But another path is to expand GR and see where it leads US:

 

https://link.springe...052-024-13569-w

 

This way to conceptualize the universe gives us a bi-metric approach, with an added field equation for negative mass.

 

---

 

These are two different ways to deal with the actual theory problem.

 

1_ Stay within actual framework. Meaning, among other things, that with GR, Humanity has already found the definitive law of Gravity.

2_ expand GR (just like It has been done to Newton, in order to get to GR) and get a law of Gravity that matches the actual observations.

 

(MOND theory would somehow fit inside the second possibility).

 

 

The conceptual choice is the important thing there, math will then follow.

 

 

If we keep Λ⁢CDM, the results will be more dark stuffs added in order to fit the observations, just like in this "Dark Big Bang theory", without solving the previous needed Dark matter.... Kind of crazy.

 

P.S.: if for someone It is relevant, both papers have been peer reviewed and published.

Edited by Olimad, 04 December 2024 - 01:55 AM.

[deSitter]

Anything referencing dark matter is automatically wrong. Dark matter is an illusion from using GR in the wrong way by throwing out its essential nature, the non-linearity. This was conclusively demonstrated by Fred Cooperstock. He was resolutely ignored.

 

Why isn't someone doing radial velocity profiles in globular clusters? The same non-Keplerian behavior should be seen, and dark matter will not be an option to explain it. GR will still work when you keep the non-linearity.

 

So there are two problem. Yes, GR is only approximate because it has no Hamiltonian and no conservation of energy. But this should only matter in extreme conditions, and GR is just fine for "normal' matter distributions. if you use it wrong, you will get wrong answers.

 

There is an astonishing level of ignorance on these matters.

 

-drl

[Olimad]

Anything referencing dark matter is automatically wrong. Dark matter is an illusion from using GR in the wrong way by throwing out its essential nature, the non-linearity. This was conclusively demonstrated by Fred Cooperstock. He was resolutely ignored.

 

Why isn't someone doing radial velocity profiles in globular clusters? The same non-Keplerian behavior should be seen, and dark matter will not be an option to explain it. GR will still work when you keep the non-linearity.

 

So there are two problem. Yes, GR is only approximate because it has no Hamiltonian and no conservation of energy. But this should only matter in extreme conditions, and GR is just fine for "normal' matter distributions. if you use it wrong, you will get wrong answers.

 

There is an astonishing level of ignorance on these matters.

 

Yes, may be. The thing is that both papers of first post have been peer reviewed and published.

And if you read the second paper you will find your nonlinearity and conservation of energy.

 

 

-drl

 

The Janus Cosmological Model ( JCM) is a profoundly asimetrical model. 2nd paper of the first post.

This model has conservation of energy.

 

 

Where "positive" mass leads (positive space-time curvature), there are no "negative" masses (negative space-time curvature), showing that GR is validated as an approximation.

 

In extrem condition (of the positive space-time curvature), at the center of neutrón star when It accrets Matter (for example) reaching criticity, then GR is not enough, you need to expand It to JCM. And this is where the JCM is specially interesting.

 

Then where a mass curbs negatively (for us) space-time, GR is invalidated. This negative (for us) space-time curvature needs its own field equation and apply JCM.

 

By positive/negative mass, you should understand, if you read the paper (2nd paper of first post), that all the particles that have a mass, have a positive inertial mass exclusively, but their gravitational mass are relative. 

 

 

Basically that is the idea behind the JCM, and It fits the different points you were highlighting.

 

If you prefer, we could refer to JCM as another topology of the Universe inducing other properties.

 

What would Cooperstock say for the early stars and galaxies formation (z=18) or for large voids structures? Would have been interesting to know, if he was still living.

Edited by Olimad, 04 December 2024 - 02:12 AM.

[EJN]

[Olimad]

Not true...

It could only be "Dark cookies"..........

[Vansh]

Not true...
It could only be "Dark cookies"..........

Must be those cookies that I don't recall ever eating...

...but I can feel their gravitational effects on my waist.

[Olimad]

Must be those cookies that I don't recall ever eating...

...but I can feel their gravitational effects on my waist.

 

They deform the body and now provoke Dark radiation....they say. Must be the sugar...

 

If I read correctly the first paper, the Dark cookies ((Dark WiMP)) is just a cookie ((WiMP)), but darker than a normal cookie ((darker than Dark Matter)) and It anihilates in heat (or something else...) ((radiation)) in the body.

Edited by Olimad, 05 December 2024 - 03:39 AM.

[Olimad]

What I wanted to highlight with the first post, is that by limitating ourself with the same framework, which comes basically from GR, we are loosing the reality.

Reading in the Dark Big Bang paper "Dark WIMPs are analogous to the well known WIMP model for particle dark matter, the difference being dark WIMPs annihilate into dark radiation that resides in the dark sector" makes me smile.

The well known WiMP, which is only a mathematical construction needed to adequate the theory to the observations (till ~ 2106), but has not been proven. So they build something (Dark WiMP) over this mathematically construction, over hypothesis.

Hypothesis over hypothesis, over hypothesis.... That is house of card physics...

So this Dark Big Bang is more of the same things, by pursueing with the same framework, it will inevitably lead us to nowhere and to more dark stuffs...

Trying to find another framework is a necessity.
Could be MOND, could be JCM or something else....

 

https://www.cloudyni...-18/?p=13819816

Edited by Olimad, 05 December 2024 - 05:23 AM.

[deSitter]

What I wanted to highlight with the first post, is that by limitating ourself with the same framework, which comes basically from GR, we are loosing the reality.

Reading in the Dark Big Bang paper "Dark WIMPs are analogous to the well known WIMP model for particle dark matter, the difference being dark WIMPs annihilate into dark radiation that resides in the dark sector" makes me smile.

The well known WiMP, which is only a mathematical construction needed to adequate the theory to the observations (till ~ 2106), but has not been proven. So they build something (Dark WiMP) over this mathematically construction, over hypothesis.

Hypothesis over hypothesis, over hypothesis.... That is house of card physics...

So this Dark Big Bang is more of the same things, by pursueing with the same framework, it will inevitably lead us to nowhere and to more dark stuffs...

Trying to find another framework is a necessity.
Could be MOND, could be JCM or something else....

 

https://www.cloudyni...-18/?p=13819816

And what I wanted to point out in my reply, is that GR is just fine for most large-scale astrophysical situations, IF you retain the non-linearity and respect its essential character. Dark matter is an elementary blunder, not an observation.

 

You can also linearize the Navier-Stokes equations of material flow (aero- and fluid dynamics). That amounts to throwing out the viscosity, which in turn amounts to considering an unreal thing - "dry water" as Feynman called it. Unreal things can have real characteristics, but there is large deviation from observed behavior in some aspect of physical importance.

 

No one seems to learn these lessons now, because education is very poor and the culture so degraded that old results are not considered important.

 

-drl
 

[Olimad]

And what I wanted to point out in my reply, is that GR is just fine for most large-scale astrophysical situations, IF you retain the non-linearity and respect its essential character. Dark matter is an elementary blunder, not an observation.

 

You can also linearize the Navier-Stokes equations of material flow (aero- and fluid dynamics). That amounts to throwing out the viscosity, which in turn amounts to considering an unreal thing - "dry water" as Feynman called it. Unreal things can have real characteristics, but there is large deviation from observed behavior in some aspect of physical importance.

 

No one seems to learn these lessons now, because education is very poor and the culture so degraded that old results are not considered important.

 

-drl
 

We agree on DM.

 

But when you write "that GR is just fine for most large-scale astrophysical situations", the word "most" is the most important.

 

Till beginning of the 20th century, newton universal law of gravitation (universal means that, for the men of that time, it applied everywhere in the universe, so no need to change It) was just fine for most calculations and observations. At that time the observations set of mankind was limited (in comparison to today, and tomorrow...) and there was just the small perihelion anomaly of Mercury, between theory and observations, really not a big deal.

 

Some mathematicians/cosmologists searched for a planet, a kind of elementary blunder, (paraphrasing you). It would have explained this small anomaly. They mathematically calculated that this Planet would have been placed between Mercury and the Sun. I hope they did not burned their eyes by trying to find It...

 

A change of framework was the solution. GR gave the explication and expanded our understandings of the Universe. It also gave some nice technological upgrade. Newton is still useful.

 

But the today anomalies between observations and theory are huge in comparison to the small anomaly of Mercury.

 

But what have we done to face these huge anomalies? Same answer as at the end of 19th century, we search for Dark stuffs.

 

Do you really think that mankind has already found the theory that explain the universe???

 

A small historical digresion to explain my point.

"Just fine for most" is not enough...

 

We have approximations, linearizing navier-stokkes work in some cases, but we do not have a general solution.

 

Concerning old results not taken into account, you should read the paper of Schwarzschild of 1916, the second paper about the internal metric.

And you will see that the Schwarzschild solution in this paper is not the same as the one we are using. Schwarzschild somehow described an object that wasn't known at that time, Imagine that when this object accrets matters, It reaches criticity at its center and pressure and c tend to Infinity....imagine different velocities of c, not coherent with the then new GR, so his solution had been modified after his death. A pity that Schwarzschild died too early just after his paper, but history plays sometimes afool of us.

 

The blackhole construction, for example, has been based on the modified Schwarzschild........ and to enter the blackhole, Kruskal had to use the mathematical trick 0^0=1, to get rid of a term that limited the link between the external and internal metric. Everything that came after and/or somehow use Kruskal is only valid in a mathematical world where 0^0=1... Not more than that.

 

One of the first to show this was LS Abrams in 1979:

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102055

 

 

So yes old results have not been taken into account.... And we build hypothesis over hypothesis over hypothesis, and we present them as part of the reality....

And as a result, we get 96% of Dark stuffs to explain the observations till 2016.....

In 2024, better not to talk...

 

These Dark stuffs are good for the business, they make peoples sell books, search for fund to make experiments to find Dark stuffs etc.....

But if you want to get close to reality, you have to go another way..

That is a psychological/social problem

Edited by Olimad, 06 December 2024 - 02:50 PM.