Is Dark Matter Energy Lost from Redshifted Radiation?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter JMartin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mass Radiation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion explores the relationship between redshifted radiation and the formation of cold dark matter, proposing that the energy lost from cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation contributes to the overall mass of the universe. The concept suggests that if the mass derived from redshifted radiation exceeds the mass lost through processes like fusion and accretion, the universe's mass increases. Additionally, it posits that the gravitational constant (G) not only governs gravitational interactions but also influences the universe's expansion by providing a specific volume per unit mass. Calculations regarding the energy density of the CMB and its implications for dark matter are also discussed.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
  • Familiarity with concepts of redshift and energy loss
  • Knowledge of gravitational constant (G) and its implications
  • Basic principles of dark matter and dark energy
NEXT STEPS
  • Calculate the energy density of the CMB using the formula involving temperature raised to the fourth power.
  • Research the implications of redshift on cosmic energy and mass conversion.
  • Explore the relationship between dark matter and energy lost from redshifted radiation.
  • Investigate the role of gravitational constant (G) in cosmic expansion dynamics.
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, physicists, and cosmologists interested in the nature of dark matter, cosmic microwave background radiation, and the dynamics of the universe's expansion.

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:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 134 ·
5
Replies
134
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K