- #1
- 2
- 0
Is the "missing mass" the mass of the photons connected to and neighboring the matter which are displaced by the matter?
This doesn't even make sense. There is no such thing as a "massive" photon. Photons are massless.BobbyHurley said:Is dark matter a sea of massive photons?
I can't make any sense out of this sentence but I'm sure the answer is no.Is the "missing mass" the mass of the photons connected to and neighboring the matter which are displaced by the matter?
phinds said:This doesn't even make sense. There is no such thing as a "massive" photon. Photons are massless.
I can't make any sense out of this sentence but I'm sure the answer is no.
BobbyHurley said:Massive Photon and Dark Energy
I still can't figure out what you mean by that. What particles displaced by what matter?BobbyHurley said:Could the "missing mass" associated with dark matter actually be the mass of the particles displaced by the matter?
the nonvanishing photon mass of the order of 10^{ - 34}eV is consistent with the current observations. This magnitude is far less than the most stringent limit on the photon mass available so far, which is of the order of m<=10^{ - 27}eV.
But the paper discusses whether photons with a small mass could explain Dark Energy not Dark Matter.ChrisVer said:I am not sure, but even if photons had a mass below the excluded by experiment region let's say [itex]10^{-27}eV[/itex], then the photons are still supposed to be radiation (under cosmology), so at best they could account for HDM and not CDM.
Garth said:Peter have you a reference(s) to your statement that it "is ruled out by experiment unless the "scalar" and "vector" parts are given coupling constants so small as to be negligible"?
ChrisVer said:even if photons had a mass below the excluded by experiment region let's say ##10^{-27}## eV, then the photons are still supposed to be radiation (under cosmology), so at best they could account for HDM and not CDM.
PeterDonis said:I agree if we are using GR as our theory of gravity. The paper the OP linked to talks about a different theory of gravity, a "scalar-vector-tensor" theory, which can produce different behavior of photons, theoretically speaking.
The theory consists of massive vector field and Stuckelberg scalar field interacting with Einstein gravity.
George Jones said:The introduction seems to say that it is QED that is modified, not GR
The TeVeS theories were proposed after MTW was published and are not inconsistent with solar system tests, papers can be found here: The Tensor-Vector-Scalar theory and its cosmology and A tensor-vector-scalar framework for modified dynamics and cosmic dark matter except, as that latter paper proposes, the MOND increase (over Newtonian/GR gravity) of gravitational sun-wards acceleration at large radii in the outer solar system would be interpreted as a Pioneer type anomaly.PeterDonis said:I'm going by what I have seen in textbooks such as MTW, which IIRC discusses this in some detail. As I remember it (don't have my copy handy to check), various solar system tests, such as light bending by the Sun, rule out significant scalar or vector terms in the Lagrangian. The paper that the OP linked to talks about comparisons with cosmological data, but does not talk at all about consistency with other data such as solar system tests.
TeVeS cannot explain observations without assuming an additional dark mass component in both cluster centers, which is in accordance with previous work.
I agree but some might say that about the [itex]\Lambda[/itex]CDM theory, what with the undiscovered dark sector, the coincidence problems - [itex]\Omega_M \sim \Omega_\Lambda [/itex], [itex]\Omega_m + \Omega_{DM} + \Omega_\Lambda = 1[/itex] , Age of Universe = H^{-1}, and built on GR which has proved so far incompatible with quantum theory.Chronos said:I still think TeVes is a mathematical cluster of hooey.