Dark Matter can still exist …but it is only inside black holes, it is virtual mass without the ability to ever be observable.
Joseph said,Exactly, the length of a meter is tailored to the distance light travels in a second. Any sane person would question why massless light has such a weird number.
It is only a weird number compared to human “symbolic” mathematical numbers. One might also ask why there are there three different human devised temperature measuring standards and which one is used by the universe. Light propagates at “c” , which is a mathematical restriction in a permittive medium.
The point is that each relative symbolic equivalency is used by humans for ease of performing specific human measurements. The universe only deals with relative algebraic values and constant mathematical functions regardless of how humans want to algebraicly equivocate the values when describing these universal properties.
We invent symbolic mathematics for our convenience, not the universes convenience. The universe merely uses relative values (potentials) and specific mathematical algebraic functions. It does not need specific numbers, only specific mathematical physical potentials.
p.s. I also have thought about Dark Matter as “hidden” in the black holes throughout the universe. IMO, it is a very logical explanation for the term “dark matter”. Yes because it is hidden in black holes and not physically observable from the outside?
Light shouldn’t have a speed limit …spacetime is causing it to have one.
Hey Joseph. I think it’s great that you are thinking about physics from your own perspective. Firstly I encourage you on.
Secondly I do recommend skepticism as a primary tool. We can too easily construct theories; at least some of us. By covering plenty of ground and studying the options I do believe there could be a breakthrough like you are attempting. Also I do believe that there are faslifications of standard theory which go ignored by the master mimics, who are the straight A’s that the get the great jobs to promote more straight A’s into ever branching niches to make more ground for more PhDs to print up more works whose accumulative nature only proves modern science to be a fraud. Whatever; they are there and we are here and I do think it takes courage to put your thoughts out into the public this way. Openness is the way of the future.
Just as we should try to offer up falsifications of existing theory; for instance the first cosmological principle of isotropy of the universe: In this day we are taught that there are singularities out there atop uniquely placed galaxies so that we can for instance point to Polaris or Sagitarius A effectively addressing unique positions in the universe. An isotropic sky would literally look the same in all directions and would carry no such ability. Now, careful renditions of the first cosmological principle state that the law applies on average, and this should really give us quite a chuckle, for anything after averaging will certainly be isotropic. You’ve just wiped away all of the uniqueness by definition. Thus the first cosmological principle is a fraud and we can happily declare the problems as far more open than the standard stance allows.
In hindsight I believe that the confusion of an arithmetic representation of spacetime devoid of the matter contained within spacetime is rather what the first cosmological principle is founded from. Such an empty system is said to have no preferential frame of reference and in this way the isotropic stance can be partially allowed. However in physics the concern is actually about reality and when we discuss spacetime we should allow for the fact that spacetime inherently includes all the matter of the universe. This is physics; not mathematics. Standard physics is brought about by simplifying problems down to say two simplistic bodies, whereby a gravitational law can be expressed. Of course before we plopped the two bodies down on the paper it was blank. Having instantiated two bodies on the piece of paper ought we to allow that paper system as isotropic? How about with three bodies; four bodies; and so on. Let’s sprinkle in a few singularities in there too by the way.
Your own awareness of spacetime is pretty good. I believe in both space and time as continuous and in this way I am semiclassical. As you speak of a framerate for time and then link that to space I will offer you a falsification of discrete space that might lead you on into some extension of your own interpretation since you do at some level see matter as supporting spacetime. Anyway take a mug on your desk and rotate it around a few times and return it to its original position; say 5 rotations for fun. As we see that the mug remains stable and unchanged through these rotations; that the mug consists of a lattice of atoms then as they rotated shouldn’t they have been forced to hop through discrete space? As they hop individually at some fine scale then the structure of the mug must be unstable at that scale and such transitioning ought to yield changes at the macro level. This argument is in support of the spacetime continuum which I am pretty sure falsifies a fair number of modern avenues of thought.
As much as we can declare spacetime a continuum it does as well carry discrete aspects. For instance we observe three dimensional space. Why we observe three dimenstional space will likely play a large part in an ultimate physical theory. Anyway, there is no actual ability to have say a 3.14 dimensional space. This discrete aspect is inherently married to our continuum. Here again we can get into a falsification of the first cosmological principle. As much as on our blank paper we could draw out any orthogonal reference frame and be satisfied can we really unite this with time to declare spacetime as isotropic? Simply put the answer is no. Again returning to our mug and its atomic lattice (maybe make it out of quartz) we see in a region of space and time that it turns five times on a table top. Rotating the time axis into say the z axis coming out of the table we will witness a complete corruption of the system, What were atoms quite literally disappear. The peculiarities of even stating the problem clearly obviously do not allow for an isotropic stance on spacetime.
Time is unidirectional whereas the standard spatial dimensions are bidirectional. Einstein makes his way through this by always applying a light cone projection to resolve the physical situation back down to three dimensions. I don’t think it is correct, but I think this is how it is made to work. I do think that electromagnetic properties are inherent to spacetime and further that spacetime is structured. It is here that the next great theory lays: when the complexity of spacetime inherently implies the laws of electromagnetics those laws will be simplified from their present form. Likely more than this will be gained.
Why spacetime?
- Tim
Dark Matter hidden in black holes? I though Dark Matter was originally conjectured because the shape of galaxies didn’t match the distribution expected based on the observed (gravity exerting) matter. Correct?
My point is, wouldn’t that imply a diffuse something?
Whereas if BM were hiding in Black Holes, seems to me gravitational observations would make for a lumpy imagine as compared to what is expected from matter being diffused throughout the universal aether.
I killed Dark Matter being throughout the galaxy, but that doesn’t mean it can’t exist in black holes.
Dark Matter is Virtual Mass.
All Unobserved Matter Waves have mass …including Dark Matter. They all are not physical until observed, but Dark Matter is decapitated …it doesn’t have the ability to gain a physical state. It remains quantum waves.
Dark Matter is a mass variable in the quantum field devoid of spacetime.
Virtual mass effects the bending of spacetime. Mass is virtual in a matter-wave, real when observed. Dark Matter can never be observed/decohere.
Dark Matter behaves like a ghost atom. It doesn’t interact with matter because it is only waves. It sinks into gravity wells because spacetime can’t tell the difference.
Quantum weirdness events (superposition, entanglement, tunneling) do not occur when spacetime is involved. They happen in their own Field of quantum waves. Observed particles are in duality mode, the quantum field is still treating it like a wave while spacetime is making it physical. Dark Matter doesn’t have a duality mode, it remains unobservable quantum waves no matter what.
Dark Matter is my proof of a field of unobservable quantum waves without the need of spacetime. Matter Waves that don’t decay also scream spacetime isn’t involved.
Lorentz doesn’t apply to quantum waves without a physical state …there is nothing to trade-off. Spacetime is separate from the Quantum Field.
So, what is in a black hole? Dark Matter without spacetime.
These might be describing decoherence/spacetime
Joseph said,Light shouldn’t have a speed limit …spacetime is causing it to have one.
I agree. Spacetime is both permittive (of movement) and restrictive (of speed). It was not always so.
IMO, before the BB, there was only a permittive condition, which allowed the consequent initial expansion of the universe to take place at FTL. With the cooling and condensing of the physical properties spacetime became more restrictive of speed until it settled @ “c”.
As to the gravitational lumpiness of Dark Matter. That is clearly well established. A “supermassive” Black Hole has so much gravitational pull that it can swallow entire galaxies. I call that a major gravitational distortion of spacetime.
A supermassive black hole (SMBH) is the largest type of black hole, on the order of hundreds of thousands to billions of solar masses (M☉), and is theorized to exist in the center of almost all massive galaxies.Unambiguous dynamical evidence for SMBHs exists only in a handful of galaxies;[1] these include the Milky Way, the Local Group galaxies M31 and M32, and a few galaxies beyond the Local Group, e.g. NGC 4395. In these galaxies, the mean square (or root mean square) velocities of the stars or gas rises as ~1/r near the center, indicating a central point mass. In all other galaxies observed to date, the rms velocities are flat, or even falling, toward the center, making it impossible to state with certainty that a supermassive black hole is present.[1] Nevertheless, it is commonly accepted that the center of nearly every galaxy contains a supermassive black hole.[2] The reason for this assumption is the M-sigma relation, a tight (low scatter) relation between the mass of the hole in the ~10 galaxies with secure detections, and the velocity dispersion of the stars in the bulges of those galaxies.[3] This correlation, although based on just a handful of galaxies, suggests to many astronomers a strong connection between the formation of the black hole and the galaxy itself.[2]
CC-v.3 said,My point is, wouldn’t that imply a diffuse something?
IMO, the proof of uneven distribution of gravitational “wells” lies in the fact that spacetime is an irregular object. If gravity was diffused and equal in all corners of spacetime, the universe itself would be of a regular (circular) shape. The fact that the universe is a “manifold” would indicate an uneven gravity distribution.
I may be wrong, but that would seem to be a logical argument.
Surprising Link Found Between Dark Matter and Black Holes
Dark matter and black holes are some of the most mysterious things in the Universe, so a connection between the two is absolutely thrilling. In a new study, astronomers report a strange link between the amount of dark matter in a galaxy and the size of its supermassive black hole. That’s an amazing new black hole fact!
Question;
If the Universe today is a manifold, how did it change from a circular plasma state to a manifold state? Lumpiness in gravity?
What is loop quantum gravity?
Loop quantum gravity (LQG) is a theory of quantum gravity attempting to merge quantum mechanics and general relativity, including the incorporation of the matter of the standard model into the framework established for the pure quantum gravity case. LQG competes with string theory as a candidate for quantum gravity.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity
So, now we have three quantum gravity theories, LQG, SQG, and CDT.
Gravity is just as much part of the fabric of spacetime as time. Mass has to be large enough to interact with spacetime naturally.
I think the default frame rate of the smallest spacetime bubble is 200,000,000 m/s. The one we are in is scaled/sped up via 1.49896229, this also sets the quantum/classical boundary.
Time dilation must influence the multiplier 1.49896229 because stars in their own spacetime bubbles age/move extremely fast.
I haven’t been on for a few days so I’m going to address a few things you said from various posts. I’ll quote you so you know what I’m addressing.
Exactly, the length of a meter is tailored to the distance light travels in a second. Any sane person would question why massless light has such a weird number.The length of a meter is "tailored to" the distance light travels in a second, but it is not "set by" it. We already had a much rougher meter before that tailoring happened. We can't go changing that length or suddenly car parts don't fit anymore and buildings have one side longer than the other. So it's not really a "weird number", we simply stopped using a stick in a vault to measure it and switched to something which doesn't change while still trying to keep the measurement as "the same" as possible. We're doing the same thing with a kilogram, or have done. Around the world in various vaults there are "standard kilograms" with "the" standard in, I think, England somewhere. Every so often the "other" kilograms are taken to be compared to "the" standard kilogram. The trouble is, matter slowly evaporates. They are all getting slowly lighter. So the way of fixing this is to figure out the atomic mass (or something like that) of that standard kilogram and, whatever that turns out to be, that becomes the new, unchanging standard. You're going to get a weird number simply because the original weight was arbitrarily chosen.
That said, if the numbers thing isn’t your bag ..Matter Waves not decaying is another avenue to my theory. Matter Waves that don’t decay are not using spacetime.I think you had better read the article you linked again. It made no mention of matter waves, nor did it at any point say there was "no" decay. It said simply that the decay did not follow the known rules and that it could reorganize itself into its pre-decayed state.
Dark Matter can still exist ..but it is only inside black holes, it is virtual mass without the ability to ever be observable.This is absolutely not possible, I'm afraid. The reason behind the concept of dark matter is that the measured masses of the central super massive black holes in galaxies, measured by the speeds at which nearby stars orbit them, was not high enough to hold together the entire galaxy. I forget the formula, but every single galaxy is some exact percentage bigger than it should be, if I recall. Since the measured mass of the black hole being too small is the reason for believing that dark matter is a thing it could not exist within black holes because that would make their mass large enough.
And dark matter isn’t some mysterious “stuff” either. It’s just matter we can’t see. Would you even expect to see dust, colorless gasses and planets from millions of light years away? Entire planets in far away solar systems are “dark matter” to us.
Light shouldn’t have a speed limit ..spacetime is causing it to have one.It's not so much a speed limit as it is a set speed. And why shouldn't it have a set speed? That is the way the universe works, so saying that it shouldn't be is a little silly. Since that is how it is then it is how it should be, whether we understand the reasoning or not. But maybe I'm reading too much into that statement.
You are wrong on dark matter https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-space/dark-matter.html
Spacetime objects move around in un-enacted spacetime zones much quicker depending on the amount of time dilation they are experiencing.
The quantum field with un-enacted spacetime doesn’t have a causality speed limit until the spacetime is enacted.
You are pissing me off because you obviously haven’t read everything I wrote in this thread. The link you shit on was just an example of decay not happening when they expected it. We already know the double slit with radioactive particles don’t register multiple hits on the final panel …they don’t decay while being a wave.
This may be of interest.
::Sigh::
The fabric of spacetime is a little more interesting than GR defines. We now know spacetime is enacted based the amount of mass at the quantum/classical boundary. It isn’t enacted everywhere but can be naturally with a certain amount of mass. A supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy starts the core gravity well. It isn’t a strong enough well to hold the entire galaxy in but planets/stars daisy chain off the core gravity well. When an object has enough mass to enact spacetime, it becomes accessible to the universal spacetime net/fabric and will flow as gravity tells it to. Spacetime objects on the out edges are going to experience extreme time dilation and move quickly.
Physical Mass IS Spacetime that is connected to the enacted fabric/net of Spacetime.
Joseph said,Physical Mass IS Spacetime that is connected to the enacted fabric/net of Spacetime.
I am a little confused by your terminology, but it seems to me that you are espousing something like David Bohm’s “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”, which posits “enfolded orders” (potential implications) and “unfolded orders” (physical manifestation).
http://gci.org.uk/Documents/DavidBohm-WholenessAndTheImplicateOrder.pdf
If you are not familiar with Bohm’s work, this is a wonderful theory which solves the particle/wave duality. Moreover it offers some philosophical perspectives which are impressive, if not provocative.
David Joseph Bohm FRS[1] (/boʊm/; December 20, 1917 – October 27, 1992) was an American scientist who has been described as one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the 20th century[2] and who contributed unorthodox ideas to quantum theory, neuropsychology and the philosophy of mind.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm
Giving a particle a physical state is the same thing as saying: it is now a spacetime object.
Is virtual mass the spacetime fabric/net? Enacted regions would be physical mass.
The fabric of spacetime is responsible for gravity, time (time dilation), and the quantum/classical boundary size. A spacetime object (a certain amount of mass) accesses the fabric and follows GR. Yes, you can force smaller massed objects to decohere and become spacetime objects.
Is the fabric evenly spaced virtual mass acting as vertices to accommodate the bending of it? Spacetime is all about mass and this would explain how gravitational waves reach us from across cosmic voids.