Dark Matter

The problem that I've been struggling with for years is thinking of a practical method of containing dark matter. Clearly unless I can find a way to put it into a jar, I'm simply not going to be able to market it effectively on TV.

But seriously, for ages I stubbornly refused to accept dark matter. Evidence be hanged. I just couldn't get it to fit. I still can't, really. I'm tentatively resigned to thinking it's tiny clots that reside exclusively in one or more of the itty-bitty "curled-up" dimensions. I certainly hope someone comes up with something more.

You could put it in a can, with the warning that if opened, it would dissipate into space leaving no trace behind, and since it is invisible anyway, you will not see it leave, but you know it was there, because you will hear a slight hiss as the dark matter escapes and leaves a vaccum behind, which is quickly filled by air.

How is that for marketing, Ron Popiel?

Anyone need an advertising firm or spin-doctor?

HTRN

The universe is out there, just waiting for us to discover a way of controlling gravity!

It's such a shame we cant definitively say what even causes gravity....

Dark matter=fudge factor. If you can't 'splain it, make it up. If it's such a weak force, why don't I have a hoverboard yet. I'm behind the scientists 100% on this, it's money well spent.

Hi HiTekRedNek,

You may know this already, but what you are describing is part of Brane cosmology . It's an intriguing theory, but I am sceptical.

S

HI SG,

Thanks for the link.What I've read previously about gravity did not mention membranes, merely that it may be multidimensional.The latest I have heard on the number of dimensions is 11.What I had read about membranes did not mention gravity, so this link ties them together in one bulky dimension.A little too large to swallow for me at least.I was simply extrapolating that if gravity leaked out or our dimension, then likewise it could leak from others into ours,causing permutations in spacetime without any detectable matter.The recent compilation of data resulting from the lensing effect of gravity reveals massive amounts of "dark matter" surrounding superclusters of galaxies, and may have been responsible for their formation.If my hypothesis is correct, it is a mutual effect that reinforces itself thru multidimensional interaction.Picture an hourglass shape in spacetime, with dimensional boundaries at the center.

With super-sensitive gravity detectors that will ultimately be devised in the future, gravity waves could be an interdimensional carrier wave for communications,perhaps passing information to far-flung galaxies without the delay of our own spacetime properties.Just some food for thought, hopefully not too bulky.

Actually, the answer is right before each of you. It lies within your very own brane!

Kinda like a P-Brane 'd idea?

What is brane? Me don't understand!!!

Short for Membrane Theory, of which a particular part is, ironically, called a P-Brane

Check out the following link for a discussion on Membrane theory, a variable of which is called P-Brane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane

HTRN

Unfortunately, while string theory still shows "some" promise - super string theory has basically done the big crash-and-burn!!!

"super string theory has basically done the big crash-and-burn!!!"

Can you elaborate on this?

S

Super string theory has hit a whole bunch of dead ends, and unfortunately has reached the point of diminishing returns as far as modeling reality. Of course, this is in comparison to "regular" string theory, which is still showing promise.

OR

I reded it in an art-tickle... Yup, yup!

I'm starting on a new theory that doesn't have a thread of truth in it. I'm calling it "Thread Theory".

Laden or unladen?

Me brane hurts too. It's all about how "they" perceive such things.

A brain is not a brane

A brane cannot contain a brain

If a train were riding on a brane

It may well indeed, be riding upon itself.

But the lovely brain

Transcends the elusive brane

For within its small refrain

It pursues the limits of hallowed restrain

Careful, my friends, for brane intrudes

Regardless, we accept it, disown it, or not

Silently, steadfastly and most certain to include

You, me, and all around us, the question which

I humbly ask,

Why, my brain, can't I conceive the brane?

-John

Johnjohn,

It sounds as though you're in need of more bran!

You're not alone, Standards Guy. For Brane Cosmology to work, the Branes themselves would apparently have to be bounded and finite. If two Branes can collide, then it should be possible for one Brane to occupy the same physical space as another Brane, and that creates all kinds of problems!

Hello HiTekRedNek,

Could you please point me to an article that actually says that Dark Matter has been discovered?

So far, I have found some theory about the possibility of Dark Matter but I haven't seen any hard (or even soft) data that someone actually found this stuff.

Thanks for posting a speedy reply,

Orpheuse

No. There aren't any. However, check out this. Roger and Jorrie are the men for this matter!!

Check this out:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/4997/Astronomers-discover-massive-dark-matter-structure

S

Well, that's what I found. I'll be damned if I know what to make of it. Is that the elusive Dark Matter that will determine whether this is an oscillating Universe or not?

Orpheuse

Hi all you Dark Matter seekers,

I beleieve you will find Dark Matter is the absense of Gravity -- that Gravity alone will explain it all. Dark Matter is not in the definition of the Nature of the Universe, NOU. Good Luck, seeking Dark Matter.

soaralone1

ps: Because this comment does not support the search for Dark Matter - or rather -- it gives a new direction to turn to, to find the no Dark Matter. it may be considered "Off Topic". If so, so be it. Good Luck, seeking Dark Matter.

Not to contradict you, but IMHO, I think several points need to be clarified.

1. There is no proof that dark matter really exists. The article you refer to is just the latest guess at what "might" be dark matter. Currently, there is also a theory that dark matter is all the cold (very slow moving) neutrinos left over from the Big Bang. So the jury is still out on all aspects (including existence) of dark matter.
2. Gravity is multi-dimensional in that it's considered to be a distortion in space-time (4-dimensional), and not extending into other dimensions, like those on shows like the Outer Limits.
3. It is true that compared to the other three "known" forces, gravity is very weak. This means that when considering subatomic particles, the Strong nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and the Electro-Weak force are all far stronger than gravity on the subatomic level. The gravity between to protons is just about "not-a-whole-lot!!!"
4. As far as one poster's observation "We don't know what gravity is" this is somewhat untrue. We have a lot of evidence that Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is mostly correct (at least for now). Gravity is caused by the bending of time and space around any body with mass. If you check a good explanation of the Special Theory of Relativity, it will demonstrate how this bending of space-time is perceived as gravity - both to inhabitants of a planet and by massive bodies moving through space near the planet.

Anyway, hope this helps.

Gravity, although it is the weakest of the 4 primal forces, is the only force that extends outward from the object producing it and has no boundary.

Gravity is the farthest reaching force and it is relentless.

Orpheuse

Hi vermin and Orpheuse,

Both of you are essentially straight on the path to finding what TOE is all about. My present project is to solve the multi-body (greater than 3-body) problem. If this is accomplished, there will be a mathematical tying together of the atomic and the cosmic realms.

The multi-body solution lends directly to atomic (and sub-atomic) particle AND cosmic body placements. The search for Dark Matter should really be the search for an alternative explanation - a mathematical one - founded on presently known (actually known by 1903 AD) physical, measured and recorded properties. This is already available but the world of theorists is not open to coming out of the theoretical world. I apologize for what appears to be rather abrupt words; but I truly wish they would come out and tell me where my work is in error.

soaralone1

If you don't show your work how can anyone comment on it?

So is the electromagnetic force.

vermin,

Very well put; showing the work. The Catch 22 I face is when I show the work in progress, as was the case in about a dozen earlier attempts,

I received no response, or

the requirement that I could not publish my work until I have published some earlier work.

You are also correct in that electromagnetics plays a significant role the description of TTOE, the Tools for finding TOE.

My work on the multi-body problem at this time is verbally describing the process mathematics. Keeping the sequence of steps and defining the operations within each of them, assures all the data is present, as input, for the next step to begin. Publishing this work awaits its completion.

Thank you for your interest.

soaralone1

Try one more time to show your work, to us, a company of your peers, for review.If it can stand the scrutiny and bright lights of this blog, then it can endure anything.

Finding flaws in a theory is not a hostile intention, merely a method of finding weak links, and possibly learning how to repair them. An idea,or theory, is like a child to the person that gave birth to it, and is sometimes defended against flaws that are obvious to others.It takes courage to send your child off into the cold cruel world, but it will return stronger for it.The world needs the enlightenment of your ideas; please don't keep us in the dark. It does matter.(Pun intended).

Well said HiTek!

-John

OK HiTeK and John,

What I have done to help me layout the mathematics is prepared a "first blush" text explaining the intent. It is a couple of pages of Word.rtf -- How do I attach it or get it to you two?

soaralone1

You should be able to cut and paste it into the CR4 Editor.

vermin,

I will confess my newbie blog situation. What is "You should be able to cut and paste it into the CR4 Editor." the CR4 Editor?

Is it this chat room/space? If so, be prepared for some of my struggles in working with Mathcad13, the math program I use for this work.

I am describing setting up a program that produces calculated motions of multiple bodies - hopefully atomic particles to cosmic galaxies. "Calculated" means not requiring any priorly developed multi-body methods -- but just by simple - but multiple times used - programs. The programs are to enter simple 3-D calculated data into matrices after the initiating top-row data is entered.

Nature does not use complex mathematics. I have not had need to, either. Simple "beautiful equations" as they have been described, are all that is needed. The Tools that describe Nature, TNOU, are the same Tools to find TOE, TTOE.

soaralone1

vermin was referring to the same editor that you have used, so far, to post your comments including this one that I am responding to. If you will notice the blue omega symbol just to the left of the smiley face, you can use it to insert various math symbols, which, in spite of some limitations does give you the ability to describe certain things in a little better way than longhand descriptions. For example you can describe things like √(∞)²= ∞, etc.

Anyway, you said in post #32 "-- I can calculate them to an accuracy limited only by the accuracy of the constants --". Please enlighten us with a descriptive dialogue on the "Acceleration properties and forces within the atom."

Thanks,

-John

Hi soaralone1;

A quick word of advice... The smiling faces that are politely prodding you to post your theory are, for the most part, waiting with sharpened teeth and drooling jowls to tear your work to shredded. (No whining!!! You all know what your up to!!! )

If you are not 100% sure about your work or if your pride or ego is wrapped up in it, I suggest you run like hell!!! Otherwise, be prepared to have it thoroughly crunched, mangled, and scrutinized in a not too gentle manner.

Speak for thyself, thou Vermin.Not all here share a desire to rip and rend, however, it will be scrutinized carefully.The scientific community at large, however,is a more voracious carnivore of new ideas,and sometimes blind defender of the old ones.

Dear Guest,

I have voted your reply the "highest" I can give it in the limited range I have available: "A good reply"

More responses are coming. Be patient, one and all you hunger-to-render readers.

soaralone1

You Varmint, now he will never post anything! We are all getting hungry now.

StandardsGuy:

I reply to you with a very positive comment: I will post my work with very important instructions to each of the evaluators.

This work is very "first blush" with pretty good grammar but very clumsy mathematics description because I am not a mathematician. The program I am describing will be a first - never attempted before – program-in-the-making. SO, I want very instructional help!!

As for the detailed work already accomplished, I am faced with a very severe CATCH 22: I cannot publish in a peer review journal until I have published in a peer review journal. What I find very interesting here is most of the truly new, world-shaking concepts that were published in the past did NOT have peer review!

soaralone1

The jury seems to be split on whether Godel's Theorems preclude the possibility of TOE. I'm way out of my depth, but I'd be interested to hear your position on this when you post up some more info. As has been mentioned, there are some very knowledgable people on CR4 who can discuss your work with you. I'm just one of those who enjoys reading on the sidelines.

It's kinda like:

1. Sentence 2 is true.

2. Sentence 1 is false.

Kris,

What little I know of Godel's work suggests TOE may not be found. BUT, that does not preclude that the Tools to find TOE will not be found. Far from it -- I have some nearly 20 specific calculated points of TOE that allow total inter-ranging among them.

Being able to do so clearly indicates TOE is being surrounded, literally, by these points. Since the constants are all know to any and all persons, you and me, physicists, scientists, astrophysicists, atomic physicists, everybody -- I can calculate them to an accuracy limited only by the accuracy of the constants -- Most are in the micro decimal place and many are in the nano decimal place, a few in the 10 to the -17th decimal place.

To name a few:

Hubble's Constant and Age of the Universe,

Depth of the Universe [more specifically] we can see,

Apparent Expanding Universe (it is only apparent - not really),

Apparent Accelerating Universe (it is only apparent - not really),

Cosmic microwave background radiation temperature CMBR , and

Acceleration properties and forces within the atom.

soaralone1

Hi soaralone1,

Are you going to publish any of those topics here that we don't have to buy? I'm very interested in those topics. Do you expect to have a TOE to publish in the foreseeable future?

regards,

S

Hi soaralone1,

I've looked at your links, but I'm still not clear about what you mean. Is there any number-crunching you've done, or are you putting together a new verbally descriptive model ? I'm guessing that this is also one of your web-pages ?

Kris,

Yes, "this" is one of them. Thank you for looking it up.

soaralone1

It has come to my attention from another thread that the virial theorem was the start of the dark matter theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virial_theorem

Any comments on this?

Hi StandardsGuy,

I have printed your Wikipedia reference -- I believe it is right on the mark and will be definitely helpful including its references. The forms of the shown equations are very instructive for this non-mathematician.

soaralone1

To all you inquiring minds,

I am publishing for your evaluation, beginning -- right at the very beginning - before any beta -- for your help.

If the help is disparaging or criticism (which is opposite to constructive critiquing), I will have to excuse you from the help position I am asking for.

I am not a mathematician; I look forward to learning how to enter sub-programs to gain the objective. The objective is to find out the initiating equations for multiple body motion over a selected time period. These start-of-developing-a-program equations are what I am seeking; they are not otherwise available.

soaralone1 The work is here, below.

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

My invitation to CR4 contributors,

The following description of a possible multi-body problem solution is a rough "first blush" pass. Most of the essence of the process is here. I look forward to comments that help you to tell/show me how to write the program.

To start this thread again, I would like a clue as to how to set up the program I need.

The typical means of solving multiple body problems employ statistical methods. Such procedures are due to the extreme difficulties of the conventional requirement to form differential equations to track the motions of the many bodies or particles. The approach here is the contrary; that is, tracking the motions of the individual bodies (or particles, atoms, molecules, planets, galaxy arm velocities, etc.) is the object of this work.

I picture a program I would write that has the capability of cycling time intervals through from 50 to perhaps 1000 steps and having the capability of updating from 3 to 100 bodies starting from their respective 3-D positions and vector velocities within a sample-space.

The overall scheme is to create a matrix for each body-mass in the system that track the changed physical properties generated within each time cycle. Each body has its own matrix. The columns of these matrices form vectors of entries that can be plotted as a function of time.

It is these vectors this program must generate to demonstrate the time movement of the bodies.

The time period for each cycle will be constant typically; however, provision for making it variable with each cycle step is desired. The choice will be pre-selected depending on the overall time period and how well the intervening details need to be known. The mathematics of each cycle will be identical, irrespective of any physical properties. Thus, these operations can be "User defined" programs called into the appropriate cycle steps of a controlling written program.

The typical sample space will be from a much larger volume. Generally, the shape of the sample-space would be spherical of radius, R, while the contiguous volume outside of the sample sphere can be considered as a thick-walled balloon. The properties of this thick wall should provide the effect of continuing the sample-space properties as if to infinity.

A convenient way of accomplishing this for particle-size bodies is to set the thickness of the wall to 10 times (one order of magnitude greater than) the mean distance between the bodies. The mean distance is determined by applying Boltzmann distribution function to the properties of the sample space pressure, temperature, and viscosity, if suitable. Consider the sample-space is a fluid – gas or liquid with the bodies free to move about in the sample-space. Consider further, if energy is liberated or required, that energy will flow out or inward of the sample space. Correspondingly, the net per-unit-volume energy of the balloon shell changes with the sample-space per-unit-volume energy.

The multi-body program begins with the starting position, masses, and velocity magnitudes and 3-D vectors on the top row of each mass-body matrix.

Construction of the matrices

Beginning example, the first matrix construction across the first, top row is

Col. 0, the number of each time cycle;

Col. 1, the mass of Body 1 at each cycle;

Col.'s 2- 4, the (x,y,z) beginning 3-D position of the body at each cycle; and

Col.'s 5-7, the (vx,vy,vz) the beginning 3-D magnitudes of velocity at each cycle.

The second matrix identically repeats the organization of the first matrix except for Body 2: mass, velocity magnitude 3-D vectors. Subsequent matrices are constructed the same for the remaining bodies.

The first time-step completes all of the following processes with the resulting properties being placed as the beginning properties of the next, in this instance, time-Step 2.

Using the changed properties, the program repeats the process through all body matrices at each time step. The program continues with the matrices continuing in step-wise fashion for each of the cycled steps.

If there is any contact/collision of two – or more -- bodies, conservation laws of momentum and energy must be conserved in both magnitude and 3-D velocity of the combined mass if the attraction remains after the contact. Otherwise, if the bodies are repulsed after the contact, the separate masses, positions, magnitude and 3-D velocities are required at the end of the time step. These results must be continued into all further time steps.

The "User defined" program will appear like the following.

calc(sj,msj,xsj,ysj,zsj,vxsj,vysj,vzsj,vmsj):= (sj+1),mj,x(sj+1),y(sj+1),z(sj+1),vx(sj+1),vy(sj+1),vz(sj+1),vm(sj+1)

vxsi = ¦ ( å (xsj-xsi). ¦ ( å (xsj-xsi) is "User defined" elsewhere above its use here.

x(sj+1) = å (vxsi* t), y(sj+1) = å (vysi* t), z(sj+1) = å (vzsi* t)

t = time interval

s = step number, m = mass, j = matrix number, i = all other than j matrix, x,y,z = 3-D position, vx,vy,vz = 3-D vector velocities,

vm = velocity magnitude. The "s" and "(s+1)" extensions are matrix subscripts.

x(s+1) = xs+ vxsi* t, y(s+1) = ys+ vysi* t, z(s+1) = zs+ vzsi* t

At the completion, there are column vectors of the entire process that show the movement of each individual body. This is not available by any prior processing of multiple-body programs.

This process appears to solve the difficulties of prior solutions of this problem. We shall see if this program does solve this problem. Can it, in fact, predict future positions of our Solar bodies? Perhaps the reverse is possible: find agreement with past Solar system events.

.

Ó Copyright Colin C Ware 2008 eagle1@eaglmall.com

To all my helpers,

I inadvertently omitted to tell all helpers that the "User defined" program identified by

vxsi = ¦ ( å (xsj-xsi). ¦ ( å (xsj-xsi) is "User defined" elsewhere above its use here.

includes energy computations: potential and kinetic energies and spin and electromagnetic energies. Those energies are re-inserted in the (s+1) rows. This insertion is by the controlling program.

Soaralone1

A couple of observations...

1. The multiple body theorem is still hanging by a raged edge... That's why for modeling the virial (sp?) theorem has received a lot of use and may be useful in your efforts.
2. If I recall correctly, you'll need to move past vectors and include the concept of tensors to get what you're really looking for.
3. Your matrix program model is extremely reminiscent of the matrix programs we used to use for dealing with the "hidden polygon" problem in 3-D graphics.
4. Your efforts may be made easier if you get yourself a really good graphics card AND a physics card and learn to program these directly - such as game programmers do. If you are unfamiliar with physics cards, they calculate how all physical aspects (gravity, momentum, collision, etc.) behave on the screen regarding what the graphics card outputs.

And one question... What programming language are you planning to work in?

Hi vermin,

I use for my more sophisticated work, Mathcad 6 Pro. I also have Mathcad 13 installed; this is necessary to communicate with the very helpful chaps on Mathsoft PTC Collaboratory. The chaps use several different math programs beside the Mathcad group.

You have mentioned a physics card - card? My Mcad6 and Mcd13 do a fine job if I enter the proper data. But your card seems to more -- that is to be sure all values are properly entered and operated on? Tell me more, pleases. Also on the graphics card? What does this card do?

I also invite you to see my new entry on Tools for finding TOE. See you there.

soaralone1

I get the feeling that not only do you need to learn the math, you also need to learn a true programming language, like C or C++.

A graphics card is essentially a very powerful co-processor on a card that fits into a PCI slot. These are used for creating very high-resolution and complex graphics effect on your PC, hence the reason why video games use these cards. However, since they're capable of doing billions of floating-point operations per second, they would help your simulation greatly if you knew how to program them directly.

The physics card is a relatively new product - another PCI card that works with the graphics card to get the physics of high-resolution graphics (from the graphics card) correct. So, if, for instance, the graphics card renders an explosion the independent co-processor in the physics card knows how to render the motion of all the fragments of the explosion correctly according to your physics rules.

Of course, you can alter the physics of the physics co-processor by applying different values. However, to use either a high-powered graphics card or physics card, you need to get their library of functions and have the ability to program them in C or C++.

Does that make sense?

Hi Johnjohn,

There are lots of stuff going on at this place. Very interesting - I have signed up to use some of my work as the basis for some, hopefully, not too elusive stuff.

Thanks, soaralone1

soaralone1,

One thing you might want to do is not show your program logic, but us English to describe what your basic ideas are. If you do that, you might get more interest in your ideas, even if you haven't established the math yet.

One suggestion in the realm of constructive criticism - If you keep putting the copyright notice at the bottom of your postings, it makes you look paranoid, and reduces your credibility. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying it may work against you on this site.

vermin,

Your point on "paranoia" about my use of "copyright" is well taken in the context of these "short" writings we all are doing in various blogs.

I meant nothing more than such statements are entered in published books. After trying for 5 or so years to reach the "authorities" of the domain I found myself working in, I planned to publish a book. I certainly meant no more than that in the earlier blog entries which now I will no longer do. Thank you for your comment.

soaralone1

OK. I'm glad you got my message. I don't think anyone here wants to steal your ideas. From others in the past, the members of CR4 tend to encourage writers to copyright their stuff if it shows any potential.

A copyright does not give protection for an idea itself. A patent gives protection, and even a patent-pending gives protection of an idea.To get to a pending state, the idea has to be in the cue for review at the patent office.At least that's how it works in the States.The pending state allows one to produce and sell the item in the public domain and still retain protection from others copying it, while the patent review is in process.Anyone proven to have copied and sold anything in the pending state can be sued and awaorded 40 percent of all profits, plus possible punitive damages if it can be proven to be a willful violation.

HTRN

Jeez Soar, I don't understand a single word you said, but good answer vote anyway...

Thanks, Bricktop, and I do not blame you for not understanding. I really do appreciate your thumbs up evaluation.

Not being the mathematician I need-to-be, but I sorely need, my description of my wanted program is not really - in any way - polished.

I invite you to read my new entry in Tools for TOE, TTOE here on CR4.

soaralone1

Well, ALL you "Dark Matter" pursuers, let's do some looking around for the Tools for defining TOE, TTOE.

Let's check what properties of the Universe were known before 1902.

We know now what was known then:

1) electrons,

2) they were negatively charged,

3) a quantity of them made a Coulomb,

4) James C. Maxwell used the Coulomb in his Electromagnetic EM equations,

5) establishing the velocity of light (EM radiation) well proven by 1902,

6) Maxwell used the Oersted in the EM equations, and

7) Planck had established a heat (temperature) energy relationship.

The 17th Century harbors many more exciting discoveries in physics and science.

However, they are not needed to mathematically illustrate other, very neat, logical TTOE explanations for apparent expansion - and for apparent acceleration - of the cosmos. If these are simply examined, there is every likelihood there is no need to seek "Dark Matter".

Perhaps you may recall my very humble desire is to have at least a few of those researchers, scientists, and physicists become familiar with the Tools of finding TOE, TTOE.

This response to my own introduction of this thread was to encourage all members and guests of it to reach out, not for just us, but for those researchers to employ TTOE. TTOE have universal applications to reach any realm in the study of physics, and all are in hard, mathematical, real - not theoretical - TTOE terms. Any astrophysicist will be able to tie - directly tie - his/her work to any atomic physicist, and vice versa through use of TTOE.

I look forward to one of you members or guests to introduce one of those renowned theoretical physicists to this TTOE thread so that we might find some real, true benefit for that professional theorist. In return, I would like to acknowledge some benefit to the "Dark Matter" members and guests. I truly, sincerely wish this to happen.

soaralone1

The speed of light doesn't apply in Germany.

ERRATA

To all, especially to HiTekRedNek, I mistakenly stated "This response to my own introduction of this thread ..." is in error.

I did not introduce this thread. I have enjoyed the entries of everyone to this thread including HiTekRedNek's initiation of it.

With due apologies, soaralone1