| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics - Research Forum » Sick and Tired of Inconsistencies...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| ... |
 Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 6:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Is MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) beaten to death yet? This theory
is tried to explained dark matter without resolving to any new theory
or new physics. It basically tries to apply two different standard at
different scale of physics. If people cannot propose any consistent
deep thought and elegant mathematical equations, please drop their
papers. Don't create papers for sake of creating papers!!! String
theorists has done a much better mathematical job than this kind of
physics, at least they have created a branch of new math.
Lately, I read an article "Dark Energy without Dark Energy". I am not
convinced by the author approach. Again, applying different definition
of word at different stages and different assumptions at different
phenonmena. I really doubt what kind of scientific standard at the
first place?
Does anyone know any model that can be consistently derived from early
stage of Universe to the current phenomenal Universe, without
switching principle, without switching assumptions at different stages
of the evolution of the Universe, and without switching interpretation
of conventional operational terms. It can derive consistently from
quantum gravity to classical gravity descriptions. If no one can do
that then I am not convinced that anyone can claim oneself understand
gravity. Classical gravity is insufficient to explain dark matter and
dark energy. Don't give a cheap explanation; otherwise so-called
physicists just try to humuliate Mother Nature. Mother Nature needs
not our permission to operate consistently.
I can only accept switching assumption at different scale or even
changing physical laws for one set of phenomena if someone can
formulate their "assumptions" in a dynamical way in their model such
that this assumption is no longer implicit in one's model but
explicitly expressed as dynamical constraints, and no switching of
defintions/terms. For example, we can accept Uncertainty Principle but
then accept that Newtonian Mechanics is an approximation to Quantum
Mechanics...etc. Again, an author that is unable to recognize his/her
own theory short-fall is just trying to fool us and Mother Nature. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rock Brentwood... |
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 11:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 10, 11:52 am, charleskm... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: Classical gravity is insufficient to explain dark matter and
dark energy.
We don't know that. We don't even know how much of the divergence,
say, in galactic rotation curves is explained away by GR, in contrast
to Newtonian gravity (which is what's usually used to galactic
motion).
Never mind this, neither dark matter nor dark energy are deviations
from the law of gravity, as far as anyone knows. The best that anyone
knows is that they're deviations from the laws of matter: i.e., from
expectation on what ought to go on the *right* hand side of the field
equations; not the left.
Dark energy, for instance, may *already* be implied by gauge theory --
when coupled to gravity via a (non-trivial) fibre bundle . Number
one, the non-Abelianness of the gauge field already provides a
cosmological term -- one that's proportional to the square of the
coupling coefficients. It's also proportional to the gauge group
metric ... which provides the basis for a ready-made mechanism to
relax the cosmological "constant". The gradients of a variable gauge
group metric also provides other terms which generally fall under the
header of dark energy; yielding the effective equivalent of a scalar
field.
On top of that, we have seen emerge in recent years (months even) what
almost amounts to smoking gun evidence of dark matter -- optical
effects, themselves, seen in the space between galaxies, near
galaxies, for instance.
There are lots of ways to explain these things before jumping hastily
to the conclusion that the law of gravity is somehow at fault; and
it's hasty to say flat-out that there's something wrong with gravity. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ... |
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 1:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 10, 4:13pm, Rock Brentwood <markw... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: On Jun 10, 11:52am, charleskm... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
Classical gravity is insufficient to explain dark matter and
dark energy.
We don't know that. We don't even know how much of the divergence,
say, in galactic rotation curves is explained away by GR, in contrast
to Newtonian gravity (which is what's usually used to galactic
motion).
Never mind this, neither dark matter nor dark energy are deviations
from the law of gravity, as far as anyone knows. The best that anyone
knows is that they're deviations from the laws of matter: i.e., from
expectation on what ought to go on the *right* hand side of the field
equations; not the left.
Dark matter is implied in order to maintain the equality of Einstein
field equations
Geometry = Kappa * Matter Field, one has to impose that the expected
source of gravity=ordinary matter (matter interacts with light) + dark
matter. If you do not impose dark matter then the equation is no
longer balanced.
Quote from Wikipedia:
Data from a number of lines of evidence, including galaxy rotation
curves, gravitational lensing, structure formation, and the fraction
of baryons in clusters and the cluster abundance combined with
independent evidence for the baryon density, indicate that 85-90% of
the mass in the universe does not interact with the electromagnetic
force. This "dark matter" is evident through its gravitational effect.
Several categories of dark matter have been postulated.
Baryonic dark matter - One candidate for missing dark baryonic matter
is Rydberg matter, which has spectroscopic signatures in agreement
with the unidentified infrared bands.[14]
Nonbaryonic dark matter[15] - which is divided into three different
types:
Hot dark matter - nonbaryonic particles that move
ultrarelativistically[16]
Warm dark matter - nonbaryonic particles that move relativistically
Cold dark matter - nonbaryonic particles that move non-
relativistically[17]
End quote.
So there are more deviations than just the curve fitting problem.
Quote:
On top of that, we have seen emerge in recent years (months even) what
almost amounts to smoking gun evidence of dark matter -- optical
effects, themselves, seen in the space between galaxies, near
galaxies, for instance.
Again, don't ignore other evidence and divert attention to just curve
fitting problem.
Quote: There are lots of ways to explain these things before jumping hastily
to the conclusion that the law of gravity is somehow at fault; and
it's hasty to say flat-out that there's something wrong with gravity.
Thomas Kuhn has made an expalantion in his book "The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions" that the defense from the "scientific belt" of
the old paradigm will stay until its break down by mounting evidence.
So you're legitimate to be conservative for now. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Surfer... |
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:52:11 +0000 (UTC), charleskmhui at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote:
Quote: Is MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) beaten to death yet? This theory
is tried to explained dark matter without resolving to any new theory
or new physics. It basically tries to apply two different standard at
different scale of physics. If people cannot propose any consistent
deep thought and elegant mathematical equations, please drop their
papers. Don't create papers for sake of creating papers!!! String
theorists has done a much better mathematical job than this kind of
physics, at least they have created a branch of new math.
Lately, I read an article "Dark Energy without Dark Energy". I am not
convinced by the author approach. Again, applying different definition
of word at different stages and different assumptions at different
phenonmena. I really doubt what kind of scientific standard at the
first place?
Does anyone know any model that can be consistently derived from early
stage of Universe to the current phenomenal Universe, without
switching principle, without switching assumptions at different stages
of the evolution of the Universe, and without switching interpretation
of conventional operational terms. It can derive consistently from
quantum gravity to classical gravity descriptions.
A Quantum Cosmology: No Dark Matter, Dark Energy nor Accelerating
Universe
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/QC.pdf |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:10 pm
|
|