[ExI] Dark mass = matter that is "elsewhere"?

[Stuart LaForge]

John Clark wrote:

​>Boltzmann ​
​>is useless in finding the speed of particles in a gas in temperatures more
>than a hundred thousand degrees or so, you could go a bit higher if the
>particles are very heavy and a bit less if the particles are very light.​

A great mind is never useless. Let's forget about partices and the
velocity distribution for a moment. The more fundamental thermodynamic
concept is the Equipartition of Energy Theorem.

The theorem states that the total energy of a system is shared equally
amongst all available degrees of freedom of a system such that each degree
of freedom i contains Ei=kT/2 energy. These degrees of freedom can be
anything from velocities of particles, to the jiggle of complex molecules,
to rotatonal states, to the normal modes of vibration of a quantum system
i.e. quantum eigenstates.

This theorem is why entropy always increases. It is why opening a pressure
valve on a container of compressed gas causes its contents to spray out
and diffuse throughout the room. It is why ice melts, entangled quantum
states decohere, and systems tend toward equilibrium. It is the backbone
of thermodynamics.

That being said, what I am suggesting is immediately after the big bang,
the universe was a superposition of 6 normal modes of vibration or
eigenstates. Why 6? Because hyperspherical harmonics would control the
vibrational modes of a 4-dimensional manifold. You can read about
hyperspherical harmonics here:
https://www.ipnl.in2p3.fr/perso/richard/PhysRepHTML/baryon1se27.html#x35-330005.2

4-D hyperspherical harmonics are hard to visualize but here is a picture
of the 3-D spherical harmonics so you get some idea of what they are like:

https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/mlc-downloads/downloads/submissions/43856/versions/9/screenshot.jpg

There is only 1 zero degree harmonic of a hypersphere at L=0 which could
be considered the single quantum state of the big bang singularity. The
very next quantum energy level for the big bang would be at L=1 which has
6 orthogonal harmonics with degenerate energies.

Because they are degenerate, energy would partition itself equally amongst
the 1 zeroeth degree and 6 1st degree hyperspherical modes. The next
level, L=2, has 21 vibrational modes, but fortunately, we don't need to
worry about those modes because inflation kicks in before then and makes
the formerly quantum state macroscopic and *causal*.

​>Saying the speed of light is the fundamental speed limit in the universe
>is true but a bit misleading, it would be better to say that 186,000 miles
>a second is the fundamental speed of causation and light is just one of the
>things that reaches that limit. The effect gravity has is also limited by
>that speed so you could just as easily say light moves at the speed of
>gravity. The strong and weak nuclear forces are also limited by that same
>fundamental speed limit of causation.

I realize this. What the ratio of the 4-volumes of the light cone to the 
hypersphere suggest is that the degrees of freedom available to universe
are divided up into timelike and spacelike regions and the spacelike
regions hold most (1-1/(6*pi)) ~ .94.7% of the spacetime which happens to
coincide very closely with the proportion of the mass that is "dark" in
the universe.

The superluminal thing is an attempt to explain how stuff that is
spacelike separated from us could affect us gravitationally. I am not
commited to FTL baryons. Other possibilities spring to mind. Such as
networks of microscopic wormholes instead of space noodles.

These microwormholes could gravitationally connect the six distinct causal
cells that are separated by the speed of light and closed to the other
fundamental forces. Galaxies beyond the Hubble radius for example or the
nether regions inside a blackhole's event horizon.

>​If that's true then they can never effect any of our observations, but we
>observe that galaxies hold together even though there is not enough regular
>matter in them to produce the required amount of gravity to do so. ​

Yes. That is the whole point of what I am suggesting. Each galaxy seems to
be able to call upon the mass of six similarly massed galaxies to hold
itself together and determine the orbital speed of its outlying stars. And
three of those galaxies could be made of antimatter.

​I don't understand, the title of this thread is "​
Dark mass = FTL baryon
​s"​
?
​".​

Not any more. Forget FTL baryons. Think space-like matter because that is
all my math truly implies. I am just following where my math leads. My
math says that the lightcone / hypersphere 4 volume ratio predicts the
proportion of dark energy by mass in the universe to be (1-1/pi) ~ 68.17%
as compared to the 68.3% as measured by the Planck satellite.

That is within +/- 10^-4 orders of magnitude. That makes my estimate way
more accurate than the QFT guys who were off by 120 orders of magnitude.

If you have alternative explanations for the numbers I am getting from my
calculations, I would love to hear them.


>However if you assume Dark Matter particles are very heavy, from a few
>hundred times the mass of the proton all the way up to the mass of a human
>cell, then they would form filaments and galaxies of regular matter would
>form in that simulated universe, and that is consistent with observation.

Yes but the CDM model predicts a far higher number of dwarf galaxies that
our telescopes tell us are not there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_galaxy_problem

>Physicists have a pretty good understanding of the quark-gluon plasma era
>of the universe but they don't understand Dark Matter, so it must have come
>into existence well before that, and we know very little about that era.

Agreed. There are a great deal many mysteries associated with the big bang.


>Dark Matter particles very rarely fall into the central black hole because
>they'd have to be heading directly toward it and all black holes are very
>small targets.  For a particle of matter (dark or regular it makes no
>difference) in orbit around a black hole (and it will be in orbit unless it
>is heading directly toward it) to actually spiral into it the angular
>momentum of the particle must be reduced and by a lot because the Black
>Hole is so small.  When any sort of matter, dark or regular, gets close to
>a black hole it is moving very fast, but to spiral in it's got to slow down
>and get rid of most of that angular momentum.  Regular particles can do
>that by interacting with other particles, but Dark Matter particles can't
>so unless they're precisely aimed at it they never fall in.

Why wouldn't CDM particles radiate away their angular momentum in the form
of gravitational waves and spiral into the black hole eventually?


Stuart LaForge