Text Size


Begin forwarded message:

From: JACK SARFATTI <adastra1@me.com>
Subject: Re: Dark Matter, Dark Energy and the Mach-Sciama r^-1 MOND "force"
Date: May 22, 2012 4:50:05 PM PDT
To: GNPellegrini@

On May 22, 2012, at 4:39 PM, GNPellegrini@ wrote:

Thank you for the brief review.  I have a question that seems to be relevant to the theoretical discussions going on.
It appears (correct me if I'm wrong) that what is now called "dark matter and dark energy" are what's still missing after all known matter/energy sources have been accounted for.  Is this right?


Yes all REAL particles ON MASS SHELL are only about 4% of the gravitating “stuff” of the Universe.

However, VIRTUAL BOSONS anti-gravitate like Dark Energy.



Also if the hologram theory is correct then the area A of our future horizon

gives the observed dark energy density  hc/Lp^2A as red shifted Wheeler-Feynman advanced Hawking-Unruh thermal radiation that is indistinguishable from virtual zero point photons when it reaches our detectors.

Finally, on the Mach Sciama picture we have a MOND potential ~ log(r/r0) giving a 1/r static gravity force in addition to Newton’s 1/r^2 force.

Obviously r < r0 can be set to give a MOND attractive dark matter effect and r > r0 gives a repulsive MOND dark energy effect.
In a message dated 5/22/2012 6:52:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, WDKellyTriton@writes:
Dark matter is as much observational astronomy as cosmology.  If any of you do not recall, it was Vera Ruben in the 1980s and earlier that identified discrepancies in galactic rotation rates and luminous matter distributions.  Big discrepancies.  And the dark matter was not evenly distributed.  Spiral galaxies were rotating as though a great deal of their matter was in the arms and not in the core - plus that invisible.
Given that initial conundrum, a number of hypotheses were suggested.  But they branched between baryonic and non-baryonic matter.  The "baryonic" hypotheses included black holes, red dwarfs, brown dwarfs and even lesser forms of non-luminous star formation left-over debris.  It didn't add up.  Something else was out there.  Since it could not be seen and it was not a known particle, the non-baryonic explanations involved leaps of faith that were as great or greater than those involved with believing in exo-planets prior to Marcy and Butler or Mayor in Switzerland.
Whether GR or SR has a role to play, is a matter of where it is to be applied. In the cosmological origin of dark matter?  In the introduction of an nearly extra galactic force that mimics gravity?  Or what?  With WIMP and other cosmic background radiation measurement satellites, I believe we have obtained a fairly consistent cosmological picture of forms of matter and energy - at least as pieces of a matter and energy pie - but we dark matter and dark energy's nature is still to be determined.