[Fis] [Fwd: Fw: dark matter]--J.Brenner
*From:* Joseph Brenner mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch *To:* Stanley N Salthe mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu ; fis mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 6:22 PM *Subject:* Re: [Fis] dark matter Dear Stan, Gordana, John, Bruno, Bob U., Yuri and All, I think we have all been dancing around the obvious: Stan described the situation we are in as a remnant continuing expansion, but this implies an expansion /relative/ to something or /against/ something, some constraint. The model of the universe would be cyclical, but this is accepted by some leading cosmologists. For me therefore, we should not only be talking about what dark matter /is /or dark energy /is/ but see them as inherent relational properties which appear (already) to be in some sort of dynamic reciprocal relation, in which one form of energy is primarily potential and the other actual. This is where Yuri and Bob U. come in: they both have some pretty sophisticated mathematical tools which I hope might be applied not to the theoretical entities but to the (equally theoretical, of course, for the time being) relations between them. Happy Western New Year! Joseph - Original Message - *From:* Stanley N Salthe mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu *To:* fis mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2012 4:30 PM *Subject:* Re: [Fis] dark matter John -- You said: There is no other evidence for a change in G, though it has been postulated. What is the compelling evidence for stable G? I would think that if galaxies at known distances would be resolved without dark matter using different values of G, that this would itself be the evidence for change that would be required. But we would not be likely to discover this if we hold G constant by fiat, or simply because it simplifies calculations. The dynamics to be explained apply to both near and far galaxies, apparently in much the same way. The near galaxies would have G much closer to our own value in the case of evolving G. Perhaps most important, they apply to our local group of galaxies. These would be brought into the calculations as well, of course. Overall we would expect that the most distant galaxies would require the greatest G in order to explain their configuration, with G getting smaller and smaller as we approach the present time. If so, this would provide another evidence for the Big Bang. I note that the evidence for dark energy is much weaker. I have felt this as well. I have been wondering why our recent discovery of current accelerating expansion could not simply be interpreted as a remnant continuing expansion. STAN John Collier On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 3:49 PM, John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za wrote: Stan, there are several reasons that a change in gravity will not explain the effects of supposed dark matter. I list them below. *From:* fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Stanley N Salthe *Sent:* 29 December 2012 04:52 PM *To:* fis *Subject:* [Fis] dark matter Gordana has said: Information and Energy/Matter What can we hope for from studies of information related to energy/matter (as it appears for us in space/time)? Information is a concept known for its ambiguity in both common, everyday use and in its specific technical applications throughout different fields of research and technology. However, most people are unaware that matter/energy today is also a concept surrounded by a disquieting uncertainty. What for Democritus were building blocks of the whole universe appear today to constitute only 4% of its observed content. (NASA 2012) [1] The rest is labeled “dark matter” (conjectured to explain gravitational effects otherwise unaccounted for) and “dark energy” (introduced to account for the expansion of the universe). We do not know what “dark matter” and “dark energy” actually are. This indicates that our present understanding of the structure of the physical world needs re-examination. [...] Information and Energy/Matter Gordana Dodig Crnkovic Information 2012, 3(4), 751-755; http://unam.us4.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=0eb0ac9b4e8565f2967a8304bid=ae24f18d1ee=d38efa683e http://unam.us4.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=0eb0ac9b4e8565f2967a8304bid=ae24f18d1ee=d38efa683e Special Issue Information and Energy/Matter http://unam.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0eb0ac9b4e8565f2967a8304bid=ea193b9747e=d38efa683e
Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Fw: dark matter]--J.Brenner
Ladies and Guys, I do not understand fully, why the problematic of dark matter is so much important from the aspect of information. We, physicists either, cannot agree what is dark matter. Several physicists interpret the notion in different ways, and this ambiguity is reflected in the Fis discussion as well. I have my own interpretation as well, what differs from that of most physicists. (I do not want to bore you with my interpretation.) We do not agree even in that, whether dark matter and dark energy are the same. (According to me, they aren't. cf., e.g. my paper linked in my signo) From my aspects of symmetry/invariance, I'd add only one, I think so, important issue: all physicists agree in the conservation of mass in the universe, but - we do not agree which mass is conserved (i.e., it may be the gravitational mass, or may be the sum of the gravitational and inertial masses); - many physicists are not aware that although the mass (which?) is conserved, the value of the conserved quantity depends on the reference frame from which we observe it. The latter has two important consequences: - once, there must be such a reference frame, in which the conserved quantity of mass - counted on the basis of the first Noether theorem - is minimal; in this case that reference frame is distinguished from all other reference frames; and this distinction would contradict to one of the basic principles of the relativity theory, according to which all reference frames are equivalent. - at second, if we would like to avoid this contradiction, there must be such a gauge field, in the presence of which all reference frames lead to the same amount of conserved mass. This means, there is not the Lorentz transformation alone under which the mass will be conserved in the universe, but the Lorentz transformation plus another transformation in that gauge field (which should depend on velocity). (I proved the existence of such combined transformation in a series of papers in 2009-12. It holds not only for mass.) In short, I think, it is not our task to solve the problem of what is dark matter. However, this remark does not mean a constraint to wish a happy new year to all of you, Gyuri . Symmetry Festival 2013, Delft, 2-7 August Download and print the poster in A3 size, post it at your department, throughout your parent institution, and distribute among colleagues outside. Thank you for your contribution to publicize the event! . A recent publication online: Physical consequences of a new gauge-symmetry and the concluded conservation law . __ Gyorgy Darvas E-mail ; Skype: darvasgy; S Y M M E T R I O N Mailing address: c/o G. Darvas; 29 Eotvos St., Budapest, H-1067 Hungary Phone: 36 (1) 302-6965; Monograph: Symmetry; Course of lectures on Symmetry, Course of lectures on Interactions in Kinetic Fields and the Conservation of IFCS ___ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Fw: dark matter]--J.Brenner
Dear Gyorgy, Pedro, Stan, Joe, Karl, Igor, and other FIS colleagues, With thankfulness for all of your enlightening comments which strengthen my feeling that there is a lot of exciting work in front of us, and that we witness all but the end of science, I wish you all A VERY HAPPY NEW YEAR 2013! Best, Gordana From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Gyorgy Darvas Sent: den 3 januari 2013 11:28 To: fis@listas.unizar.es; Pedro C. Marijuan Subject: Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Fw: dark matter]--J.Brenner Ladies and Guys, I do not understand fully, why the problematic of dark matter is so much important from the aspect of information. We, physicists either, cannot agree what is dark matter. Several physicists interpret the notion in different ways, and this ambiguity is reflected in the Fis discussion as well. I have my own interpretation as well, what differs from that of most physicists. (I do not want to bore you with my interpretation.) We do not agree even in that, whether dark matter and dark energy are the same. (According to me, they aren't. cf., e.g. my paper linked in my signo) From my aspects of symmetry/invariance, I'd add only one, I think so, important issue: all physicists agree in the conservation of mass in the universe, but - we do not agree which mass is conserved (i.e., it may be the gravitational mass, or may be the sum of the gravitational and inertial masses); - many physicists are not aware that although the mass (which?) is conserved, the value of the conserved quantity depends on the reference frame from which we observe it. The latter has two important consequences: - once, there must be such a reference frame, in which the conserved quantity of mass - counted on the basis of the first Noether theorem - is minimal; in this case that reference frame is distinguished from all other reference frames; and this distinction would contradict to one of the basic principles of the relativity theory, according to which all reference frames are equivalent. - at second, if we would like to avoid this contradiction, there must be such a gauge field, in the presence of which all reference frames lead to the same amount of conserved mass. This means, there is not the Lorentz transformation alone under which the mass will be conserved in the universe, but the Lorentz transformation plus another transformation in that gauge field (which should depend on velocity). (I proved the existence of such combined transformation in a series of papers in 2009-12. It holds not only for mass.) In short, I think, it is not our task to solve the problem of what is dark matter. However, this remark does not mean a constraint to wish a happy new year to all of you, Gyuri . Symmetry Festival 2013, Delft, 2-7 http://symmetry.hu/festival2013.html Augusthttp://symmetry.hu/festival2013.html Download and print the poster in A3 sizehttp://symmetry.hu/SYMMETRY2013_poster_printable.pdf, post it at your department, throughout your parent institution, and distribute among colleagues outside. Thank you for your contribution to publicize the event! . A recent publication online: Physical consequences of a new gauge-symmetry and the concluded conservation lawhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/g28q43v2112721r1/ . __ Gyorgy Darvashttp://members.iif.hu/darvasg/ E-mail mailto:%20darv...@iif.hu ; Skype: darvasgy; S Y M M E T R I O Nhttp://symmetry.hu/ Mailing address: c/o G. Darvas; 29 Eotvos St., Budapest, H-1067 Hungary Phone: 36 (1) 302-6965; Monograph: Symmetryhttp://books.google.hu/books?id=UYdsSrZF0mgCdq=darvas+symmetryprintsec=frontcoversource=bnhl=huei=UKx7TP3XEpDIswaMmOSxDQsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=5ved=0CDEQ6AEwBA#v=onepageqf=false; Course of lectures on http://hps.elte.hu/courses/darvas.htm#English Symmetryhttp://hps.elte.hu/courses/darvas.htm#English, Course of lectures on http://hps.elte.hu/oktaeder/atmeneti/darvas2.htm#English Interactions in Kinetic Fields and the Conservation of IFCShttp://hps.elte.hu/oktaeder/atmeneti/darvas2.htm#English ___ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
