Interesting idea tying Gravity and Dark Matter together

FIRST... LET ME SAY... this "idea" is nothing more than an interesting idea that i came up with, (probably has been thought of before, but i havent found a place where it has been recorded). I am not saying that this is backed by anyone but myself, and since i am only in my second year in college studying astrophysics, i am probably way outside the rules of some law somewhere...

with that said, let me begin

In my idea/theory, i want to begin by saying that i believe gravity to be a little part of every partical, (all matter, anti-matter, anything with a value of anything). Lets say this gravity section basically has a negative mass (not exactly negative, but it takes away some of the mass of the particle), which makes the particle seem to have less mass than it actually does. This could account for some (not all) of the "missing mass" in space, known as dark matter.

Again, this is just a fun idea, an idea i made up one night when i was trying to go to sleep

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And i need feedback on why this is impossible

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The only reason we come up with the idea of dark matter is that there is too much gravity for the amount of mass we can see.

This isn't going to help solve that problem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

but because of that gravity, what im suggesting is that it actually takes away from the mass that we can see... so if you take away gravity there would actually be more mass

does that make sense?
I think i may have phrased it wrong in what i first put
i mean to say that the gravity takes away from the visible mass, and mass as we can measure it (makes it seem like there is alot less mass than there should be)

hope that makes more sense

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you take away the gravity in your idea, yes you do get more mass. But then you also have no gravity, so there is no need for the extra mass anyhow.

 

i meant to say if you take away the part of the gravity that takes away from the mass, (still having the particles attracted to each other with gravity), then you would in fact have more mass... but thats irrelavent, that was just an example to show that the gravity is taking away from the mass that we can see/weigh.
see what i mean?
im horrible at explaining what im thinking hahaha

 

Why don't you draw a diagram?

 

thats a good idea... ill draw it tomorrow the best i can and post it, i need to go to sleep now though

 

Antimatter was discovered by Carl David Anderson in 1928 when he photographed positively charged electrons in a Wilson Cloud Chamber.

 

Thanks for telling me that.

Shame we're talking about dark matter isn't it.

 

well, i tried making a picture for what im trying to express... but its making it just more confusing
... does anyone see what im trying to say?

 

I'm pretty sure I understand.

I have no faith in it at all, but if you can explain better I'll try and explain why.

 

What are you trying to say here, that it "hides" the mass so we detect less than is actually there?

This would be a completely new mechanism in science, and its not really testable. Even if you managed to write up equations it would still be speculation.

If you want some alternate ideas on Gravity check out this book,
http://www.amazon.com/Gravitational...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223996762&sr=8-1

Summary:The book presents new concepts in the study of gravitation. A new equation for the gravitational force is introduced, which is the correct interpretation of Kepler's third law and which has been verified experimentally to very high precision. The equation is F = a.A, or force = acceleration Area. The book also presents equations for the sequential distances of the planets from the sun and of satellites from the centers of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus, with correlation coefficients upwards of 0.99, concluding that gravitation is quantized. A simple and useful equation for eccentricity is presented as the ratio of the sum of perturbations to the gravitational force of the sun. It is shown that Kepler's second law is not a general law; i.e., equal areas are swept in approximately equal intervals of time only near aphelion and perihelion. There is now confusion between the concepts of "force" and "energy." In the last chapter of the book, new units are introduced to clarify the two concepts. Any equation containing "mass" relates to the concept of "energy". Force is independent of mass.

 

Or don't.

Note: I replaced the link in the quoted text because I will not deign to advertise a link to complete crackpottery. See EndLightEnd's post for the link.

No, it does not.

No, it has not. Kepler's third law represents the starting point of modern astronomy. Believe it or not, humanity has progressed just a tad the 400 years that have passed since Kepler published his laws. Kepler's Laws yield an estimate of the orbital period that is accurate to about three or so decimal places. We do many orders of accuracy better than that now. Kepler's Laws, and Spolter's crackpottery, only explain the orbits of the planets about the Sun. Neither explains the orbit of the Moon about the Earth, or an apple falling to Earth. Newton's law of gravitation, in comparison, is universal. We of course now have an even better of gravitation than did Newton in general relativity. Why take two huge steps backwards to Kepler's laws?

That is laughable. Force has units of mass*length/time[sup]2[/sup], end of story. She isn't even a good crackpot; if she was, she would have named this thing with units of length[sup]3[/sup]/time[sup]2[/sup] a spolter.

This woman has nothing to offer to the body of astronomy or physics. The very existence of Pari Spolter debunks my own crackpot theory, which is that all crackpots are male.

 

First you have to know what causes mass. Without speculating, no one has the answer.

Pause ... someone will challenge that statement ...?

OK, let's say mass is composed of energy in quantum increments. What is a quantum of energy? A quantum is the tiniest natural increment of energy that can have a meaningful impact, i.e. a quantum of energy is necessary to affect mass.

The mass of a particle is maintained by a force. That force corresponds with the quantum of energy. The force would be quantum action, i.e. the process of establishing the presence of a quantum of energy in mass. In order for mass to continue to exist, quantum action must be continuous within mass.

So your idea of gravity being a little part of mass is right on target.

Gravity is emitted by mass as a bi-product of quantum action that maintains mass. Quantum action in mass produces quantum waves that have a trough and a peak. The trough is negative energy and the peak is positive energy. As those waves pass through mass, some of the positive energy of the wave is used to maintain the mass, while all of the negative energy passes out of mass as gravity. The greater the mass of the object, the more of the positive energy is contained to maintain mass and the greater the differential between the emitted negative energy and the emitted positive energy of the quantum waves.

The differential between the trough energy and the peak energy emitted from mass changes as the mass increases. Therefore the greater the mass, the greater the differential between the emanated trough and the emanated peak of the quantum waves. The greater the differential, the greater the gravitation force emitted.

 

Beautifully said... and with my idea, i just take it a step further than that. Basically im saying that the through energy takes away from the mass that is being maintained by the peak energy... This would still make the wave equal on both sides, (Peak and Through would still be the same size), its just that the through energy "absorbs", (absorbs is a horrible word here, but oh well), some of the mass making it impossible to find and/or measure with the instruments that we have today.
I have no clue what kind of instruments or experiments that could be done to attempt to prove or disprove my theory... besides, this is just for fun thinking :xctd:

Thanks, at least i know im on the right track somewhere, even if everyhting else it wrong

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Remember that we are speculating and that if you are a student you would be expected to know current theory. My views are not current theory

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. I am way ahead

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

But if you are thinking about this you are ahead too.

How can the trough of a quantum wave cause gravity? The answer is in the mechanics of quantum action.

The premise is that quantum waves are pervasive in space, all space including space occupied by mass and space between mass. Quantum waves are spherically expanding energy waves. They emanate from a high density spot that forms at the convergence of intersecting quantum waves. The energy contained in the convergence increases as the intersection of quantum waves proceeds as they expand spherically.

As soon as there is a quantum of energy in the convergence we have a "high density spot" formed at that instant in the space where the convergence exists.

At that very instant, the energy density of the spot is much higher than the energy density surrounding the spot. This low energy density is the reason that the quantum wave emanated by quantum action is negative energy. Here is how. The wave begins with the rush of energy surrounding the spot. The energy surrounding the spot rushes into the low energy density surrounding the spot creating a pull of the surrounding universe toward the spot. This pull is the trough of the quantum wave generated by the formation of the high density spot within mass.

The high density spot cannot exist for more than that instant because the quantum waves that intersected (overlapped) to force the convergence continue to expand and the spot of high energy density disburses itself in the form of positive energy which forms the peak of the quantum wave.

Within mass there is continual quantum action and high density spots are forming and bursting at all times within mass. Though the trough of the waves passes out of mass as the entire universe shifts toward the high density spot, the push of the peak of the quantum wave doesn't immediately follow the pull trough. Only the uncontained portion of the peak of the wave follows the trough. As the peak passes through the mass some of its energy is contained in subsequent high density spots and is therefore delayed relative to the trough.

The net energy of a quantum wave emanating from mass is the trough energy minus the peak energy.

If there was no containment of the positive energy, the net energy of the wave would be zero since the trough and the peak both are associated with the same quantum of energy. But since some the peak of the wave is delayed, the net energy emanating from mass becomes negative. Remember that the negative trough pulls the entire universe toward the mass.

The percentage of the peak energy of the quantum wave that is contained is directly related to the gravitation force emanating from the mass. The higher the mass, the higher the containment and the greater the delay of the push portion of the wave. The higher the containment, the greater the net pull force of the wave emanation. The greater the net pull force, the greater gravitational impact of the shift of the universe toward the mass.

 

No.

I think you basic problem is reflected (unintentionally) in "the mass that we can see"

We "see" gravity ONLY via the accelerations it can produce. Lets assume only two large (moon size at least) spherical non-spining objects, A & B, center to center separated by L and mutually orbiting their common mass center with known observes masses ma and mb (which, for example were measured by a known test mass hung on calibrated spring on their surfaces).

Now the force producing their orbital acclearations is F = (mb)G(ma)/ L^2.

What you suggest, I am almost sure is that their real mass if it were not for gravity reducing their appearant masses are actually Ma & Mb (bigger)

We observer the orbits and still have F = (Mb)g(Ma)/ L^2 where G > g.

Still same formula, same force, only if we make Masses bigger by factor of k then the gravitational constant is smaller by factor of k^2 but none of this is real or observable. You could achieve the same thing if every one agreed that we were going to replace the old Kilogram standard (which once was a physical alloy of gold and ? kept in Paris) with a new one only 1/2 as massive. I.e. redefine the kilogram so the mass of Earth in "new kilograms" (and of Ma, ma, Mb & mb) is twice as many new kilograms. Then of course both G & g are changed to be only 1/4 as large.

My point is that imagining something increase or reduces the "real mass" is no different than changing the definition of the kilogram mass. What you are suggesting can not make any observable difference. A & B will orbit the same way, the force F will be the same, that quadratic changes in the gravitational constant by factor f^2 will compensate for the mass changes. You can make Newton's apple be 100Kg if you like, by changing the definiton of a Kg, but it will still fall to the ground exactly the same. You can say that the real mass is 9 or 900 times larger but you can not "see" it as you never see gravity.

I am sorry, but there is nothing in your idea, but speculation about things that in principle can not be observed or "seen".


BTW: Gravity and dark matter are already "tied together." The existance of dark matter is due to this tie - the mass of visible matter is not the only source of gravity. I did have an interesting (but wild idea, until someone put the numbers to it) new idea as to what dark matter might be. Name E/C^2 where is E the is the energy of all the photons "trapped in the box" we call the universe.

See: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2035596&postcount=26
For wild idea on what dark mater may be - Idea probably will not survie numerical evaluation but at least that is possible and told how in the above link.

 

If you read what i was saying from the beginning, you would realise that what you said is exactly what i said... i said it cant be observed or measure with any instruments that we have now, and i said its nothing more than a thought i had when i was falling asleep one night, which is nothing more than a speculation
So thanks for repeating what ive already said.



And Quantum Wave... ill get back to you in a bit, i got to go and dont have time for a good response yet

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I must have missed where you said you were talking about something that is in principle unobservable - of no consequence - only nonsense.

 

Please post how gravity works so we can be sure the idea is nonsense.