http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kmarinas86
http://forums.hypography.com/astrono...d-perhaps.html

Net gauge boson emission, Galaxies, ExTra-Matter, and Time

Abstract

The hypothesis proposed in this article assumes modification of the function for gravitational time dilation, [latex]dt=\frac{d\tau}{\sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}{rc^2}}}[/latex]. In this hypothesis, [latex]\frac{2Gm_1}{rc^2}[/latex] is replaced by [latex]\frac{m_{defect}c^2}{m_1c^2}[/latex], which assumes that the energy gap/photon energy [latex]m_{defect}c^2[/latex] between a formed object and the system from which it is formed is equal to [latex]\frac{2Gm_1^2}{r}[/latex] or twice the surface/envelope binding energy (such as that for the sun).
The result that follows from this is that galaxies have the same sign of net gauge boson emission as quarks, which leads to pecularities in galactic rotation curves, as well as giving scientists a hint on the origin of "dark matter".

Definition of net gauge boson emission

Before we go further, we must define net gauge boson emission in a fundamental way. The "net gauge boson emission" described in this article is the net energy of gauge bosons which is released during the transformation of the system being considered. Conversely, a negative net gauge boson emission represents the net energy of gauge bosons which is absorbed during the transformation of the system.

Therefore, the positive and negative forms of net gauge boson emission is involved with all forms of binding energies whose changes always involve radiation flux.

In this interpretation, we assume that [latex]m_{defect}c^2=(m_1-m_2)*c^2[/latex] is the net energy of gauge boson emission where [latex]m_1c^2[/latex] is the total energy of a system during its primitive state (i.e. energy of all the parts) and where [latex]m_2c^2[/latex] is the "effective" mass-energy that remains after transformation from a primitive state. The maximum possible (positive) mass defect is equal to the primitive mass [latex]m_1[/latex].

When a black hole is created (i.e. while it is small), matter is stretched so thin due to extreme tidal forces that everything in the vicinity breaks apart into very small pieces. The maximum amount of energy that could ever attempt to escape the grasp of a black hole (if it could) would, at a very large distance from where the black hole was, be equal to the energy of what was put into it. All radiation leaving the black hole would be redshifted and therefore would not exhibit a characteristic of being immensely blueshifted when "returned". If the radiation were somehow able to form a mass through the uncertainty principle, then it could create massive particles corresponding to the background energies available at a particular point. Because of conservation of energy, [latex]m_{defect}\le m_1[/latex] holds. Otherwise, if the energy corresponding to the mass defect can exceed the energy that was in the system intially, then it becomes source of infinite energy, and according to the equation to be defined, would have an incomprehensible imaginary coordinate time.

Mathematical result from these assumptions

Established formula:

[latex]dt=\frac{d\tau}{\sqrt{1-2GM/rc^2}}[/latex]

Proposed formula:

[latex]dt=\frac{d\tau}{\sqrt{1-\frac{m_{defect}c^2}{m_1 c^2}}}[/latex]

This function implies that:

[latex]dt>d\tau[/latex] as long as [latex]m_{defect}>0[/latex], and that:

[latex]dt<d\tau[/latex] as long as [latex]m_{defect}<0[/latex].

This leads to two categories of things:

1) If the mass of the whole is less (not greater) than the mass of the parts, then the objects will experience a time dilation, and also, the net work done per rest energy is positive (potential energy is negative).

2) If the mass of the whole is greater (not less) than the mass of the parts, then the objects will experience a time acceleration, and also, the net work done per rest energy is negative (potential energy is positive).

The first category corresponds to things whose formation (in net) has added a number of gauge bosons to free space (e.g. stars, pulsars, and white dwarfs).

The second category corresponds to things whose formation (in net) had subtracted a number of gauge bosons from free space (e.g. quarks, leptons, and other matter formed during the "cosmic" dark ages).

Where does the formation of a galaxy fit in? It could be said that galaxies have formed before stars have shined among them. If they were simply lanes and nodes of gassy light elements scattered sparsely across space and time it is concievable that much of the radiation they absorbed would not be released just as fast, provided that temperature outside them was greater. This is given if the result of radiation intake leads to a net increase in the angular momentum of the cosmic gas (i.e. more angular momentum leaves free space and enters into the realm of matter).

We see the opposite in the formation of stars, which occurs in a vastly different thermal enviroment. When stars form, the temperature outside is less than the temperature within. Naturally, heat energy from stars will leave the mass from which it is produced and into free space. The only way a good fraction of that radiation could be absorbed is for there to be a good amount of regions at some place(s) and time(s) where the "cosmic" dark age reigns, otherwise, galaxies may only continue to form by mergers. Gamma rays with high enough energy can cause the formation of subatomic particles in regions exhibiting properties which were more dominant in the cosmic "dark age".

Determining the net amount of energy released as gauge bosons

The net amount of energy of gauge bosons emitted by a system is equal to the change in pressure*volume (which usually increases with decreasing volume), and conversely, the net amount of gauge bosons absorbed by a system is equal to the change in internal energy. The change in pressure*volume is also equal to the change in entropy*temperature.

Taking this into account, the following can be deduced:

[latex]dt=\frac{d\tau}{\sqrt{1-\frac{\Delta\left(P*V\right)}{E_{tot}}}}[/latex]

[latex]dt=\frac{d\tau}{\sqrt{1-\frac{\Delta\left(S*T_{abs}\right)}{E_{tot}}}}[/latex]

Ultimately:

[latex]\Delta\left(S*T_{abs}\right)=\Delta\left(P*V\right )=\Delta E_{gauge\ boson}[/latex]

Where:

[latex]S[/latex] = thermodynamic entropy
[latex]T_{abs}[/latex] = absolute temperature
[latex]P[/latex] = absolute pressure
[latex]V[/latex] = volume

Because volumes and thermodynamic temperatures cannot be negative, this implies that galaxies and quarks, objects with a net absorption of gauge bosons are formed in correspondence with negative changes in pressure and negative changes in entropies over "latter" distances (associated with positive potential energies), hence they are possessed by a time acceleration. This time acceleration would therefore alter our perception of stars which travel around galaxies. Since, according to the previous section:

[latex]dt=\frac{d\tau}{\sqrt{1-\frac{m_{defect}c^2}{m_1 c^2}}}[/latex]

[latex]dt=\frac{d\tau}{\sqrt{1-\frac{m_{defect}}{m_1}}}[/latex]

[latex]dt=\frac{d\tau}{\sqrt{1-\frac{m_1-m_2}{m_1}}}[/latex]

[latex]\left(\frac{d\tau}{dt}\right)=\sqrt{1-\frac{m_1-m_2}{m_1}}[/latex]

[latex]\left(\frac{d\tau}{dt}\right)^2=\frac{m_2}{m_1}[/latex]

[latex]m_1\left(\frac{d\tau}{dt}\right)^2=m_2[/latex]

[latex]\left(\frac{d\tau}{dt}\right)^2[/latex] = the square of the time acceleration (i.e. the square of the inverse of time dilation)

[latex]\frac{Gm_1}{r}[/latex] = the square of the orbital velocity of stars expected from the visible mass associated with the orbit

[latex]\frac{Gm_2}{r}[/latex] = the square of velocity of stars expected from visible + dark matter

This implies that dark matter is just an illusion due to a sea of negative pressure (the negative pressure is equal to the net energy of gauge boson emission divided by volume); if true, it implies that dark matter is an illusion created by negative pressure that causes stars furthest from galaxies to move in a frame that is accelerated to ours. It also implies that the dark galaxies recently discovered by scientists are really realms of negative pressure, which have absorbed plenty of radiation that prevents matter inside it from interacting with each other at the molecular level and not "just" at the scale of stars and galaxies.

The amount of "dark matter" would be equal to [latex]m_2-m_1[/latex], which implies that objects such as white dwarfs and neutron stars have a significant dark matter defect. As a result of their formation, they have radiated much more gauge bosons than they absorbed.

Possibility of experiments

Testing the idea in the realm of cosmology requires better and more refined observations of the distant universe where the images portray the formation of galaxies before stars. Basically the net radiation absorbed by the galaxies during their ongoing formation will determine the amount of dark matter which they possess (this includes gravitational waves if necessary). As galaxies radiate more and more, they should lose the appearance of dark matter over time. Provided that the net gauge boson emission of elipticals is relatively high, a smaller mass "addendum" should be indicated by having net gauge boson absorption close 0 over the course of its real life. That is to say the energy they've absorbed over the course of their life is comparable to the energy they've emitted over the course of their life. Others might even have "less than no dark matter", depending on how "very fast" they have radiated, and such galaxies (if they exist) will have a dark matter defect and tend to bend light around themselves to an abnormal degree.

The fulfillment of the predictions will depend on the cosmological model used to determine how much energy a galaxies parts have absorbed and emitted over the course of the life of its parts.

References

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22tw...ost+*+twice%22

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/...o/gravity.html

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...14&postcount=9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita..._time_dilation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_%28thermodynamics%29

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0210010711.htm

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...rk_galaxy.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom..._galaxies.html

__________________
cause of event ≠ explanation
My Cyclical Multiverse Hypothesis

Whoa

Where do gauge bosons come from?
What are they?
Are you saying that dark matter is composed of gauge bosons?

__________________
PW -- Plant Whisperer

(I)n (O)ther (W)ords, they are the kind of stuff that flings from other fundamental particles (subatomic or otherwise). They are fundamental particles whose origin and destination are also fundamental particles. When they leave, they carry energy with them. If they have mass, they are confined to short distances (such as the interior of the atom). If they are "massless", so to speak, then they can travel exceedingly large distances. Other than the photon, the graviton is a proposed massless gauge boson that can travel exceedingly large distances. Bosons are like the basketball, baseball, football, and golf ball in sports. The things that deliver them and catch them (or not), you know what those are.

The four "known" gauge bosons are:
photons
W and Z bosons
gluons

Some "unknown" gauge bosons include:
X and Y bosons
gravitons
Z' boson

With photons and (perhaps but not for certain) gravitons being the only relevant particles (of those listed above).

The observation of "Dark matter" could simply be a response to the existence of gauge bosons affecting the rotation of stars and therefore of galactic rotation curves by being intimately tied with gravitational binding energy, which in this article is hypothesized to be related to gravity and gravitational time dilation. This is presented as a hypothetical possibility, but not as a certainty.

Everything in the article above rests on the assumption that the energy gap caused by the increase in binding energy is equal to:

energy gap=2GM^2/r

Evidence for this relationship may be found in this Google link:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22tw...ost+*+twice%22

Where:
GM^2/r is the gravitational binding energy (at the surface/envelope of an object)
energy gap=the net energy emission of gauge bosons (such as photons)=mass defect * c^2

Where:
the percieved amount of "dark matter" = -1 * mass defect
If the mass defect < 0, then dark matter > 0.

The most intruiging part of the these assumptions, I believe, is the very simple equation that results.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kmarinas86
http://forums.hypography.com/astrono...d-perhaps.html

__________________
cause of event ≠ explanation
My Cyclical Multiverse Hypothesis

Since W & Z bosons and gluons have mass, they are confined to interior of atoms. Thus, the only "gauge bosons" to carry energy intestellar distances are photons.

In other words, the "definition of net gauge boson emission" is techno-babble for amount of light stars emit. Stars release energy in the form of light, and said light carries energy with it.

All this, we already know.

I don't see anything new in this hypothesis

__________________
PW -- Plant Whisperer

Gluons do not have mass. The W and Z bosons do have mass, in fact so much mass that they decay quickly; for these particles it's not a matter of confinement, it's a matter of not travelling very far before they decay.

Gluons, although massless, are confined to the interiors of hadrons (baryons and mesons). The reason is complicated and not well understood.

As you have noted only photons (and I will add gravitons) can carry energy for interstellar distances.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

The reason gluons remain bound has to do with the odd nature of the strong force. One of these is the concept of "asymptotic freedom" which was the subject of the 2004 Nobel in Physics. Another is that gluons carry the "color" charge and can therefore bind to each other. Photons and gravitons do not feel the forces they carry and cannot interact via it. The Nobel announcement puts it this way A result of this, in simplistic terms, is that the strong force increases in strength as distance increases (sort of like a spring). As you try to remove a quark from a baryon the amount of energy you need to put in grows to the point where a new q q-bar pair forms and two new particles (say a baryon and a meson) are the result rather than a liberated quark. Basically there's no equivalent of ionization in the strong force.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

Ok, gluons are massless, etc.

That still does not solve dark matter problem

__________________
PW -- Plant Whisperer

Physicists and astronomers are working on trying to identify what dark matter might be. Did you think they just said "There's this stuff, let's call it dark matter. Doesn't matter what it is but it solves our equations. Move on to the next problem" and left it up to internet bulletin boards to figure out.

This is a difficult problem. It's not going to be solved overnight. A lot of speculation, most of it wrong, is going to go on. Eventually, observation and experiment will identify what dark matter is. Until then sit back and enjoy the show. It should be interesting.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli