Sunday, July 12, 2009

Aether based explanation of dark matter

Before month I listed four explanations of dark matter, which are plural from AWT perspective:
  1. consequence of limited light speed spreading through expanding space-time
  2. surface tension effect of bell curve shaped gravity field
  3. application of mass-energy equivalence to Einstein field equation
  4. result of variable surface/volume ratio to energy spreading by principle of least action
But we can use even more illustrative explanation, linked to dispersion of energy by background field of CMB photons formed by gravitational waves (GWs), which manifests like weak deceleration equivalent to product of Hubble constant and speed of light. This dispersion is direct manifestation of hidden dimensions on both large scales, both small scales, because it manifests as a shielding effect of these photons at Casimir force distance scale. We can say, Casimir force is a shielding effect of GWs, whereas the Pioneer anomaly is subtle deceleration effect caused by dispersion by GWs. Both these forces results in violation of Newton law at small scales, which manifests itself by anomalous deceleration at large scales and as such it violates the equivalence principle of general relativity - it's as easy, as it is.

We can even find a direct analogy of this deceleration in our "pocket model" of observable Universe at water surface. From local perspective of every observer, whose size is evolutionary adjusted to wavelength of capillary waves (human distance scale) such surface is covered mostly by transversal waves, where the energy spreads in maximal speed from his insintric perspective, so he can interact with largest space-time possible (the speed of transversal waves is minimal from exsintric perspective, instead).

But the particle character of water environment manifests by dispersion of surface waves by tiny density fluctuations of underwater, which results into gradual change of transversal character of capillary waves into longitudinal one (i.e. into gravity waves). This dispersion decreases the speed of waves from exsintric perspective, which manifests like omni directional Universe expansion from insintric perspective or like subtle deceleration, which effectively freezes the spreading of surface waves, which can be interpreted like spreading of these waves in environment of gradually increasing density. We can observe this effect easily by splash ripples, formed by capillary waves. On the example bellow such waves are formed by bursting of bubbles at water surface, which can be interpreted like radiative decay of unstable particle in vacuum into gamma photons. By this interpretation dark matter effects, like Pioneer anomaly are related closely to the Universe expansion: for example the anomalous deceleration of Pioneer spacecraft (0.87 ± 0.13 nm/s2) is equal to product of Hubble constant and speed of light (a = Hc), which agrees well (±10% error) with value observed.

From this perspective every object is surrounded by virtual massive field which originates from massive field of virtual photons, i.e. the field of density fluctuations, which are manifesting in GWs formed by gravitons expanded by inflation and which is forming vacuum foam - and in this context it's quite natural and easily predictable effect following from AWT directly. Just the immense density of vacuum and common disbelief in Aether concept has caused, the effect of background field dispersion wasn't linked to dark matter observations and Pioneer anomaly before many years. Here's still plenty of room "at the bottom" of basic human understanding. Note that in this context the further search for GWs has no meaning, because we have observed them already like background noise of GWs detectors and their scope is limited by Casimir force scope in the same way, like scope of extradimensions and Lorentz symmetry violation at low scale.

As J.C. Cranwell (archive) pointed out, prof. Stephen Hawking has blundered by his own image... This picture comes from his book "A briefer history of time" at page 29 and it illustrates the energy wave spreading in particle environment. It's easy to see the waves getting further apart from each other as time increase, while Hawking is still claiming, the Lorentz invariance is "difficult to reconcile" with Newton theory. Of course it is, because it leads not only into Lorentz invariance, but into dark matter and expanding universe observations. This example just illustrates, how everyone sees, what he wants to see and Hawking the physmatic sees waves of constant wavelength in picture, which illustrates exactly the opposite.

Albert Einstein "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."


Zephir said...

What I found on the web just by now...

Gravitons as a spacetime fabric, string theory is just a failed aether theory, Lubos Motl and Peter Woit...

Ciudadano Kane said...

Better prove that I'm wrong:

Well, I'm going to use logic, if AWT is correct, then you could solve a very simple physics problem. I'm going to challenge you to solve the following problem using only the AWT postulates, as you say. The solution are a couple of numbers. Neither stories of the strange things, nor paints are permitted. You have to show how you obtain the two numbers using the postulates of AWT, ie, you must use deductive reasoning from the AWT postulates. If you can solve this problem, you win, otherwise you're a quack. Well, The Problem, one, two, three, go out ...

A stone thrown from the floor is given an initial velocity of 20.0 m/s straight upward. Determine the time at which the stone reaches its maximum height and the time at which the stone returns to the point from which it was thrown.

Zephir said...

/*..if AWT is correct, then you could solve a very simple physics problem...*/

For example quantum mechanics doesn't recognize gravitational constant, so your trivial task would be unsolvable with using of quantum mechanics.

Does it mean, quantum mechanics is crackpot theory, if it cannot face such trivial assignation? If not, why just AWT should be?

Zephir said...

Despite of it, AWT is still the only concept, which can explain in independent way, why gravity force is indirectly proportional to square of distance (compare the Duillier - Le Sage theory of gravity).

Ciudadano Kane said...

Another chance,

you should forget QM and solve the problem using deductive reasoning from AWT principles, I only want two numbers and its units of measurement.

Zephir said...

Why I should forget QM? Try to prove first, your assignation is solvable in this mainstream theory.

If it's not, you shouldn't blame AWT from incompetence.

Ciudadano Kane said...

I'm going to solve the proposed problem using QM, with some valid aproximations.

We use the following notation:

V(x) is the potential enegy
|f] is the wave packet for the particle that defines the state of the particle.
X is the position operator.
P is the momentun operator.
V = V(X) is the potential enegy operator.
[X] = [f|X|f] is the expectation vaue for the postion operator X in the state |f]. [X] is the center of the wave packet at the instant t.
[P] = [f|P|f] is the expectation vaue for the momentun operator P in the state |f]

a=a is approximately equal
Int(-Inf,Inf) is the improper integral over the real numbers.

v0 = 20 m/s is the initial velocity
x0 = 0 m is the initial position
g = 9,8 m/s^2 is the acceleration due to gravity at sea level (the only parameter that is need to introduce).

Ciudadano Kane said...

From the Ehrenfest's Theorem, we get:

d [X] /dt = 1/m [P]
d[P]/ dt = - [grad V] = - [dV/dx]


[P] = m d[X]/dt ;
m d^2[X]/dt^2 = - [dV/dx]

I'm going to show that [dV/dx] a=a (dV/dx)(x=[X]), indeed:

[dV/dx] =
Int(-Inf,Inf) f*(x)(dV/dx)f(x)dx a=a
(dV/dx)(x=[X]) Int(-Inf,Inf)f*(x)f(x)dx

This aproximation is valid because the wave packet f(x) are much smaller than the distances over which (dV/dx) varies appreciably. The wave packet f(x) doesn't vanishes in an interval centered in [X]. (dV/dx) doesn't varies appreciably in this interval.


m d^2[X]/dt^2 = - (dV/dx)(x=[X]) namely the Newton's second law.

The potential energy for the stone is V = mg[X] where [X] is the height of the stone.

(dV/dx)(x=[X]) = mg;
d^2[X]/dt^2 = -g;
d[X]/dt = -gt + vo;
[X] = -1/2 g t^2 + v0 t + x0

d[X]/dt = -9,8t + 20
[X] = -1/2 * 9,8 t^2 + 20 t

And now the two numbers:

1) The time at which the stone reaches its maximum is when d[X]/dt = 0

0 = -9,8t +20; t1 = 2,04 s

2) The time at which the stone returns to the point from which it was thrown

0 = -1/2 * 9,8 t^2 + 20 t;
0 = t(20-1/2*9,8t); t2 = 4,08 s.

Zephir, you're a true quack.

Zephir said...

/*...the potential energy for the stone is V = mg[X] ...*/
OK, and from where you get this equation? Isn't it derived from Newton's theory? If yes, why not to use the Newton's theory from its very beginning? Ehrenfest's theorem itself is derived under assumption, Hamiltonian has the same form as in classical physics H = V^2/pm = 1/2m.Sum(i=1)^3 V i^2...

In this way, whole your derivation is just a sort of circular reasoning: you're deriving effect of classical physics by using of theorems, which were derived just by using of classical physics approximation (in fact it's just reversed case of classical derivation of Ehrenfest's theorem as given in various textbooks).

Zephir said...

/*...the wave packet f(x) doesn't vanishes in an interval centered in [X] ...*/
This is just an assumption of yours borrowed from classical physics again - but not from QM. By Schrodinger equation such object would vanish in initial speed, corresponding the speed of light. By quantum mechanics such object wouldn't reach it's maximal height - instead of it would create a stable Rydberg orbital in X/2 height, surrounding the whole Earth.

Zephir said...

When people dating, they refute to know, what they are getting into..

This is what the love is called...

Ciudadano Kane said...

In QM, there is an observable (hermitian operator) called hamiltonian H. In one dimension, the hamiltonian is defined as H = P^2/2m + V(X) where P and X are the momentum operator and the position operator, respectively. We can define V(X) = mg X if we want, not matter if it's functionally equal to the gravitational potential energy in classical physics. But in QM, V(X) is an Hermitian Operator while in CM is a function. The Schrödinger equation is H|vi] = E|vi], where Ei are the eigenvalues and |vi] are the eigenfunctions of the operator H. To obtain Ei and |vi], we must solve a differential equation of type
y'' + Ax y = 0.
The wave packet can be expresed as
|f ]=Sum(i,|vi]). The wave packet represents the state of the particle, in this case the stone. I've considered that stone is punctual, i.e., an elemental particle. In QM, [X] is not the position of the particle (stone), but, we can consider a ball centred at [X], where it's very likely to find the particle. I'd like that you realised that [X] is moved according to the Newton's second law. It can be shown that CM is a limit of the QM.

By the way, in this particular case, we don't need to make the approximation:

... the wave packet f(x) are much smaller than the distances over which (dV/dx) varies appreciably ...

because the equality:

[dV/dx] =
Int(-Inf,Inf) f*(x)(dV/dx)f(x)dx =
(dV/dx)(x=[X]) Int(-Inf,Inf)f*(x)f(x)dx

is exact. It's equal to mg.

Sorry, If I've insulted you, but I was very angry because you criticised to me. I think you should agree that I've solved the problem using QM.

Zephir said...

/*..we can define V(X) = mg X if we want..*/
Sorry - I know, it's quite natural for you to think in such straightforward way and to mix various theories and theorems into single one - but this equality has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, because quantum mechanics doesn't know, what the "g" is. Not saying, the result is unphysical from QM perspective with respect to insintric vanishing of every QM packet, as you mentioned above.

If you get angry so easily, when somebody criticizes you, you should be more careful, when you do the same against someone else. My description of reality cannot dependent on fact, we can derive formal model of it - or not. For example the turbulence, formation of galaxy or density fluctuations inside of gas exists, albeit we still have no formal description of such phenomena. Consecutive logics of formal math is apparently less effective, when parallel systems of many particles are involved.

We can still model these phenomena in computer simulation at particle level by cellular automata models, which doesn't require to introduce any physical model with measured constants into description (lattice-Boltzmann models, for example).

Ciudadano Kane said...

Well Zephir,

You win, I've been unable to resolve the problem using QM. But I'm not physicist, I'm the ignorant one. But the problem can be resolved using QM, and any physicist could have solved this trivial problem. Now, why don't you solve it using AWT?

Zephir said...


I win, because I have/use more general insight into situation. If you derive whatever equation, I can demonstrate rather easily, such description has its own limits.

I've lost, because my general approach doesn't enable me to model particular situations exactly. I can say, we can use Boltzman gas simulation on strong computer at least conceptually, blah, blah...

But I can still cannot demonstrate any exact particular solution in real time without ad-hoced simplifications, which in turn would violate fundamental AWT principles at nonlocal scale.

As you can see, whole AWT is about dualities of reciprocal approaches. The intuitive approach diverges from exact approach and you should always decide, which approach is more usefull for you. Common people would revise the results of formal thinkers in intuitive way, while formal thinkers would rectify their intuitive extrapolations by formal models.

IamCthulhu said...

Right, I'm agreeing with El Cid on this one as he seems to have a much better grasp of physics than you do. He asked you to solve a simple problem and you couldn't, you spluttered and coughed but there was no solid answer therefore leading me to deduce that you haven't the faintest notion what your talking about please feel free to prove me wrong with mathematics preferably.
Besides wasn't an Aether disproved in the early 18th century?

Zephir said...

/* ...he seems to have a much better grasp of physics than you do...*/
This is irrelevant to what I'm writing here. If you can refute a single sentence from my whole blog, you're welcomed to do so.

Concerning the ElCid textbook example, if I would be convinced, free fall can be solved in quantum mechanics, I'd propose some solution already (1,2, 3, 4).

But as far I know, quantum physics does involve neither gravity force, neither gravity constant in its repository, so such attempt is ridiculous at the first sight from my perspective. You can only do it by combining of equations from different theories, Newtonian dynamics in particular.

If you or ElCid didn't realize it, why it should be just my problem in understanding of physics?

Zephir said...

/*...wasn't an Aether disproved in the early 18th century?...*/

Wasn't Aether disproval disproved in early 21 century by me?

IamCthulhu said...

No it wasn't no experimentation, no maths therefore no proof or even for that matter a viable theory

Zephir said...

Fortunately contemporary physics has a number of unexplained experiments already, which can be used as a logical evidence of many new theories, not just AWT.

It means, no new experiments and formal math are necessary for AWT reasoning, predicate logics and existing observations are enough.

Zephir said...


AWT explains dark matter and omnidirectional universe expansion by model of ripple waves dispersion at water surface.

This dispersion decreases the speed of waves from exsintric perspective, which manifests like omni-directional Universe expansion from insintric perspective or like subtle deceleration, which effectively freezes the spreading of light waves, which can be interpreted like spreading of these waves in environment through mass/energy density gradient of vacuum, i.e. like dark matter. Such model leads to testable predictions: for example the deceleration of Pioneer spacecraft is equal to product of Hubble constant and speed of light, which agrees well (+15% error) with value observed.

Zephir said...

In 28 pages review you get a extensive review of the current theory and understanding of rapidly expanding universe via cosmic acceleration (available online for free within the first month of publication).

Zephir said...

Theory of field interactions by T.B.Bon, containing some arithmetic about Doppler effect of "detuned light" spreading through infinite Universe.

Zephir said...

Modified gravity as an alternative to dark matter

TeVeS is one of the best extrapolations of relativity, but it still cannot address well all aspects of dark matter, where its particle character manifests. In AWT dark matter is formed both by space-time deformation, both by particles of matter trapped into it.

Zephir said...

Dark Matter gone missing in many places: a crisis of modern physics?

Zephir said...

The behavior of dark matter can be understood quite well by the parabiosis of scientists and protoscientists (so-called crackpots), which particularly the Web 2.0 technology enabled. The scientists tend to form cohesive group and they tend to repel crackpots from their center. The crackpots are usually individualists and they don't form coalitions - so they're acting in diaspora. They're attracted to scientists and scientific findings though and they tend to surround them. They're particularly sensitive to trends in accidental findings and you can usually find the "dark strings" of crackpots there. In AWT universe the dark matter plays a role of incubator of new galaxies, while the existing clusters of normal matter will gradually dissolve into radiation and neutrinos, which serve as a material for new dark matter clusters. You may observe often, that the elderly scientists often becoming crackpots or they're engaged in suspicious research (like the cold fusion) at least.

You may think, that the dark matter is formed with mutually gravitationally repulsive particles (it has opposite gravitational charge to normal matter), so it tends to fill the cosmic space in uniformly thin manner (it represents the "missing antimatter" of the Universe in this way). The proximity of normal matter (which is gravitationally attractive by itself) leads to the concentration of dark matter at the perimeter of massive objects. When three or more massive objects appear at single line, then the dark matter tends to concentrate along this line too, because its mutual repulsion is shielded with said massive objects along this line and it forms the dark matter fibers. Of course, such a behavior of dark matter has nothing to do with MOND theory and it essentially violates it instead.

Zephir said...

List #1: Gnomes, yousie, elves, veelas, faeries, imps, sprites, unicorns, leprechauns, wights, halflings, merlions, trolls, kelpies, silkies, pixies, gremlins, nymphs, dwarves, kobolds, banshees, paladins, genies, boggarts, timte, goblins, valkyries, dragons, oberons, golems, wraiths, wendigos, buraqs, nagas, undines, cecaelia...
List #2: extra-dimensions, scalar field, quintessence, mirror matter,  quantum gravitation, axions, dilatons, inflatons, heavy and dark photons, leptoquarks, dark atoms, fat strings and gravitons, magnetic monopoles and anapoles, sterile neutrinos,  colorons, fractionally charged particles, chameleon particles, dark fluid and dark baryons, fotinos, gluinos, gauginos, gravitinos and sparticles and WIMPs, SIMPs, MACHOs, RAMBOs, DAEMONs, Randall-Sundrum 5-D phenomena (dark gravitons, K-K gluons a microblack holes.)