Dark matter and dark energy are two of the most mysterious phenomenon
in physics today. Nobody knows what dardk matter is made up of, but it
somehow adds mass to the universe. Nobody knows what causes dark
energy, but it causes galaxies to apparently be repelled from each
other in a type of anti-gravity effect. The article attempt to show
that dark matter is simply made up of the 'aether' and that the effects
that we see in the glalactic distributions that look bubbles is a
boyancy effect which causes the visible galaxies to rise to the edges
of the aether void.
Article:
Two of the most mysterious concepts are those of dark matter and dark
energy. Dark matter is the extra mass that must exist in the galaxy to
account for its rotation and dark energy is required to explain why
galaxies apparently are repelled by each other instead of being
attracted.
I have some suggestions on how dark matter and dark energy might
operate. To explain dark matter, I think that empty space itself is
constructed of mass and is fundamentally made up of ordinary protons
and electrons. These are bound like neutrons in such a way as to be
nearly totally neutral. If empty space is in fact filled with these
particles (which I will call an aether), we would not be able to easily
detect them since they are not charged and leave no trace.
Gravitationally, these particles would still have mass and would still
be attracted to a gravitational source like the Earth. Assuming that
the particles are compressible, then the particles will have a higher
density closer to the Earth. This is just like how the density and
pressure of water in the oceans is greater when you are in the deep
ocean.
If there is a greater density of the aether particles, then the mass of
the greater density aether compared to open space should get added to
Earth's normal mass. It would be like a sea of invisible gas around the
planet.
It should be trivially easy to test such a theory since it would
predict that if you measured the mass of the Earth from low earth orbit
and then measured the mass from a much higher orbit, the calcualted
mass of the Earth should be more. I have no idea if any such anomaly
exists and what magnitude it might be, but any difference would be
significant. This would be a direct test of the presense of dark matter
around the Earth and would show that whatever makes up dark matter is
gravitationally attracted and is probably staring us in the face.
I have been trying to get precise orbital characteristics for a
satellite in low earth orbit to compare with the orbital
characteristics for one in high orbit. The data is harder to get than
you think and so far, I haven't been able to come up with a pair by
researching the internet. All I would need is the orbital periods and
the altitude and then I could calculate the mass of the Earth based on
that. If someone would post some precise data, that would be helpful.
Curiously, all of the orbital mechanical calculators I have come across
tend to indicate that the calculation is approximate - meaning that the
normal newtonian calculation may not be absoutely correct. Is anyone
aware of any anomaly between the calculation and acutal orbital
parameters of real satellites?
The nature of dark energy is like a reverse gravitational field. We
normally think of gravity as being only an all attractive force, but
this actually isn't true. A helium balloon on the Earth is not
attracted to the Earth, it is in fact, repelled and rises in a form of
anti-gravity. This is the property of boyancy where whether something
is attracted to the Earth is more determined by the surrounding medium
than the force of gravity. If the object in a gravitational field is
less dense than the surrounding medium, the force of gravity is
actually away from the center of gravity. So is gravity always
attracting? The answer is no - look at what a helium ballon does on
Earth, it is repelled by the gravity field.
Now if we consider space to be filled with these aether particles and
if these particles are at a much higher density than areas of space
which contain normal matter, then we would have the situation that if
you could drop the galaxy into a giant bucket of aether particles, you
would find that it would float or be repelled from the center of a
gravitational force because a galaxy is less dense than pure aether..
Now instead of having a bucket, we have the entire universe and we plop
a couple of galaxies around. The pure aether is the densest substance
in the universe, so gravitationally, it tends to clump together to form
spherical voids of pure and solid aether. The less dense galaxies would
tend to get pushed out to the edge of these voids. This is why we see
that galaxies tend to form bubbles or sheets in the universe and why
there exist huge voids which are completely empty of any matter.
In this model, the observation that galaxies repell each other to form
bubbles (dark energy) is actually not a repelling action from other
galaxies, but rather, the galaxies are repelled by the gravitational
source created by the spherical void which consists of nothing but pure
highest density aether.
Certainly a prediction of this theory would be that the voids must be
completely empty of any matter. If anyone knows about whether some
matter has been observed inside of the interstellar voids, that would
be interesting to know.
To make this model clear, let's take re-examine the situation using
some density numbers and justify these numbers. We have 3 types of
materials to consider.
1.) We have an empty aether space. Let's give that an arbitrary density
of 1 so we can do some math comparisons. This is the highest density
because it completely fills all of space and nothing could be denser
than that.
2.) We have solid masses like the Earth. This is slightly less dense
than the aether because protons/electrons freeded from an aether
particle are likely to take up more space due to weaker bonding. This
has a density of .95
3.) We have aether space contaminated by gasses and other tiny masses.
This is the least dense material because the aether matrix is
constantly being bombarded and mixed up by the thermal motions of gas
particles, electrons, protons, constantly wizzing by and by constant EM
wave action from nearby stars. Lets give this a density of .90 Solid
matter is more dense because inside of an atom, its internal structure
cannot be jostled by incoming matter particles colliding with the
outside of the solid atom mass.
So now we have 3 types of materials and I have provided plausible
explanation of their relative density.
Since pure aether is the densest material, it will clump together under
the gravitational force. It however, cannot clump together into an
infinitely small ball like a black hole becuase all of space is filled
with aether, so it pulls evenly in every direction and cannot
arbitraily compress.
The clumps of pure aether will tend to push out any less dense material
like solid matter (.95) and gassy matter (.90) to the edge of the
aether clumps. This forms bubbles of galaxies.
Within the galaxies we have both solid and gassy matter. The solid
matter is denser than the gassy contaminated aether space, so it forms
clumps within the gassy space becuase it is denser. In this case, we
have the normal observed action of gravity causing solid matter to
collect.
In summary, we can see that dark matter and dark energy are actually
caused by the same gravitational mechanism. The same gravitational
mechanism that causes visible matter to clump together is the same
gravitational mechanism that causes high density space aether to clump
together and cause the apparent forcing apart of galaxies.
The key idea behind both the dark matter and dark energy explanations
is the existence of an aether. The most obvious objection to any theory
which relies on such an aether is simply 'The aether has been proven
not to exist by the Michaelson Morley experiment - therefore this
theory must be wrong.'
This must be one of the greatest mis-statements in scientific history.
At best, the Michaelson Morley experiment was inconclusive in
disproving an aether. The original experiment did find a small effect,
but the number of runs in the experiment and the range of results was
so large, that it was difficult to say whether the effect was
significant. More recently, newer experiments perfomed in 2005 have
been looking for the aether in rotating cryogenic cavities. Some of
these experiments are producing significant results pointing to the
existence of an aether. I have also found papers which indicate that
the measured motion of the aether in these experiments matches the
motion of of the cosmic background radiation (CMBR) as measured by the
COBE satellite. This is exactly what we would expect if the Earth is
moving through an aether in which the CMBR is considered the reference
frame.I have summarized this research in the post:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/
thread/96151ad9b7b6e5ba/acb5cf5c262c802e?lnk=st&q=
fhummx&rnum=2#acb5cf5c262c802e
There were no challenges to the experimental results I had posted in
this article. It is extremely significant that the COBE satellite is
able to detect a definite motion of the CMBR relative to the Earth.
Despite the claim that there must be no preferred reference frame, the
COBE satellite is apparently finding such a preferred frame of
reference.
Also, from a philsophical point of view, it is impossible to prove that
something doesn't exist. It could always just be in a form which is
difficult to measure. It is also difficult to see how something like
light could travel through nothing and have wave properties. Wave
properties typically require a medium.
Another direct challenge to the dark matter/energy model that was
presented is that the aether couldn't possibly consist of neutron-like
particles. If it were, light would interact with these particles and
would dissipate very quickly. This objection stems from what we know
about the interaction of light with real-matter particles and indeed,
light interacts strongly with particles.
However, there is a major difference between observable matter
particles and the aether. The aether acts as an ideal lattice which can
pass a wave losslessly. It is like if you took a line of billiard balls
and put them out into space. If you hit one ball, it transmits its
energy to the 2nd ball , etc down the line. The aether is like this
except shrunk down to the subatomic scale. Ideally, such transmission
can occur without losses.
The aether is an ideal lattice except for where there are real matter
particles. These form defects in the lattice and as such, they do
interact with the electromagnetic wave to distort it. In a manner of
speaking, the aether doesn't get in the way of photons because the
photons are made up of the aether. So the aether takes a priveleged
position in the transmission of electromagnetic waves in that there are
virtually no losses and there is also no frequency dependent
dispersion.
Frequency dispersion is observed in real matter like glass in that
frequencies travel at different speeds through transparent materials.
The reason for this dispersion is probably the interaction of light
waves being absorbed and then re-emitted by the atom which causes
slight delays. The aether would not suffer any such delay since there
is no absorbtion/re-emission to cause a delay. The wave is always
passes losslessly through the lattice.
Another completely different objection to this dark matter/energy model
is that it doesn't account for the observed expansion of the universe
as measured by the redshift of distant stars. Instead it would predict
a relatively steady state with individual stars generally retaining
their positions relative to all other stars. This expansion is a major
part of the dark energy component which is not explained by the theory
presented. Only the overall observed structure of the universe is
explained.
I would contend that the redshift is not a doppler effect and is a
simple property of space. Previously, I did state that the aether
transmitted electrognetic waves with no losses. However, I would not be
surprised if a loss of frequency occurred over very large distances. We
know that waves in water suffer frequency loss as they travel the
surface of a lake, so why not light? This is certainly a property that
waves can have in a medium.
One of the most significant pieces of evidence for this comes from the
Pioneer 10 anomaly. The following post indicates that Pioneer 10
measured a redshift and not a blueshift.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/browse_frm/thread/
ee5c1b79734f9c20/347b2b6c1c263f76?lnk=st&q=fhuredshift&
rnum=1#347b2b6c1c263f76
Most significantly, the observed frequency drift of the signal was
negative (-1.5 hz over 8 years). Simply stated the frequency of the
transmissions got longer as the craft went further out into space or
the frequency shifted towards the red. This is exactly the type of
frequency shift you would expect if distance alone were responsible for
the observed redshift. You don't have to go through a lot of math to
figure this out - if the frequency drift was negative, we're seeing a
redshift.
Even more significantly, the value of the cosmological constant for the
expansion of the universe is numerically close to the value of the
frequency shift as measured by Pioneer 10. It has been said that these
values are incompatible and that it is just a big coincidence. However
considering that both of these are measuring an amount of frequency
shift you would expect over fixed distance, I would have to say that
the units must be similar. I would say for anyone to come up with any
comparison would have calculate in similar units. Considering the
infinite range of values for numbers, that these two values are similar
is beyond coincidence. Therefore, I conclude that the Pioneer 10 and 11
space probes are directly measuring the observed redshift which is only
due to distance travelled by the electromagnetic wave.
If the redshift is due purely from the distance travelled by the light,
then there doesn't need to be any actual expansion of the universe.
Another effect is that at very long distances, all light from distant
stars will be redshifted down to the point where the light is at an
extremely low intensity.
The uniformity of the CMBR is another claimed evidence for expansion
from a singular big bang. I believe the same thing could happen from a
uniform distribution of matter in the universe. If matter acts as the
theory I have presented, then matter will tend to be completely
uniformily distributed throughout space since the voids will all tend
to have about the same shape and matter distributed around the void
bubbles would also be extremely uniform. Uniformity does not have to
come about from a singular big bang. It can also come about from an
active mechanical gravitational phenomenon which simply puts all matter
in a uniform distribution.
If we are given a totally uniform distribution, then the CMBR is not
the reminant of the big bang, but rather, it is the redshifted results
of countless galaxies that we can barely observe. The distribution of
the CMBR as a blackbody is not significant because all stars emit a
blackbody type spectrum. If you shift it down, you still get a
blackbody distribution. The argument against this is that real stars do
not have exact blackbody as is described in this link:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stars_vs_cmb.html
However, if you look at the top graph, to the first approximation, it
does appear that real stars are fairly close to the ideal blackbody
(black curve). It is shown that individual stars do not match the ideal
blackbody by a wide margin and I would say that would be expected. You
cannot compare the results of a single star to something that is the
result of possibly billionns of star. It is argued that multiple stars
would compound the problem, but you would not be considering multiple
stars. If you took a look at the Hubble photo of the emptiest part of
space, you would find that it was filled with countless galaxies as far
as we can see. This means averaging billions and billions of stars in
even the smallest speck of the sky. The effect of the blackbody curve
of any given star would be completely insignificant. Given enough
averaging, I would think that you would come up with something very
close to the ideal blackbody response.
In conclusion, the theory of dark matter and dark energy I have
presented is a plausible one. It does go against most major scientific
assumptions such as the existence of the aether and even the big bang.
However, science has a history of theory shake-up's and if my theory
makes more intuitive sense and matches what we have experimentally
observed, then it is worth a closer investigation.ng a component of dark energy.
