Sometimes you stumble on to a story from a source you don't expect. Forbes had this write up on Erik Verlinde's theory(s) and I think it will give insight to others why Dark matter may simply be an emergent effect by the quantum occupation of space/time by matter. No hard details but a nice overview from Forbes;
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/28/is-dark-matter-about-to-be-killed-by-emergent-gravity/#70bcb0d05359 That doesn't mean that something couldn't be oscillating in neutrons makeup. It would just be hard to explain give how baryons decay and morph. See; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baryons and https://www.revolvy.com/page/List-of-particles is also interesting. https://www.revolvy.com/page/List-of-baryons points to the problem with dark matter. If it's a baryon, it doesn't fit with anything we know. On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 10:20 AM Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > I like Erik Verlinde's theory and papers. Definitely worth a read. > > Some of his thinking is consistent with the "mirror matter" proposition, > so long as the mystery particles are generally located in a parallel > dimension, so that they interact with normal matter minimally no matter how > they are characterized... and which dimension has remarkable similarity to > Dirac's reciprocal space. To claim that something (mysterious) is an > emergent property of something else (better known) is framing the problem > philosophically and of limited value in pointing to a real-world > application unless the particles are literally emerging from one dimension > into another dimension - aka: mirror matter oscillation. > > Admittedly, most of this is well above my pay grade to comprehend - so > unless there is a particularly useful aspect of any theory which can be > incorporated into LENR experiment, it is more like flag-waving. When a > researcher says he has evidence that 1% of any neutron beam oscillates so > as to exhibit the properties of a different kind of neutron ... and can > decay in our 3-space even if came from another space - that sounds like a > detail which can be useful somehow and incorporated into experiment. The > more one looks at the Bush/Eagleton rubidium experiment, the more it seems > to do this (despite the inventors being completely wrong on their own > explanation), > > In LENR it seems there is a high probability that hydrogen morphs into > "something else" when confined in a metal matrix - and which species may > not be the result of nuclear fusion per se. Having a better understanding > of the properties of that particle would be important - especially if it > has some broader relevance to a Universal phenomena like dark matter. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* CB Sites > > Every story on dark matter simply leaves me confused and perplexed. The > first question I would ask is what is the spin of dark matter. Is it a > fermion or boson? If it's a fermion, it has to interact and if it > interacts why is it nearly impossible to see the interaction. If it's a > Boson, then it would tend to undergo condensation, and you would have a > bose star or a dark matter black hole. That too should be easy to observe > as a gravitational lens without a source of matter to create it. Both > have led me to conclude that dark matter is part of the concept of Emergent > Gravity (Entropic Gravity). Emergent gravity (and emergent dark matter) > doesn't have spin but would effect matter gravitationally and be associated > with matter since it appears out of the warping of small amounts space/time > by the occupation of matter and the entropic warping of space-time from > matter. This is all from ‎Erik Verlinde's theory. It's good stuff and > I don't understand why it's not the leading candidate for a dark matter > explanation. > >
