“Alternative” cosmologists, as we find e.g. on this forum, usually tend to distance themselves from dark energy and from dark matter. I find this a bit ironic since those two concepts are independent of the standard model or even of other expansionist model, meaning they can be reused in static cosmologies (yes as a reminder there are other expansionist model than LCDM, such as coasting universes and RH=CT).
A reason to avoid those concepts, is the fact they presumably incurs a significant epistemological cost, basically each stating that the vast majority of energy AND of matter (mass) is present in non baryonic matter and/or non classical force(s). It’s hard to make an idea less parcimonous than that, it is extremely costly regarding ockham razor, however it is often underappreciated that many alternative explanations such as MOND as not necessarilly more parcimonous. Moreover static cosmologies have implicit, unstated concepts that are relatively comparably as unparcimonous (how do you stabilize a static universe (attraction versus repulsion, how do you recycle back energy to matter if the universe is homeostatic (past eternal)?).
As is well known, Einstein paper on general relativity presents a static universe. It was latter shown to be unstable, which led Einstein to invent the cosmological constant, as a “hack” to stabilize the universe and counterbalance gravity. .There might be some theories of gravity that allows stable static solutions, a candidate being einstein-cartan. I’m not sure wether scalar gravity or lesagian gravity have been calculated to be stable, though the mechanism and gravitational shielding are intriguing regarding this question.
Dark energy is currently represented via the cosmological constant (although probably not the same value as einstein static value (which is ??). Many if not most alternative cosmologists seems to plainly skip the essential question of the stability of their universe, if they didn’t they would realize the need for an equivalent to dark energy (albeit not with the same value and therefore not with the same empirical evidence) even though as quoted for einstein cartan, there are other ways, considerably lesser known, to stabilize a universe. Related is the schrodinger Classical unified field theory in which the cosmological constant somehow emerge “naturally” and here and here
Anyway enough talk about the merits of dark energy for a static universe, let’s talk about dark matter. Dark matter has a lot of empirical evidence for it, and a lot of empirical evidence against it, overall MOND very significantly outperforms dark matter (albeit not necessarilly extensions of dark matter) however a few important metrics significantly favor DM over MOND. Both are useful btw in a non eternal universe, in order to catalyze the growth speed formation of galaxies. Most exhaustive review ever: https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.06936 see page 69
While it is true that MOND seems to win and that we will have a definite proof of MOND in 2026, it should not be dismissed than while a bit non parcimonous, both MOND and dark matter could simultaneously exist to some extent. More finetuned would be that MOND is an effect of dark matter. Most importantly even if MOND were proven to take all the apparent missing gravity, dark matter, in an altered definition, could still exists, as non abundant massive particles, or as abundant light or non gravitational particles.
Moreover, there is a record high number of anomalies, both in astrophysics (galactic center excess, optical excess, etc) and in particle physics (grav anomalies, X17 particle, etc..) that screams that there exists multiple distincts non standard model particles and or new forces or forces extensions. They will almost all be definitely proven arround 2026-2028 (via Nica, eXTP, etc).
So here we go with a relaxed definition of dark matter, being whatever that generates “new physics”, where new physics might actually derive from the standard model (such as the recently proven Zeldovich radiation), where the particle might actually exist in the standard model (or not) and wether it generates the missing gravity, is optional.
The fascinating topic of exotic matter as dark matter, and why it matters!
Something a bit funny for what is supposed to be the most studied phenomena in mainstream cosmology, Dark matter, is that it isn’t much studied actually.
I mean there are countless papers about cosmological constraints, and about the whole spectrum of allowed size and mass/energy per particle. What is dark matter?
It is generally outlined by this diagram:
Which include, but not only, dark photons, axions and WIMP and MACHOS. Basically, from the smallest, to the largest.
Something that I have always taken for granted, is that dark matter must be explained by a new, non standard particle. But the evidence for this claims is a bit limited it seems, firstly against it goes the RAR relation. Secondly as explained:
Interpretation is weak/CMB dependent. Or is indicative of the observational requirement that the matter must be radiatively obscure or very faint. He says it must also be small, but I don’t see how the size is constrained via lensing, assuming ultra faintness. Indeed most matter, at least for hot, ionized media, is bright (except selective dust obscuration is a thing).
So it seems, actually, if we can explain the faintness is a ionized medium, that dark matter could be constituted of standard baryons or of leptons, and would be simply an observational limit of our instruments, the same way, historically galaxies were thought to be nebulae, and the same way the missing dwarf galaxies problem recently became an excess dwarf galaxies problem (cf paper about the “unseen world”) It has to be thought in relation with the already known problems of dust attenuation laws, and with extreme known problems such as the absolutely hilarious 100% excess in photon count https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.11236 (question in optics about resolved vs diffuse source sensitivity here) BTW significant advance in the ultra faint world should be possible with this planned mission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARRAKIHS
Another way to constrain the baryonic fraction of dark matter, would be via estimate of the total abundance of baryonic matter infered via the successful BBN (primordial nucleosynthesis), which might have been done for MACHOS , basically what is the ratio of observed hydrogen versus the predicted hydrogen abundance of the big bang.
MACHOs are the only popular DM model made of standard particles, and denotes large macroscopic objects (planets, brown dwarfs, etc). It also denotes black holes dark matter, especially primordial black holes (which are very small (sub asteroid sized) and abundant). Related to MACHOS are exotic compact objects (gravastars, etc) https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07728
And so, we have two school of thought, one that defend MACHOs, made of regular matter, with increasingly stringent constraints, and one, much more popular that requires non standard model particles (axions, WIMPs, etc).
But how could researchers, give so little attention, to the most obvious candidates, the third possibility, neither MACHOs, nor non standard particles! The third, underlooked possibility, is called Exotic matter And Exotic matter is IMHO a misnomer since exotic make it feels non standard, or “fringe”, but actually Exotic matter is matter predicted to exist by the standard model, and for most instances, proven to exist in labs. It should have been called special matter. Anyway Exotic matter, is a broad term that denotes either particles or atoms that are not naturally easily found on earth and that are produced, or stable, in special physical conditions. Contrary to dark matter candidates, exotic matter is proven to exist, and has a vast array of “surprising properties” that are conducive to new physics, which is ironic for things that are technically, at least partly, predicted by the standard model. In that sense, there are many “Beyond the standard model physics” that are simply currently unknown deductions from the standard model, a highly underatted observation. Exotic matter is a treasure trove for alternative cosmologists that aims to find new physical effects or candidates for said effects.
So let’s review the different kinds of exotic matter: Firstly the exotic particles: A major candidates for DM are sterile or majorana neutrinos. While sterile neutrinos are allowed by the standard model, there is no necessity for their existence (besides maybe solving neutrinos anomalies and the mass ordering problem). There is also the graviton, whatever it is. But it is extremely underappreciated that there IS one major (composite) particle that the standard model predicts to exist and that hasn’t been directly measured, in that sense, it is the last big remaining prediction of the standard model. It has not been observed because it mimicks regular gluons. I am talking about the glueball, the grouping of gluons via the strong force. Glueballs not only is the most interesting new particle candidate because it is predicted to exist, but also because it is predicted to be abundant, to be massive and to be stable. That makes it actually the most promising DM candidate: https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.09510 https://www.arxiv.org/abs/2408.14245 BTW there is candidate detection in lab Note that it requires the implicit assumption that gluons actually exists which might not be the case in the sakata model
here is also no need to introduce ”hidden” degrees of freedom, such as color and gluons
Another prediction of exotic mesons are hybrid mesons: https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.07276 and tetraquarks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraquark The latter have very short half lives, and indeed this is the most frequent critique to Exotic matter as Dark Matter, many (but not all) exotic matter have very short half lives, meaning they cannot impact cosmology unless continuously produced in a steady state. There is still a tetraquark DM paper though One tetraquark has been found to only decay via the weak interaction though It’s half life is not known? https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-half-life-of-the-newly-discovered-Tcc-tetraquark-I-keep-reading-everywhere-that-it-is-long-lived-but-they-never-mention-the-actual-lifetime
Then we go to the other family of particles, exotic hadrons, which are made of pentaquarks or hexaquarks, (higher state than hexaquarks are allowed but are very hard to produce and are probably short live) Here is an example of a predicted “stable” candidate Sexaquark, which is a new DM candidate I find no papers about DM as pentaquarks, probably because of their too short half lives. Recently hexaquarks have been produced in lab, though with an extremely short half live. But it could actually be a dark matter candidate. There is the very interesting topic about what makes a particle or composite stable cf neutrons, which is explained in this blog https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/03/14/ask-ethan-its-absurd-to-think-dark-matter-might-be-made-of-hexaquarks-right/ There exists as an analogy to the island of stability ways to make neutrons arrangements eternally stable. Moreover composite particles, because of decay, can weight less than their individual parts, this observations led to the brilliant insight that what we consider as primitive particles might actually be the other way arround and be composite particles of what we consider as composite, and what we consider as composite would be the primitives. This genius idea is the so called Sakata model and apparently might not be ruled out !! which is mind blowing. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6471/ab67e8 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Dark-matter-in-the-standard-model-Gross-Polosa/8510e153c0f421d373b4f966dc2c2728572ceca8
Now we have finished with exotic standard model particles as dark matter, there is also the topic of strange quarks as DM https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.12094 Which includes the strangelet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangelet It is predicted to exist by the standard model, and just like the hexaquark DM, they are stable, but only under a condensed state (e.g. bose-einstein).
Honorable mention for other particles candidates unrelated to DM: the carriers of magnetic monopoles, millicharge particles, vectors, leptoquarks (viable higgs boson alternatives) and the empirical evidence for a higgs doublet/triplet and for 5 distinct neutrinos masses. There is also the topic of non exotic standard particles, such as hyperons, pions, kaons, etc but most are unstable.
If you are still reading, great because that’s where the most interesting part starts
As I previously stated, exotic matter is not just exotic particles, or exotic composite particles (atoms are just one well behaved kind of composite particles) The topic is more broad and include two main others categories: Exotic atoms, and exotic phase of matters (gasous, liquid, solid and plasma are the classical phases but there are many others!)
High pressure can violate classical chemistry: http://www.gizmag.com/scientists-create-forbidden-compounds-table-salt/30520/
Exotic atoms: An exotic atom is an atom where one or more subparticles are replaced with another particle of the same charge. I won’t cover them all as there are many possibilities, and very few have been studied in labs, however an important one is muonic hydrogen that is a short lived and denser form of hydrogen. The fact the orbits a denser means that it is extremely insightful in particle physics to derives constraints on dark matter. Muonic hydrogen has allowed to violate the standard model and calculate a smaller radius for the proton (which was predicted by this new quantum theory). Another kind of exotic atom is onium, which are atoms made of matter AND antimatter, that are surprisingly stable albeit short lived.
Phases of matter: There is a large number of special states of matter (supercritical, superconducting, superfluid, superAnything), and also ultra condensed forms of matter (bose-einstein, Quark Gluon plasma, solid electrons, solid light, slow light, time crystals, etc) Special states of matter are associated with subtle new physics, and with anomalous “fifth forces” or gravitational shielding, Including the incredible work of Elio Porcelli that single handledly found more anomalies than the totality of researchers working in particle physics. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Elio-Porcelli
Today’s real topic: Rydberg Matter as a cosmologist dream come true
As I said, there are just too many special phases of matter to cover them and the scientific litterature, therefore I will focus on the most interesting exotic phase of matter: Rydberg Matter, but first let’s talk about why we need Rydberg Matter and how we know it is abundant in the universe:
As you know, I am deeply interested in physical and astrophysical anomalies, because their are literally empirical evidence of new physics, they are the frontier of experimentalism and of our knowledge. They are the benchmark against truth. They simultaneously open the frontiers on what is possible (when magic becomes science) and close the uncertainties and doubts about said new possibilities. Despite the scientific value primacy of physical anomalies, there isn’t a single paper that exhaustively list them, far from it, actually it is very rare to find papers that list more than a few. As such, and because scientists prefer to write new papers than to read the ocean of papers, anomalies are insultingly little known, and despite considerable work I still regularly keep discovering new anomalies in the litterature, sometimes old discoveries and often with a low citation rate. One entire class of astrophysical anomalies I recently stumbled upon are the spectroscopic anomalies. Basically, cosmologists almost only way to study the universe is by studying light, photometrically, spectroscopically and also its polarization. After all the thing that started it all, the redshift, is a light anomaly. Same for cosmic time dilation. And yet I wasn’t aware we have countless spectral anomalies in astrophysics. A spectral band represent an atomic orbital and it is what defines the reflective color of objects arround us. Here is a recent review of the different spectral anomalies found in astrophysics: https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.07571 (note that there are unrelated anomalies in lab too https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.14385 ) Among them, the most important ones are: The diffuse interstellar bands The unidentified infrared emission bands and the extended red emissions
There are more than 500 distinct diffuse emission bands. All those spectral anomalies have in common that 1) they are abundant in the universe (based on signal intensity) and 2) no known atom or molecule can reproduce their spectra Their diversity means that we receive more spectra from unknown molecules than from known molecules and atoms! This is crazy. Now you might say, the universe might simply catalyze the production of molecules not found on earth and while this is a possibility, their spectra indicates that the molecules must be very large and their abundance limits their composition mostly to a very limited number of atoms, the prime candidate being carbon. The larger a molecule the lower the yields so.. Of course the mainstream theory for the unidentified phenomena are a component of cosmic dust, the PAH which are dense carbon molecules https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycyclic_aromatic_hydrocarbon but there are other carbon candidates (including abiotic generation of petroleum!)
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are expected to be the most abundant class of organic molecules in space.
There is indeed a lot of evidence for the abundance of PAHs It was spectroscopically discoverred for the first time last month (the perks of exhaustively reading the literature I guess) a precise molecule being a component of PAH: Pyrene https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.00657
Anyway, PAH is mostly a failed theory, not that it isn’t abundant, but apparently it doesn’t explain the anomalous spectra. Of the 500 DIHs, probably a subset are explained by complex carbon molecules though, for the first time, 2 bands have been identified as corresponding to variants of fullerene
So mainstream science has explained 2/500 of DIHs and 0/X of the other bands. Here comes Rydberg matter Leif Holmid is one of the most prolific researcher in Rydberg matter, in 2011, he has shown that the spectra of rydberg matter can explain 260 of the 300 known bands at the time!!! https://arxiv.org/abs/1108.3179 If his research is correct, that means he has 1) singlehandedly solved one of the biggest anomalies in astrophysics and 2) proven the extreme abundance of rydberg matter in the universe.
He has latter shown it can explains the Unidentified Infrared Emissions too.
Moreover he has claimed to have created the densest possible configuration of Hydrogen (via but not only, Rydberg matter), denoted H(0) https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ultra-dense-hydrogen-H(0)-as-dark-matter-in-the-new-Holmlid/6899b3cf90fa3b559d5856c7460af1addbf97061 He claims that: H(0) is one of the densests materials, making it a new source of nuclear fuel/energy/storage (vs petroleum or uranium) Is an automatic dark matter replacement. That H(0) naturally thermalize to the CMB radiation, making it “the simplest explanation) That H(0) explains the other anomaly, the extended red emission. Most importantly he claims that H(0) explains cosmological redshift
He then develop on a topic I already thought about and that is highly promising, an answer to the Drake equation of where are the aliens, by stating that the interstellar medium is much more destructive to spaceships than expected, here via Rydberg matter https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Nuclear-Processes-in-Dark-Interstellar-Matter-of-of-Holmlid/bb5d106681c56bf934e4a7486fd08e8238304842 and that “interstellar highways” where aliens would try to clear space from the toxic exotic molecules would be an astronomically observable biosignature, by showing an absence of Diffuse Interstellar Emissions.
Leif Holmid and his research group have it all, they solve everything and their findings might simply be true. After all their research and maths are public sadly I am not math literate enough to assess their verisimilitude. Fraud or Genius? The scientific “community” is far too mediocre to review their papers (though there has been a limited number of reviews I should myself review) Regardless, of wether all their findings are real, Rydberg Matter is real and it is real that is has unique physical properties, as there is an extensive body of research that is anterior to the work of Leif Holmid.
So, firstly what is Rydberg Matter? Rydberg Matter is a condensed form of rydberg atoms. What are Rydberg atoms?
A Rydberg atom is an excited atom with one or more electrons that have a very high principal quantum number, n.[1][2] The higher the value of n, the farther the electron is from the nucleus, on average. Rydberg atoms have a number of peculiar properties including an exaggerated response to electric and magnetic fields,[3] long decay periods and electron wavefunctions that approximate, under some conditions, classical orbits of electrons about the nuclei.[4] The core electrons shield the outer electron from the electric field of the nucleus such that, from a distance, the electric potential looks identical to that experienced by the electron in a hydrogen atom.[5]
Well basically those are atoms with electrons with atypically far orbits from the nucleus. I have seen described as “giant hydrogen atoms” While they are often mentioned in condensed matter physics, ironically, rydberg atoms are atoms that are maximally underdense. Moreover they have atypical behaviours and are the largest atoms in the universe. There is no known limit to their size (quantum number) and we know that given enough size and conditions, they behave with classical orbits, which makes them a unique and underappreciated probe of the classical/quantum limit, and a possible falsification of quantum mechanics. They are proven to exist and are created in labs. Another thing that makes them unique, besides the behaviour of their outer electrons, is that they are resilient to radiation and have extremely slow decay times, it is one of the most stable form of exotic matter, with a quantum number >90 their half life is > to the age of the universe!!
the electron’s orbit resembles the orbit of planets inside a solar system, similar to what was seen in the obsolete but visually useful Bohr and Rutherford models of the atom.
As diamagnetic effects scale with the area of the orbit it follows Rydberg atoms in space could have extreme diamagnetism. It also allows with extreme efficiency the absorbtion of some radiation bands cf > https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/09/a-new-antenna-using-single-atoms-could-usher-in-the-age-of-atomic-radio/?mbid=synd_digg and also this Hence this corroborate a possible effect on the CMB and on diffuse bands.
Independently of Leif Holmid, Rydberg atoms are known to be abundant in space:
Rydberg atoms occur in space due to the dynamic equilibrium between photoionization by hot stars and recombination with electrons, which at these very low densities usually proceeds via the electron re-joining the atom in a very high n state, and then gradually dropping through the energy levels to the ground state, giving rise to a sequence of recombination spectral lines spread across the electromagnetic spectrum. The very small differences in energy between Rydberg states differing in n by one or a few means that photons emitted in transitions between such states have low frequencies and long wavelengths, even up to radio waves.
Indeed Rydberg atoms are the main (and only?) source of another spectral phenomena, radio recombination lines
The discovery of lines with n > 100 was surprising, as even in the very low densities of interstellar space, many orders of magnitude lower than the best laboratory vacuums attainable on Earth, it had been expected that such highly-excited atoms would be frequently destroyed by collisions, rendering the lines unobservable.
Since n> 100 is detected, it means we have proven there are rydberg atoms in space with a half life longer than the universe (unless destructed by external collisions). Some have been observed with a size of 57 microns, meaning this single rydberg atom occupy the volume of more than 57000 hydrogen atoms!! https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2516
Independently of Holmid, there are many papers showing that indeed rydberg atom have atypical interactions with light https://dx.doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.107.133602
Now many findings of Holmid are about Rydberg matter, which is a condensed for of rydberg atoms, that is known to form in stars, nebulaes and even on the magnetosphere of planets, including, possibly, Earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_matter
Now are you ready for the ultimate, most exotic particle? We have exotic atoms: Rydberg atoms. We condense them into an exotic phase of matter: Rydberg matter. We also condense regular hydrogen into an exotic phase of matter: A bose einstein condensate Then somehow, we inject the bose einstein condensate into the giant condensed rydberg atoms. And it works, we have create the mind blowing concept that is the Rydberg Polaron, a condensed state of matter made of rydberg atoms that contains condensed hydrogen atoms. Meaning we have created atoms that containts other atoms, actually they are so large that we can make atoms that contains hundreds of atoms of hydrogen!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rydberg_polaron While rydberg atoms are underdense, the rydberg polaron can reach very high energy density by “trapping” the hydrogen. This isn’t theoretical, this has been experimentally confirmed! BTW this has uncovered a new physical anomaly it seems https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.265301
I shall review Leif Holmid papers another time but undeniably Rydberg matter has real potential for new physics, is proven to be abundant and has credible stability, this makes it one of the best candidate for dark matter and possibly a unique explanation to redshift and to the CMB, and as show to the multiple spectral anomalies.
Another candidate for the formation of rydberg matter that has empirical astronomical evidence is via abundant nanocluster of ice formation, It explains dark matter, and uniquely, cosmic birefringence https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.10908 From the same author: https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.12079 He argues that it could catalyze polymer creation and therefore be an explanation for the origin of life !!
Regarding the Sakata model, the 2020 paper shows that if signal for the new matter state baryonium is confirmed then it would be empirical evidence for the sakata model. Moreover hybrid quark sakata models might be viable. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10751-015-1150-z https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Sakata-Model-Revisited%3A-Hadrons%2C-Nuclei-and-Stefanovich/2b49b07cd8a0b82bbbfff2e5bbeb134721b3a9df
bonus anomaly: https://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1648 violation of the Schwarzschild radius. A novel way to represent the interior of the sun:
The concept of superspinars
Also multiple theories of exotic matter as DM have catalyzed production in neutron stars, meaning than upcoming Xray telescopes like Axis and Lynx could give definitive constraints via studies on mass and neutron star radius.
Honorable mention to this new alternative to DM and MOND: scale invariance? https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.21379 And also to weyl fermions, the third hypothetical formalism, and the proven existence of quasiparticles semimetals that behave like it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyl_semimetal
Off topic but incredible paper showing that MOND is a natural phenomenon of lesagian gravity considering that galaxies are roughly flat https://hal.sorbonne-universite.fr/hal-03841151v1/document
One topic I have not talked about are the prospects of new physics in quasiparticles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinon
Does the solar ystem collapse? No! The attraction is gravity. But repulsion is the acceleration (centrifugal force) on matter in orbits. The eternal movement of matter ( παντα ρει και ουδεν μενει by Heraclitus ) simply makes Dark Energy redundant for the purpose. Problem is that mass in the cosmos is modeled mathematically as sort of uniform mass density and the whole idea of movement is lost by employing this abstraction.
A related question is the following. Nuclear fusion in stars makes heavier elements from lighter elements. Does there exists a mechanism in cosmic space that does the reverse: make lighter elements from heavier elements? Such a mechanism anyway exists on earth and technically nuclear fission is easier to accomplish than nuclear fusion.
Yes, because nobody is taking a look at the alternative based upon (our version of) the Variable Mass Theory (VMT). An issue pending is that a webpage still does not count as publication, it is not an old-fashioned peer-reviewed “paper” in a copyrighted journal. Mea culpa!
The VMT is why it does NOT matter !! [ Rest of your Particle Fever skipped, except ]
Yes, it deserves my eyes (emoi) looking at it.
Yeah, sure .. Please don’t exaggerate though ! In der Beschränkung zeigt sich erst der Meister ( Goethe ).
That is a false statement. All the evidence for DM is inferential and requires a belief that the gravitational models of Newton and Einstein, derived in the context of the Solar System, are Universal Laws. That belief is untenable given that the models do not work on larger and more complex systems like galaxies without the ad hoc addition to empirical reality of the empirically baseless DM.
The unscientific belief in DM is just another example of the uselessness of the mathematicist philosophy in which math models supersede the evidence of our lying eyes and instruments. DM is not there - that’s what the empirical evidence says. If you believe otherwise that’s fine but it’s not science. Science doesn’t care what you believe. Science is the study of the things that are there; it is not the study of some hot house beliefs that only exist in the febrile imaginations of mathematicists for whom physical reality is an afterthought. Discussions of DM belong in the Metaphysics and Philosophy section.
Budrap the astronomical excess gravity found in the rotation curve of galaxies and in gravitational lenses are empirical observations, whatever the explanation (DM, mond, etc) The basis of science is to find universal laws, if you believe GR evidence is limited to the solar system I have news for you. Indeed the laws of gravity might slighly change with extreme distance (MOND, etc) but that is not significantly more parcimonous than DM..
Moreover there is considerable evidence for new particles on earth for example see the X17 particle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X17_particle
Moreover, it seems you don’t appreciate enough the fact we are entering in the era of Dark Matter astronomy, meaning that contrary to many alternatives, DM is becoming highly falsifiable https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.00148
The purpose of science is to understand the nature of physical reality, not to generate a continuous stream of fantastical conjectures motivated by a desire to sustain a pair of ridiculously outdated “standard models” that bear no resemblance to the Cosmos we observe.
Universal laws are mathematicist fictions; it is as impossible to observe the simultaneously existing Universe of the standard model, as it is for such a Universe to exist at all given the scale of the Cosmos we observe.
DM is not there; you can’t do astronomy with something that’s not there. It doesn’t matter what some half-assed paper says. DM is not there. It’s not there in the same way that angels and devils are not there. It is not a component of physical reality.
If you insist that DM has to be there because your model requires it then you are making an illogical circular argument. The fact that DM is not there also means that the model that requires its existence has been falsified.
In fact, the standard model of cosmology is entirely composed of entities and events that are not part of the magnificent empirical landscape of the Cosmos that we observe. Empirically speaking, the standard model isn’t there - because all of its components are not there.
There may be X^500 or more useless conjectures floating about in the hivemind of the mathematicism community. Science doesn’t have time to filter all the irrelevant dreck in hopes of finding a reasonable mathematical model reflecting and fitting the physical reality we observe.
Such a scientifically sound, empirically-based model should be possible, however, with the collaboration of empirical researchers and mathematicians who understand the difference between math and physics.
A math model could be built such that it mimics the elements and structure of the empirically observed Cosmos, taking full account of the vast trove of factual information that has been gathered since the inception of the expanding universe model some 100 years ago.
That expanding universe model needs to be shitcanned. It is fundamentally wrong about the nature of physical reality in the same sense that geocentrism was wrong.
Just like the structural elements of the standard model that are only there to prop it up, the expanding universe that is an assumption of the standard model - that expanding universe - is not there. Modern cosmology consists solely of an ongoing effort to maintain a long outdated model based on assumptions that no one in their right mind would make now in light of the knowledge of the Cosmos we now have.
The standard model of cosmology is not there; it does not describe the Cosmos we observe. The myth of Dark Matter is just one piece of that “model” that is not there.
You did not address any of my points. You are repeating ad nauseam the same talking point about DM being “not there” and about the standard model being a matryoshka doll of artificial unphysical constructs. Are you in reality denial over the existence of the neutrino? Because soon other particles will be proven to exist the same way we did for the invisible matter that are neutrinos. Your purity thinking is not productive regarding the advances in observational astronomy, it’s easy to talk down the standard model as being only based on inferences (such as for expansion) but science has to select the best theory. Alternatives have some merits but are not as overwhelmingly more virtuous and parcimonous as you’d like to believe. And yes alternatives require artificial constructs and distant inferences as the base reality require new physics regarding the nature of redshift and the excess observed gravity.
@budrap00 writes about >mathematicians who understand the difference between math and physics.
Look Who’s Talking. Do we hear a wannabe Lonely Prophet or The Fool on the Hill talking:
And he never listens to them He knows that they’re the fools
Okay, spitting images aside, I have to admit, Bud - all the time but you don’t listen - that you are right a big deal. How to use mathematics properly in a physics context has become indeed a big problem for a hundred years or so. But this is not going to be cured with a panacea of extremism as advocated by you.
It has cost @HanDeBruijn (that’s me) quite a lot of time to discover that idealization is essential for mathematics. It is clear that you can’t or you won’t accept this. As has been exemplified in a recent thread: Gravitational Redshift & Expanding Spherical Wavefronts. After a lengthy debate I had to give up. Even the notion of equality in mathematical analysis ( idealized, yes !! ) is an insurmountable problem for you.
On the other hand, from your website - and I’ll repeat it again and again until you remove it. The following intriguing relationship supports the concept of gravity as being an essentially electromagnetic phenomenon:
$$ G = \sqrt{\frac{4\times 10^{-12}}{3 c}} \quad \mbox{or} \quad m^3/kg/s^2 = (m/s)^{-1/2} $$
where G is the gravitatioal constant, c is the speed of light. This formula is violating one of the most elementary principles of “mathematism” in physics, namely the Dimensions check. Thus rendering The 4/3 Dimensional Ratio as much hilarious (if not worse) than the unlimited Particle Fever where people like @LifeIsStrange seem to believe in.
However, Bud, since most certainly you must understand the difference between math and physics, I have a simple question for you. What is temperature and how do you measure it ?
@LifeIsStrange writes: >Because soon other particles will be proven to exist
It all depends on what you consider to be a proof.
Flat rotation curves of galaxies are observed. Excess gravity is inferred theoretically, not “observed”.
There is no place for relativism in science. Rejecting the phenomenological evidence for the existence of neutrinos is obscurantism and science denialism. For other particles, the scientific method is always the same, is the signal reaching extreme statistical significance (~5 sigmas) and independently of the sigmas, is the observation not subject to systematics that induce biases/errors. Thankfully in particle physics there aren’t many systematics, moreover most instrumental ones are eliminated once the experience is reproduced in another collider.
Excess gravity is observed in gravitational lenses. Does this seems highly theoretical to you? : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_Horseshoe_Einstein_Ring_from_Hubble.JPG
There is some modeling and inferences but most of the signal is raw and apparent in direct observations.
to be fair I am able to find of all arxiv, only one paper that questions neutrinos existence. He does not seems to question the experiments but wether another new physics explanation might explain the observations. https://www.prophy.ai/article/6731231-Does-Neutrino-Really-Exist/ Sadly his work is 27 years old and has not been followed by anyone. Granted the author seems to have successfully made a prediction for new physics:
So yes maybe this person has singlehandedly outperform the whole field of particle physics and found a better explanation than the neutrino particle, I have seen such cases of successful rogue scientists before. What I mean, is 1) such alternatives are rare in particle physics and most importantly, it still accounts as a discovery, as neutrinos observations require new physics anyway and the signal is regularly detected from e.g. nuclear reactors or the sun or earth center.
@LifeIsStrange . >Does this seems highly theoretical to you?
Let’s see. Following the link, then we read below its content: >This is a retouched picture, which means that it has been digitally altered from its original version. Modifications: Cropped. The original can be viewed here: Lensshoe hubble.jpg
Cropped ? I can do the same with The original:
Do you “observe” too the four perpendicular jets coming out of that star ?
Gravitational lenses are not a result of image post processing… see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring
The four perpendicular jets coming out of the star do not exist physically and are a well understood artefact of the Point Spread Function of the mirror shape of the telescope (hence why JWST unique shape gives more “jets”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_spread_function Yes a telescope observation minus its point spread function is a direct observation (assuming the interstellar medium has not scattered the light between the source)
@LifeIsStrange writes about the >Point spread function
Diffraction spikes are more to the point, I think. Related: Stars by diffraction.
On topic. It is not that I am in denial of gravitational lensing. I’m only questioning the idea that excess gravity would be needed for the phenomenon to occur. By the way, Bending of light is already described by Newton’s laws.
I also did not question the existence of neutrinos (although I find them questionable). About other elementary particles: >once the experience is reproduced in another collider.
Yeah sure. As if it is possible to reproduce the “discovery” of the Higgs boson at reasonable costs elsewhere on earth. How many new Super Collider Tunnels mankind has to build for the purpose? Apart from the fact that educated people on the street are not going to have access to such equipment. To check out for example that they are not cheating. You know as well as I do that we just have to trust them on their blue eyes. While my own common sense says that such smashing of matter can only give rise to space debris. But okay: >There is no place for relativism in science.
@LifeIsStrange
I’m not repeating a talking point; I keep repeating a fact, one that people like you prefer to ignore so that you can keep on pulling imaginary X17 rabbits out of your store of “… X^500 or more useless conjectures floating about in the hivemind of the mathematicism community.”
That repeated fact about DM is the the point you don’t want to address - because you can’t. Facts are facts. DM is not there and you have no real answer for that except to act as if such facts don’t matter. Then you trot out this tired old, let’s change the subject dodge:
I said nothing in this thread about neutrinos. Non sequiturs don’t make for good arguments - if that’s all you’ve got it would be better to say nothing.
@HanDeBruijn
Took you a long time to figure that out? Seemed obvious to me in high school, somewhere between plain and analytical geometry. Did you ever get around to figuring out that physical reality only approximates mathematical idealizations?
Equality in mathematical analysis is not a problem for me. I am well aware that there are numerous ways to slice and dice things analytically in mathspace. You were just using that capability to do some performative math that was irrelevant to the point I was making about physics.
Then there is this unethical, deliberately disingenuous misrepresentation of my clearly stated views, where you excise the final phrase of the sentence you quote. Here is your edited version and the full quote from the website with the excised portion in bold:
Han’s edited sentence:
The complete sentence:
The first time you did this I attributed it to your being a slovenly reader who made an honest mistake. That is not the case this time since I previously pointed out to you what I took to be a simple oversight. Now it is clear that you are willing to engage in unethical and dishonest behavior - but for what purpose? So you can pretend to correct an error I did not make? All in all @HanDeBruijn this shabby business doesn’t say much about your character.
Budrap it’s quite simple yet you don’t seem to understand your internal contradiction, besides the fact there is observational evidence for DM in e.g. the galactic center gamma ray excess, You accept the evidence for neutrinos yet is in reality denial over the X17 particle despite both using exactly the same method of proving their existence.
I’m with @budrap00 on the non-existence of DM. It seems to be a thing scientists do, and which all of us are guilty of in some way or another.
My example being fractionally charged quarks, where the original authors of the concept - Gell-Man and Zweig - had even clearly stated it to be an ABSTRACT solution. But what do we do? We go look for it, and worse, we find it! Ughh. Imagine their surprise when someone came along one day and said: ‘Hey Gell-Man and Zweig, we found evidence of quarks … sigma 5!!!’ I can imagine their expressions … smiling but not smiling
DM is similar. A stopgap for something yet to be found. Yes, there is evidence of something amiss, but nobody said it had to be physical. DM could e.g. be a variable factor for ‘G’, or an unknown curvature of space, or some other new science. But no, we go look for the physical until we find it, and if it’s not physical, then we kick it until it confesses that it’s physical.
I’m with @budrap00 on the non-existence of DM, too.
I’m also not wanting dark matter, though @LifeIsStrange is correct that for many observations it is the most parsimonious explanation ( @LifeIsStrange , I want you to get the spelling of parsimonious right, since it is your favourite word! )
@budrap00 I’m of the view that all the ACG members are honourable gentlemen (and ladies, if there are any). We are all just incredibly stubborn in backing our own theories and not anyone else’s!
@ExpEarth thanks for the typo :) I used c because I am french 🥖
As I already said, independently of the diverse empirical evidence, it is a striking irony for cosmologists often assuming the universe is eternal and homeostatic to not want the existence of new particles. An eternal universe requires a mechanism that breaks the conservation of energy or that catalyze energy to matter reconversion. A static short lived universe (13 billions years) requires too a mechanism that catalyze the growth of matter over short timescales. The MONDian phenomena does not answer the energy matter conversion need. Also many alternative models of gravity (lesage, quantum, etc), require the existence of the graviton.
@budrap00 . >Did you ever get around to figuring out that physical reality only approximates mathematical idealizations?
Ad nauseam, but you don’t listen: Back to the Roots .
For what purpose? I’m just disregarding an addition that has already become completely uninteresting. This can easily be shown by choosing other units than the “standard” (I hope so) ones, for example: 1 m(eter) = 39.3700787402 inch, 1 year = 31556926 s(econds), 1 ounce = 0.0283495231 kg.
The outcome is that $G = 0.1149846094 \times 10^9$ while your square root formula gives $0.1892032227 \times 10^{-14}$ . In what units is unclear because dimensionality is not obeyed. Anyway The 4/3 Dimensional Ratio is shredded.
Answer the question.
Han, If you need help with your homework, hire a tutor.
As far as your math goes, show your work otherwise don’t waste everybody’s time.
@ExpEarth . >We are all just incredibly stubborn in backing our own theories and not anyone else’s!
The generalization is on your part. Not all of us are acting in this way. An example of the contrary is Looking for feedback on metric for the universe, with time dilation but no expansion .