We don't need Dark Matter theory, any more than we need Modified Gravity

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
phys.org...

Hajdukovic’s paper on a dark matter alternative is also an attempt to understand cosmological phenomena without assuming the existence of unknown forms of matter and energy, or of unknown mechanisms for inflation and matter-antimatter asymmetry. In the case of the fast rotational curves of galaxies, he explains that there are currently two schools of understanding the phenomenon. “The first school invokes the existence of dark matter, while the second school invokes modification of our law of gravity,” he said. “I suggest a third way, without introducing dark matter and without modification of the law of gravity.” His ideas (like those in the previous paper) rest on the key hypothesis that matter and antimatter are gravitationally repulsive, which is due to the fact that particles and antiparticles have gravitational charge of opposite sign. (Though like matter, antimatter is gravitationally attractive with itself.) Currently, it is not known whether matter and antimatter are gravitationally repulsive, although a few experiments (most notably, the AEGIS experiment at CERN) are testing related concepts. “Concerning gravity, mainstream physics assumes that there is only one gravitational charge (identified with the inertial mass) while I have assumed that, as in the case of electromagnetic interactions, there are two gravitational charges: positive gravitational charge for matter and negative gravitational charge for antimatter,” Hajdukovic explained.

Which basically means all dipoles will polarize based on baryonic orientation, and account for the extra forces which influences star's rotation around the Galactic core.

I must give credit to my good friend CLPrime for finding this interesting article.
edit on 19-1-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-1-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
According to Hajdukovic, Antimatter would have an equal but opposite gravitational charge relative to its matter counterpart. Physicist assumed, until now, that all gravitational charges were all positive. This may have been our mistake until now.

As an opponent to Dark Matter theory, I tend to strongly support Hajdukovic's theory.
edit on 19-1-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 

I think they'd have a very difficult time trying to prove that antimatter gravitationally repels matter. It would take a substantial amount of antimatter and being in absolute free-fall; even the micro-gravity of an earth orbit would skew the results, as would their electrostatic attraction/repulsion. But it could be tested with enough effort... and money...


So we're stuck with thought experiments for now. Does E=mc^2 apply to antimatter too? If not, it would read "-E=mc^2" for antimatter. But when a positron hits an electron, the annihilation produces the same amount of energy as is inherent in both of their masses. If antimatter was truly the exact opposite of matter, there'd be no energy released by the annihilation; they'd both just quietly vanish, their energies canceling each other out with no flash or bang or even a whimper. Matter would be "energy," and antimatter would be "negative energy." Right? So they both must be made from the same kind of energy.

But there's where I run into the wall. Things with opposite electrical charges don't annihilate each other; the charge simply equalizes itself in both parties. Nor do things with opposite spins self-annihilate, or the opposite poles of two magnets. I think I'd need to know the mechanism behind M/AM annihilations before I could take the idea any further. But it's certainly possible... if anyone can explain to me how a gravitational attraction can exist between two masses 2.5 million lightyears apart (like our galaxy and Andromeda). That can't be messenger-particle swapping; know what I mean?



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thought Provoker
If antimatter was truly the exact opposite of matter, there'd be no energy released by the annihilation; they'd both just quietly vanish, their energies canceling each other out with no flash or bang or even a whimper.

Unlikely. Dragan's theory fits my preon hypothesis. The problem in my preon model was that when an annihilation occured, the outgoing photons were supposed to have a mass which was equal to the mass input during the matter/antimatter annihilation process. But if I include Dragan's theory, then it explains why the outgoing photons are mass-less (as they should): both masses during the annihilation will cancel out, see?


But it's certainly possible... if anyone can explain to me how a gravitational attraction can exist between two masses 2.5 million lightyears apart (like our galaxy and Andromeda). That can't be messenger-particle swapping; know what I mean?

According to Dragan, the entire vacuum between galaxies itself is polarized, a bit like a permanent magnet is made of polarized zones. The result is a great gravitational field (or anti-gravitational, depending where you are)... coming from the vacuum itself.
edit on 20-1-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 06:28 AM
link   
An intriguing idea. Most of the anti-matter observed in particle interactions is quickly annihilated because the electromagnetic force is much stronger than the gravitational force at those distances. Over cosmic distances, the gravitational repulsion would take precedence, potentially rendering dark energy unnecessary to explain the accelerating rate of inflation. Very intriguing!



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
An intriguing idea. Most of the anti-matter observed in particle interactions is quickly annihilated because the electromagnetic force is much stronger than the gravitational force at those distances. Over cosmic distances, the gravitational repulsion would take precedence, potentially rendering dark energy unnecessary to explain the accelerating rate of inflation. Very intriguing!

Precisely.


BTW I noticed we have the same 001 in our names lol.
edit on 20-1-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thought Provoker
reply to post by swan001
 

I think they'd have a very difficult time trying to prove that antimatter gravitationally repels matter. It would take a substantial amount of antimatter and being in absolute free-fall; even the micro-gravity of an earth orbit would skew the results, as would their electrostatic attraction/repulsion. But it could be tested with enough effort... and money...




Maybe not. Dragan published a paper in ArXiv about how to test that:

arxiv.org...


we argue that this hypothesis might be tested within the Solar System. The key point is that quantum vacuum ("enriched" with the gravitational dipoles) induces a retrograde precession of the perihelion. It is obvious that this phenomenon might eventually be revealed by more accurate studies of orbits of planets and orbits of the artificial Earth satellites. However, we suggest that potentialy the best "laboratory" for the study of the gravitational properties of the quantum vacuum is the Dwarf Planet Eris and its satellite Dysnomia; the distance of nearly 100AU makes it the unique system in which the precession of the perihelion of Dysnomia (around Eris) is strongly dominated by the quantum vacuum.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:45 AM
link   
It is quite interesting, though antimatter would perhaps not be a great candidate if it is the anti-matter that we are used to dealing with. This is mainly because of the consequences, we would have 938MeV and 511keV gammas making the night sky sort of glow. We don't see that to the best of my knowledge, and observational evidence from galaxies would suggest that galaxies and clusters are swimming in this 'Dark Matter' That cannot occur unless we want to turn the universe into energy rather than mass.

So it must be something else, perhaps a new particle or as suggested something with this inverted gravitational charge, though conventional antimatter wouldn't work... but does offer a way of testing the hypothesis. We would just need a method of testing it... which is a little tricky to say the least



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErosA433
It is quite interesting, though antimatter would perhaps not be a great candidate if it is the anti-matter that we are used to dealing with. This is mainly because of the consequences, we would have 938MeV and 511keV gammas making the night sky sort of glow.

Because of the annihilations photons, yeah, I thought about that too. But then i remembered, Dragan is talking about quantum VIRTUAL matter/antimatter pairs, which could in theory cease to exist before they annihilate each other.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErosA433
It is quite interesting, though antimatter would perhaps not be a great candidate if it is the anti-matter that we are used to dealing with. This is mainly because of the consequences, we would have 938MeV and 511keV gammas making the night sky sort of glow. We don't see that to the best of my knowledge, and observational evidence from galaxies would suggest that galaxies and clusters are swimming in this 'Dark Matter' That cannot occur unless we want to turn the universe into energy rather than mass.

So it must be something else, perhaps a new particle or as suggested something with this inverted gravitational charge, though conventional antimatter wouldn't work... but does offer a way of testing the hypothesis. We would just need a method of testing it... which is a little tricky to say the least


I read the description. It's a bit more subtle. He isn't proposing that there is substantial real antimatter in galactic halos causing the rotation curves to be as they are, because obviously we'd have blazing bright annihilation gammas which we don't see. He's proposing that the vacuum contributes to an anomalous gravitational polarization at large distances/masses thanks to the effective inclusion of virtual particles with negative gravitation.

Some commentators on phys.org have a couple of good points to consider however.

Most of the mass of stuff is in the mass of nuclei, protons and neutrons. And most of those masses are NOT the rest masses of the constituent quarks, but the energy from the gluons etc which have obviously 'positive' gravitation. So even if anti matter at its most basic level (meaning truly elemetnary particles like the quarks and leptons) gravitated in the opposite sign, what about the energy? Theoretically it is hard to reconcile antimatter with negatively gravitating stuff to me.

Consider also this thought experiment. You have a proton plus an antiproton close to one another.
If you hypothesize they have opposite gravitational charge, then for say a normal test matter particle at a large distance, there would be no net attraction or repulsion. Now they annhiliate and turn into photons. Well, photons are antiparticles of themselves, and their electromagnetic fields enter in the stress energy tensor positively, i.e. regular positive gravitation. So does the act of annhilation suddenly change net gravitational charge? That really doesn't seem right to me. And if stress energy tensor for E&M fields isn't what we think it is, then all sorts of things might go wrong.

Also galaxy collisions have shown apparent dark matter dynamics which seems to show truly independent motion and degrees of freedom commensurate only with actual dark matter and not various hypothesized effects of normal matter (MOND) or this theory.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Thanks for that post, it does raise some good points and indeed perhaps a misconception of my own. I cant say im totally convinced in the proposal but it is definitely an intriguing theory that should (if possible) be explored.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I lean heavily toward the version described via Tetryonics. Some of you are going to disagree, but I'm not sure if anyone is actually able to suspend their skepticism in order to give it an honest look. I challenge you to ask your questions and I will do my best to run them buy the creator of Tetryonics himself.

Nothing about Tetryonics is going away.
Your old Physics might just be replaced by something that's finally getting it right.

Gravity Explained

Download the complete Tetryonics [4] Cosmology.pdf ebook



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErosA433
Thanks for that post, it does raise some good points and indeed perhaps a misconception of my own. I cant say im totally convinced in the proposal but it is definitely an intriguing theory that should (if possible) be explored.


The astrophysical evidence of galaxy collisions to me suggests that there is some kind of real dark matter.

However, the complete lack of success of CERN in finding ANY supersymmetrical particles---and the lightest stable supersymmetric particle was the only really serious candidate for dark matter, makes me even skeptical of that.

So 30 to 40 years out, we have many proposals and still no clarity. This is a good example of where theorizing all by oneself does NOT lead to the right physics. People have come up with a number of theoretically plausible and clean solutions, and they don't seem to work.

I bet once they do the lab experiment for gravitational sign of antimatter (it's extremely challenging), they'll find that it gravitates just like normal matter, and this theory will be out as well.

"Dark Energy" is even wierder and an explanation of "we don't understand some deep physical effect yet" is even more plausible.

The only thing that anybody seems able to count on is that Einstein got a tremendous amount right in 1917, and we haven't found any anomalies or new physics beyond yet.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by shixta
 


I'm going to check that up.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


I hope you do check up on this. Any serious seeker should not miss this information.

Here is the google plus community page of Tetryonics. ABRAHAM has discovered what Gravity is.

Once the Geometry has been firmly established, which it has via the understanding of Equilateral Energy confusion ceases to exist.



Gravity is covered in Tetryonics [4] Cosmology.pdf
Download Now. FREE




Boskovic is famous for his atomic theory and made many important contributions to astronomy. including the first geometric precedure for determining the equator of a rotating planet from three observations of a surface feature and computing the orbit of a planet from three observations of its position. In 1753 he also discovered the absence of atmosphere on the Moon.

He also proposed that attractive Gravitational fields could be explained as diminished interactive EM fields. In 1745 Boskovic published "De Viribus Vivis" in wihch he tried to find a middle way between Isaac Newton's gravitational theory and Gottfried Leibniz's metaphysical
theory of the monad-point. --ABRAHAM




Tetryonics Google + Community Link
edit on 26-1-2013 by shixta because: typo



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by shixta
 


Thanks! Downloading now as I speak. It's quite a pdf.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


There's 5 eBooks ( Quantum Mechanics, ElectroDynamics, Chemistry, Cosmology, and Geometrics ). And you're right there is a plethora of knowledge for anyone interested. This is setting the stage to be a next Generation Physics Text book.

Unlike modern text books, these are completely Free.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by shixta
reply to post by swan001
 


There's 5 eBooks ( Quantum Mechanics, ElectroDynamics, Chemistry, Cosmology, and Geometrics ). And you're right there is a plethora of knowledge for anyone interested. This is setting the stage to be a next Generation Physics Text book.

Unlike modern text books, these are completely Free.


Cool.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


I've been trying to wrap my head around this stuff for a few years and, admittedly, it just won't sink in. Can someone explain to me why ANY of these theories would compel the furthest galaxies to fly faster and faster away from us? Whatever the force, why would it be stronger in the furthest reaches of space? And, why isn't anyone wondering, with the exponential increase of speed of which galaxies are flying away the further they are from us, what might be out there that is attracting them?



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Er... In here, the theory actually has implications on the orbital speed of stars in our galaxy. You see, the sun is supposed, according to Newtonian equations, to travel at about 2 km per sec on.s but it travels at 220 km/s. It meant that either there was some more mass we couldn't see, or something was pushing against the Sun from outside. So Big Scientists said thete there must be dark matter to account for the extra gravity. But some people, like Dragan, show that you don't need to invent a new Dark matter to account for that extra force. An outside force could be computed to compensate the hight orbital speed. In this case, antimatter and matter's bipolar masses could maybe align with each other and create a big pushing (centripetal) force upon the Sun. Like a, er... a magnet. The reason why earth magnet work is because their components are polarized, aligned with each other.
edit on 31-1-2013 by swan001 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
2

log in

join