Entropy of Galaxy may eliminate requirement for Dark Matter

Thread Starter

crutschow

Joined Mar 14, 2008
24,109
Two scientists have developed a theory (here) using entropy and holographic principles that seems to account for the fast rotation of the outer stars in our galaxy without requiring the addition of dark matter.
So perhaps that's why no one has been able to find it. ;)
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
6,720
Two scientists have developed a theory (here) using entropy and holographic principles that seems to account for the fast rotation of the outer stars in our galaxy without requiring the addition of dark matter.
So perhaps that's why no one has been able to find it. ;)
Fatal Flaw of this theory, it sounds far too sensible to be true. ;)
 

killivolt

Joined Jan 10, 2010
742
Fatal Flaw of this theory, it sounds far too sensible to be true. ;)
I tried to model this in my mind and apply it to earth and gravity, so entropy follows a thermodynamic law the heat moves to cold not the other way round, as well as electrodynamics, if I'm colder than the center of the earth stage 1 + stage two, I'm electrostatic or magnetically clinging to the the earth, then Gravity doesn't exist at all, it's all natural forces at work, nothing to wonder at that point. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

kv
 

killivolt

Joined Jan 10, 2010
742
How do you explain the gravity of cold objects, such as asteroids?
And, of course, gravity has been accurately measured in the laboratory between two small masses at room temperature.
Thats the part I'm trying to understand from this model?

If gravity exists then the nature of a black hole is more plausible in my mind. I get the thermal weak center with a hotter outer as you go outward into the Universe, with the event horizon devoid of mass yet holding on to other masses like spokes to the hub of a bike, less spin at the center while the outer rim spins at it's highest rate than the center, but the centrifugal force maintains outward spin direction. flatting the whole system, yet shape is bound in a circular system.

Relevant to a super massive black hole with Gravitational mass.

kv
 

Thread Starter

crutschow

Joined Mar 14, 2008
24,109
The article did not imply that gravity doesn't exist, only that the entropy of the galaxy adds the extra attractive force need to account for the observed galaxy rotation rates, thus not requiring any "dark matter" for that.
 

killivolt

Joined Jan 10, 2010
742
The article did not imply that gravity doesn't exist, only that the entropy of the galaxy adds the extra attractive force need to account for the observed galaxy rotation rates, thus not requiring any "dark matter" for that.
Ok, but I find it difficult to conclude this model without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, to me you can't include the existence of Gravity but hold strictly to Electrodynamics and Thermodynamics.

Such as: In an Ionic solution colloidal state thus equal throught the solution remains clear, if you have electro-weak forces within the solution with higher electro-strong then the solution will yellow there is no Gravitational pull rather electromagnetic attraction, yet even more to be true, that if the solution contains particles of equal size atomic and we apply a negative and positive voltage we will suspend the solution with equal sizes charges but we would need to oscillate differential voltages meaning at a high rate back and forth pole to pole will suspend the particles equally charged state giving the solution a clear colloidal state.

If not only positive charge on one side and negative on the other will create metallic particles of un-equal size suspended in this system, thus some higher ionic and weaker being pulled toward the larger particle with the higher state of charge, no gravity still just and electromagnetic attraction at work.

Again such is true with the Laws of Thermodynamics. So, again I ask is Gravity simply an illusion of natural laws at work?


kv
 
Last edited:

Thread Starter

crutschow

Joined Mar 14, 2008
24,109
I ask is Gravity simply an illusion of natural laws at work?
Don't believe so.
I think gravity is separate from all other natural forces or functions.
Note that we now have detectors so sensitive they can detect gravity waves from events such as black hole and neutron start mergers from umpteen light-years away.
What other "natural force" could produce that?
 

ci139

Joined Jul 11, 2016
1,088
the src. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-46765-w
? ... "that we place in a Minkowski space-time, described by basis vectors (γμ, μ ∈ {0, 1, 2, 3}) which obey a Clifford algebra that formally distinguishes the special behaviour of the time axis γ0, being characterized by a real time axis and imaginary space axes (see Penrose, ch.1815; we follow Penrose’s choice of metric)." ... ? -- ci139.remark : here should be 3 times not 1 (the data is from esoteric src.) . . . the dimensions come from spinning/(rotation) (← (def.-)base -""time""/-system (where it "folds out") is unknown) , the spinning/(rotation(of the 4 -- each of trying to reach it's predecessor -- might be some forces in this word)) also creates the "time" . . . the "least" is "interrelational product of otherwise ""undefined""(((static))) system " -- but their mathematics still may work despite that
. . .
. . . "The present treatment should also be regarded as a static approximation neglecting the dynamic mechanisms of galactic formation and evolution." . . .
. . . "and RG. Eq. 25 for the logarithmic spiral is exactly equivalent to Eq. 16 for the double-helix." . . .
 
Last edited:

killivolt

Joined Jan 10, 2010
742
Don't believe so.
I think gravity is separate from all other natural forces or functions.
Note that we now have detectors so sensitive they can detect gravity waves from events such as black hole and neutron start mergers from umpteen light-years away.
What other "natural force" could produce that?
Right. I agree. Their conclusions seem sensible, I don't like how they say it.

E = mc2 all day every day, right? But, without Gravity it make no sense to me at all.

Gravity as a Force makes the stabilizer more sense than anything else, then comes my other question not so much about Gravity, But the"Absence" or the lack of Matter in the ever expanding Universe into the void, is it being pulled outward into the void?

Maybe, the first part, is a body in motion outward in this instance stays in motion in a vacuum, the Centrifugal Force.

Second, hotter objects in the outer ring of the Universe are drawn to the coldness of the void the motion still outward while stabilized by the inner cooler center.

Third, the Universe is elastically held together by Gravitational & Thermal Forces throughout the system, stabilizer, my hub, spokes, rim analogy.

This concludes with Electromagnetic waves at a higher energy state being pulled & pushed outward to a low energy void.

Electromagnetic, Thermodynamic, Gravitational.
 

joeyd999

Joined Jun 6, 2011
4,291
My opinion:

Gravity is the debit account against which all matter and energy in the universe is balanced.

And like any good chart of accounts, the sum over all accounts is zero.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
6,720
Or a random, transient event. Kinda like a virtual particle popping into and out of existence in a vacuum -- just on a much longer time scale (relatively speaking, of course).
Virtual particles never physically exist even for the shortest period of time as they are a mathematical construct that simplifies calculations of 'real' quantum objects.
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/
The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
6,720
Yet Hawking has theorized that conditions exist at an event horizon to convert virtual particles into real particles.
That's not really what the theory says if you mean convert something that wasn't there before into a physical particle. It describes a process where pre-existing energy and matter interact at a event horizon with quantum mechanical uncertainty. The virtual particle disturbances are the process.
 

killivolt

Joined Jan 10, 2010
742
Yet Hawking has theorized that conditions exist at an event horizon to convert virtual particles into real particles.
https://www.space.com/43151-how-particles-escape-black-holes.html

The gravitational pull of a black hole is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape once it gets too close. However, there is one way to escape a black hole — but only if you're a subatomic particle.

As black holes gobble up the matter in their surroundings, they also spit out powerful jets of hot plasma containing electrons and positrons, the antimatterequivalent of electrons. Just before those lucky incoming particles reach the event horizon, or the point of no return, they begin to accelerate. Moving at close to the speed of light, these particles ricochet off the event horizon and get hurled outward along the black hole's axis of rotation.
"The simulations, for the first time, unite a theory that explains how electric currents around a black hole twist magnetic fields into forming jets, with a separate theory explaining how particles crossing through a black hole's point of no return — the event horizon — can appear to a distant observer to carry in negative energy and lower the black hole's overall rotational energy," LBNL officials said. "It's like eating a snack that causes you to lose calories rather than gaining them. The black hole actually loses mass as a result of slurping in these 'negative-energy' particles."
kv
 

ci139

Joined Jul 11, 2016
1,088
↑↑ it just reminded they had a news lately Quark Matter May Not Be Strange • Bob Holdom, Jing Ren, and Chen Zhang • Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 222001 – Published 31 May 2018 > Article Text > Discussion > "Neutron stars could possibly convert to ud quark stars. Due to the potential barrier generated by the surface effects, the limiting process for the conversion of a neutron star is the nucleation of a bubble of quark matter initially having the same local flavor composition as the neutron star, via a quantum or thermal tunneling process [35]."
 
Last edited:

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
6,720
https://www.space.com/hubble-constant-discrepancy-explained.html
If the Cepheids teams are wrong, that means astronomers have been measuring distances in the universe incorrectly this whole time, Madore said. But if Planck is wrong, then it's possible that new and exotic physics would have to be introduced into cosmologists' models of the universe, he added. These models include different dials, such as the number of types of subatomic particles known as neutrinos in existence, and they are used to interpret the satellite's data of the cosmic microwave background. To reconcile the Planck value for the Hubble constant with existing models, some of the dials would have to be tweaked, Madore said, but most physicists aren’t quite willing to do so yet.
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams
 
Last edited:
Top