6 replies to this topic

[Olimad]

Our actual sets of observing devices gave us results that show huge anomalies between observations and our theoretical framework.

 

We solve only part of these anomalies with the implementation, in our theoretical framework, of Dark Matter and then Dark energy.

 

If we add that the search for DM shows 0 results, the question about the validity of our actual theoretical framework is in the mouth of a lot of peoples. Just like It happened in the past with the passage from Newton to GR (saying It with approximation).

 

After the first perception of this anomaly (Zwicky) in the 30s, It has taken us almost hundred years to get there.

 

There are various path that has been opened.

 

- A wrong understandings/application of GR, but I guess that the new Z=18 galaxies observations are limiting this approach.

 

- MOND is another path, but It fails to explain the lacunar structure of the universe.

 

Is an extension of GR a possible solution?

 

Various publications go in this direction using different methods, and introducing negative masses. It implies a change in our understandings of the topologic structure of the Universe, just like GR was in comparison to Newton.

 

Dr. Jean-Pierre Petit, with his JCM model. Published in The European Physical Journal C.

 

"A bimetric cosmological model based on Andreï Sakharov’s twin universe approach"

 

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

 

Or Dr.Yi-Fang Chang from China, published a paper in the IFJPS review (far-east review) with another approach:

 

"Negative Matter as Unified Dark Matter and Dark ‎Energy: Simplest Model, Theory and Nine Tests"

 

https://fundamentalj...article/view/87

 

Will it open a better understandings of the

Universe?

 

Clear skies.

Edited by Olimad, 08 December 2024 - 02:42 PM.

[Migwan]

You think? 

[Olimad]

Why not?

A change in the theoretical framework is necessary...

Edited by Olimad, 08 December 2024 - 10:45 AM.

[Migwan]

( rackpot alert ) In the mid to late 90s Iwas pondering string theory.  About the only thing I could understand was the need for all the extra dimensions curled up within the theory.  What really puzzled me the most was where was all the energy  supposed to come from?  Then to that we would also have to add all that mysterious dark enegy. The only answer that makes sense to me, is  it must cone from all the light that was ever emitted plus all the light that continues to be emitted from all the light emitting bodies now present in the universe.  This notion led me to wonder if all that light unseen is itself,responsible for what we perceive to be 3D space. 

Imagine a virtual aether ofall the light unseen  After all,when an atom takes on a photon,it’s outer most electron orbit jumps up and takes  in a bit of what we perceive to be 3D space.  Imagine then that a photon is at best virtual particle whose position and momentum is dictated by being transmitted through an aether  formed of all the light that has ever been emitted.  It’s not like anyone has ever assigned a photon an age limit. 

In general, large explosions generate a lot of light and a  a sudden expansive force.  Hmmm!   Maybe there’s a little free space diffusingoutward in that shock wave.

[Olimad]

E=(pc)^2 then for this light.

So in your inicial explosión with release of huge light that expand outward won't be seen by us(since It expand outward).

But won't explain the expansión of the Universe  Matter), and won't explain the lacunar structure of the Universe or other observations. Unless you mean that It has an attractive effect, that pull outward the matter. Which will be a new properly of light. And this inicial light would create the geodesic of the Universe while It expand?

 

I just try to understand your point.

[nebulasaurus]

Are in we in need of a radical change?  In my view absolutely. 

 

I huge have issues with the seeming blind acceptance of dark matter and dark energy based on the fact that GR says we need it, so therefore it must exist.  As an engineer I find this completely backward.  If my design fails it's because the model is wrong, not that the physics is wrong!

 

This issue has been staring physics in the face for decades.  We all know that quantum mechanics and GR fail to converge on a solution around black holes.  And yet if you challenge GR you are a treated as a heretic. Much the same way that everyone dismissed that bothersome priest, Georges Lemaître, until Hubble showed without doubt, he was correct. (Yes, the full story is a bit more involved, but keeping it short here).

 

Which leads me to this fella: https://physicsfromt...e.blogspot.com/

 

and his quantum theory of inertia.  He is a published professor and has a bunch if peer reviewed papers.  And he does away with dark matter for things like galaxy rotations and has theoretical results that seem to explain the massless thruster.  

 

Is he correct?  I have no idea, but at least he is looking beyond the accepted standard models and has some really interesting correlations with observed data.  We need more of this, and we need to support it.  

 

There is the old adage that any research is guaranteed to find a result that is guaranteed to provide further funding for said research.  If GR is put on the chopping block, prestige and entire research careers are impacted.  Much as we might like to think otherwise, not all those managing research are altruistic to the extreme, and many will quite happily kill ideas that threaten their standing and position if they can do so. Pride is a sin for a reason.

 

It has often been said that those who contribute the to the greatest advancements in their youth become the greatest impediments to change as they get older.  Perhaps best illustrated by a simple pair of questions:

 

• In what field of research did Einstein receive his Nobel Prize, and for what?
• Who said "God does not play dice with the universe" 

Edited by nebulasaurus, 10 December 2024 - 02:19 PM.

[Migwan]

E=(pc)^2 then for this light.

So in your inicial explosión with release of huge light that expand outward won't be seen by us(since It expand outward).

But won't explain the expansión of the Universe  Matter), and won't explain the lacunar structure of the Universe or other observations. Unless you mean that It has an attractive effect, that pull outward the matter. Which will be a new properly of light. And this inicial light would create the geodesic of the Universe while It expand?

 

I just try to understand your point.

 

 

E=(pc)^2 then for this light.

So in your inicial explosión with release of huge light that expand outward won't be seen by us(since It expand outward).

But won't explain the expansión of the Universe  Matter), and won't explain the lacunar structure of the Universe or other observations. Unless you mean that It has an attractive effect, that pull outward the matter. Which will be a new properly of light. And this inicial light would create the geodesic of the Universe while It expand?

 

I just try to understand your point.

check out "light cone" Wiki has one that puts location in time  as flat plane.  having it instead on a hemisphere preserves square of distance and allows wave FUNCTION.     c squared and all that. 

 

I've never understood momentum without mass.  Just don't think that the universe forgets about any pf it's mass turned to energy. What if energy was non localized mass equivalent?For light that might be center between emmission and absorbtion point.Like dark matter