Take the MBR wavelength as the diameter of a sphere. Use Planck’s constant to calculate Planck mass. Divide the MBR sphere volume into the volume between galaxies and then multiply that by the Planck mass. Is there really any mass missing?
I strongly doubt any of the mass is missing. The universe would likely have been gone long ago if it were. Nature seems to always balance itself out nicely, and contain just exactly how much of everything it needs (in the long term - short term aberrations such as Homo Sapiens excluded, of course).
So why can't we see or detect it is the proper question to ask. A few possibilities to consider, keeping in mind that energy and mass are equivalent (let's start at 96%):
1) the universe likely contains 9 or 11 dimensions. We see 3 (I'm ignoring time for now). Mass/Energy(M/E) has been shown to be spread quite equally throughout the universe. So let's average the 9/11 dimensions to 10. We see only 3/10's of the universe 96/10*3=28.8. So we're already down to ~29%.
2) we don't see any of the anti-matter, and quantum physics demands it's there [I think since all real structures existing outside pure math have both an inside and outside, we likely only see one or the other). 28.8/2=14.4%. Dropping like a rock.
3) how about all that electromagnetic energy radiating around all over the place? You may think of photons not having mass, but mass and energy are equivalent, therefore, some conversion factor must exist, however small. By the way, you can't just count that emitted by those radiating bodies we see today. All bodies that ever existed & radiated,or supernovaed, & oh, those quasars, in the last 14B or so years must be included, Convervation of Energy (CoE) demands it. Let's maybe take 1.4% [real math-brainiac help requested here]. We're down to 13%
4) How about black holes? Just how much stuff have all the black holes that ever existed in the last 14B years sucked up? CoE says we have to count it. Maybe another 1%? We're at 12%
5) Don't forget all those mundane & exotic particles zipping around. Free electrons, protons, nuetrinos, zinos, winos, tilyapuketrinos - at least 90% of that won't even be detectable in the rotation of galaxies or anything else we can reasonably observe currently. Let's be generous at 2%. We're down to T-minus-10 and counting.
6)
5) how about the fabric of spacetime itself? That virtual sea of strings & quarks & quantum loops, particles popping in and out of existance (the Dirac Sea, I've heard it put). Virtual is a crappy word. It's either there or not. Likely like a glacier, meaning 90% of the universe exists below the 'sea level' that causes a particle to 'pop out' (Anyone got an idea how to quantify this?). That takes the Tminus10 to a big fat 1%.
Anyone know where that silly little 1% is (3mm - old TV ad).
Speculative stuff, I admit, but I love to speculate, & see where the holes arise.
Take the MBR wavelength as the diameter of a sphere. Use Planck’s constant to calculate Planck mass. Divide the MBR sphere volume into the volume between galaxies and then multiply that by the Planck mass. Is there really any mass missing?
I strongly doubt any of the mass is missing. The universe would likely have been gone long ago if it were. Nature seems to always balance itself out nicely, and contain just exactly how much of everything it needs (in the long term - short term aberrations such as Homo Sapiens excluded, of course).
So why can't we see or detect it is the proper question to ask. A few possibilities to consider, keeping in mind that energy and mass are equivalent (let's start at 96%):
1) the universe likely contains 9 or 11 dimensions. We see 3 (I'm ignoring time for now). Mass/Energy(M/E) has been shown to be spread quite equally throughout the universe. So let's average the 9/11 dimensions to 10. We see only 3/10's of the universe 96/10*3=28.8. So we're already down to ~29%.
2) we don't see any of the anti-matter, and quantum physics demands it's there [I think since all real structures existing outside pure math have both an inside and outside, we likely only see one or the other). 28.8/2=14.4%. Dropping like a rock.
3) how about all that electromagnetic energy radiating around all over the place? You may think of photons not having mass, but mass and energy are equivalent, therefore, some conversion factor must exist, however small. By the way, you can't just count that emitted by those radiating bodies we see today. All bodies that ever existed & radiated,or supernovaed, & oh, those quasars, in the last 14B or so years must be included, Convervation of Energy (CoE) demands it. Let's maybe take 1.4% [real math-brainiac help requested here]. We're down to 13%
4) How about black holes? Just how much stuff have all the black holes that ever existed in the last 14B years sucked up? CoE says we have to count it. Maybe another 1%? We're at 12%
5) Don't forget all those mundane & exotic particles zipping around. Free electrons, protons, nuetrinos, zinos, winos, tilyapuketrinos - at least 90% of that won't even be detectable in the rotation of galaxies or anything else we can reasonably observe currently. Let's be generous at 2%. We're down to T-minus-10 and counting.
6)
5) how about the fabric of spacetime itself? That virtual sea of strings & quarks & quantum loops, particles popping in and out of existance (the Dirac Sea, I've heard it put). Virtual is a crappy word. It's either there or not. Likely like a glacier, meaning 90% of the universe exists below the 'sea level' that causes a particle to 'pop out' (Anyone got an idea how to quantify this?). That takes the Tminus10 to a big fat 1%.
Anyone know where that silly little 1% is (3mm - old TV ad).
Speculative stuff, I admit, but I love to speculate, & see where the holes arise.
Jeff.
- Is is unorthodox to be unorthodox? If not, what is it? - me.
- He who flames first risks being burnt - (me, circa. 1987).
Hope to be forgiven since I was such in a rush in my calculations in order to stay within the time limit of this computer at the public library.
Hi Antonio, That is exactly how I use to do it too. Way to go, to hear the humbleness of it all made me really happy. I bought a lap top only 6 months ago or so, and what a great investment it has become. Perhaps there is a way we can help you get one too as Michael suggests. Or perhaps like life itself, it simply hasn't come your way yet. Keep up the good research, You know it was Benjamin Franklyn's invention, the public library don't you? Read his auto biography, one of my most favorites!
I am not a professional physicist or a mathematician. So I have the following query. As they say, the farther we look , farther in the past we are looking. So how do we know the current reality? Is the process of cognizance, important in all our hypothizing?
I am not a professional physicist or a mathematician. So I have the following query. As they say, the farther we look , farther in the past we are looking. So how do we know the current reality? Is the process of cognizance, important in all our hypothizing?
Hi PhD,
Is now important? Absolutely, but I think it is also wise to know the past. I also believe what has been comes again; do you? Full circle?
Thanks for the response but honestly I failed to connect with my query. If we say that a galaxy or a star, miliions of light years away is behaving in a particular manner, that must have been millions of years back. So what would be the state of affairs now ? How do our theories about the universe deal with this? This is a layman's question.
Thanks for the response but honestly I failed to connect with my query. If we say that a galaxy or a star, miliions of light years away is behaving in a particular manner, that must have been millions of years back. So what would be the state of affairs now ? How do our theories about the universe deal with this? This is a layman's question.
Pramod
Hi PhD,
Theoretically I could say anything, but truthfully I really don't know.
Thanks for the response but honestly I failed to connect with my query. If we say that a galaxy or a star, miliions of light years away is behaving in a particular manner, that must have been millions of years back. So what would be the state of affairs now ? How do our theories about the universe deal with this? This is a layman's question.
Pramod
The truth is, we don't know. If we view a star that is a million light years away, then we can say what the star looked like a million light years ago (well, a bit more than a million light years ago, due to expansion), but we don't know what it looks like right now!
Antonio, would you please take a look at the math in this paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...711.0770v1.pdf and see if you agree? Not all the answers are given, but I think he's on the right track. Let me know what you think?
Regards,
Lloyd
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
96% of the mass of the universe cannot be accounted for. This discrepancy was discovered about 70 years ago by careful observations done by Fritz Zwicky (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Zwicky), a Swiss astrophysicist at Caltech. He theorized that although the universe is expanding uniformly, there are still local inhomogeneous random movements embedded within the universal uniformity. For example, the Local Group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group which includes our galaxy, the Milky Way, and the Andromeda galaxy are approaching each other at a speed of 130 kilometers per second. However, redshift measurements seem to indicate that most galaxies are moving too fast over the speeds allow by law of gravity if only the visible mass were inserted into the equations. This is also true for the motions of stars within a galaxy. So, why do the galaxies remain stable? There must be invisible stuff that holds them together.
On the other hand, Einstein’s theory of general relativity asserts the existence of two distinct masses separately defined by different equations. These are the inertial mass and the gravitational mass. Taking Mach’s principle in consideration, these masses are equivalent for any two-body system such that a local acceleration of gravity (g) exists and g=F/m, where m is the inertial mass and F is the inertial force. However, by the principle of equivalence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principleg=GM/r, where M is the gravitational mass, G is the universal constant of gravitation, and r is the absolute distance. Therefore, the masses can be expressed as functions of the other parameters: M=gr/G and m=F/g. From these, it is clear that if the local acceleration of gravity is zero, g=0, then M=0 but m becomes infinity or undefined even if F is constant or zero. If g is nonzero, M increases without bound with square of distance, while m remains practically a constant and m=0 if and only if F=0.
In conclusion, these demonstrated that gravitational mass as a continuous field is directly proportional to the square of distance while inertial mass as a quantum of particle remains unchanged. Since fields are difficult to detect unless they interact, for example: the Higgs field, gravitational mass are then the missing mass of the universe.
"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel "Time and space are modes in which we think and not conditions in which we live." Albert Einstein "The uncertainty principle is an absolute, finite, universal constant." L.G. "The tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom is a sliding-time-scaler constant of all finite universal motion." L.G.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lloyd Gillespie For This Useful Post:
Antonio, would you please take a look at the math in this paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...711.0770v1.pdf and see if you agree? Not all the answers are given, but I think he's on the right track. Let me know what you think?
Regards,
Lloyd
I like this approach. I've not read it well enough to even understand half of it, but it's definitely a possible third horse in the race. Plus, he was invited to Perimeter to work on this, so there's got to be something in it!
Linear Mode
