We Didn't Find 90% of the Universe's Mass... Maybe Because It's Kinetic Energy?

Hi, This is Swan. Last day I was replying to a physicist in one of my thread when we suddenly got onto the topic of the galaxy's (and the Universe's, for that matter) missing mass. As y'all know, we are still wondering why we can detect only 10% of the Universe's mass, and where the heck went the rest - a whopping 90%. But we do know there's more mass than what we measured; the reason is simply that otherwise, the galaxies would fall apart.

So we searched for this missing mass. At first we accused the neutrino of carrying mass behind our back - neutrinos are nearly undetectable, they go straight through the Earth without (almost) never interacting with matter; so we thought, maybe neutrinos were carrying this 90% missing mass without us being able to detect them. But we later discovered that those neutrinos's mass were hilariously too small...

So now one of the theories is that quantum jitter is the holder of this 90% missing mass. It's actually quite clever: according to quantum theory, particles have a level of uncertainty at the quantum level. That means, they can't have both a defined position and a defined velocity; in order to be described, we have to consider those particles as "virtual". As a virtual particle can't be directly observed, its position may be virtually anywhere in space. And, as a virtual particle's level of energy can't be directly observed, this level can virtually get kinda high. This means that what we see as total vacuum can actually be filled with energy, which would come from these virtual particle's activity. In other words, according to quantum, even total vacuum hold energy at the quantum level, and this phenomenon is called the "quantum jitter". If you believe in God, you might say this is his version of space disco dance. I see some folks calling it "dark energy" too. I don't mind, as long as you don't confuse dark energy with dark matter or dark nebulaes.

Anyway, I was reviewing all this with a friend when suddenly, I realized an important fact: We are in motion! All these galaxies... their stars are following orbits around their core, some at very high speed.

This is very important: everything which we observe in space is affected by some sort of momentum, of velocity.

That means, part of their rest mass is converted to kinetic energy. This part... gets concealed to our detection.

Imagine that we are watching Galileo, on top of Pisa tower in Italy. He drops, at the exact same time, two different masses, let's say a 70 kg object (object 1) and a 7 kg object (object 2):


As you know, these two different masses will travel at the same speed once dropped (the reason why object 1 won't drop faster than object 2 is because object 1 also has 70 kg of resistance to movement instead of only 7 kg). But if you were to be the 70 kg mass as it fell alongside the 7 kg mass, and were to try and determine the object 2's mass based on its behaviour relative to yours, you could calculate it as (erroneously) the same as yours, as nothing would prove you otherwise.

As stars orbits around the galaxy's core, their rest mass is converted to kinetic energy, a bit like in our Galileo-drops-two-different-masses analogy.

As two stars travel in space alongside, they are following the same principle than the two Galileo's falling objects. Kinetic energy is equal to KE = 1/2 mv^2 . So, as their rest mass is, in a way, concealed to our detection because it is converted, they could be a lot more massive than what we detected from them... and maybe their actual rest mass could prove to hold the missing mass in our galaxy! This theory (I'll let you guys think of a name for it) of mine definitively needs investigation. If it could at least explain part of the universe's missing mass, it would still take a bit of weight (pun intended lol) off the shoulders of Quantum Jitter!

Originally posted by swan001
This is very important: everything which we observe in space is affected by some sort of momentum, of velocity.

True.

That means, part of their rest mass is converted to kinetic energy. This part... gets concealed to our detection.

False.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Well, we can't detect other stars's outgoing gravitons using our machines, can't we?

Originally posted by swan001


As two stars travel in space alongside, they are following the same principle than the two Galileo's falling objects. Kinetic energy is equal to KE=mv1/2. So, as their rest mass is, in a way, concealed to our detection because it is converted, they could be a lot more massive than what we detected from them... and maybe their actual rest mass could prove to hold the missing mass in our galaxy!

First of all, kinetic energy E(k) = 1/2 mv^2

Second, you are still wrong. Kinetic energy applies only to a "static" observer and even if it did'nt it is not ever remotely enough for the missing 90%.

if we cant find 90% of the universe's mass start a new search starting in Israil

Originally posted by windlass34
ever remotely enough for the missing 90%.

Well actually, you might not need to fill the whole 90%. According to Wikipedia, Scientists has agreed that neutrinos can cover 10% of the missing mass, photons can cover another 15%, and atoms another 12%. So the figures would be 63% which is really hard to find. Quantum Jitter would cover some of this 63%, so we are left with what, around 30% left? Other energies, for instance kinetic, could cover that.

reply to post by haven123


lol

Came a cross this last week. it's saying around the same thing.Energy,plasma.
Cool Stuff

www.youtube.com...


Trying to fix video but can't remember how

Originally posted by itsallamile

edit on 11/12/2012 by itsallamile because: Trying to fix video; can't remember how

Trying to fix video but can't remember how

edit on 11/12/2012 by itsallamile because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/12/2012 by itsallamile because: (no reason given)

Don't worry, it works now.

Originally posted by swan001
Well actually, you might not need to fill the whole 90%. According to Wikipedia, Scientists has agreed that neutrinos can cover 10% of the missing mass, photons can cover another 15%, and atoms another 12%. So the figures would be 63% which is really hard to find. Quantum Jitter would cover some of this 63%, so we are left with what, around 30% left? Other energies, for instance kinetic, could cover that.

edit on 12-11-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)

Well, you still have not explained how kinetic energy keeps rotating galaxies in one piece...

Originally posted by windlass34

Well, you still have not explained how kinetic energy keeps rotating galaxies in one piece...

Isn't the central super-blackhole of galaxies a place where... like, matter turns kinda fast?
In the edge of a black hole, stars and matter orbits at very high speed; a great amount of kinetic energy can be find there. So high that friction inside this rotating matter itself generates powerful X-rays, not just infrared.

Originally posted by swan001


Thank you

I actually understood that,you explain things very well,

an interesting theory and to a layman(myself) very plausible.

surely something so simple must have been thought of ??

Originally posted by cjttatu


surely something so simple must have been thought of ??

If it did, I can't find it on Google. So far scientists are going in the direction of Dark Energy/Quantum Jitter at full throttle, without considering much of the other energies involved.

reply to post by swan001


I keep saying that the nature of the universe is motion, in both literal and metaphorical sense. The universe and everything in it is constantly changing, which can only mean there's a transfer of energy going on at all times. And because heat can be detected coming off of almost any object you can name, that says that even inanimate objects are in motion at some level.

Hence, kinetic energy is the substance of all reality. Excellent thread! S&F

reply to post by windlass34

Well, you still have not explained how kinetic energy keeps rotating galaxies in one piece...

How does a spinning ball keep from blowing apart? Or a spinning coin?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Thanks

Yes, and this energy is not always detectable using our current machines. Gravitons (gravity waves), for instance, are still hypothetical quanta - they obviously exist, but for now we didn't detect one. But they still exist!

reply to post by swan001


Gravity waves are godly. Everything we see would be nothing without gravity waves.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by swan001

 

Gravity waves are godly. Everything we see would be nothing without gravity waves.

edit on 12-11-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Surely. But I guess the holy grail of Physics would be to find an universal science where the other culture's "God" could be represented. "Godly" only means "god-like"...

I really think cymatics could offer some workable possibilities. Both worldwide religions and physics agree on that. Do you know more about cymatics? I only know what Wikipedia say about it, didn't have time to search other sources (and, as you know, I tend to avoid sources which are too metaphysical)...

reply to post by swan001


Cymatics relies heavily on gravity waves, because without gravity to give matter cohesion, the vibrations wouldn't nearly so effective. Try building a house out of pudding.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by swan001

 

Cymatics relies heavily on gravity waves, because without gravity to give matter cohesion, the vibrations wouldn't nearly so effective.

Vibrations

The word "frequency" always acts like a red flag to me, as it is for some reason a word woo-woos like a lot, and throw about in absurd ways despite its having a rigid, and not especially thrilling, definition in the scientific world (three others are "energy," "vibration," and "field").