Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

An equation for dark matter?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • An equation for dark matter?

    We all, many of us, are familiar with the equation E = mc2 .

    Now two masses have an energy of GMm/r. Where m = E/c2 . Where the dark matter would then be of two masses dm = GMm/(rc2) .

    Where the sum of two masses becomes M + m + GMm/(rc2) .
    [The above is an an over simplification]

    http://theconversation.com/new-theor...k-matter-16446

    Paper (pdf): http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.4016v1.pdf
    Last edited by 37818; 03-01-2014, 03:16 PM.
    . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

  • #2
    Interesting alternative to this unresolved question. The problem remains unresolved.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #3
      I download the PDF.

      I open the PDF.

      I get lost in all those maths.

      I am rapidly reminded that not all STEM degrees are equal.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Outis View Post
        I download the PDF.

        I open the PDF.

        I get lost in all those maths.

        I am rapidly reminded that not all STEM degrees are equal.
        The pdf includes the computer generated images simulating galaxy formation based on those equations. And it is an ongoing study. Prior to this other computer studies had shown, if there was no dark matter the galaxies would not have formed.
        Last edited by 37818; 03-01-2014, 04:02 PM.
        . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          The pdf includes the computer generated images simulating galaxy formation based on those equations. And it is an ongoing study.
          I saw those, but truth to tell, I still feel a bit like I'm the kid sitting at the grown-ups table.

          Comment


          • #6
            Way oversimplified indeed. This idea has been around a long while. My colleague wrote her Ph.D. dissertation on alternate hypotheses of dark matter in spiral galaxies. This is the idea that Newton's Law of Gravitation needs to be modified at galactic distances. It's a mathematical way of getting around the notion of "dark matter" as a physical thing rather than an artifact of gravitation. The computer models for spiral galaxies at least seem to fit the alternate gravitation hypothesis fairly well. I would need to check with my colleague since this way above my pay grade.

            Comment


            • #7
              How about this for an equation for dark matter:

              e = 1.602 x 10-19 C

              1C = 2 x 10-7 kg/s (see definition of Ampere)

              e = 3.204 x 10-26 kg/s


              The first two equations are straight out of the old books. The third equation means that if the electron has a charge of e, it is emitting about 35,000 times its own mass every second, as charge. It also means the proton is emitting about 19 times its own mass every second.

              If we give this charge to real photons with real mass and extension instead of to virtual photons, we have a simple way to estimate the total mass/energy of the photon field by using the proton as the prime emitter. It is 19 times the atomic field, or 95% of the total mass/energy of the universe.

              The dark matter/energy 19:1 ratio is solved by simply giving the photon mass.


              tharkun

              [PS. Not my work, just borrowed from another.]

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by tharkun View Post
                How about this for an equation for dark matter:

                e = 1.602 x 10-19 C

                1C = 2 x 10-7 kg/s (see definition of Ampere)

                e = 3.204 x 10-26 kg/s


                The first two equations are straight out of the old books. The third equation means that if the electron has a charge of e, it is emitting about 35,000 times its own mass every second, as charge. It also means the proton is emitting about 19 times its own mass every second.

                If we give this charge to real photons with real mass and extension instead of to virtual photons, we have a simple way to estimate the total mass/energy of the photon field by using the proton as the prime emitter. It is 19 times the atomic field, or 95% of the total mass/energy of the universe.

                The dark matter/energy 19:1 ratio is solved by simply giving the photon mass.


                tharkun

                [PS. Not my work, just borrowed from another.]
                Are you talking about rest mass of a photon???

                K54

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Outis View Post
                  I saw those, but truth to tell, I still feel a bit like I'm the kid sitting at the grown-ups table.
                  Any one not fully up on the science involved should feel like that, Outis. To feel otherwise would be the height of foolishness.
                  Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm talking about actual mass, not measured mass (as in relativistic mass).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by tharkun View Post
                      I'm talking about actual mass, not measured mass (as in relativistic mass).
                      I don't know what you mean. Sorry.

                      K54

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        FYI,

                        "Dark Matter" in spiral galaxies (which rotate faster than expected) can be explained fairly well mathematically by an equation for gravitational force more complicated than Newton's. "Logarithmic Corrected Newtonian Gravitational Potential."

                        Studies of both Dark Matter and Energy are in the frontier stages.

                        K54

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                          FYI,

                          "Dark Matter" in spiral galaxies (which rotate faster than expected) can be explained fairly well mathematically by an equation for gravitational force more complicated than Newton's. "Logarithmic Corrected Newtonian Gravitational Potential."

                          Studies of both Dark Matter and Energy are in the frontier stages.

                          K54
                          Perhaps, but physics should be interested in a physical and mechanical solution and not simply a mathematical one. The problem with modern physics is that it lets the math lead and determine the reality rather than using the math as a tool that describes the reality. To the result that, because we can have zeroes, points and imaginary numbers in math, we are supposed to believe that we can have 'point particles' and 'virtual particles' and 'borrowing' from the vacuum in the reality.

                          We don't need more complicated math, we need simpler math that is logical and more rigorous in its definitions and analysis. And we need to realize that a theory of gravity that is 99% right but leads to a 95% hole in the matter/energy of the universe is not a 1% miss, its a 100% miss. You don't fix a theory that doesn't work by keeping what you've got and patching over the hole with a new form of matter that no one has ever seen before. You go back and correct the original theory so that it works from the beginning with no patches and made up forms of matter. If my 12 inch ruler is only 11 inches long, I don't keep it as if it's correct and propose that a 'virtual' ruler is making up the difference.

                          Galaxies rotating faster than expected should lead us to question whether gravity is the only force at play, and not whether gravity working through an exotic matter is the answer. Assuming a gravity-only model is the first assumption that needs to go.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by tharkun View Post
                            Perhaps, but physics should be interested in a physical and mechanical solution and not simply a mathematical one. The problem with modern physics is that it lets the math lead and determine the reality rather than using the math as a tool that describes the reality. To the result that, because we can have zeroes, points and imaginary numbers in math, we are supposed to believe that we can have 'point particles' and 'virtual particles' and 'borrowing' from the vacuum in the reality.

                            We don't need more complicated math, we need simpler math that is logical and more rigorous in its definitions and analysis. And we need to realize that a theory of gravity that is 99% right but leads to a 95% hole in the matter/energy of the universe is not a 1% miss, its a 100% miss. You don't fix a theory that doesn't work by keeping what you've got and patching over the hole with a new form of matter that no one has ever seen before. You go back and correct the original theory so that it works from the beginning with no patches and made up forms of matter. If my 12 inch ruler is only 11 inches long, I don't keep it as if it's correct and propose that a 'virtual' ruler is making up the difference.

                            Galaxies rotating faster than expected should lead us to question whether gravity is the only force at play, and not whether gravity working through an exotic matter is the answer. Assuming a gravity-only model is the first assumption that needs to go.
                            Determining the proper mathematics describing the way gravitation could work at a galactic scale IS a physical explanation.

                            I think.

                            K54

                            P.S. What's the difference between "exotic" matter and "dark" matter?

                            Also if you posit another attractive force (presumable acting at a distance?), then you'd need a maths formula for that.

                            Mathematics does get MUCH more complicated the deeper the explanations go. Compare Newtonian mechanics to General Relativity. Those Christoffel symbols and tensors are pretty darned complicated.
                            Last edited by klaus54; 07-07-2014, 05:33 PM. Reason: P.S.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by tharkun View Post
                              I'm talking about actual mass, not measured mass (as in relativistic mass).
                              Do you have a suggestion how one is supposed to measure (or not measure? -- very confusing) the rest (actual???) mass of a photon?

                              K54

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Juvenal, 11-30-2020, 04:47 PM
                              2 responses
                              28 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Seeker
                              by Seeker
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-28-2020, 12:54 PM
                              4 responses
                              37 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-26-2020, 09:46 PM
                              0 responses
                              12 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by lee_merrill, 11-23-2020, 10:25 PM
                              5 responses
                              50 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Seeker
                              by Seeker
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                              5 responses
                              74 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X