Gravity is Dark matter???????????

[Paul M]

I'm reminded of a character that posted very frequently on alt.astronomy ("usenet" for the younger readers!) back in the 90's. Very long, eloquent posts, if a little wordy. Can't remember his name but there was a strong belief that "he" was actually a "Bot". He (it) never engaged debate but seemed to just re arrange the text of his (its) previous post as a reply to all questions. If I remember correctly he had a fixation with planetary motion.

As an aside, I just looked up alt.astronomy to see if it still existed. Unfortunately it's as rancid as the rest of Usenet, or is that "Google Groups" now?

Edit: Remembered his name: "Oriel". 

[mpc755]

44 minutes ago, digital_davem said:

The OU video materials pronounce it "de broil" but who knows.

I'd like confirmation that the following is correct by at least a couple of French people before I start trying to pronounce it that way.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/De_Broglie.ogg

[mpc755]

43 minutes ago, digital_davem said:

A more pertinant question might be:

- according to an estimate by Physics Today, there are approximately 1 million practicising physicists in the world today.  (http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/the-dayside/one-million-physicists-a-dayside-post)

- according to you, 999,999 of that cohort are brainwashed and can't see the truth of the most fundamental theory they have devoted their lives to the search of despite it being right in front of their faces.

- Except you, of course.

Yet, despite having exclusive, sole access to something the entire community would stew their grandmothers to possess, no one, bar 3 members of an obscure part of an amateur star gazers forum, gets to hear this revelation.

What's going on?

 

After 30 years and over a billion dollars spent and zero evidence of a particulate, weakly interacting dark matter physicists continue to insist dark matter consists of WIMPs. After 100 years and a trillion dollars spent will physicists continue to insist dark matter consists of WIMPs? Are physicists just going to continue to look for WIMPs forever?

How is it that the physics community is incapable of understanding after 30 years and over a billion dollars spent and zero evidence of WIMPs that that in and of itself is evidence dark matter is something other than WIMPs?

What's going on?

There is evidence of the strongly interacting dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves.

[acey]

It's always been "de bro-ee" for me, but what do theoretical physicists know about anything?

The OP has sadly never returned since making his/her debut post that started this thread.

[mpc755]

5 minutes ago, acey said:

It's always been "de bro-ee" for me, but what do theoretical physicists know about anything?

The OP has sadly never returned since making his/her debut post that started this thread.

I was thinking the OP might return. The OP is correct, dark matter is gravity. More correctly, the state of displacement of the dark matter is gravity.

[digital_davem]

29 minutes ago, mpc755 said:

After 30 years and over a billion dollars spent and zero evidence of a particulate, weakly interacting dark matter physicists continue to insist dark matter consists of WIMPs. After 100 years and a trillion dollars spent will physicists continue to insist dark matter consists of WIMPs? Are physicists just going to continue to look for WIMPs forever?

How is it that the physics community is incapable of understanding after 30 years and over a billion dollars spent and zero evidence of WIMPs that that in and of itself is evidence dark matter is something other than WIMPs?

What's going on?

There is evidence of the strongly interacting dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves.

There are reasonble theoretical reasons for WIMPs being the correct model but obviously no guarantees. Your implication here is that WIMPs are the only game in town as far as the dark matter community is concerned and that the whole community is doing nothing else but spending money searching for them. Which is clearly ridiculous - many other avenues have been and are continuing to be explored eg  asymmetric dark matter, Axions, dark matter free ideas like MOND, MOG, TeVeS etc.

I can't help but think that whenever I see statements to the effect that "the physicis community is incapable of understanding" this or that, that, it is a red flag to a personal agenda at work.  The physics community is a very large group of individuals, not one entity, it makes no sense to dismiss them as if they were a single obstinate, blinkered conglomerate. If your ideas have merit, they will be being worked on by people, it's as simple as that.

[mpc755]

28 minutes ago, digital_davem said:

If your ideas have merit, they will be being worked on by people, it's as simple as that.

Tell that to de Broglie. What's so difficult about understanding wave particle duality is a moving particle and its associated wave? What's so difficult about understanding the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum

Quote

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics:
It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.

Matter, quantum solids and fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass and so does the strongly interacting dark matter which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

What is it about mainstream physicists which makes you incapable of understanding in a double slit experiment it is the strongly interacting dark matter that waves?

You do want to understand what relates general relativity and quantum mechanics, correct?

What ripples when black holes collide is what waves in a double slit experiment, the strongly interacting dark matter.

Why does it seem impossible for mainstream physicists to understand the obvious? Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave particle duality, both are waves in the strongly interacting dark matter.

The geometrical representation of gravity referred to as curved spacetime physically manifests itself as the state of displacement of the strongly interacting dark matter.

Dark matter displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

I just explained to you what relates general relativity and quantum mechanics. Now the question is, how are you planning to avoid understanding it?

[acey]

36 minutes ago, mpc755 said:

I was thinking the OP might return. The OP is correct, dark matter is gravity. More correctly, the state of displacement of the dark matter is gravity.

I respectfully think you have stated and restated your idea often enough now. Welcome to the forum, by the way.

[mpc755]

2 minutes ago, acey said:

I respectfully think you have stated and restated your idea often enough now. Welcome to the forum, by the way.

The question is, why do I need to restate the obvious? What's so difficult about understanding 'empty' space has mass which is displaced by matter? Thanks, good to be here.

[Ouroboros]

I must say I found the OP's thread title rather intriguing. Is gravity dark matter?   Or turning it around, could dark matter cause mass giving rise to gravity?  I don't quite know where the Higgs boson fits in with the idea, or the concept that mass arises in large particles like the proton because of the binding energies of the composite quarks.   Feel free to rubbish my post, written as I drift off for the night. 

[mpc755]

15 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

I must say I found the OP's thread title rather intriguing. Is gravity dark matter?   Or turning it around, could dark matter cause mass giving rise to gravity? 

Dark matter has mass. The notion of a weakly interacting dark matter that travels with the matter is incorrect. Dark matter fills the space unoccupied by particles of matter and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. Dark matter strongly interacts with matter. Dark matter is displaced by matter.

The dark matter displaced by the Earth pushing back and exerting pressure toward the Earth is gravity.

Quote

I don't quite know where the Higgs boson fits in with the idea, or the concept that mass arises in large particles like the proton because of the binding energies of the composite quarks.   Feel free to rubbish my post, written as I drift off for the night.

Particles of matter are condensations of dark matter. The Higgs is the mechanism by which dark matter condenses into particles of matter.

[digital_davem]

8 hours ago, mpc755 said:

Dark matter has mass. The notion of a weakly interacting dark matter that travels with the matter is incorrect. Dark matter fills the space unoccupied by particles of matter and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. Dark matter strongly interacts with matter. Dark matter is displaced by matter.

The dark matter displaced by the Earth pushing back and exerting pressure toward the Earth is gravity.

Particles of matter are condensations of dark matter. The Higgs is the mechanism by which dark matter condenses into particles of matter.

It would be interesting to hear what Ed Witten or Brian Greene have to say on this subject.

Or, another way of putting thiis is: your postings on this idea are vague and hand-waving. You should re-cast them as a rigourous mathematical framework, demonstrate that they accurately reproduce the known characteristics of the universe to the same or better level pf precision as current theories AND that they then make testable predictions of things that elude current theories. Then get it published in a reputable peer reviewed academic journal. Sharing it here is just pub talk, entertaining at best.  You should also be wary of insulting every professional physicist and insitution as a tactic to get your idea accepted. It won't work, you'll simply get ignored as a crank alongside all the other millions of people who behave similarily. 

 

[mpc755]

42 minutes ago, digital_davem said:

It would be interesting to hear what Ed Witten or Brian Greene have to say on this subject.

Or, another way of putting thiis is: your postings on this idea are vague and hand-waving. You should re-cast them as a rigourous mathematical framework, demonstrate that they accurately reproduce the known characteristics of the universe to the same or better level pf precision as current theories AND that they then make testable predictions of things that elude current theories. Then get it published in a reputable peer reviewed academic journal. Sharing it here is just pub talk, entertaining at best.  You should also be wary of insulting every professional physicist and insitution as a tactic to get your idea accepted. It won't work, you'll simply get ignored as a crank alongside all the other millions of people who behave similarily. 

 

Or, you could correctly understand what relates general relativity and quantum mechanics. 

But then you would have to be capable of understanding 'empty' space has mass which is displaced by matter.

Dark matter displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics whether you choose to understand it, or not.

[acey]

14 hours ago, mpc755 said:

The dark matter displaced by the Earth pushing back and exerting pressure toward the Earth is gravity.

Which is essentially Fatio's theory of 1690 which I referred to many posts ago, and which the long-vanished OP independently came up with, and which Feynman amusingly dismisses in the video I linked to, except you now call the particles "dark matter". I won't be adding anything else.

[mpc755]

9 minutes ago, acey said:

Which is essentially Fatio's theory of 1690 which I referred to many posts ago, and which the long-vanished OP independently came up with, and which Feynman amusingly dismisses in the video I linked to, except you now call the particles "dark matter".

What I am discussing is not Fatio's theory.

Features of Fatio's theory

Quote

"Fatio assumed that the universe is filled with minute particles, which are moving indiscriminately with very high speed and rectilinearly in all directions."

I am describing the following.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'

Quote

"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the strongly interacting dark matter as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that dark matter consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

Quote

I won't be adding anything else.

If you thought what the OP was talking about or what I am talking about had anything to do with Fatio's theory then you haven't added anything to begin with.

Dark matter fills 'empty' space and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. The dark matter is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid.

[acey]

I guess your idea is a bit like William Clifford's "space theory of matter" which he suggested in 1870, and I do recall mention earlier in this thread of De Broglie, presumably the pilot wave theory subsequently taken up by David Bohm. All it needs is some equations and quantitative predictions and it'll be a theory. The idea of invoking dark matter to "explain" gravity is curious since the existence of dark matter is only inferred from its gravitational effect, but never mind. Now I really do have nothing more to add - you've made your point and it's obvious that you're happy with your idea, so I wish you luck in developing it.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Space-Theory_of_Matter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory

[mpc755]

3 hours ago, acey said:

I guess your idea is a bit like William Clifford's "space theory of matter" which he suggested in 1870, and I do recall mention earlier in this thread of De Broglie, presumably the pilot wave theory subsequently taken up by David Bohm. All it needs is some equations and quantitative predictions and it'll be a theory. The idea of invoking dark matter to "explain" gravity is curious since the existence of dark matter is only inferred from its gravitational effect, but never mind. Now I really do have nothing more to add - you've made your point and it's obvious that you're happy with your idea, so I wish you luck in developing it.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Space-Theory_of_Matter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory

I don't know why you insist on equating what the I am proposing with notions that have nothing to do with what I am proposing but if you insist on going back to the 1870's to keep yourself from correctly understanding what occurs physically in nature then that is your choice.

Or, you could understand the geometrical representation of curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the dark matter.

Dark matter is inferred because the stars in the outer arms of galaxies are moving to fast as can be explained by the matter which exists in the galaxy. The dark matter is not a clump of weakly interacting stuff that travels with the matter. The matter moves through and displaces the dark matter. The state of displacement of the dark matter is curved spacetime. The state of displacement of the dark matter is gravity.

De Broglie-Bohm theory is incorrectly named as de Broglie disagreed with it. It should be referred to as Bohmian mechanics.

NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION by LOUIS DE BROGLIE

Quote

During the summer of 1951, there came to my attention, much to my surprise, a paper by David Bohm which appeared subsequently in The Physical Review [3]. In this paper Bohm went back to my theory of the pilot-wave, considering the W wave as a physical reality* He made a certain number of interesting remarks on the subject, and in particular, he indicated the broad outline of a theory of measurement that seemed to answer the objections Pauli had made to my approach in 1927.3 My first reaction on reading Bohm’s work was to reiterate, in a communication to the Comptes rendus de VAcademic des Sciences [4], the objections, insurmountable in my opinion, that seemed to render impossible any attribution of physical reality to the W wave, and consequently, to render impossible the adoption of the pilot-wave theory.

I am discussing de Broglie's DOUBLE SOLUTION theory. In de Broglie's double solution theory there are two waves. There is the wave-function wave which is statistical, non-physical and is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments. There is also a physical wave in a "subquantic medium" which guides the particle. The "subquantic medium" would today be referred to as a strongly interacting dark matter which fills 'empty' space.

[mpc755]

6 minutes ago, mpc755 said:

<snip>

 

[andrew s]

2 hours ago, mpc755 said:

I am discussing de Broglie's DOUBLE SOLUTION theory.

Now this is a good physical theory and continues to get some attention today. I am not aware that it makes any unique predictions beyond standard QED etc. and a number of objections have been raised.  The  "subquantic medium" was introduced first by David Bohm in regard to his pilot wave theory as a source of chaotic motion to put the uncertainty back into the microscopic world which his theory effectively removed. 

I am not aware of any detection of the particles of this  "subquantic medium" nor of any serious proposal that it is equivalent to dark matter in peer reviewed publications.

A 2014 discussion on this theory on Physics Forums echos some of the style of presentation here was that you mcp755?

Regards Andrew 

[acey]

40 minutes ago, andrew s said:

A 2014 discussion on this theory on Physics Forums echos some of the style of presentation here was that you mcp755?

Similar ideas were presented in The Straight Dope forum, which lists a user named mpc755 as having for some reason been banned.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=771840

And in this Physics Forum thread, by a banned user named Mike Templeton:

http://www.thephysicsforum.com/personal-theories-alternative-hypothesis/9032-strongly-interacting-dark-matter-subquantic-medium-de-broglies-double-solution-theory.html

And in Reddit by a banned user named zephir

https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/1yqiu7/i_challenge_zephirmpc755_to_publish_anything/

An on Ars Technica by a user named mpc755, prompting suggestions that this user was the same as a banned one named zephir.

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1267329&start=160

I hope that user mpc755 will have better luck on this forum, perhaps by talking about something else.

 

[acey]

7 minutes ago, acey said:

 

 

[mpc755]

4 minutes ago, acey said:

Similar ideas were presented in The Straight Dope forum, which lists a user named mpc755 as having for some reason been banned.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=771840

And in this Physics Forum thread, by a banned user named Mike Templeton:

http://www.thephysicsforum.com/personal-theories-alternative-hypothesis/9032-strongly-interacting-dark-matter-subquantic-medium-de-broglies-double-solution-theory.html

And in Reddit by a banned user named zephir

https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/1yqiu7/i_challenge_zephirmpc755_to_publish_anything/

An on Ars Technica by a user named mpc755, prompting suggestions that this user was the same as a banned one named zephir.

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1267329&start=160

 

 

I am not zephir.

[mpc755]

55 minutes ago, andrew s said:

Now this is a good physical theory and continues to get some attention today. I am not aware that it makes any unique predictions beyond standard QED etc. and a number of objections have been raised.  The  "subquantic medium" was introduced first by David Bohm in regard to his pilot wave theory as a source of chaotic motion to put the uncertainty back into the microscopic world which his theory effectively removed. 

It's important to note that even though de Broglie agreed with Bohm in terms of the chaotic subquantic medium being responsible for the probabilistic results of experiments he disagreed with Bohmian mechanics. In Bohmian mechanics the pilot-wave is described as existing in configuration space. De Broglie considered configuration space to be fictitious. He thought of it as a mathematical construct only. That's why there are two waves in de Broglie's double solution theory. The mathematical wave-function wave which is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments and the physical wave in the "subquantic medium" which guides the particle.

Quote

I am not aware of any detection of the particles of this  "subquantic medium" nor of any serious proposal that it is equivalent to dark matter in peer reviewed publications.

The notion of a particulate, weakly interacting dark matter is incorrect. The "subquantic medium" is another term for a strongly interacting dark matter which fills 'empty' space.

NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION by LOUIS DE BROGLIE

Quote

“Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of [the wave-function wave], arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space”.”

The “subquantic medium” is the strongly interacting dark matter.

‘Fluid mechanics suggests alternative to quantum orthodoxy’

Quote

“The fluidic pilot-wave system is also chaotic. It’s impossible to measure a bouncing droplet’s position accurately enough to predict its trajectory very far into the future. But in a recent series of papers, Bush, MIT professor of applied mathematics Ruben Rosales, and graduate students Anand Oza and Dan Harris applied their pilot-wave theory to show how chaotic pilot-wave dynamics leads to the quantumlike statistics observed in their experiments.”

A “fluidic pilot-wave system” is the strongly interacting dark matter.

‘When Fluid Dynamics Mimic Quantum Mechanics’

Quote

“If you have a system that is deterministic and is what we call in the business ‘chaotic,’ or sensitive to initial conditions, sensitive to perturbations, then it can behave probabilistically,” Milewski continues. “Experiments like this weren’t available to the giants of quantum mechanics. They also didn’t know anything about chaos. Suppose these guys — who were puzzled by why the world behaves in this strange probabilistic way — actually had access to experiments like this and had the knowledge of chaos, would they have come up with an equivalent, deterministic theory of quantum mechanics, which is not the current one? That’s what I find exciting from the quantum perspective.”

In a double slit experiment it is the strongly interacting dark matter that waves.

In the following article the aether has mass and is what waves in a double slit experiment. An aether with mass is another label for a strongly interacting dark matter which fills 'empty' space.

'From the Newton's laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others'

Quote

The superfluid medium represents a ’fluidic’ nature of space itself. Another name for such an ’ideal fluid’ is the aether. ... This medium, called also the aether, has mass and is populated by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it ...

... and displace it.

[saac]

On 12/03/2016 at 20:58, digital_davem said:

  Physics attracts many people and ideas of similar standing - presumably people drawn by the consideration of the infinite. Or something like that.

Real physics is hard enough without the distraction of well meaning but silly psuedo-science.

 

x2.

 

mpc why don't you get yourself published, you may be on to something?

[mpc755]

12 minutes ago, saac said:

x2.

 

mpc why don't you get yourself published, you may be on to something?

I am on to something. Why is it impossible for physicists to understand 'empty' space has mass which is displaced by matter? Why do physicists insist "real physics is hard" when it's not?

Why can't they understand dark matter is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid which fills 'empty' space and what is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the dark matter?

Why can't they understand that Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality? That both are waves in the strongly interacting dark matter.

Why do physicists require published papers to understand the obvious? Were they able to understand boats move through and displace the water as children or did it take them advanced degrees and published papers to understand?