Is Dark Matter Energy Lost from Redshifted Radiation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JMartin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mass Radiation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the idea that the mass of nonbaryonic matter may represent energy lost from redshifted radiation, suggesting that cold dark matter originates from this lost energy. It posits that if the mass from redshifted radiation exceeds the mass lost through fusion and accretion, the overall mass of the universe could increase. The gravitational constant (G) is proposed to also relate to the universe's expansion, providing volume per unit mass. Participants discuss calculations related to the energy density of cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation and its significant energy loss due to redshift. The conversation emphasizes the need for calculations to ensure that the energy lost from the CMB can account for the estimated amounts of dark matter and dark energy in the universe.
JMartin
This posting relates to my earlier posting and might explain the nature of one or more forms of nonbaryonic matter. It proposes that the mass of such matter represents the energy lost from redshifted radiation. For example, the energy that has been lost from cosmic microwave background radiation now exists as cold dark matter.

This means that the overall mass of the universe increases if the amount of mass originating from redshifted radiation is greater than the loss of mass from processes such as fusion and accretion.

My earlier posting proposed that G not only functions as the gravitational constant, but paradoxically it also relates to the expansion of the universe by providing the universe with 6.67E-11 m^3 of volume per s^2 for each kg of mass in the universe. Discrepancies arising between the formulas of that premise and observations might now be explained in view of the above infromation about changes of mass in the universe. For example, as with all other matter, new nonbaryonic matter originating from redshifted radiation contributes to the expansion of the universe rather than its collapse do to additional gravity sources.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
JMartin, I can't comment on your speculation here but just
want to check to see if you are OK on calculating the
energy density of the CMB


to find the joules per cubic kilometer you would raise the temp (2.73 kelvin) to the fourth power and multiply by
7.57 E-7 (anybody have a different figure?)

since last scattering the wavelengths of CMB have been
stretched by a factor of 1100

that is, it has lost all but about a thousandth of its energy by redshift.

so you should be able to calculate how much energy should be in some other form, per cubic kilometer, if all the lost CMB energy (from the photons in a cubic kilometer) were somehow converted into something else like "dark matter"

it might not be enough to account for the estimated amount of dark matter in a cubic km, or to account for the estimated amount of dark energy

you have to check to see if the books balance

(balancing the books is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the theory to work)

what do you calculate for the lost CMB energy per cubic kilometer?
 
Last edited:
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Today at about 4:30 am I saw the conjunction of Venus and Jupiter, where they were about the width of the full moon, or one half degree apart. Did anyone else see it? Edit: The moon is 2,200 miles in diameter and at a distance of 240,000 miles. Thereby it subtends an angle in radians of 2,200/240,000=.01 (approximately). With pi radians being 180 degrees, one radian is 57.3 degrees, so that .01 radians is about .50 degrees (angle subtended by the moon). (.57 to be more exact, but with...
Back
Top