Could a form or forms of matter, which need to consist of particles of a significant mass, entirely evade direct detection despite over 20 years of experimental searches, and yet comprise some 90% of all the material in the Cosmos? Similar experiments have detected many of the much less massive neutrinos, but nothing has thus been found of WIMP dark matter particles.

Yet all the indirect astronomical evidence of galaxies and galaxy clusters appears very much to point to vast amounts of entirely transparent matter that, it is presumed, is required to explain the rotation curves of spiral galaxies, the persistence of galaxy clusters and the degree of the lensing effects produced around foreground galaxies that bend the light from much more distant background galaxies.

The existence of dark matter is also needed for the present cosmological theory of the evolution of the cosmos from a Big Bang origin and especially for the formation of galaxies and galaxy clusters.

Alternative theories to dark matter have been proposed, the most detailed of which is called Modified Newtonian Dynamics or MOND. This account provides evidence to support the theory that, beyond a certain point Newton's laws of gravity do not apply. So that galaxy rotation curves can be explained if the strength of gravity no longer reduces according to the inverse square of distance but just the distance. And it could be shown that this law applies in 8 out of 10 galaxies.

Also, it could be calculated that the point where gravity thus begins to vary is not governed by distance or the density of the visible matter, as could be expected given a dark matter explanation, but just by a certain rate of orbital acceleration.

Thus MOND explains galaxy rotation curves more accurately than dark matter theory.

However, problems arise when applying MOND to galaxy collisions. Although a more complex MOND theory has been recently developed to account for this galactic behaviour.

Even so, many phyicist don't like MOND because it doesn't make sense in relation to basic physical principles to do with space and time and relativity theory.

But in his book The Trouble with Physics, Lee Smolin points out that there is a cosmological factor that lends support to MOND. So it is found that the crucial galactic orbital acceleration rate beyond which Newton's laws would break down matches almost exactly the measured acceleration in the expansion of the universe as a whole. Although MOND provides no theoretical explanation as to why this should be so. Nor does dark matter theory provide an explanation for what would be a relationship between dark matter and dark energy.

My own suggestion is that a whole and radically new cosmological theory needs to be developed that relates the astronomical evidence to quantum mechanics.

So it could be proposed that the mystery of galaxy rotation, galactic clusters and lensing, as well as the evolution of the large scale structure of the universe, is the same as the mystery of quantum wave behaviour and the persistence of matter as atoms and molecules despite the forces.

Hence this theory could assume that the push or pull causes that are the known forces cannot be described to explain how the universe is in its particular observed form either on the small or astronomical scale. But rather, evidence needs to be examined together so as to justify and describe rnough details of a cause that acts non-locally in addition to all the forces. This would be a cause that would neither push nor pull objects but would act on the small scale so as to maintain and universalise the particular form of atoms or molecules of a given element or compound despite the action of the forces. Such a cause would thus produce the effect of quantum entanglement as well as the quantum wave and spin behaviour.

On the astromical scale such a cause would also act so as to maintain the spiral form of galaxies. The strength of the effect f this cause would be quite weak and so could only be measured where the action of gravity is weak. Although the nonlocal effect could be measured from small objects relatively close a star and so explain the anomolous acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft. The action of this cause would be necessary for the formation both of galaxies and planetary systems and hence its effect upon Pioneers 10 and 11 as they exit the solar system.

Since the nonlocal causation would produce the wave behaviour of light and other radiant energy it could, like gravity, have a lrge scale effect on the paths of radiation beams artound galaxies and thus produce the lensing effect by acing in addition to gravity.

It could also be proposed that, overall, the Big Bang was spiral in form and so spiral galaxies would be universalised reflections of the Big Bang itself. And this would explain the relationship between the acceleration rate in spiral galaxy rotation and the universal expansion.

On the small scale a Big Bang nonlocal causation could explain the relationship of wave length to the energy of radiation. So that short wave lengths have higher energy because the Big Bang had a higher energy density when it was smaller. Also, it can be thought that what would be a universalised three dimensional spiral of causation on the small scale would explain the quantum wave and its various polarisations.

Does this then require space to be added to the universe where there is the presence of matter?

__________________
"Nature is obliged to let reality determine its laws, whereas mathematics is under no such constraint."

A crucial question.

My conclusion is that such a theory of a nonlocal cause would require additional dimensions of space from which such a cause would act upon matter and the energy it radiates. And I can't find any adequate empirical argument against the existence of such dimensions that would only contain this invisible causation that could not, in any case, be observed.

[quote=BobEldritch;1237931]SNIPPET It could also be proposed that, overall, the Big Bang was spiral in form and so spiral galaxies would be universalised reflections of the Big Bang itself. And this would explain the relationship between the acceleration rate in spiral galaxy rotation and the universal expansion.
SNIPPET

BobE. One question. If the Big Bang was spiral in form, how is it that the WMAP data shows it to be isotropic..(uniform)...to within a few millionths of a degree, in all directions with no spiral structure today?
Second question. The direction of rotation of spiral galaxies, and their principle axes vary over the sky. How does that reflect the BB universally? pete

__________________
A third rate theory forbids
A second rate theory explains after the fact
A first rate theory predicts...A. Lomonosov

[quote=trinitree88;1238030]Actually it's interesting that you should mention these factors because there are recent observations that indicate both a preferred direction or axis in the WMAP data, rather than universal isotropy, and that spiral galaxies possess a preferred direction of rotation.

They are using Schwarzschild FLRW EFE 'inside solution' of a 'sphericallly expanding' "Naked Singularity" + "Inflation"....who ever said that "Grapefruit" was "spinning"/Rotating???

Here is the real problem though...the definition that Everywhere is the center of a finite but unbounded universe...that any observer, anywhere in the universe will see the same thing from his location is "Meaningless"!!! It is a Big Bang dependent Cosmological Principal!!!

Let me give you an example....Far away (Outside our 13.7 billion light year horizon)this seems, at first blush, to be reasonable, BUT...everywhere, means everywhere...

SO, if we arrange say, Prof. Hawking, Thorne, Presskill, Wheeler, Penrose, and say, you and I and Tim, KenG, Publius and Grant, in 11 different locations say 100 yards apart (In some kind of spherical sense), EACH ONE of us will "INSIST" that our local 13.7 billion light year observable universe MUST have a T=0/T=10^-35 'inside' our own "Grapefruit"!!!

AND, if each of us is at the center of our "Grapefruit", THEN how do our expanding horizons AFFECT each of the others horizon???

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

[quote=BobEldritch;1238065]...Athough I would like to know whether and, if so in some detail, how this preferred direction in the microwave radiation could be consistent with a spiral cosmos. From what I gather so far it sounds as though it would be consistent.

By considering a wide range of observable evidence, the basic Big Bang theory and the shortcomings of existing theories that only assume the action of the known forces, I'm quite convinced that a detailed and consistent cosmological theory can be developed of a nonlocally acting cause and its effects and that measurements could be made and experiments developed to test this theory.

So given present theory, there is problem in explaining the formation of cosmic voids. Whereas in the early universe soon after matter first became atomic, a nonloca cause that is a reflection of the Big Bang could act on the gasious matter by pushing it outward from vacuum centres. Then this process would produce concentations of this matter by it being sqeezed between the voids into filamentary structures and walls. As this matter moves together the nonlocal cause could the act so as form it into galaxies. The form conserving action of the cause would then conserve the galaxies' spiral forms and their cluster formations.

There could also be considered a problem of how matter concentrated into the first stars of protogalaxies, whereas the action of a nonlocal cause could explain this.

One way of testing thius theory would be if the further caise generates a sigmificant amount of energy in stars like the sun. One kind of evidence for this extra energy could be the extreme heat of the Sun's corona. In which case sufficiently sensitive experiments may be able to detect significantly fewer neutrinos than predicted by present theory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trinitree88, Why don't you (Or anyone else) want to answer this?

Because you think this is nonesense? I assure you it is NOT.

Did you or anyone see the Science Channel Tues Night, where Joao Magueijo talked about the "Horizon Problem"? I definitely DO NOT think that his VLH (Variable Light Hypothesis) is even close to being 'on the right track'!!!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

From #5

...Athough I would like to know whether and, if so in some detail, how this preferred direction in the microwave radiation would be consistent with a spiral cosmos. But from what I gather so far it sounds as though it would be consistent.

By considering a wide range of observable evidence, the basic Big Bang theory and the shortcomings of existing theories that only assume the action of the known forces, I'm quite convinced that a detailed and consistent cosmological theory can be developed of a nonlocally acting cause and its effects and that measurements could be made and experiments developed to test this theory.

So given present theory, there is problem in explaining the formation of cosmic voids. Whereas in the early universe soon after matter first became atomic, a nonloca cause that is a reflection of the Big Bang could act on the gasious matter by pushing it outward from vacuum centres. Then this process would produce concentations of this matter by it being sqeezed between the voids into filamentary structures and walls. As this matter moves together the nonlocal cause could the act so as form it into galaxies. The form conserving action of the cause would then conserve the galaxies' spiral forms and their cluster formations.

There could als considered a problem of how matter concentrated into the first stars of protogalaxies, whereas the action of a nonlocal cause could explain this.

One way of testing this theory could be if the further caise generates a significant amount of energy in stars like the sun. One kind of evidence for this extra energy could be the extreme heat of the Sun's corona. In which case sufficiently sensitive experiments may be able to detect significantly fewer neutrinos than predicted by present theory.

AFAIK, there is NO 'pushing' on the 'gasious matter' by the "Voids" in mainstream modeling!

again, AFAIK, the mainstream interpetation of the "gasious matter" coming together, is ALL gravitational attraction.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

But then that's based on the correctness of cosmological theory that assumes just the action of the known forces. Whereas above I've already pointed to quite a lot of reasons in support of a theory that a cause acts nonlocally in addition to the forces and that is derived from the evidence of quantum mechanics.

These reaons including the fact that no dark matter has been directly detected after over two decades of experimentation; that while MOND is more accurate at explaining galaxy rotation curves it doesn't make sense as a theory; that there is a problem in explaining how matter could concentrate so as to form the first stars in protogalaxies.

And then also, although it seems that cosmologists are reluctant to admit it, a key cosmological theory could be wrong. So that the WMAP and other evidence indicates that the universe is not isotropic, as predicted by inflation theory, but has an axis or preferred direction. In which case the early universe seeding theory for the formation of galaxies, which requires cosmic inflation, would also be wrong.

So my general argument is that a consistent cosmologal theory has yet to be developed because existing quantum theory does not provide a causal explanation for quantum mechanics.

Something that may be on the topic...

A while back I wrote in Universe ExpansionIf you have 2 Branes interpenetrating, you could have a mechanism for the 'push' effect as two spacetimes try to co-exist.

Also there's potential for the change in Universe expansion rate if the branes aren't regular shapes - the initial collision providing the original expansion that was slowing but then 'suddenly' a much large cross-section begins to merge forcing the kick in expansion rate.

__________________
* Never doubt there is Truth; just doubt that you have it!

I agree that the expansion (From a "grapefruit" of a shrunken down to 0 universe) is wrong, BUT, if you don't state what mainstreams model is showing correctly, then that is all that they will argue with...

Non-Baryonic matter is Dark Matter....SO, Neutrinos fit the bill perfectly...

And they have been detected for a long time now... And, if fact, they are the ONLY DM that has ever been detected...

When DM was first proposed by mainstream, they were modeling only the Neutrinos as the DM (and yes, I definitely believe that Non-baryonic DM is needed to explain the rotation curves of galaxies!).

BUT, they could not make the straight line motion of neutrinos at "c", FIT the Big Bang large structure paradigm, or account for Neutrinos at "c" 'holding' the stars in their orbits, BUT most importantly, they needed something in their "SIMS" that was 'slower' and therefore more massive, so they could apply GR gravity to it.

SO, they (Who/what group? there is no "creator" of the WIMP or CDM that I am aware of) "Made Up" the WIMP (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle) and the "Dark Matter Halo" was born....AND it was all done with SIMS (N Body Simulations) on computers.

SO, you are correct that what they are calling the DM....being the WIMPs and CDM have NEVER been found. Now, they will say, and sorta rightfully so, that it took a long time to actually 'detect' the Neutrinos, so they just need more time to find the WIMPS, BUT that is NOT the answer,,,,,the Neutrinos are...BUT just like so many other areas where it is needed to explain different things, when you say it is the Aether, they just go bananas...;-)

Yes, MOND is certainly Ad Hoc, and TEVES is not the answer either, as it is just as as hoc.

The avis of evil, has not been shown to mean that the universe is rotating, it has just been suggested that that is what that might mean.

The CMBR is the MOST isotropic and homegenous thing found in the universe.

In fact, as Joao Magueijo pointed out so remarkably on the Science Channel last Tues night, that is still one of the biggest "Mysteries" ( I am being kind using the word Mystery!!!) in all of Cosmology!!!

The "Horizon Problem"

Even with "Inflation", there is NO accounting for how one side of the universe can be almost exactly the same temperature as the other side of the universe, because 'light/photons' could not possibly had time to be in both places to 'equilize' the temp!

Yep, the Aether once again will explain this very easily...

First, this assumes that the 'bottom up' or 'top down' proto-galaxy merger paradigm is correct. the Nuker team, and another, which I haven't checked out yet, called ELS, I believe, have pretty conclusively adapted a 'gas cloud collapse' as the way all galaxies formed. It is now my firm opinion, that it will eventually be shown, as the Nuker Team intimates, that the formation of all galaxies is directly related to the forming of the SMBH at their cores, and I have shown, that the Aether is the way that those SMBH's are created, one at a time. NO BB, the Electrons/Positrons and the Protons are all created at the time of each SMBH's creation, and we can SEE/Detect that in the High Energy Gamma radiation Events that happen about once a day across the Universe.

AND, secondly, the real problem with the BB Large Structure paradigm, is just the Voids between the Galaxy clusters, is the only place where the expansion is happening. How do you get the Fractal Structure of the expanding Voids and the Galaxy clusters, in a flat linear and at the same time 'spherical' expansion.

This talks about that...and I agree with Mr. Pietronero
Fractal Universe

And Max Tegmark just recently conceded that the universe is Flat all the way to infinity...

So, is that the "Different" you were thinking of...;>)

ETA: By the way, I agree with mainstream, that every Aether Theory ever put forth has been wrong. My Aether paradigm is very specific and NOT a "Wave" Aether!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

??

Non-Baryonic matter is Dark Matter....SO, Neutrinos fit the bill perfectly...

Just not true at all. So here's wikipedia:

It is thought that, just like the cosmic microwave background radiation left over from the Big Bang, there is a background of low energy neutrinos in our Universe. In the 1980s it was proposed that these may be the explanation for the dark matter thought to exist in the universe. Neutrinos have one important advantage over most other dark matter candidates: we know they exist. However, they also have serious problems.

From particle experiments, it is known that neutrinos are very light. This means that they move at speeds close to the speed of light except when they have extremely low kinetic energy. Thus, dark matter made from neutrinos is termed "hot dark matter". The problem is that being fast moving, the neutrinos would tend to have spread out evenly in the universe before cosmological expansion made them cold enough to congregate in clumps. This would cause the part of dark matter made of neutrinos to be smeared out and unable to cause the large galactic structures that we see.

Further, these same galaxies and groups of galaxies appear to be surrounded by dark matter which is not fast enough to escape from those galaxies. Presumably this matter provided the gravitational nucleus for formation. This implies that neutrinos make up only a small part of the total amount of dark matter.

I say there's enough evidence to indicate that the evolution of the Cosmos can't be explained by any theory that assumes the action of the forces alone, and that such a theory, which needs to sufficiently justify and describeenoughdetails of a distinct universal cause from its effects in addition to the forces, could only be developed if quantum mechanics could also be causally explained. So, for a start, it can be pointed out that all astronomers assume that radiation from the most distant observable objects in the universe possess wave behaviour that somehow survives such vast distances.

Hence you can ask why shouldn't such wave behaviour somehow require a continually acting cause that would act unlike any of the forces by acting without surrounding objects so as to produce behaviour of a particular universal form?

The small scale universe has been found to be of a very particular form that can't be explained by describing the push or pull properties of the forces. So why should this not so for the particular form of the large scale universe?

Geez, Bob...I showed this in my post, and you said you thought there could be another explanation for how the universe is working...

and then you just buy into this....

And let's parse this...

Yes, they are very light (Meaning weight). they are tinier than an electron...in fact they should be right around 10^-33. That is "String" size by the way.

Yes, and as trinitree88 says, 99.999...That's close enough to call it "c":

This is Non-Baryonic Dark Matter.....Kinetic energy has Nothing to do with this!!!!

Neutrinos can carry every EM energy there is, yep all the up to the Highest Gamma Rays, in fact they do.....they are the Aether.

AND, see here, just like I said....they almost had the Biggest key to the universe, Right Here!!!

That CMBR (Microwave photons) is "IN" those Neutrinos, and make up all of space....they came to us that way....NO BB. All of space is Neutrinos traveling in all directions at "c"....going right through the stars, Earth, your body by the billions a second.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

But I'm just pointing out that neutrinos are no good at all as an explanation for galaxy rotation curves. So the orbital motion of the outer stars of spiral galaxies are too fast. Why don't they fly apart? And the same goes for galaxies in clusters. Galaxies also bend light too much around themse