[Dark matter, the Rañada-Milgrom effect, and the cuspy halo problem] - A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum
A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum
Dark matter, the Rañada-Milgrom effect, and the cuspy halo problem(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: David Brown
Are the Rañada-Milgrom effect and the cuspy halo problem strong empirical evidence for M-theory? Do those people who doubt M-theory tend to be mathematical amateurs who lack an understanding of what mathematics is needed to unify gravity with quantum field theory? Have M-theorists foolishly ignored Milgrom’s ideas? Is the explanation of dark matter (DM) destined to prove the importance of both M-theory and NKS Chapter 9 — as well as win the Nobel prize for Milgrom and Rañada? In 1983 Milgrom introduced Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) to explain problems arising from astronomical observations of rotation curves in galaxies. Is the correct interpretation of MOND an empirical confirmation of M-theory in some form? Is the Rañada-Milgrom real-or-apparent effect the basis of the correct interpretation of MOND?
“I think few people appreciate that the main difficulty for DM is that the host of regularities pointed out by MOND, if taken as just a summary of how DM behaves and interacts with normal matter, suggests that these two matter components are coupled and correlated very strongly in many ways. … if MOND does turn out to have some truth to it, the fact that it has encountered so much opposition will just show how nontrivial a thought it was.” — Mordehai Milgrom, interview entitled “Dark-matter heretic”, American Scientist, Jan.-Feb. 2003, Vol. 91, #1, p. 1
Does the only valid path to explaining dark matter consist of a huge, M-theoretical revolution in the foundations of physics? I claim that there are two basic plausible physical interpretations for M-theory and both of these interpretations predict the Rañada-Milgrom effect and explain dark matter remarkably well. (See “Dark matter: why should Rañada and Milgrom win the Nobel prize?” nks forum applied nks.) I conjecture: In M-theory with neutralino physics, neutralinos are almost all of the cold dark matter, neutralino pairs have an APPARENT absence of inertial mass-energy due to a bizarre Fermi pairing involving D-brane force, and dark energy is D-brane noise. I also conjecture that NKS Chapter 9 is the finitary, deterministic approximation of Seiberg-Witten M-theory, while Seiberg-Witten M-theory is a smoothing of part of the mechanism of Wolfram’s mobile automaton. I claim that Fredkin and Wolfram represent the “Einstein side” and Seiberg and Witten represent the “Bohr side” in the Bohr-Einstein debate on the foundations of quantum theory. I predict that M-theory will carry the Bohr-Einstein debate to a new level with many confirmed empirical predictions from M-theory.
Are physicists and astronomers baffled by dark energy and dark matter because the M-theoretical revolution has not yet occurred?
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/p...ark_energy.html (TED talk on dark matter and dark energy)
Is Milgrom the first physicist to realize that hypothetical dark matter particles (as opposed to undetected standard matter particles) must not only be weakly interactive with respect to the electromagnetic and strong forces — but also WEIRDLY INTERACTIVE in terms of gravity? Are there really only two alternatives for explaining dark matter: either introduce a fifth force or else allow significant modification to both Newtonian and general relativistic concepts of gravitational dynamics? Are Milgrom’s ideas essential for understanding dark matter? Are D-brane force and D-brane noise the way to understand dark matter, Milgrom’s law, and dark energy?
According to Milgrom in “A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis” (1983), the virial theorem for determination of dynamical mass within galaxies and systems of galaxies is based on three main assumptions (a), (b), (c): “(a) The force which governs the dynamics is gravity. (b) The gravitational force depends, in the conventional way, on the mass of the particle and on the distribution of mass which produces this forces. (c) Newton’s second law (All along I take the second law to include the proportionality of inertial and gravitational masses). These are assumed to hold in the nonrelativistic regime (which is justified for galaxy dynamics). In addition, one assumes that particle velocities are correctly measured by line spectral shifts with the usual Doppler relations, and one can also make various “astrophysical” assumptions about the nature of the systems under study (their being isolated systems, etc.)” Milgrom’s Law is a result of “considering the possibility that, in the limit of small accelerations, the inertia force is not proportional to the acceleration, as a means of doing away with the hidden mass.”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983ApJ...270..365M/ “A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis“ (1983)
Does the empirical evidence for gravitation in galaxies suggest 2 possibilities: either (1) there is a new, unrecognized concept of spacetime with a fifth force from D-branes or other large-scale M-theoretical structures or (2) there is some failure for Newton’s second law in connection with gravitation together with some failure in Einstein’s equivalence principle? Are there really only 2 alternatives for explaining Milgrom’s Law, namely (1) the equivalence principle is 100% valid but APPARENTLY fails because D-brane force causes neutralinos or other dark matter particles to APPARENTLY have significant gravitational mass-energy but negligible inertial mass-energy — by means of a new concept of M-theoretical force and M-theoretical spacetime, OR (2) the equivalence principle fails according to modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton?
Have M-theorists made three huge mistakes: ignoring the Rañada-Milgrom effect, ignoring the Koide formula, and failing to introduce new physical hypotheses into quantum field theory? If CPT invariance does not fail in terms of cosmology, then is there necessarily an antimatter alternate universe that is a partner to our matter universe? If M-theory is to be an empirically satisfactory theory, then is it mandatory for M-theory to explain both dark matter and dark energy? If all electromagnetic radiation is propagating in a bizarre bosonic fluid composed of Fermi pairs of neutralinos, then would the “speed of light in a vacuum” be faster than the “speed of light in interstellar space with neutralino pairs”?
According to Rañada, the Rañada effect (as I call it), if it exists, “would imply that all the clocks would be changing with a constant acceleration or, in other words, there would be a nonuniformity of time.” My qualitative understanding of Rañada’s basic idea is as follows: In Rañada’s theory, the interaction of dark energy with the background gravitational potential produces a distortion in Einstein’s field equations. In order to mathematically model this distortion, Rañada distinguishes “the proper speed of light” from the “non-proper speed of light” (which is a result of the dark energy distortion underlying the Pioneer anomaly). The “proper speed of light” remains constant as the universe expands. The “non-proper speed of light” increases slightly as the universe expands due to the interaction of dark energy with the background gravitational potential. The “non-proper speed of light” is a book-keeping device to allow Rañada’s quantitative theory to predict the anomalous acceleration of clocks due to the Rañada effect. The non-proper acceleration due to the dark energy distortion in the background gravitational potential implies a blue shift of light with respect to the proper speed of light. “This means that an adiabatic non-proper acceleration of light has the same radio signature as a blue shift of the emitter, although a peculiar blue shift with no change of the wavelength (i.e. all the increase in velocity is used to increase the frequency).” (See page 9 of Rañada’s 2005 paper on the Pioneer anomaly.)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0410084v2 A. F. Rañada’s “The Pioneer anomaly as acceleration of the clocks” Found. Phys. (2005)
In Rañada’s theory, the anomalous acceleration of clocks is a result of how dark energy interacts with the background gravitational potential. In my physical interpretation of Seiberg-Witten M-theory with neutralino physics, the anomalous acceleration of clocks is a result of the weak interactivity of neutralinos and also how D-brane force interacts with neutralinos; the anomalous acceleration of clocks is an apparent effect because neutralinos are not detected — in other words, spacetime appears to get a slight extra redshift from the undetected neutralinos. When gravity attracts neutralinos, then D-brane force mysteriously and 11-dimensionally seems to cancel the inertial-mass energy of the neutralinos. I claim that Rañada-Milgrom real-or-apparent effect has a model consisting of replacing the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein’s field equations by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant, where this constant is roughly equal to sqrt(15) * 10**-5.
Do cold dark matter theorists disagree that I have correctly predicted modifications to the Sachs-Wolfe effects? Consider the following conjecture:
Hypothesis of dark matter and dark energy according to Seiberg-Witten M-theory: Neutralinos explain almost all of the cold dark matter. D-brane force mysteriously and 11-dimensionally seems to cancel the inertial mass-energy of neutralinos. D-brane force mysteriously and 11-dimensionally maintains the gravitational structure of our universe and in doing so produces D-brane noise in the form of dark energy.
Is the preceding hypothesis wrong? Modified M-theory with Wolfram’s automaton might yield an approximately equivalent explanation, but cold dark matter with READILY APPARENT inertial mass-energy predicts cuspy distributions of dark matter. THESE CUSPY DISTRIBUTIONS OF DARK MATTER SIMPLY ARE NOT THERE!
Hypothesis of physical interpretation of Seiberg-Witten M-theory: D-brane force is a fifth force that works in terms of the 11-dimensional mystery domain. D-brane force has no detectable physical effects except for dark matter, dark energy, and a few other phenomena specifically related to M-theory. Dark matter and dark matter are manifestations of how D-brane force controls neutralinos. Dark matter consists primarily of neutralinos in Fermi pairs that are undetectable except for an ongoing D-brane effect consisting of an increase in gravitational redshift. This D-brane effect causes the -1/2 in the standard form of Einstein’s field equations to be replaced by -1/2 + dark-matter-compensation-constant. This constant is approximately equal to sqrt(15) * 10**-5. Neutralinos really obey the equivalence principle but apparently disobey the equivalence principle because of D-brane force; one might say that D-brane force requires neutralinos to behave like a superfluid for the propagation of wave/particles that are not neutralinos. Apart from neutralinos, some dark matter might consist of undetected standard matter and/or other weakly interactive particles predicted by M-theory. D-brane noise causes a nonzero cosmological constant. Dark energy is the empirical evidence that D-brane noise drains energy from the universe in order to feed the D-brane force keeping the matter universe separated from the antimatter universe.
Forum Sponsored by Wolfram Research
© 2004-2013 Wolfram Research, Inc. | Powered by vBulletin 2.3.0 © 2000-2002 Jelsoft Enterprises, Ltd. |
vB Easy Archive Final - Created by Xenon and modified/released by SkuZZy from the Job Openings