My Math Forum A Possible Way of Detecting Dark Energy

 Physics Physics Forum

 March 21st, 2016, 04:30 PM #1 Senior Member   Joined: May 2014 From: Allentown PA USA Posts: 107 Thanks: 6 Math Focus: dynamical systen theory A Possible Way of Detecting Dark Energy Dear MyMathForum Community : We learn about dark matter by the interaction between dark matter and luminous matter. To draw an analogy, could we learn more about dark energy by its interaction with luminous energy? Thank you. Sincerely yours, Carl Mesaros
March 21st, 2016, 04:49 PM   #2
Math Team

Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 1,910
Thanks: 774

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Carl James Mesaros Dear MyMathForum Community : We learn about dark matter by the interaction between dark matter and luminous matter. To draw an analogy, could we learn more about dark energy by its interaction with luminous energy? Thank you. Sincerely yours, Carl Mesaros
Since we don't know the nature of dark matter it is hard to say. However one thing is clear: whatever dark matter is it doesn't interact with just about anything besides gravity. Specifically we know that dark matter and light don't interact well... if it did then we would be able to see clouds of it in interstellar space. That is to say the light would warm up the dark matter and it would radiate some kind of spectral image when we look at it. But (apparently) we can actually see through it...No clouds detected.

-Dan

March 22nd, 2016, 04:02 AM   #3
Senior Member

Joined: Apr 2014
From: Glasgow

Posts: 2,132
Thanks: 717

Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Carl James Mesaros Dear MyMathForum Community : We learn about dark matter by the interaction between dark matter and luminous matter. To draw an analogy, could we learn more about dark energy by its interaction with luminous energy? Thank you. Sincerely yours, Carl Mesaros
Firstly, dark energy and dark matter are unrelated, except for the fact that no one knows what they are. That means they deserve separate explanations.

The dark matter problem:

In astronomy, light is the source of everything we know about the Universe. Using Doppler imaging (spectral analysis) we can estimate the velocity of something, like a Seyfert galaxy's spiral arm, but sometimes the velocity we estimate doesn't seem to mesh well with the velocity we would expect from Kepler's laws. Therefore, to resolve this issue, we need to think of a solution:

i) The imaging is incorrect: this has already been ruled out. Besides, Spectral analysis is very well understood compared to other aspects of astronomy/astrophysics, so the velocities determined are reliable

ii) There is missing matter: to be specific, there is matter that is contributing to the dynamics of a galaxy's spin, but is not emitting light. Therefore, dark matter could very well be just normal (i.e. baryonic) matter that simply isn't emitting light (like gas, dust, planets, asteroids, rocks, ice, etc.). However, all estimates of the amount of dark matter from baryonic matter seem to be far too low to account for the motion. Therefore, this has led many to believe that there is some other kind of matter that we don't know about and has led to the "dark matter search", an effort by the physics community to try and detect particles at an all manner of different energies.

iii) There is missing physics: what if the estimates of the motion are wrong? The physicists in this camp research MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) and try and rectify the velocity disagreement using modified physics.

IMHO, both camps present interesting evidence for resolutions of the dark matter problem, but none of that evidence is sufficient enough at the moment to rule out the other camp. The issue is further complicated by the fact that some galaxies have been observed to have motion completely consistent with their Doppler velocity estimates, so it seems some galaxies have dark matter and some don't!

The dark energy problem:

I don't know too much about this one, but the main idea is that recent experiments of Type Ia supernovae in the early Universe seem to indicate at an early time of the Universe's expansion (inflation), the Universe was/is accelerating. That is, the supernova progenitors were increasing in velocity over time. What could cause such an acceleration? Again, the problem remains unsolved, but we call it "dark energy" for now until something better comes along.

I imagine that at some point, dark energy will be understood through a similar route that dark matter seems to have taken. That is, the experimental data will hold true, so we either have missing energy or missing physics.

Both problems are extremely difficult and there is extensive literature published to propose solutions to both of them. I advise reading them because they can be really interesting

 March 22nd, 2016, 02:21 PM #4 Global Moderator   Joined: May 2007 Posts: 6,628 Thanks: 622 A major distinction: dark matter is "stuff" while dark energy seems to be a property of space itself. Thanks from topsquark and Carl James Mesaros
 March 25th, 2016, 04:16 AM #5 Senior Member   Joined: May 2014 From: Allentown PA USA Posts: 107 Thanks: 6 Math Focus: dynamical systen theory A Most Interesting Observation Dear mathman : I remember sitting in the office of an astrophysics professor, and he simply said, "space is space." Could it be that all of us are making the concepts of dark matter, dark energy and the like, more complicated than they really are? I also remember reading that such things as the Theory of Everything will probably be so strikingly simple that it would, to use a common expression, "blow your mind." In any event, thank you for your comment. Sincerely yours, Carl Mesaros
March 25th, 2016, 04:56 AM   #6
Senior Member

Joined: Apr 2014
From: Glasgow

Posts: 2,132
Thanks: 717

Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Carl James Mesaros Dear mathman : I remember sitting in the office of an astrophysics professor, and he simply said, "space is space." Could it be that all of us are making the concepts of dark matter, dark energy and the like, more complicated than they really are? I also remember reading that such things as the Theory of Everything will probably be so strikingly simple that it would, to use a common expression, "blow your mind." In any event, thank you for your comment. Sincerely yours, Carl Mesaros
I very much doubt it.

Think of it this way... you have found a discrepancy between two things, A and B. Your job is to find out what the discrepancy is. What do you do? Well, you need to do the following (this is basically your job description):

1. You make experiments: find out what you can about the objects A and B and what the discrepancy really is. How big is the discrepancy? How easy is it to measure it?
2. You make predictions (hypotheses): since we have an existing knowledge base, you use the existing knowledge to make models that predict the discrepancy, its nature and its magnitude
3. You compare the experiments with the predictions:
4. Did the experiment agree with your prediction?
i) If it did agree, then how well did it agree? What are the drawbacks of the prediction? Is it enough to accept the hypothesis as theory? If so, it becomes theory and you've solved the problem (at least in part)
ii) If it did not, then why not? Was there something you missed? Were the experimental data plagued by systematic errors? Can you rule out the hypothesis?

Now... let's say you do the above for the easiest case and then 4. ii) happens. That is, you haven't solved it. Then you repeat it with a trickier hypothesis... you get 4. ii) again. In fact, after 50 years of repeated iterations of the above research process, by many independent scientists, all of those predictions have failed. Would you call that a simple problem?

The truth is, there are no simple unsolved problems in physics. Out of all of the unsolved problems that are available in physics, dark matter is probably one of the hardest ones out there. Specifically for dark matter... if you can unequivocally resolve the discrepancy between rotation profiles of galactic spiral arms and the observed matter content of those galaxies, you will win a Nobel prize for sure.

Last edited by Benit13; March 25th, 2016 at 05:11 AM.

 March 25th, 2016, 02:14 PM #7 Newbie   Joined: Feb 2016 From: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 10 Thanks: 0 Math Focus: Calculus, System and Signal Analysis It helps to know how/where dark energy and dark matter got put into the theory, as the posts are mentioning. There are other ways to account for this in the theory: add torque, Coriolis, and spin using a proper space-time matrix (Buckminster Fullers completed Isometric Vecotor Matrix IVM), and other proper considerations of the vacuum to Einstein Field Equations, as Rauscher and Haramein have done, and this accounts for the galaxy rotation problem and also accounts for dark energy. Neither dark matter nor dark energy are needed to explain the motion of the cosmos. No Nobel needed, just rewriting nearly all of science, history, and archeology. Papers are here that explain this in detail: Publications | Hawaii Institute for Unified Physics
 March 31st, 2016, 08:27 PM #8 Member   Joined: Mar 2016 From: US Posts: 30 Thanks: 1 Hello everyone, @benit13 Doesn't the big bang theory explain answers to both of these questions: 1. That is, the supernova progenitors were increasing in velocity over time. What could cause such an acceleration? 2. Specifically for dark matter... if you can unequivocally resolve the discrepancy between rotation profiles of galactic spiral arms and the observed matter content of those galaxies, you will win a Nobel prize for sure. Once the galaxies ejected from the big bang broke free from the heavy gravitational/electromagnetic pull you must assume was present at the center of the universe, at least before the big bang due to mass and probably static electricity as the mass grinded against itself in a big ball, and probably for some time afterward even if there isn't any now at the center, wouldn't the outward force be hampered by an electrostatic "hold" until it slid along let's say some of those gravitational waves they have found with the new inferometer. Then at the point those waves dissipate enough, the galaxies get flung out, and seem to accelerate. Furthermore, question 2 may be thought of as the spiral arms are rotating faster or slower than their mass accounts for. If they happened to be spinning counter-clockwise for example when they flew off the gravitational waves, which I guess as it gets farther from the center of the universe the gravitational waves straightens out to a small trough wave that is basically a straight line, however where some of these spiral arm galaxies are located in the universe, the gravitational waves had a much much deeper trough and in answer to your questions, we must conclude that the trough and peak of very heavy gravitational waves will spin energy or matter with a lot of force, even more velocity then they should possess based on their own total mass. Is there a link to dark matter and dark energy, in those heavy gravitational waves of the past? I have a theory where great bunches of the photons have been stripped from the energy or matter of the supernovae, sliding along the gravitational waves after the big bang, and two types of matter and energy flow of those gravitational waves: first the photonless matter and energy became dark energy or matter heavy in electrons, and second the baryonic matter which was rich in photons and is the matter and energy and galaxies which are readily observable by eye or by lens. Which leads to another theory, if the matter and energy which are photon rich are observable by lens, maybe it is only in our area of the universe where gravitational waves are not as strong and are in a straight line almost probably. If dark matter or energy is in an area of the universe where the gravitational waves are stronger, maybe it creates a "mirage" type effect where the electron heavy dark energy and matter essentially "vibrate" by riding those waves (and interacting with them in a magnetic way by vibrating intensely due to friction and attraction of magnetism causing them to "skip" along the wave instead of slide) from one part of the trough to the other part of the trough before the x axis, so as the electrons almost "vibrate" the dark matter and energy into a "mirage" for standard lenses. Last edited by GreenBeast; March 31st, 2016 at 09:03 PM.
 March 31st, 2016, 09:42 PM #9 Math Team     Joined: May 2013 From: The Astral plane Posts: 1,910 Thanks: 774 Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff. Oh boy. Here are the facts as I know of them...pet hypotheses aside. Dark matter: The material known as "dark matter" comes from observation of not only the galaxies but also whole strands of them. The gravitational force due to visible matter (ie. stars) cannot explain it alone. So some theorists have proposed that there is something out there that we cannot detect by light scattering or emission or absorption. There may be more than one kind of dark matter. The usual suspects are dwarf stars which don't shine enough for us to properly account for, neutrino mass, and WIMPS to name a few. There is a historical parallel here. When Rutherford's experiment with gold foil came out with the concept of a positively charged atomic nucleus there was a question of just what was holding the positive charge together when electrodynamics said it should disintegrate. A new force was proposed: the strong nuclear force. It took a while but we eventually found it. I would say that dark matter might fall into a similar situation. We'll keep looking and at some point we'll figure it out. Dark energy: This has nothing at all to do with dark matter. The choice of names is rather unfortunate here. Looking at "filaments" of galaxies, the largest forms of matter that we know of spanning billions of galaxies, we see that the expansion of the Universe seems to be accelerating when the Standard Model says the expansion should be slowing down. There are a variety of possible sources to this. The first idea is that Einstein's General Relativity got it wrong and there is, in fact, a cosmological constant at work and it is causing the acceleration. (The idea has been kicking around since Einstein first introduced it.) The second is that there is a large scale force in the Universe (perhaps something called "scalar gravity.") The third is that the inflationary period of the early Universe is not quite over. All of these are pretty much pure speculation, but like in the case of the dark matter I'm certain we'll figure it out at some point. I want to point out that there are a lot of arm-chair Scientists (a couple have posted here) that want to put their ideas out there but none, not one of them, can explain what's happening. Don't feel bad...nobody else can either. I'm posting this because I am hoping that we can avoid a thread that mentions all sorts of ideas that aren't even hypotheses that people call theories. Stick to the Science and don't get lulled by the pseudo-science. -Dan Thanks from Benit13 and GreenBeast
April 1st, 2016, 02:54 AM   #10
Senior Member

Joined: Apr 2014
From: Glasgow

Posts: 2,132
Thanks: 717

Math Focus: Physics, mathematical modelling, numerical and computational solutions
Quote:
 Originally Posted by GreenBeast Hello everyone, @benit13 Doesn't the big bang theory explain answers to both of these questions: 1. That is, the supernova progenitors were increasing in velocity over time. What could cause such an acceleration? 2. Specifically for dark matter... if you can unequivocally resolve the discrepancy between rotation profiles of galactic spiral arms and the observed matter content of those galaxies, you will win a Nobel prize for sure. Once the galaxies ejected from the big bang broke free from the heavy gravitational/electromagnetic pull you must assume was present at the center of the universe, at least before the big bang due to mass and probably static electricity as the mass grinded against itself in a big ball, and probably for some time afterward even if there isn't any now at the center, wouldn't the outward force be hampered by an electrostatic "hold" until it slid along let's say some of those gravitational waves they have found with the new inferometer. Then at the point those waves dissipate enough, the galaxies get flung out, and seem to accelerate. Furthermore, question 2 may be thought of as the spiral arms are rotating faster or slower than their mass accounts for. If they happened to be spinning counter-clockwise for example when they flew off the gravitational waves, which I guess as it gets farther from the center of the universe the gravitational waves straightens out to a small trough wave that is basically a straight line, however where some of these spiral arm galaxies are located in the universe, the gravitational waves had a much much deeper trough and in answer to your questions, we must conclude that the trough and peak of very heavy gravitational waves will spin energy or matter with a lot of force, even more velocity then they should possess based on their own total mass. Is there a link to dark matter and dark energy, in those heavy gravitational waves of the past? I have a theory where great bunches of the photons have been stripped from the energy or matter of the supernovae, sliding along the gravitational waves after the big bang, and two types of matter and energy flow of those gravitational waves: first the photonless matter and energy became dark energy or matter heavy in electrons, and second the baryonic matter which was rich in photons and is the matter and energy and galaxies which are readily observable by eye or by lens. Which leads to another theory, if the matter and energy which are photon rich are observable by lens, maybe it is only in our area of the universe where gravitational waves are not as strong and are in a straight line almost probably. If dark matter or energy is in an area of the universe where the gravitational waves are stronger, maybe it creates a "mirage" type effect where the electron heavy dark energy and matter essentially "vibrate" by riding those waves (and interacting with them in a magnetic way by vibrating intensely due to friction and attraction of magnetism causing them to "skip" along the wave instead of slide) from one part of the trough to the other part of the trough before the x axis, so as the electrons almost "vibrate" the dark matter and energy into a "mirage" for standard lenses.
Add them to the list dude Every man and his dog has ideas about how to solve those problems. So far, none of them have worked, so there's a fair amount of wiggle room.

Get a PhD, get a job, do some research, do some experiments, hope for the best

 Tags dark, detecting, energy, poosible

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Carl James Mesaros Physics 5 February 1st, 2016 08:09 AM strangestofquarks Physics 24 January 19th, 2016 01:54 AM Abomb1126 Computer Science 3 December 11th, 2013 01:01 PM Keroro Algebra 2 June 7th, 2012 06:25 AM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top