Posts Tagged ‘Big Bang’

@physorg_com This is my Janet and John idea of dark matter. Please point out errors

March 23, 2017

Maybe Dark Matter doesn’t form atoms.

 The big bang theory says from nothing we got matter and anti-matter but there’s no evidence of large quantities of anti-matter, in the Universe today

OK, so all the anti-matter met matter and was annihilated leaving a bit of this real matter which we see as stars etc.

I don’t like the idea and it takes  some weird maths., which I can’t follow, to support it.

My Maths just isn’t good enough to get it, so I can’t contradict it, nor can I accept it.

Much later Cosmologists decided that they needed dark matter because?


I’ve copied out these:

 Phenomenon #1

When the universe was created in a Big Bang, matter was released into it and sound waves propagated through it as ripples. The early universe was very, very hot, and electrons hadn’t yet condensed and become bound with the matter. They freely scattered radiation, whose intensity was also affected by the sound waves around it.

 About 380,000 years after the Bang, the universe cooled and electrons became bound to matter. After this event, some radiation pervading throughout the universe was left behind like residue, observable to this day. When scientists used their knowledge of these events and their properties to work backwards to the time of the Bang, they found that the amount of matter that should’ve carried all that sound didn’t match up with what we could account for today.

 They attributed the rest to what they called dark matter.

 Phenomenon #2

 Another way this mass deficiency manifests is in the observation of gravitational lensing. When light from a distant object passes near a massive object, such as a galaxy or a cluster of galaxies, their gravitational pull bends the light around them. When this bent beam reaches an observer on Earth, the image it carries will appear larger because it will have undergone angular magnification. If these clusters didn’t contain dark matter, physicists would observer much weaker lensing than they actually do.

 Phenomenon #3

 That’s not all. The stars in a galaxy rotate around the galactic centre, where most of its mass is located. According to theory, the velocity of the stars in a galaxy should drop off the farther they get from the centre. However, observations have revealed that, instead of dropping off, the velocity is actually almost constant even as one gets farther from the centre. This leaves the outermost stars rotating about the galactic centre at velocities that should ‘fling’ them away from the galaxy. Evidently that isn’t the case. So, something is also pulling the outermost stars inward, holding them together and keeping them from flying outward and away. The incredible prowess of this inward force astrophysicists think could be due to the gravitational force of dark matter.

There’s no mention of dark matter in my simple version of the Big bang theory but why is it needed? Anti-matter would answer those three phenomena.

It doesn’t need to have mutually annihilated with matter, which it repels according to the inverse square law.

The only anti-matter, of which we are aware, exists as individual particles,  which we detect from high speed impacts with ordinary matter particles (high speed to overcome the repulsion).

We only detect them from the gamma photons created by their annihilation.

We see matter because it forms atoms, where electrons moving between different excitation levels absorb and emit visible light.

Suppose anti-matter doesn’t form atoms. (why should it?)

It would be dark matter. Individual particles would want to clump but wouldn’t have a mechanism to coalesce into stable forms.

Such clumps would be dispersed on the approach of condensed matter.(Like waving your hand through a swarm of midges.)

The idea seems coherent to me. I don’t know why dark matter theorists require 5x more matter than dark matter but maybe they assume it would be as clumpy as real matter, whereas, if it’s easily dispersed by matter, then it would more likely appear, as stable clumps, in the voids in Space.

The only way that we might get evidence might be by firing a Maser into such a void and hoping to see a few gamma photons.

 What about dark energy?

Well apparently that’s needed, because the expansion of the Universe is accelerating.


It isn’t matter pushing itself apart but Space expanding, as though matter is simply flotsam

Now it gets iffy, for me.

What is Space and how does energy come into it?

Energy is just work done by forces acting on matter, so are we to understand that Space is providing

the force, doing the work, creating the energy. Before we can posit Dark energy providing the acceleration of this expansion, I need to get my head around how and why Space is providing this energy. What is Space?

What I’ve read seems to contradict the concept of matter riding like flotsam on a sea of expanding Space.

The concept that appears to be used in the Janet and John versions, which I’ve read, is one of matter pushing itself apart and taking Space with it.

Then again,  matter doesn’t push.  At least it doesn’t push matter but it does push anti-matter and anti-matter pushes back at it.

  1. so my version of dark matter provides a push but as the Universe expands and this lot moves apart, the push decreases (inverse square law, again), so the expansion should be decelerating. Somehow the force should be increasing to give an accelerating expansion and this is where my brain gets tied in a knot, because the next bit sounds like sophistry, to me.

The accelerating expansion is being seen at the edge of the observable Universe, which is really what the Universe was like eons back in time, nearer to the Big Bang, when there would have been more matter and anti-matter, which had not yet been annihilated. The force would have been bigger so the rate of expansion would have been greater.

Does my head in but that seems sort of logical. As more chance annihilations take place, the rate of expansion of my immediate Universe will decrease, meaning that the edge of the Universe, will, by comparison, appear to be accelerating.

I know that the experts are much better Mathematicians than me, so where am I going wrong?


As it was,is, and shall always be

October 25, 2011

The Opera study neutrino’s have caused a buzz. They appear to have travelled faster than light and that’s after some of the best brains have investigated various alternatives. I’m sure it will have been considered and rejected but I’m still going for gravitational time dilation.

There was a similar conundrum caused by mesons, created in the upper atmosphere living long enough to reach The Earth’s surface. That was explained by Special Relativity and i’m sure this will be.

My big problem, in the coverage of this topic, is getting my head around what imaginary mass might be.

I like time dilation. I think it explains why the Big Bang wasn’t really a Big Bang but just one point in the infinite lifetime of The Universe. As it was,is and shall always be. Sod Dark matter: It also explains why expansion of Universe is speeding up.

Time to re-think the Big Bang Theory. Why require a singularity?

October 6, 2011

Tonight’s Horizon program gave potted version of Cosmology leading up to the newest clever idea of black flow. When it got to the point of invoking aspects of the Multiverse Theory, I switched off.

The Multiverse and its attendant infinite numbers of realities just seems so circular in its logic. When a theory rebuts all argument by invoking the infinity, you might as well go to Creationism and invoke God.

I haven’t studied cosmological theories in any depth and I’ve no concept of the meaning of the Math, used, but the idiot’s version (i.e. the version meant for me) was full of holes.

I’m OK with the idea of tracking back in time, with the Universe contracting ever smaller but why does it have stop contracting at a singularity?

The notion of a singularity creates, for Cosmologists the first big problem. For some unexplained reason, it is considered impossible for the observed Universe to be so uniform, if it expanded from a singularity.  (The phrase Big Bang gives a misleading view of what happened, relying, as it does,  on our  observations of how fireworks detonate).

To explain this uniformity, the theory of inflation is invoked. I’d liked to have seen how the supporting observations would have been different if we hadn’t invoked a stutter in the universe’s expansion.

Next, we were told that,  alas!, Galaxies didn’t behave properly. A comparison was drawn with the Solar System, where the further out the planet, the greater its linear velocity. Apparently the outer stars should be moving at speeds that would cause them to disintegrate. Why? Not why would they disintegrate but why they have to travel at high speeds.

A bad analogy would be that the Solar System is like 33 rpm LP with the planets as heavy weights on it. Here friction is sufficient to prevent them flying off.

The Galaxy would be a 78 rpm shellac single loaded with sand sized marbles. I.e. a radial restraining force but minimal circumferential forces.

Why do we have to invoke Dark Matter? Not on!  That’s matter that doesn’t really exist but we have to pretend it exists to accept the Solar System model.

Can’t even give a valid suggestion for what the dark matter could actually be made of, so invent Super-Symmetry and 16 new particles that are still just as imaginary.

The moral should be “when you’re in a hole, stop digging”.

Unfortunately! They keep digging and they notice that despite all this alleged Dark Matter the expansion of the Universe is not slowing down. Worse it’s actually accelerating. If matter increases speed then it has more Kinetic Energy and where’s this coming from. We don’t know and can’t explain the source of this energy. Hey! Let’s call it Dark Energy. The Philosophy of the Age seems to be put a label on it and you’ve answered the question.  This is no better than the Fiat Lux answer.

Now someone has suggested that the reason, why we can’t see where this dark energy has come from, is because it is being created by the action of forces from outside the Universe.

The Multiverse has been invoked.

This is not Science, it is Religion.

Let’s go back and stomp on the singularity idea. If we can accept infinities, then why not infinitesmals? Why can’t the Universe have always existed?

If it has always existed then we don’t need inflation.

We can’t solve the three body problem, so why insist that objects on the outer edges of the Galaxy are disobeying the Laws of Physics. Check the mathematical models and maybe get rid of the need for Dark Matter and Super-Symmetry.

If this is done we don’t need to invoke Black Energy or Black Flow and The Multiverse.

The accelerating expansion of the Universe is just an observation, which can be accepted as part of the original “Big Bang”. We don’t really know what Energy is, so what’s the problem with it increasing? For most of us it’s simply an aspect of the application of Forces and all our physics concepts are merely models that we use to explain cause and effect within this minute section of the Universe’s life.

We date the Universe as 14 billion years from the Big Bang but that is based on a  supposition. Actually on two suppositions:  Firstly, that there was a Big Bang and, secondly, that a year has always been a year long. It’d be like an inverse of Zeno’s paradox where the time intervals are getting longer but distance intervals remain constant.

If The Universe has always existed then time itself could be speeding up

My Math isn’t good enough to follow this through but if time units are getting shorter then, that, would affect how we perceive velocity, acceleration, Force and Energy.

 It could, perhaps, explain why the Universe’s expansion seems to be accelerating.

Ok!  this is the idiot’s version but I find it more believable than the Dark matter, dark energy, dark flow theories, which basically boil down to “we haven’t got a clue!”