Dark Energy Dark Matter And Spatial Convexity

[earthist]

I considered posting this in the Strange Claims forum, but I don't really intend to claim anything here. I don't have the math nor any genuine expertise to be qualified for that. On the other hand, I am describing a new, strange, hypothesis, and if the moderators want to move it there, I won't object. I do sincerely hope it's not silly, though.

 

 

Let me start with some things I think I understand:

 

 

In terms of required energy, climbing out of a well is indistinguishable from climbing over a hill. It only depends on where we define “sea level” (for lack of a better term).

 

Einstein claimed that gravity is not so much a force as it is a shape of space. The presence of mass causes a well or concavity in space which we call gravity.

 

Astronomers observe the concavities caused by mass when they see gravity lensing where the concavities of relatively proximal galaxies sometimes distort our view of relatively distant galaxies.

 

In some areas of space, generally between galaxies where there is little or no mass, we see spatial expansion determined by red-shift.

 

Astronomers have determined that the spatial concavity attributable to galactic masses is not enough to balance out the centrifugal force from galactic orbiting -- at least at the edges of the galaxies. In other words, the mass near the edge of some (most?) galaxies is orbiting fast enough that it should be expelled over the edge of the gravitational well or concavity, and out into the space between galaxies. Therefor, there must be some invisible (dark) mass to explain why these galaxies hold together.

 

Lately, astronomers are reporting ever-increasing spatial expansion between at least some galaxies, and they call it dark (invisible) energy.

 

That's the list of things I'm assuming I understand. So, my question has to do with how we define “sea level.”

 

 

Question: Might it be that space itself, devoid of matter, could have an innate shape that's convex (expansive)rather than flat.

 

Question: In terms of lensing, would viewing through a convex lens appear as red-shift?.

 

Question: At the edge of galaxies, where space becomes essentially empty of mass, might it not be possible that space becomes convex, effectively making a “hill” out of which the galactic mass would need to climb if it were to escape due to orbital (centrifugal) energy? If so, might that eliminate the need to postulate dark matter?

 

Question: Taking it one more step (perhaps one too many), as the distance between mass concavities (galaxies and galactic clusters) becomes ever greater, might the tendency toward spatial convexity increase “naturally?” In other words, I'm asking whether it's possible that the innate shape of space without mass to alter it is convex, and whether that characteristic, acting analogously like a spring, might explain dark energy?

 

 

Surely the world is full of physicists who are lots smarter than I am, so I've probably got something fundamentally wrong. On the other hand, I can't help imagining that maybe the experts are too close to the problem, and it just might be possible that someone who doesn't know any better might see something they've missed (so far).

 

 

So, what say you all? If I'm totally off base here, can anyone tell me where I missed the bus?

 

 

Thanks for bearing with me.

Edited February 23, 2012 by earthist

[Lancewen]

Question: Taking it one more step (perhaps one too many), as the distance between mass concavities (galaxies and galactic clusters) becomes ever greater, might the tendency toward spatial convexity increase “naturally?” In other words, I'm asking whether it's possible that the innate shape of space without mass to alter it is convex, and whether that characteristic, acting analogously like a spring, might explain dark energy?

 

 

Without more to go on, I have no reason to believe space has any particular shape. Also the question of whether space is finite or infinite becomes moot, because an infinite space wouldn't have any particular shape. My own take on all the speculation about dark mass and energy is that when we really know what it is we will wonder why it took so long to figure out something so simple and obvious.

[Rade]

To Earthist:

 

What is your take on this paper which suggests a connection between "dark matter" and "antimatter" ?

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v105/i21/e211304

[Lancewen]

To Earthist:

 

What is your take on this paper which suggests a connection between "dark matter" and "antimatter" ?

http://prl.aps.org/a...105/i21/e211304

 

I don't find this line of speculation to be very credible. Unless someone can define dark matter so we know what it is and how it interacts with the universe, IMO it's a waists of time to speculate about something that can't be proved one way or the other.

 

Let me ask you a question.

Scientists know the Milky Way is being gravitationally pulled toward a massive cluster of galaxies, called the Virgo Cluster, located about 50 million light years away. Adrian Melott and his colleague Mikhail Medvedev, both KU researchers, speculate that as the Milky Way hurdles towards the Virgo Cluster, it generates a so-called bow shock in front of it that is similar to the shock wave created by a supersonic jet.

 

The galactic bow shock is only present on the north side of the Milky Way's galactic plane, because that is the side facing the Virgo Cluster as it moves through space, and it would cause superheated gas and cosmic rays to stream behind it, the researchers say. Normally, our galaxy's magnetic field shields our solar system from this "galactic wind." But every 64 million years, the solar system's cyclical travels take it above the galactic plane.

 

"When we emerge out of the disk, we have less protection, so we become exposed to many more cosmic rays," Melott told SPACE.com.

 

They talk about exposure to cosmic rays, but if our galaxy is moving through dark matter, maybe there is more to what earth is being exposed to than just some cosmic rays?

[earthist]

To Earthist:

 

What is your take on this paper which suggests a connection between "dark matter" and "antimatter" ?

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v105/i21/e211304

I am not qualified to have an opinion on this. I have made very little effort to grasp the exceedingly-small stuff. My interest is captivated by the very large.

 

That said, this, like the mysterious idea of dark matter itself, seems to add a layer of complexity rather than simplicity. I like the convexity description because it seems simple, and "elegant" to me. That doesn't make it correct, of course, but it is why I like it.

 

On the other hand, they do provide a way to experimentally support their idea:

Moreover, the authors say that because these antiparticles might, on rare occasions, interact with and annihilate conventional baryons, dark matter could be observed in nucleon decay experiments on Earth.

 

I do like experiments!

 

I haven't come up with a way to experimentally verify convexity. In a sense, though, it agrees with experiments already performed; it's mostly a different interpretation of what we already know. The only reason it might be "better" is the simplicity.

 

Thanks for the reply.

[earthist]

Without more to go on, I have no reason to believe space has any particular shape. Also the question of whether space is finite or infinite becomes moot, because an infinite space wouldn't have any particular shape. My own take on all the speculation about dark mass and energy is that when we really know what it is we will wonder why it took so long to figure out something so simple and obvious.

Sorry, but I don't get the relevance of infinite/finite to what I'm saying. What I'm saying (at least what I'm trying to say) is "simple and obvious" is it not? That's why I find it attractive.

 

Thanks for the reply.

[CraigD]

I considered posting this in the Strange Claims forum, but I don't really intend to claim anything here. I don't have the math nor any genuine expertise to be qualified for that.

Few of us do – but with a bit of work and cooperation, we should be able to muddle along enough to have at least some intuitive insights.

 

Let me start with some things I think I understand:

In practically every rational endeavor, this is a good place to start. :thumbs_up

 

I won’t comment on statement that seem to me essential correct, only those where I see trouble.

 

Astronomers have determined that the spatial concavity attributable to galactic masses is not enough to balance out the centrifugal force from galactic orbiting -- at least at the edges of the galaxies. In other words, the mass near the edge of some (most?) galaxies is orbiting fast enough that it should be expelled over the edge of the gravitational well or concavity, and out into the space between galaxies. Therefor, there must be some invisible (dark) mass to explain why these galaxies hold together.

I think you have some of the basics of the “galactic rotation problem” somewhat wrong.

 

The problem is, as you correctly state, that stars toward the edge of the galaxy are on average moving too fast. However, the problem is that the observed presence of stars and other matter indicate that most of the mass of the galaxy is concentrated in its center, while the observed motion of them – the “galactic rotation curve” – indicates that it’s more evenly distributed throughout the disk, and that there’s many times more of it that observed.

 

The problem isn’t just with stars at the edge of the galaxy, but for all of them except the innermost ones. I think a picture – or a graph – shows this better than lots of words. From wikipedia:

The “A” line shows the what average speeds should be, based on the observed amount of matter in the galaxy. The “B” line shows the average speeds actually observed.

 

Lately, astronomers are reporting ever-increasing spatial expansion between at least some galaxies, and they call it dark (invisible) energy.

This seem essentially right to me, but I think it’s important to understand that the “energy” or “dark energy” is simply an empirical description of the energy necessary to account, mechanically, for the apparent change in velocity of distant galaxies

 

In terms of required energy, climbing out of a well is indistinguishable from climbing over a hill. It only depends on where we define “sea level” (for lack of a better term).

 

So, my question has to do with how we define “sea level.”

 

 

Question: Might it be that space itself, devoid of matter, could have an innate shape that's convex (expansive)rather than flat.

The problem with having GR’s gravitational field equations be convex (or concave) in mass/energy free space is that, unlike being flat, a convex shape must have a special, peak (or trough), location. If the space is empty, it’s uniform, so how to explain why its maximum (peak or trough) in in one location, rather than another?

 

Question: In terms of lensing, would viewing through a convex lens appear as red-shift?.

No. We measure the spectra of light sources through convex lenses of many different shapes routinely, and observe no shift in the frequency/wavelength of their light.

 

We know of only 3 causes of redshift:

• Doppler, so common that it’s an integral part of our everyday technology;
  
• Gravitational, less common, but uncontroversial since its popularization about a century ago, and well-supported by experimental data and necessary for our most sensitive systems, such as satellite communication; and
  
• Expansion, or cosmological, a necessary consequence of the current theory best able to explain observed data about distant galaxies.
  

Other “reddening” phenomena, such as the atmospheric dispersion (which gives us red sunsets and blue skys), but they’re not true redshifts, because photon don’t have their frequencies (colors) changed (shifted), but rather are “sorted” by frequency. Visible light can be “stepped down” into much lower frequencies by phenomena such as the heating of solids, liquids, and gasses until they glow, usually in the infrared, but in unusually powerful conditions, in visible or higher frequencies, but in these cases, the absorbed and emitted photons are different photons altogether.

 

 

Question: At the edge of galaxies, where space becomes essentially empty of mass, might it not be possible that space becomes convex, effectively making a “hill” out of which the galactic mass would need to climb if it were to escape due to orbital (centrifugal) energy? If so, might that eliminate the need to postulate dark matter?

I think this hypothesis replaces one kind of kind of troublesome dark matter – the present kind hypothesized by mainstream astrophysics to resolve the galactic rotation problem, which is gravitationally like ordinary, not-dark matter – with an even more troublesome, “exotic” kind, which has negative gravitational mass. This is because ordinary matter attracts visible matter. To produce a “lip” around a galaxy to solve the rotation problem, something – either some sort of real particles or indirect virtual particle phenomena – must repel visible matter. Though speculative technologists would love it if such stuff existed – it’s necessary in most speculative designs for such far-out technologies as the navigable wormhole “subway systems” described in Sagan’s novel Contact, and the movie based on it – it requires even more bizarre physics speculation than “ordinary” dark matter.

 

Recall that “dark matter” really just means “that which causes an apparent gravitational effect, which, by our present understanding of physics, can only be caused by matter, yet can’t for some practical reason, be observed.” So, regardless of whether you hypothesis merely ordinary matter that we can’t, for unknown reasons, see with telescopes, something made of unusual matter, or space-time phenomena, you’re hypothesis is still a “dark matter” hypothesis.

[belovelife]

what about, for current black hole theory, dark matter is a black hole that has no matter to eat

 

/////

 

 

 

or for my theory, a galactic nuclei that has not become active yet

 

 

[earthist]

The problem isn’t just with stars at the edge of the galaxy, but for all of them except the innermost ones. I think a picture – or a graph – shows this better than lots of words

....

The “A” line shows the what average speeds should be, based on the observed amount of matter in the galaxy. The “B” line shows the average speeds actually observed.

 

Thanks for that clarification. You are correct that my understanding was flawed. It does, indeed make a difference to my hypothesis. I'll need to ponder for awhile before I decide whether it completely invalidates it, but it's definitely problematic. It looks like I haven't eliminated the need for dark matter; I may actually be exacerbating it. (Darn!!)

 

 

The problem with having GR’s gravitational field equations be convex (or concave) in mass/energy free space is that, unlike being flat, a convex shape must have a special, peak (or trough), location. If the space is empty, it’s uniform, so how to explain why its maximum (peak or trough) in in one location, rather than another?

 

 

Perhaps my understanding of Einstein is wrong, too. That's the problem with lacking the math skills to check my own work -- or to do the work, for that matter. As a result, I have to rely on what others who can do the math tell me. So, please don't assume I'm trying to argue here. I'm just trying to clarify my own understanding.

 

It's my understanding that Einstein described gravity essentially as an interaction between matter and space rather than an attraction of matter to matter. Matter compresses space, and that, in turn, causes other, nearby matter to fall into the depression, and to compress it even more.

 

If gravity is an interaction between matter and space, rather than matter and matter, then it is, in fact, a different thing than the other energies/forces.

 

If space can be "compressed" (concave) then it stands to reason that without matter, it's shape is expanded. Expanding space is what we see happening when we talk about red-shift. What's the shape of expansion in all directions? Convexity.

 

Expanding space "pushes" the galaxies (and all matter) apart from each other. We call it expansion, but we don't think of it as a special force or energy. At least we didn't until we came up with dark energy. Matter (gravity) opposes expansion (dark energy). The farther we get from matter, the more expansion "wins." There's nothing new here except the thought that space is not innately "flat." Space has shape, variable shape, and that shape affects matter just as matter affects space.

 

I'm merely suggesting that space's innate shape is not flat. I'm suggesting that space's innate shape is expansive (convex). I'm saying that the newly discovered expansion we're calling dark energy is not something new. It's just that we're measuring it better and discovering that areas where there is less mass expand faster than areas where there is more mass. Thus, spatial expansion is not evenly distributed throughout the universe, but is greater (and growing faster) where there are fewer stars and such to oppose it.

 

I'm saying there's no reason to assume that empty space is uniform or flat. It's maximum convexity is one one place or another depending on the presence of and distance from matter. And let me hasten to add that I doubt we're seeing the maximum of spatial expansion/convexity -- at least there's no reason to think so. If the universe is still expanding, and I assume it is, then the expansion/convexty between galaxies should continue to grow.

 

So, the whole thing hinges on seeing gravity as acting on space rather than matter, and I not only think that's what Einstein was saying, I think it fits with our difficulties in uniting it with the matter-matter forces in a GUT. I have no clue about cosmological constants, but I'm thinking this may have a lot to do with that, too, except that it's a variable.

 

So, in conclusion, I may still be way off base here, but now you have a better idea of where I might be going wrong, and why.

 

We know of only 3 causes of redshift: .......

 

Yes. I think you are correct, and, in fact, I hope so. But here's why I mentioned it:

 

As I'm trying to describe it, spatial convexity is consistent with, and might even be synonymous with, spatial expansion. I could have left it there and not mentioned red-shift so as to avoid upsetting any apple carts.

 

The red-shift question arose when I tried to imagine a way to test for convexity. It's lensing, so I thought of how concave lensing is seen as gravitational lensing by astronomers. What would convex lensing look like to astronomers?

 

I had to remind myself that convex spatial lensing would be essentially spherical. Light entering the convexity would be spread out (blurred), but would be re-focused again on the way out. It would, however, not travel in a straight path. The path would curve in all directions, in other words, it would spread out in an arc before re-focusing. That means that the straight-line distance we measure light traveling might be affected, but at astronomic distances, does a light-year or three really matter all that much?

 

But wait, there's more! ;) We see spread out light on Earth all the time: it makes rainbows. The rainbow effect on Earth is usually attributed to a change in the media through which the light is traveling. In other words, light travels at different rates through air and water, so raindrops bend the light, and different wavelengths get bent more or less in the process.

 

So, I wonder whether light spreading due to spatial convexity, with no change in media, might also form a rainbow. I don't know, and I don't think anyone does. I can't even think of a way to find out short of inter-stellar space travel. But, I thought it probably doesn't matter all that much, convexity works either way, we just have no way to test for it. And then I thought of the difference seen from concave (gravitational) lensing, and I thought it just might be important. It's one of those things where if it matters at all, it matters a heck of a lot!

 

In the end, I decided I had to pose the question, and let the experts decide.

 

I think this hypothesis replaces one kind of kind of troublesome dark matter – the present kind hypothesized by mainstream astrophysics to resolve the galactic rotation problem, which is gravitationally like ordinary, not-dark matter – with an even more troublesome, “exotic” kind, which has negative gravitational mass

 

Well, I hope I've explained it so that it's not so exotic. If it were exotic, I'd never have thought of it -- or I certainly wouldn't have had the temerity to post it here -- I'm not that smart, nor that foolish. What I came up with is meant to be completely consistent with my understanding of what "eveyone" has been saying all along. The question is whether my understanding is screwy. You pointed out one place where that is the case (the galactic spin problem). I'm still not sure whether that's enough to invalidate the whole hypothesis, though. I will ponder some more, but if you or anyone has further thoughts, I'll certainly welcome them.

 

Thanks a bunch for your response!!

 

But wait again, there's even more! ;)

 

I just read the rest of the Wiki article you cited. The galactic spin problem is determined based on speeds attributed to the red-shift blue-shift ratio of edge-on galaxies as seen through spectrographs. Now I'm going to make myself a liar and suggest something really exotic:

 

If the "rainbow effect" is real, then might that account for an enlarged ratio of red to blue light? I fully realize that that's bordering on the ridiculous, but I'm clawing at air here trying to remember where I left my skyhook. Anyway, there's no need to respond to that remark. I'll toss it myself if anything else is wrong with my understanding. (Note that I did read the additional evidence for dark matter provided by observations of the Bullet Cluster in the Wiki article you cited, but I'm in way too deep to have a coherent thought about that).

Edited February 27, 2012 by earthist

[earthist]

what about, for current black hole theory, dark matter is a black hole that has no matter to eat

 

/////

 

 

 

or for my theory, a galactic nuclei that has not become active yet

Check the Wiki article CraigD cited above. You'd need lots and lots of tiny black holes with no matter to swallow. They'd have to be pretty close to the other matter, too, so it'd be tough for them not to start swallowing stuff.

 

I'm no expert, but it seems pretty unlikely to me. Sorry, but thanks for the reply.