A possible solution to the problem of dark matter?

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

A possible solution to the problem of dark matter?

Postby Yablon » Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:01 pm

As I was reflecting on my new Kaluza-Klein paper and the last few pages which I wrote the other day reviewing all-interaction unification, it occurred to me that a result I obtained in 2013 may offer a solution to the problem of so-called “dark matter.“ This solution would be based on section 6 of my paper at the following link:

http://file.scirp.org/Html/30822.html

Let me explain.

Dark matter is needed because of the belief that there is not enough known gravitating matter to hold things together the way they are held together, for example, galaxies, and that somehow the extra matter must be there even though we cannot detect it. But in my paper above, I discovered that neutrinos, which are a known particle, do not gravitationally interact with any other type of particle, but rather are repulsive with respect to all other particles. They are only gravitationally attractive amongst themselves. So in view of that, let me ask a question:

Suppose we are working on the basis of a wrong assumption regarding the matter that we actually know about and can detect. Particularly, suppose we are working on the wrong assumption that neutrinos attract all other particles gravitationally, just like all other particles besides the neutrino actually do. Moreover, suppose the neutrinos actually repelled everything else, which is what I found in the 2013 paper, and which fits with their rather squirrely nature.

In a cosmological setting, neutrinos would seek out regions to cluster amongst themselves, and all other particles would cluster amongst themselves, with segregation between the neutrinos and everything else. We know that the other particles are heavily concentrated in stars and planets and galaxies, so we have to presume that the neutrinos congregate in interstellar and intergalactic space. And given that a neutrino can pass through the entire earth, they certainly don’t seem to want to have anything to do with us.

So what if the neutrinos in intergalactic space, because they are repelling the main matter of the galaxies, are forcing the galaxies to appear to be more tightly gravitating than they actually are. In other words, suppose what is holding the galaxies together better than we expect and therefore making us think that we require dark matter is not an attractive force within the galaxies, but a repulsive force coming from the neutrinos congregated outside the galaxies as far as they can get away from regular matter. A push rather than a pull. Then perhaps we don’t need the dark matter anymore, because the real problem is that we have missed the boat on the actual way in which neutrinos gravitate.

Just a preliminary thought, not ready to hang any hats on it. But I did want to get some feedback and see what other people might think.

The broad way to pose the question is this: if neutrinos are actually gravitationally repelling rather than attracting with respect to all other particles, which I do hang my hat on based on what I found in 2013, how might that impact the dark matter problem?

Jay
Yablon
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:39 pm
Location: New York

Re: A possible solution to the problem of dark matter?

Postby lkcl » Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:22 am

ahh jay, welcome to the daaark siiide of particle physics and speculative logical reasoning: luckily this isn't the 1600s, you don't live in italy, and chances are low we're descended from galileo :) just reading the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair i do note, "some of the philosophers who opposed his discoveries had refused even to look through a telescope" which has not just a teensy bit of resonance....

so as you're speculating along these lines, i'd like to share some insights first not about the topic but about how people have responded *when* discussing such topics, then move on. i tend to find that people react by saying "nonsense, electrons are responsible for blah blah". in other words they quote chapter and verse standard theories. what they *don't* do is provide any *disproof* of the proposed theorem / idea. and these ideas - ones that speculate about the potential roles of neutrinos are INSANELY hard to prove or disprove. more on this later.

in the ERM the neutrino (and very interestingly the neutron) are not "neutral / zero" charge, they are "complex-phase-charged" because their standing-wave elliptical polarisation axis is exp ( +/- i pi/2 ) where the electron and proton's phase are pi and 0 respectively.

dr randall mill's work is a little unclear to me however i *believe* it also supports the same hypothesis. dr mills points out that the lack of "real" E.M presence results in the neutrino collapsing down to an absolutely tiny radius... but in doing so its angular momentum becomes F*****G ENORMOUS - over a thousand times larger than any other well-known particle.

in dr john williamson's work http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/110952/ he notes in passing that if, in the 6D clifford algebra, the photon's phase was rotated through 90 degrees, you end up with an interesting pattern that again has huge angular momentum. he speculates that this would represent a W Boson but did not explore it further. if he had done so it is likely / possible that he would have independently corroborated dr randall mill's findings due to the radius collapsing.

so it's all kiiinda pointing in the same sort-of direction as that along which you are speculating so.. so... what's the word... irreverantly! yes, you're not towing the zealot liiine, by being a faithful follower of the standard model! (foam, froth, froth)

i did notice you read http://vixra.org/abs/1702.0077 a few days ago, you may have seen the "low-probability" section, bullet-points 4 onwards specifically explore the logical-reasoning chain along similar lines to the one that you explore.

here, whilst i have no formal mathematical basis for *anything* that i am doing (which is really unbelievably frustrating) it seems pretty clear to me that there is strong empirical evidence to suggest that neutrinos are "complex-phased" or "aligned with magnetism in some way". the EM fields of neutrinos are *orthogonal* to those of the electron and proton... but the fascinating thing about the ERM theory is that *so is the neutron*.

i do not know exactly what that means, what the implications are of a standing-wave EM field pattern being primarily in the complex plane not the real plane. does it mean that it would repel, gravitationally, as you speculate? i don't know. it strikes me that it would more likely involve *magnetic* repulsion (and even attraction) than grativational.

the other thing to consider is this: if the neutrino does actually interact with other matter in some way, then like an electron it is highly likely that it would jump to orbital resonance patterns *just like the electron*. in doing so it would "gain energy" that was far more significant than its negligeable "rest mass".

now, given that both the neutron *and* the neutrino have complex-EM-field-presence, the speculation leads along the lines of "well if electrons orbit protons, why the hell can't neutrinos orbit neutrons??"

so this is what took the (further) speculation along the lines described in the ERM lexicon. what would the consequences of neutrons orbiting neutrinos be? that would mean that a bare neutron is actually really quite unlikely: it would actually be more like a neutron-ion: a neutron-ion-plus-neutrino-with-a-hole-in-its-shell (like an H+ ion).

that would *also* mean that neutron *hypothetically* could bond... with *another neutron*, couldn't it?

and what would *that* look like? as in: what would the properties of such a neutron-neutron "compound" have? well, it would be:

* chemically inert.
* highly stable
* electrically inert
* magnetically inert

in fact it wouldn't react with anything, respond to anything: no magnetic fields could probe it or "bottle it", no electrical fields could interact with it. no other chemicals or compounds would react with it. it would not "decay" like a bare neutron does...

... looking one hell of a lot like "dark matter", isn't it? :)

the main problem is, where the hell would we even *find* the damn stuff, in order to explore it? how can you find a chemically-inert, magnetically-inert, electrically-inert compound *in the first place* in order to do experiments that prove OR DISPROVE its existence??

i may have this question backwards. it may be the case that enough neutrons kicking around naturally form N-N bonds when in close proximity. it may be the case that the bonds are sufficiently weak that when neutrons are created and stored / explored, if they *do* forum N-N compounds those bonds break apart very very easily, the point being *i don't know*. it may be the case that complex-number-plane EM field "presence" is nothing like real-number-plane EM fields, such that such bonds cannot and do not exist *i don't know enough to be able to say either way*.

one thing that i do know is, it would be time-consuming but quite straightforward for anyone with chemistry knowledge to explore this hypothesis, by re-examining and re-ordering the periodic table based on the *assumption* that there are neutrino shells. reordering the periodic table by seeing if there are any correlations between hypothetical neutrino shells and the electro-magnetic (particularly para and dia magnetic properties) of the elements.

i invite you to do the same type of speculation, jay. what sorts of long-range speculation would result in an actual experiment that could be tested to prove or disprove the idea that neutrinos react to the rest of matter with *anti-gravitational* properties? can you calculate how *many* neutrinos must have been created since the beginning of time? (stars produce them so there should be a *lot*) can you make some estimates on how many of those are still in space? how many would be needed to begin to actually start to have the gravitational effect that you're speculating about?

anyway, welcome to the far-out club. you may encounter people telling you that standard accepted theories "prove" that what you're speculating about is nonsense... which is a non-sense approach. i leave it up to you to decide whether to remind such people that it would be helpful for them to provide a *disproof* of the hypothesis rather than "believe in an established position", just like the catholic church did to galileo... but, you can't *make* people put their eye to the telescope... :)
lkcl
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 5:15 am

Re: A possible solution to the problem of dark matter?

Postby Yablon » Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:49 am

Hi Luke,

While I have no problem being a heretic if the science warrants it, the theoretical basis upon which I discovered that the neutrino gravitates differently, is wholly consistent with the discipline of the standard model. Let me explain.

Everybody agrees that the low energy observed phenomenology is SU3xSU2xU1. The standard model establishes a discipline whereby you select some larger simple gauge G as your GUT group, place the known particle phenomenology into representations of that group, and then in one or more stages break the symmetry. When all of that is done, you are required to have reproduced the lower energy phenomenology including all of its features such as three generations of fermion, massive weak bosons, CKM mixing, and anything else I may have forgotten since I am traveling and writing this with my iPhone. Again, this is a standard excepted practice.

What is in play and not subject to any universal agreement at this time, is the particular choice which gets us from G to the low energy phenomenology in its entirety, and the steps you take to do so. Georgi and Glashow originally proposed using SU5 with some fermions in the fundamental and others in the adjoint representations. But that didn’t work because at the time the neutrino was thought to be massless and later on it will shown not to be, and it predicted proton decay in a fashion that turned out to not jive with experiment. Everybody has their favorite, I suppose, and I know that mine is certainly the SU8 Group which I developed in my 2013 paper. Which, once again, enabled me to retrodict the proton and neutron masses from the quark masses within experimental errors. So I think that gives me a leg up over other speculative models which don’t have that proven empirical connection.

Moreover if you think about it, in totally general terms, the generators of any simple gauge group all have to be traceless, which means at least one of the entries in any diagonalized ed generator will have an opposite sign from the other entries. So if you happen to put all of the known fermions into the same fundamental representation, and you recognize on general principle that gravitation as an interaction must have at least one generator which is diagonal, then one of the fermions will have to gravitate differently than all the rest of them. And that turns out to be the neutrino. To see that precisely, take a look at the lambda^63 generator in that paper and the fermion octet which is the representation for that. So I believe I will be proved eventually to be on entirely solid ground with regard to the gravitating properties of the neutrino. And it is all standard model approach.

What all of this means for cosmology and dark matter is an entirely different question. I laid out a preliminary idea yesterday. But all I really want to do at the time is put the question on the table: if the neutrino in fact gravitationally repels all other material , bewhat impact, if any, does that have on our conceptions about dark matter? Plain and simple.

Let me also pick up on one other point that you briefly mentioned. Every atom has some number of protons and neutrons, surrounded by a number of electrons equal to the number of protons, all within a very small space of the Bohr radius. Especially in view of my SU8 model, I aiam inclined to believe that it also has a number of neutrinos equal to its number of neutrons. But these are in a very large cloud surrounding the rest of the atom, and can be next-door or on the next planet. The only time we detect one of these is when something in the atom engages in a beta decay.

Jay
Yablon
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:39 pm
Location: New York

Re: A possible solution to the problem of dark matter?

Postby Q-reeus » Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:56 am

Jay, have you considered how neutrino -ve gravitational mass, presumably clustered around visible galaxies in 'haloes', could still be compatible with known gravitational lensing? Surely it would incorrectly predicts divergent not convergent light rays passing through such?
Further, have you done a preliminary analysis of whether such a -ve mass neutrino halo surrounding a central +ve mass galaxy is inherently stable/unstable against radial perturbations from dead center alignment of central galaxy?
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:18 pm

Re: A possible solution to the problem of dark matter?

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:41 am

Hi Jay,

It's torsion, baby! You can do away with your blackhole wormhole trapping by realizing it is gravitational torsion due to the intrinsic spin of the neutrino that gives it anti-gravity properties. However in the case of the neutrino, it is a tricky business. In a electrically charged fermion such as an electron, the torsion effect is all contained within the "size" of the electron near the Planck length. But perhaps not so in the neutrino's case. The neutrino is indeed a strange beast.

http://einstein-cartan.org/wp/
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1188
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: A possible solution to the problem of dark matter?

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:45 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Hi Jay,

It's torsion, baby! You can do away with your blackhole wormhole trapping by realizing it is gravitational torsion due to the intrinsic spin of the neutrino that gives it anti-gravity properties. However in the case of the neutrino, it is a tricky business. In a electrically charged fermion such as an electron, the torsion effect is all contained within the "size" of the electron near the Planck length. But perhaps not so in the neutrino's case. The neutrino is indeed a strange beast.

http://einstein-cartan.org/wp/
.

In the paper linked at the above site,

https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.06036 ,

we perhaps made a wrong assumption about the neutrino. We assumed that the self-energy from the weak charge of the neutrino would cancel most of the self-energy due to torsion via intrinsic spin and thus the "size" of a neutrino is also near Planck scale. But weak charge doesn't have a monopole like electric charge does. So the neutrino probably doesn't have the weak charge self-energy. That leaves only self-energy due to torsion which results in the electron neutrino "size" being of the order of 10^{-26} meters. And then the neutrino will have anti-gravity properties since we show that torsion self-energy is negative. Which is entirely within the realm of possibility. So now there are two paths to the same thing.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1188
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: A possible solution to the problem of dark matter?

Postby lkcl » Mon Jul 02, 2018 3:23 pm

fredi, jay: what about a neutrino that jumps to a shell orbital position? that would no longer have such a small radius, would it?
lkcl
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 5:15 am

Re: A possible solution to the problem of dark matter?

Postby Q-reeus » Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:50 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:..And then the neutrino will have anti-gravity properties since we show that torsion self-energy is negative. Which is entirely within the realm of possibility...

Is it Fred? Would your anti-grav neutrinos for consistency have -ve inertial mass also, or is equivalence principle fundamentally violated? That neutrinos have +ve inertial mass was an ab initio assumption of Wolfgang Pauli, who first postulated them to explain the 'missing' momentum and energy in Beta decay. Since born out in many experiments.
Q-reeus
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 11:18 pm

Re: A possible solution to the problem of dark matter?

Postby FrediFizzx » Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:24 pm

Q-reeus wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:..And then the neutrino will have anti-gravity properties since we show that torsion self-energy is negative. Which is entirely within the realm of possibility...

Is it Fred? Would your anti-grav neutrinos for consistency have -ve inertial mass also, or is equivalence principle fundamentally violated? That neutrinos have +ve inertial mass was an ab initio assumption of Wolfgang Pauli, who first postulated them to explain the 'missing' momentum and energy in Beta decay. Since born out in many experiments.


It is a tricky business, isn't it? You have to do the same thing to avoid the negative mass-energy like how you avoid negative mass-energy for the positron. But it is actually the sign on the torsion factor that gives it anti-gravity properties. IOW, the torsion due to spin itself is anti-grav. It is pretty well known that spin squared is negative. The missing part provided by the Hehl-Datta equation is the gravitational coupling G.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1188
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: A possible solution to the problem of dark matter?

Postby lkcl » Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:14 pm

guys remember, you are talking about the rest mass of a ground zero state neutrino, bare mass. where you need to check that the absolutely enormous angular momentum caused by the tiny radius. the torsional energy would need to be unbelievably spectacularly large to result in anti-gravitational effects.

but also when (if) a neutrino jumps to an orbital shell around a neutron, the radius is no longer tiny, it is pretty much exactly the same or really is exactly the same as that of an orbital electron. under such circumstances the torsional energy would *not* be greater so it would *not* have anti-gravitational effects.

jay, that paper was one of the first times i encountered your work, 5 years ago i think. i was doing mass analysis at the time. i don't know if you remember, the comments are still there. you had such accurate calculations that i was able to subtract proton from neutron from electron orbital energy, and the remainder came out precisely and exactly to the neutrino mass. so there is an indirect correlation to the hypothesis that a neutron does in fact have one orbital neutrino around it.

now, given the incredibly low mass of a neutrino i suspect that the "virtual particle get created and destroyed all the time" rules are such that it's quite likely very easy for a bare neutron without an orbital neutrino to end up *making* its own neutrino-anti-neutrino pair, capture the one and eject the other.

question for the hypothesis you propose. with all the stars that exist, surely there have been... insane numbers of neutrinos created. you need to estimate how many, for the hypothesis to hold water. but, also, you need an explanation as to why all those neutrinos do not show up in the background radiation.
lkcl
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 5:15 am

Re: A possible solution to the problem of dark matter?

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:48 pm

lkcl wrote:guys remember, you are talking about the rest mass of a ground zero state neutrino, bare mass. where you need to check that the absolutely enormous angular momentum caused by the tiny radius. the torsional energy would need to be unbelievably spectacularly large to result in anti-gravitational effects.


The torsional self-energy of a neutrino is equal to the rest mass energy, however with a sign difference. This has to be the case since after more research, it has been shown that neutrinos don't self-interact through any weak force "charge". So for an individual neutrino there would be a very tiny anti-grav effect probably impossible to measure. But if neutrinos attract one another gravitationally, then on cosmological scales we could have some kind of huge trapping effect.

but also when (if) a neutrino jumps to an orbital shell around a neutron, the radius is no longer tiny, it is pretty much exactly the same or really is exactly the same as that of an orbital electron. under such circumstances the torsional energy would *not* be greater so it would *not* have anti-gravitational effects.

jay, that paper was one of the first times i encountered your work, 5 years ago i think. i was doing mass analysis at the time. i don't know if you remember, the comments are still there. you had such accurate calculations that i was able to subtract proton from neutron from electron orbital energy, and the remainder came out precisely and exactly to the neutrino mass. so there is an indirect correlation to the hypothesis that a neutron does in fact have one orbital neutrino around it.

now, given the incredibly low mass of a neutrino i suspect that the "virtual particle get created and destroyed all the time" rules are such that it's quite likely very easy for a bare neutron without an orbital neutrino to end up *making* its own neutrino-anti-neutrino pair, capture the one and eject the other.

question for the hypothesis you propose. with all the stars that exist, surely there have been... insane numbers of neutrinos created. you need to estimate how many, for the hypothesis to hold water. but, also, you need an explanation as to why all those neutrinos do not show up in the background radiation.


I doubt very much that neutrinos would have any kind of orbital shells in an atom. They are just too light.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ne ... background

They think they have indirectly detected neutrinos from the cosmic background.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1188
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: A possible solution to the problem of dark matter?

Postby lkcl » Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:12 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:The torsional self-energy of a neutrino is equal to the rest mass energy, however with a sign difference. This has to be the case since after more research, it has been shown that neutrinos don't self-interact through any weak force "charge".


dr mill's logic, which makes a lot of sense, hypothesises that the reason why the neutrino does not interact is not at all because of its tiny radius, but because as a *side-effect* of that tiny radius its orbital angular momentum is off the frickin charts: a *thousands* times larger than any other known particle.

I doubt very much that neutrinos would have any kind of orbital shells in an atom. They are just too light.


they are too light... *when not in an orbital shell*. you are confusing the rest mass of a neutrino when *not* in an orbital shell with the hypothetical instance where the neutrino *was* in an orbital shell... and consequently its mass would also include the orbital shell energy. the orbital shell energy would result in the neutrino "jumping" to a radius near-identical-and-equal to that of an electron when an *electron* is in an orbital shell, would it not? and if it was equal to that radius, standard compton wavelength mass calculations kick in, don't they?
lkcl
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 5:15 am

Re: A possible solution to the problem of dark matter?

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jul 06, 2018 1:56 pm

lkcl wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:The torsional self-energy of a neutrino is equal to the rest mass energy, however with a sign difference. This has to be the case since after more research, it has been shown that neutrinos don't self-interact through any weak force "charge".


dr mill's logic, which makes a lot of sense, hypothesises that the reason why the neutrino does not interact is not at all because of its tiny radius, but because as a *side-effect* of that tiny radius its orbital angular momentum is off the frickin charts: a *thousands* times larger than any other known particle.

I doubt very much that neutrinos would have any kind of orbital shells in an atom. They are just too light.


they are too light... *when not in an orbital shell*. you are confusing the rest mass of a neutrino when *not* in an orbital shell with the hypothetical instance where the neutrino *was* in an orbital shell... and consequently its mass would also include the orbital shell energy. the orbital shell energy would result in the neutrino "jumping" to a radius near-identical-and-equal to that of an electron when an *electron* is in an orbital shell, would it not? and if it was equal to that radius, standard compton wavelength mass calculations kick in, don't they?


There is no way a neutrino can be in any kind of orbital shell. Especially if they have anti-grav properties. Please stop with that nonsense.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1188
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: A possible solution to the problem of dark matter?

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:51 am

Hi Jay,

I'm surprised that I somehow missed your SU(8) paper. It is quite fantastic! I must have been busy with Joy doing simulations and fighting Bell battles.

After studying your paper some more, I highly suspect that it is gravitational torsion that does the symmetry breaking at the GUT scale. More on that later when I figure it out better.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1188
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: A possible solution to the problem of dark matter?

Postby Yablon » Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:05 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Hi Jay,

I'm surprised that I somehow missed your SU(8) paper. It is quite fantastic! I must have been busy with Joy doing simulations and fighting Bell battles.

After studying your paper some more, I highly suspect that it is gravitational torsion that does the symmetry breaking at the GUT scale. More on that later when I figure it out better.
.

Thanks Fred.

That paper you refer to at http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2013043014285020.pdf is the "hub of the wheel" for numerous other research results and has been linked to empirical data in several directions, with very high precision. It stems from http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2013043014242019.pdf which predicted the 2H 3H and 3He and 4He binding energies in relation to quark masses within parts per 10^5 and even 10^6, and from https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/doc ... w&download which added 11 more binding energies for a total of 15. The nuclear binding energies are understood to be genomic "fingerprints" of the up and down quark masses. That SU(8) paper was then used in http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2013043014410549.pdf to retrodict the proton and neutron masses themselves in relation to these quark masses within all experimental errors for the quark masses and the proton and neutron masses and the CKM mixing matrix. I would claim and do claim that I have abundant experimental confirmation for this SU(8) group and the mass relations with which it is intertwined, at the level that should frankly earn me a trip to Stockholm once the top dogs in physics actually pay attention. And the reason I even raise the issue of neutrinos having an antigravity property, is because of (5.1) of that paper where the neutrino has an oppositely-signed gravitational charge generator.

But as to torsion, if there is a gravitational torsion, the hook would be in the paragraph running from page 44 to 45 of my recent Kaluza-Klein paper at https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... in-1-4.pdf. There, I state that one would symmetrize the metric tensor in view of Yang-Mills gauge field being non-commuting, when plugging in whatever GUT group with gravitation one may fancy. Mine of course is SU(8). But if you were to leave that alone, you would have a non-symmetric metric tensor and connections, thus torsion. I personally am conservative on that score; if we can keep a symmetric metric tensor and still explain all that is observed, then we ought not relax the stringency of the symmetric tensor. But if there is empirical data which does not fit no matter what, and if the relaxation of stringency by allowing a non-symmetric metric tensor does fit the outlier data. then be my guest.

Jay
Yablon
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:39 pm
Location: New York

Re: A possible solution to the problem of dark matter?

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:51 am

I'd like to learn more about SU(8) but I am finding it difficult to find much online about it. And Georgi's textbook, "Lie Algebras in Particle Physics" doesn't have much about it either. If you have any PDF's of papers you could email me I would appreciated it. Or..., any links.

Einstein-Cartan theory is the most simple extension of GR that allows GR to accommodate intrinsic elementary spin of 1/2 easily. Is there really anything in Nature that says the connection must be symmetric? And Einstein-Cartan theory reproduces all the known experimental evidence of GR. Gravitational torsion is tough to validate experimentally since Nature has it well hidden. The exchange gauge boson (tordion) if it exists, would have energy at the GUT scale. Extremely heavy. That is why I suspect gravitational torsion breaks the SU(8) symmetry at the GUT scale. Did you have an explanation of what breaks the SU(8) symmetry at the GUT scale? If you did, I missed it.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1188
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: A possible solution to the problem of dark matter?

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Jul 15, 2018 9:11 am

Yablon wrote:...

In a cosmological setting, neutrinos would seek out regions to cluster amongst themselves, and all other particles would cluster amongst themselves, with segregation between the neutrinos and everything else. We know that the other particles are heavily concentrated in stars and planets and galaxies, so we have to presume that the neutrinos congregate in interstellar and intergalactic space. And given that a neutrino can pass through the entire earth, they certainly don’t seem to want to have anything to do with us.

So what if the neutrinos in intergalactic space, because they are repelling the main matter of the galaxies, are forcing the galaxies to appear to be more tightly gravitating than they actually are. In other words, suppose what is holding the galaxies together better than we expect and therefore making us think that we require dark matter is not an attractive force within the galaxies, but a repulsive force coming from the neutrinos congregated outside the galaxies as far as they can get away from regular matter. A push rather than a pull. Then perhaps we don’t need the dark matter anymore, because the real problem is that we have missed the boat on the actual way in which neutrinos gravitate. ...


Jay, this sounds to me like a description of dark energy not dark matter. If the Universe is full of anti-grav neutrinos, it could be what is causing the accelerated expansion. After all, the stars are making more neutrinos all the time. How many of those neutrinos are being destroyed? Probably not many. Of course if this is the case, then it is not really "dark" at all.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1188
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: A possible solution to the problem of dark matter?

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:55 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
Yablon wrote:...

In a cosmological setting, neutrinos would seek out regions to cluster amongst themselves, and all other particles would cluster amongst themselves, with segregation between the neutrinos and everything else. We know that the other particles are heavily concentrated in stars and planets and galaxies, so we have to presume that the neutrinos congregate in interstellar and intergalactic space. And given that a neutrino can pass through the entire earth, they certainly don’t seem to want to have anything to do with us.

So what if the neutrinos in intergalactic space, because they are repelling the main matter of the galaxies, are forcing the galaxies to appear to be more tightly gravitating than they actually are. In other words, suppose what is holding the galaxies together better than we expect and therefore making us think that we require dark matter is not an attractive force within the galaxies, but a repulsive force coming from the neutrinos congregated outside the galaxies as far as they can get away from regular matter. A push rather than a pull. Then perhaps we don’t need the dark matter anymore, because the real problem is that we have missed the boat on the actual way in which neutrinos gravitate. ...


Jay, this sounds to me like a description of dark energy not dark matter. If the Universe is full of anti-grav neutrinos, it could be what is causing the accelerated expansion. After all, the stars are making more neutrinos all the time. How many of those neutrinos are being destroyed? Probably not many. Of course if this is the case, then it is not really "dark" at all.


After more study, apparently there is not enough energy in all the neutrinos to account for dark energy even if they are anti-grav. Unless the calculation is wrong for some reason. If correct, then there would need to be another anti-grav particle which is heavy enough to account for dark energy. Perhaps a so-called sterile neutrino that only interacts gravitationally. Our theory could allow for a heavy "sterile" neutrino with anti-grav properties. Perhaps tordions are composites of such a neutrino and its anti-particle. Not sure yet if this works in SU(8) symmetry. These particles would congregate away from matter and most likely be impossible to detect by means other than gravitation.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 1188
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: California, USA


Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library