The Bakhos Theory of Dark Energy and Matter

@dga471 Daniel, I want to thank you for your efforts. I am really quite impressed. It will take me weeks to digest what you are saying. I will do so.

3 Likes

Again, thanks. I would like to make just one comment about elegance as compared to MOND. The big advantage of my theory over MOND is that (I think) it may also simultaneously be used to explain why galaxies are accelerating away from each other.

Thus, it has the potential to solve both cosmological expansion and also galactic rotation at the same time, with one single equation.

Now I will get back to trying to understand everything you wrote.

I understand the allure of thinking in this way. However, it is often the case that while an idea seems to have a lot of potential in a first glimpse, when you actually get down to the mathematics, it is very hard to make it work. Of course, I do not know if this is the case for your theory as I have not actually spent time simulating and making detailed calculations with it. My advice to you is to hold off making big claims like this before you actually try playing around with the details (i.e. math) a little bit. (The same goes with your antimatter claims and other things.) It always helps to be more modest in physics. :wink: That being said, it is good that you seem interested to dig deeper into the serious mathematics.

3 Likes

@dga471 brilliant post. Would you say it is accurate he is proposing a new version of MOND that is distinct for scaling by distance rather than acceleration? If so, isn’t distance and acceleration inversely correlated? Is there an equivalence relationship where you can, with some simplifications, compute an approximation (or equivalent) formulation that depends on acceleration, not distance?

@PdotdQ, are there some standard datasets out there of galaxy rotation curves we can test this with? It seems this is so commonly relied upon in physics literature there has to be a standardized dataset somewhere, right?

@Joe_Bakhos this advice is gold. Listen to him.

2 Likes

Yes, I think so.

In the case of gravity, yes. Which was why my initial reflex to find a way if I could easily transform his interpolation function \mu(R/L) into some complicated \mu(a/a_0). However, in this case the gravitational acceleration also depends on the mass M. Bakhos’ theory is a bit quirky in that the modification to gravity has nothing to do with mass - only length. So there is no easy way to do this transformation. Maybe someone more clever can come up with a way. I am only an amateur theorist :sweat_smile:

1 Like

I honestly think it would awesome if this turned into a fun little arxiv paper. It would be a Peaceful Science first, and no one would expect this to be in physics first.

That should be what creates the way to test it, I would imagine. This would be a large departure from current theory. We should expect to see a different prediction from standard acceleration parameterized MONDS for (1) galaxies of different sizes but the same mass, and (2) same size but different mass. Am I understanding that correctly?

And here it is:

http://astroweb.case.edu/SPARC/

I am not Daniel, but as I said previously, this is not a new version of MOND. MOND refers to the particular scaling by acceleration. This is important in MOND, as in MOND a point faraway from a larger galaxy gives the same gravitational acceleration as a point closeby from a smaller galaxy. While I am writing this post, it seems that you have also realized this:

Usually, spiral galaxies of a certain mass have typically the same size, so the easier test is between a star faraway from a massive galaxy and a star closeby to a small galaxy.

Now,

Some of the dataset is important enough and old enough that they can be found in Galactic Dynamics textbooks. But instead of relying on these historical datasets, it is important to test it on the most recent datasets, such as the SPARC dataset that you found.

3 Likes

To clarify: of course MOND is fundamentally different, as seen in the scaling on acceleration instead of length. And as I have said above, the latter is not reducible to the former in a simple way, since length is fundamentally different from acceleration. I am just pointing out the similarities in that at least in the naive version of MOND, they are both modifying gravity or inertia in a very simple way.

2 Likes

This more concretely expresses another thought in my head that came up when I was picturing the effects of Bakhos’ theory: it seems that positing gravity is repulsive at large distances will result in a lot of mayhem when you have tons of things in your system. I do not have the intuition for this, but wouldn’t there be many unstable orbits? Would galaxy clusters even be possible? I would imagine cosmology is even more hopeless…

1 Like

I agree with this.

Also, let’s wait for @Joe_Bakhos to finish his calculations on whether his theory can flatten the rotation curve first before adding more tests such as:

or even the one I mentioned:

As it stands, the amount and particularities of his “wombs” are unknown, so it is difficult to answer these questions yet (although as physicists, we have some intuitions on whether this can/cannot work). The result of this first rotation curve flattening calculation will allow him to proceed to work on these questions.

3 Likes

Does this even make sense in the context of GR? Isn’t length relative and scaled by the Lorentz formula? How could there be a fundamental length scale? Or is this more similar to proposing the plank length as a real quantization of space?

@PdotdQ might have something more intelligent to say about this, but the entire above exercise was assumed to be non-relativistic (both MOND and Bakhos’ theory). (Not only that, we are not even working with the full-blown Poisson equation for Newtonian gravity, but only a pointlike particle approximation, as he has pointed out before.) According to the Wiki, even for MOND, a fully relativistic version was only worked out in 2004.

That being said, notice that MOND can give out useful results (i.e. roughly explaining galaxy rotation curves) even with these crude approximations. That is probably why it got developed further.

2 Likes

@dga471 is correct on all counts. Note that Joe Bakhos accepts time dilation but not length contraction.

2 Likes

Now can you please explain to me why these conversations about physics are so calm compared to those about biology? You guys are like a country club, while biology is a street brawl. What is going on?

2 Likes

While I’m working I would like to make a few comments. First, @dga471, I would like to apologize to you as well. I was sharp and defensive. I just ask you to understand that I’ve been arguing with people about this for months. To date, the ONLY conversation any serious scientist has been willing to have with me is about my qualifications. So far, this is the ONLY discussion I’ve had where qualified people have been willing to lead me through the math. Although I have taught statistics, calculus, and physics for years, it has been at the high school level, and I barely know it better than my students. One scientist told me I was basically teaching kindergarten – and I didn’t really disagree with him.

I am going to be able, based upon what you’ve taught me here, to plot points and do a basic, simple regression to see if my theory can match the data of galactic rotation rates. If I can’t do this, then my theory is dead on arrival. If I can do this, then I will proceed to the next challenge.

If my theory is disproven however, it does not mean that reverse-gravity is disproven. Reverse gravity might still be true, but totally un-connected to my theory at all. If reverse gravity is true, and my theory is false, then it would mean that I was deluded by my rudimentary work in geometry and I made a lucky guess, but that reverse gravity is dependent upon some other function completely unrelated to my ideas. Of course, reverse gravity might be false as well.

As far as some weird behavior of celestial objects, I’ve read some articles that hint that reverse gravity might be right. For one thing, astrophysicists are finding that there is a huge amount of matter in the interstitial space between galaxies; this result is surprising them, but it is consistent with my theory. Also, there are strange things like this:

One of the consequences of my theory is that the rotation curve at the extreme outer edges of the galaxies might include very high speed stars (data points) that have achieved their high speed not so much as a result of attractive gravity from the mother galaxy, but as a result of reverse gravity from a distorted womb with maybe a gap in it? I don’t know, but my point is that IF reverse gravity is really a part of cosmology, then all the calculations are going to be much more complicated.

And now I will go back to work on my regression. But keep in mind that mathematical work that might take you five minutes might take me weeks.

1 Like

Also, while I’m working on my regression, I would like just to comment on some objections to reverse gravity that came up in other discussion threads.

One is the gravitational lensing in the bullet cluster (and some others). Generated images mapping the gravity show a center of gravity that is different from the visible mass. This has been considered direct proof of dark matter.

When I dove into the algorithms used to generate the gravity map however, I found an interesting thing: Up to 80% of the data had been deemed non-sensical and thrown out; meaning that whenever light was being curved in a way that the researchers deemed nonsense, they assumed it was due to some kind of interference and/or distortion on the way here.

When I questioned this, another person presented me with a picture of the supercluster Abell 2218, showing clearly visible gravitational distortion rings around the supercluster. So I read many articles about gravitational lensing in Abell 2218 – and I realized that the huge visible distortion ring can be explainable as the effect of reverse gravity. According to my theory reverse gravity IS summative over huge distances like this, while normal gravity is not.

Going further, I realized that the successful use of normal gravitational lensing in this super cluster just meant that there were smaller dense areas within the super cluster that were being used for normal lensing – but that the entire huge supercluster was not being used as a gravitational lense.

Sorry to bombard you all with posts. Back to work now.

@Joe_Bakhos help us out by inviting people here and sticking around to help welcome others. Peace.

For your analysis, may you can find some others online to help you.

1 Like

@dga471 About Cosmology: IF I understand what I am reading (:slight_smile: a big if! @PdotdQ , please correct me if I say something mistaken) A later realization needing dark matter was when physicists looked at the CMB and realized that matter was spread too uniformly in the early universe. With it spread so uniformly there has simply not been enough time for it to congeal into the galaxies and structures we see today.

Positing dark matter allows us to say that dark matter was congealing in the background while normal baryonic matter was ionized and tied up with light. This is because dark matter does not interact with light. Once the universe had expanded and cooled enough to liberate baryonic matter and light from each other, dark matter was already there and already somewhat congealed and able to pull ordinary baryonic matter into the structures we see today.

According to my theory dark matter would not be necessary because the simultaneous working of both normal and reverse gravity working together would divide and congeal the baryonic matter much faster – leading to what has been called the “foamy” structure of galaxies that we see today …

Of course I am getting ahead of myself. Step one is to see if my model can plausibly explain galactic rotation. Step two will be to see if it can do the same for cosmological expansion, wherein I posit that galaxies have an initial velocity from the big bang, and they are accelerating away from each other by pushing on each other. The third step will then be to see if the same model can explain the congealing of matter from the time of “last scattering” … A very ambitious plan.

This could be an interesting project for you to work on with some of your motivated high school physics students - to think of and simulate modifications to Newton’s law of gravitation and see if you can come up with any that can fit anomalous galaxy rotation curves. There are so many different possibilities - MOND uses a function \mu(a/a_0), you use a function \mu(r/L), and I could imagine also someone using a function \mu(v/v_0) - using velocity instead of acceleration or length. You could also use all three: \mu(a/a_0, v/v_0, r/L)! As you noticed, nothing we wrote above presumes anything more than high school math and physics. Depending on the difficulty and complexity of the simulation, even calculus might only be needed at a basic level.

Who knows, even if it doesn’t turn out to be the next great theory of physics, it might make you and some of your students learn some tricks and have fun with physics. Some of them could then become motivated to do physics or other sciences in college :smile:

Certainly when I was in high school, I would have been thrilled to learn that it is even possible or permissible at all to even think of modifying Newton’s laws! Honestly, I think this would be the best chance for something really good to come out of your thoughts about physics and science. Despite your limited background, you seem to be motivated enough to learn about dark matter, dark energy, antimatter, etc. - things that the average high school science teacher would never talk about in class, at least in my experience. I remember being in 10th grade and simply being absolutely awestruck when somebody from the astronomy club told me that we don’t know 96% of the matter that exists in the universe, because it is “dark”. That was probably one of the things that gradually led me to want to become a physicist.

5 Likes

Says the guy who got a Nature paper as an undergrad… :smile: