View Full Version : Dark Matter: A Result of Relativity?
Are electron clouds formed because the electrons are traveling near the speed of light?
If so, why is a "cloud" formed --- a colloid, that is. If it is possible to form a more uncommon type of matter like a colloid by traveling near the speed of light, could you possibly form dark matter by traveling near the speed of light?
Generally, you imagine "normal," baryonic matter being formed when one travels near light speed (arbitrarily say 99.99% C). But what if it were possible that dark matter formed as a result of this acceleration toward C?
And what if you explained the overabundance of matter in the universe by saying that the explosive expansion of space itself at light speed caused this dark matter to form?
mathman
Aug12-04, 04:33 PM
Where did you get electron clouds from? There may be plasma clouds, but these are electrically neutral.
Dark matter is made from unknown stuff, but it has nothing to do with relativity. It is assumed to be cold, i.e. consisting at particles moving at rather slow speeds. It is assumed to exist because there is not enough ordinary matter to hold galaxies together.
The theory of relativity is connected to dark energy, a more mysterious entity responsible for the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.
Chronos
Aug12-04, 05:43 PM
Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to the other. Which is to say the total energy of the universe [use e=mc^2 to obtain the energy equivalent of matter] is and has always been constant.
Where did you get electron clouds from? There may be plasma clouds, but these are electrically neutral.
Dark matter is made from unknown stuff, but it has nothing to do with relativity. It is assumed to be cold, i.e. consisting at particles moving at rather slow speeds. It is assumed to exist because there is not enough ordinary matter to hold galaxies together.
Well, think about it. Electrons travel at near the speed of light around nuclei. The electron clouds spoken of in intro chem must be caused by the velocity of the electrons, right? Accelerating a particle to the speed of light causes formation of matter (conversion of energy to matter; E=mc^2).
It is assumed that it has nothing to do with relativity. But imagine that the speedy expansion of space (near light speed) caused formation of dark matter -- overthrowing the balance of matter and anti-matter. Don't you see the genius here? It would all be very beautiful.
(By the way, sorry for my delayed response. My thread was moved here.)
Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to the other. Which is to say the total energy of the universe [use e=mc^2 to obtain the energy equivalent of matter] is and has always been constant.
I was speaking of the imbalance of matter and anti-matter in the universe after the Big Bang.
Russell E. Rierson
Aug17-04, 12:58 PM
Are electron clouds formed because the electrons are traveling near the speed of light?
If so, why is a "cloud" formed --- a colloid, that is. If it is possible to form a more uncommon type of matter like a colloid by traveling near the speed of light, could you possibly form dark matter by traveling near the speed of light?
Generally, you imagine "normal," baryonic matter being formed when one travels near light speed (arbitrarily say 99.99% C). But what if it were possible that dark matter formed as a result of this acceleration toward C?
And what if you explained the overabundance of matter in the universe by saying that the explosive expansion of space itself at light speed caused this dark matter to form?
This is interesting :smile: Relativity and supersymmetry!
http://web.mit.edu/~redingtn/www/netadv/specr/6/node2.html
QUOTE:
The situation may be similar with regard to supersymmetry. Many
attempts have been made to make general relativity consistent with
quantum field theory, especially within the framework of a theory
which combines gravity with the strong and electroweak
interactions. It is interesting that in all the most successful attempts
a new symmetry is required.
The powerful Coleman-Mandula theorem states that within the framework of Lie algebras, there is no way to unify gravity with the gauge symmetries which describe the strong and electroweak interactions. So the "super"-symmetry which successfully combines these interactions had to move beyond Lie algebras to "graded" Lie algebras. Graded Lie algebras are just
like Lie algebras except they use anti-commutation relations
instead of commutation relations. Thus they relate particles with
spin to particles without spin. Examples of theories that attempt to
combine gravity with the other forces include super-strings and
super-gravity, where in both cases "super" refers to the
supersymmetry.
Thus, if such a symmetry exists in nature, every particle with spin (fermion) must have a related super-symmetric partner without spin (boson), and vice versa.
Could this explain space's "infinite" nature? To clarify, if you move out enough, you'll be traveling faster than the speed of light. In these regions of space, time forms a loop upon itself. If you go to the edges of space, you will be traveling faster than the speed of light and will travel backward in time.
This would uphold the "infinite" nature of the universe. There is no limit -- it's just a time cycle
Is it possible that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle be explained by relativity?
Electrons travel at close to the speed of light -- there must be a great degree of time dilation for electrons. Could this time dilation be one of the causes for the Uncertainty Principle?
Well, think about it. Electrons travel at near the speed of light around nuclei.Do they? How familiar are you with quantum mechanics and electron orbitals?The electron clouds spoken of in intro chem must be caused by the velocity of the electrons, right?Are you referring to the outer electrons of atoms, which participate in chemical reactions? Or the 'spreading out' of electron clouds in benzene (for example)?Accelerating a particle to the speed of light causes formation of matter (conversion of energy to matter; E=mc^2).Only massless particles can travel at c (indeed, the can ONLY travel at c); particles with mass cannot travel at c. I think you have misunderstood Relativity; perhaps you are referring to 'relativistic mass'?It is assumed that it [dark matter] has nothing to do with relativity. But imagine that the speedy expansion of space (near light speed) caused formation of dark matter -- overthrowing the balance of matter and anti-matter. Don't you see the genius here? It would all be very beautiful.How do you suppose the expansion of space could cause the formation of dark matter?
Do they?...
Only massless particles can travel at c...
How do you suppose the expansion of space could cause the formation of dark matter?
It's a matter of semantics. If you prefer, accelerating a particle [with] the speed of light [as its limit] causes formation of matter (conversion of energy to matter; E=mc^2).
Well, normally in relativity, acceleration of a particle to luminal speed in vacuo as its limit causes formation of baryonic matter as a result of the energy-matter equivalence. Imagine the speed of space expansion itself causing formation of dark matter.
Theoretical physicists don't seem to apply the implications of E=mc^2 to space itself -- why?
It's a matter of semantics. If you prefer, accelerating a particle [with] the speed of light [as its limit] causes formation of matter (conversion of energy to matter; E=mc^2).
Well, normally in relativity, acceleration of a particle to luminal speed in vacuo as its limit causes formation of baryonic matter as a result of the energy-matter equivalence.Hmm, this seems quite different from how I understand relativity - from which relativity textbook (or website) did you get this 'formation of matter (conversion of energy to matter' idea?Imagine the speed of space expansion itself causing formation of dark matter.I can imagine half a dozen things, even before breakfast, but usually by lunchtime reality checks have killed them. You may have heard of the 'Steady State' Theory (Hoyle et al)? It proposed a continuous creation of matter idea too. Re your idea ... if expansion somehow creates dark matter, why does dark matter appear to clump the way we observe? Shouldn't it be spread throughout space like a thin soup?Theoretical physicists don't seem to apply the implications of E=mc^2 to space itself -- why?If you mean this in the sense of forming new matter, it's probably because they like GR (and this 'formation' is inconsistent with both GR the theory and experimental results); if you mean virtual particles etc, then you might want to read up on Hawking radiation and why GR and QM are incompatible.
Hmm, this seems quite different from how I understand relativity - from which relativity textbook (or website) did you get this 'formation of matter (conversion of energy to matter' idea?I can imagine half a dozen things, even before breakfast, but usually by lunchtime reality checks have killed them. You may have heard of the 'Steady State' Theory (Hoyle et al)? It proposed a continuous creation of matter idea too. Re your idea ... if expansion somehow creates dark matter, why does dark matter appear to clump the way we observe? Shouldn't it be spread throughout space like a thin soup?If you mean this in the sense of forming new matter, it's probably because they like GR (and this 'formation' is inconsistent with both GR the theory and experimental results); if you mean virtual particles etc, then you might want to read up on Hawking radiation and why GR and QM are incompatible.
The clumping could be due to the curvature of space just as the formation could be due to the expansion of it.
The formation of baryonic matter when accelerating a particle to near luminal speed is a known relativistic fact. That's where the concept of "rest mass" surfaced. Because as you accelerate toward the speed of light, you gain mass. The reason why a particle with mass cannot accelerate to the speed of light is because as it tends toward C, its mass proportionately increases. Therefore, even if an infinite amount of energy was expended, the particle would become an infinitely massive body -- a singularity-- rather than speed up to light.
That's the reason why Einstein is lauded in nuclear chemistry for overthrowing the idea of Conservation of Mass.
Two cases:
1. Accelerate a mass particle to close to the speed of light and it will gain "baryonic matter" (due to E=mc^2).*
2. Accelerate the universe to close to the speed of light and it will gain "dark matter" (due to E=mc^2).
*Has already been confirmed by experimental evidence.
Accelerate a mass particle to close to the speed of light and it will gain "baryonic matter" (due to E=mc^2).*
[...]
*Has already been confirmed by experimental evidence.So, how much 'baryonic matter' will a mass particle gain if it's accelerated to only 0.5c? 0.9c? When you are using "E=mc^2", what is E? m?
Can you say more about the experiments which have confirmed that a mass particle accelerated to near c will gain 'baryonic matter'? Perhaps you are confused over 'relativistic mass'?
In case you've not seen it, here is a good, free, online text on Special Relativity (http://www.physics.nyu.edu/hogg/sr/sr.pdf) (my thanks to Tom for providing this).
So, how much 'baryonic matter' will a mass particle gain if it's accelerated to only 0.5c? 0.9c? When you are using "E=mc^2", what is E? m?
Can you say more about the experiments which have confirmed that a mass particle accelerated to near c will gain 'baryonic matter'? Perhaps you are confused over 'relativistic mass'?
Actually, in my scenario, relativistic and invariant mass are seemingly equivalent. If using "invariant mass," "energy content" is specifically implied (rather than velocity). However, in order to accelerate a particle, energy must be applied to it; that is, its energy content must increase in order to increase its velocity. Einstein's E=mc^2 uses invariant mass but the difference between relativistic and invariant mass is only clear in certain circumstances.
At first look, it seems that I am using E=mc^2 with relativistic mass since I am focusing on velocity rather than energy. But, in order to accelerate the particle to begin with, its energy content must increase. Am I incorrect in presuming this?
Locrian
Aug25-04, 08:22 AM
Nereid asked you for specifics. Why is it you didn't provide them?
Nereid asked you for specifics. Why is it you didn't provide them?
Time expansion.
Do you believe it is possible for a singularity to exhibit wave-particle duality? That is, is it possible for a wave to affect the curvature of space?
Locrian
Aug26-04, 03:14 PM
Another reply without answering his questions. It would seem he asked the right ones.
Another reply without answering his questions. It would seem he asked the right ones.
Actually, the reason is I don't have time to look up the reference -- "time expansion." But if you can logically falsify what I've written, please do so. I seek to be enlightened.
Singularities don't exhibit wave-particle duality because they are not in motion?
Wave motion from moving massive objects causes ripples in spatial curvature...
Are gravitational waves the only type of waves that affect spatial curvature?
Can non-gravitational waves affect curvature of space, such as, perhaps temporal waves? Is it possible to conceive of time as a wave that affects the curvature of space?
It is possible for a moving massive object's wave motion to temporarily weaken/reverse the supergravity of a singularity through gravitational wave "destructive resonance?"
Not only is a photon a frame of reference but it's also inertial as dv/dt=0. The only thing it's not a good frame of reference for is time.
An interesting idea. Because the derivative of the velocity of time (Vt) over time (t) is nonzero, an inertial reference frame is not possible.
dVt/dt<0 for a photon in vacuo
The velocity of time itself slows down (dilates) and therefore the "acceleration of time" is non-zero (non-inertial).
Can time be thought of as a vector since it's reversible quantum mechanically? It would give more meaning to phrases like "thermodynamic arrow."
Singularities don't exhibit wave-particle duality because they are not in motion?
Wave motion from moving massive objects causes ripples in spatial curvature...
Are gravitational waves the only type of waves that affect spatial curvature?Any 'wave' which involves mass also generates gravitational waves (albeit extremely weak ones, unless the masses are large, so for example some kind of wave in a BEC of solar mass).Can non-gravitational waves affect curvature of space, such as, perhaps temporal waves? Is it possible to conceive of time as a wave that affects the curvature of space?What is a 'temporal wave'? The energy in photons will also result in a 'spatial curvature' (again, extremely modest in size). IIRC, one of the hopes for GLAST is that it will be able to (indirectly) detect the tiny space curvature associated with TeV (PeV?) gammas.
Any 'wave' which involves mass also generates gravitational waves (albeit extremely weak ones, unless the masses are large, so for example some kind of wave in a BEC of solar mass).What is a 'temporal wave'? The energy in photons will also result in a 'spatial curvature' (again, extremely modest in size). IIRC, one of the hopes for GLAST is that it will be able to (indirectly) detect the tiny space curvature associated with TeV (PeV?) gammas.
An idea of mine is that there are such things as waves of time that travel faster than luminal velocity in vacuo in the same way that it is possible for space itself to travel faster than c without invalidating relativity.
An idea of mine is that there are such things as waves of time that travel faster than luminal velocity in vacuo in the same way that it is possible for space itself to travel faster than c without invalidating relativity.Interesting. Have you worked out some equations yet? Any ideas on the phenomenology? (that's just a big word for 'what would you find if you did experiments or made observations :wink:)
Interesting. Have you worked out some equations yet? Any ideas on the phenomenology? (that's just a big word for 'what would you find if you did experiments or made observations :wink:)
I'm working on it. :wink: Perhaps you'd like to collaborate? My conjecture is that time splits the universe into three-dimensional progressions by a type of "instataneous" wave action. It would be similar to the propagation of g waves except that rather than having greater g wave propagation from strongly curved regions of space, there would be less "temporal wave" propagation, accounting for the time dilation in areas of high space curvature. Abstractly speaking, it's as if the entire temporal dimension is the pulsation of the vector components of space rotating around their own axes.
Tom Mattson
Oct12-04, 02:47 PM
Is theology development allowed on this subforum?
No. (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=15840)
Chronos
Oct14-04, 02:08 AM
I'm working on it. :wink: Perhaps you'd like to collaborate? My conjecture is that time splits the universe into three-dimensional progressions by a type of "instataneous" wave action.Instantaneous? With regard to what? Does that make 'time' the new aether? It would be similar to the propagation of g waves except that rather than having greater g wave propagation from strongly curved regions of space, there would be less "temporal wave" propagation, accounting for the time dilation in areas of high space curvature. Abstractly speaking, it's as if the entire temporal dimension is the pulsation of the vector components of space rotating around their own axes.Pardon. I have no idea what you are talking about. Abstractly speaking, you need to define what is a 'temporal' dimension.
Instantaneous? With regard to what? Does that make 'time' the new aether?
Pardon. I have no idea what you are talking about. Abstractly speaking, you need to define what is a 'temporal' dimension.
There's nothing particularly abstruse about the words I used.
"Temporal dimension" is an already well-defined term. A cursory online search revealed a seemingly infinite amount of information on the subject. Perhaps you'd prefer "the dimension of time?"
The question is how things change. Time is analogous to a black box of physical laws that the universe is fed into. How does space experience time?
I used instantaneous in quote marks to mean faster than the speed of light. We would not have a scientific method to differentiate between "instantaneous" and "superluminal."
This is all -- entirely -- garbage.
- Warren
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.