Fritz Zwicky first theorized its existence in 1930 after measuring the rotational speed of individual galaxies in several galactic clusters.  He found they could not be predicted by Newton laws of gravity based on mass of all of the visible objects in them.  Therefore, he concluded that these clusters must contain a dark or invisible form of matter.
Later observations of gas clouds in the outer parts of disk like galaxies independently confirmed the fact that approximately 90 percent of the mass in the universe is invisible or undetectable with today’s technology.

However, since the discovery in 1930 by Fritz Zwicky that approximately 90 percent of the matter in the universe is invisible physicists have not been able to determine or agree on its form.

For example, on page 92 of Mario Livio book “The Accelerating universe“, he lists the three forms that many scientists feel this invisible or dark matter can have.

The first is that it could consist of ordinary non-luminous matter such as planets, brown dwarfs, or black holes.  The second possibility is that it could be composed of neutrinos.  A third candidate is some exotic elementary particle that is a relic of the early universe.

He then goes on to explain the problems with each of these scenarios.

The existence of enough non-luminous matter to make up the invisible matter in the universe is not supported by observations based on gravitational microlensing events.

Relativity tells us that light “bends” as it moves through a gravitational field.  Therefore, we should expect to see the effects of this “bending” or gravitational lensing of the light coming from stars that are behind any non-luminous matter.  However, to this date the observed number of these gravitational lensing events indicates the mass of non-luminous matter associated with them can only be a small percentage of the universe’s missing mass.

There are some who say that this may be because of none of the non-luminous matter in our universe happens to be situated between a star and us.  However, as Mario Livio points out in his book the sheer number of non-luminous objects that would be required to make up the missing mass of the universe is so large that this seems likely.

The second possibility or the existence of neutrinos has been confirmed though observations.  This makes them prime candidate for dark matter along with non-luminous object because observations indicate they do have mass.

However, on page 98 he explains that neutrinos are probably not the dominate component of dark matter because the existence of enough neutrinos is not supported by the observed structure of our universe.

Neutrinos because of their mass are characterized by high random speeds in the early universe.  However, observations of the early universe indicate the matter that condensed to form individual galaxies was not hot enough to support the high random speeds that would have been required to create the large number of neutrinos necessary to make up the observed quantity of dark matter that is known to exist.

The third and final possibility is that it may be made up of some exotic elementary particle such as WIMPs.  However, the existence of these particles is not based on observations but only on theoretical perditions and therefore there is no way to either confirm their existence or that they are responsible for the gravitational force associated with dark matter.

However, there is another form of energy/mass, which could be a component of dark matter that has not yet been considered. 

As we have shown throughout this blog there are many observations that support the existence of a continuous non-quantized or non-particle field of mass.

The most significant is the observation made by Louis de Broglie that all particles should have a wave component.  This conclusion was confirmed by Davisson and Germer in 1927 when it was discovered that electrons and other particles were diffracted by crystals.  This provides the most direct observational evidence of  its existence because it is the only thing that could support the internal continuous wave properties of particles.

Another one is the fact that one can explain and predict the quantum properties of mass in terms of its continuous field properties.

For example in the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?” Oct. 4., 2007 it was shown that one can derive its quantum mechanical properties by extrapolating the laws of classical wave mechanics in a three-dimensional environment to a continuous non-quantized field of mass.

Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate would be present in a continuous non-quantized field of mass.

The existence of a continuous non-quantized field of energy/mass would provide the “substance” of oscillating medium thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital.  This would force a continuous non-quantized field of energy/mass to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

However, the oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established in it.

Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with the fundamental or a harmonic of it fundamental frequency.

However it also explains tell us the reason an electron cannot fall into the nucleus is because, as was shown in that article all energy is contained in four dimensional resonant systems.  In other words the energy released by an electron “falling” into it would have to manifest itself in terns of a resonate system.  Since the fundamental or lowest frequency available for a resonate system in either four dimensional space corresponds to an energy of an electron in the lowest orbital it must always be occupied.

Therefore observations that mass is quantized is supported by the existence of a continuous non-quantized field of energy/mass because one can derive their discrete properties of particles  in terms of the resonant system in it.

Additionally a continuous non-particle field of mass would have all the observable properties of Dark Matter, because, as was shown in the article “What is Dark Matter?“ Sept 10, 2007, being mass it would have a gravitational component which would define the casually of the gravitational forces associated with it.  However, it would be dark or not emit light because being continuous it would not be visible to modern scientific instruments which are only calibrated to detect light in a particle or photonic format. 

History has shown it is not necessary to directly observe or detect a substance or entity to “confirm” its existence.  For example, the existence of the atomic nucleus was indirectly “confirmed” by observing how alpha particles were deflected as they moved through gold foil.

Therefore, solving the mystery of what Dark Matter may require reanalyzing current and past observational data, unbiased by the preconceived assumption that all mass is in the form of particles and consider its existence of it in a continuous non-quantized form.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2008

The post What are the continuous field properties of dark matter? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

The relationship between distance the expansion of the universe is called Hubble law which states the rate at which galaxies are receding is directly related to their distance or V = H_o D where “V” is the velocity and “H” is Hubble’s constant and “V” is their velocity which is determined by the magnitude of the redshift.

Hubble law is important because it gives cosmologists a way of determining the age of the universe because if one knows the rate at which it is expanding one can project its expansion back in time to determine when it began.

However, many variables could affect the magnitude of a redshift and therefore the estimates of rate of the universe’s expansion and the calculations of its age based on it.

For example, light would be affected by interstellar dust causing its wavelength and the magnitude of its redshift to increase.  However, because interstellar dust is not uniformly disturbed throughout space its affects on the redshift would be non-linear with respect to what it would have been if it had not been there.  This non-linear relationship allows cosmologist to distinguish a redshift caused by dust and one caused by the motion of its source.

Another possible was put forth by Einstein in an address “Aether and the theory of Relativity” he delivered on May 5th 1920 at the University of Leyden Germany where he indicated that The General Theory of Relativity predicts that “space is endowed with physical qualities”.

“Recapitulating, we may say that according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists Aether.  According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.  But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts, which may be tracked through time.  The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”

In other words he tells us that if one accepts the validity of the General Theory of Relativity one must also accept the fact that space contains a physical or a ponderable media.  Additionally he tells us that it cannot be composed parts that could be tracked through time which is the definition of a particle.

However if light is propagated on a medium that does not consists of parts made up of particles why does it at times take the form of one.

The answer can be found in the article “The Photon: a matter wave?” Oct 1, 2007 which showed that its photonic or particle properties can be derived in terms of the resonant properties matter wave moving on the continuous “surface” of a three dimension space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.

Einstein gave us the ability to do this when in terms of his Special and General Theories of Relativity he qualitatively and quantitatively defined the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light.  This is because it allows one to redefine a unit of time he associated with energy in it to unit of space in a universe consisting of only four *spatial* dimensions. 

In other words by defining the geometric properties of a space-time universe in terms of the equation E=mc^2 and the constant velocity of light he provided a qualitative and quantitative means of redefining his space-time universe in terms of the geometry of four *spatial* dimensions.

Briefly that article showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would meet in one consisting of a continuous non-quantized field of energy/mass.

The existence of a continuous non-quantized field of energy would provide the substance or medium required for the propagation of a matter wave thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital.  This would force the continuous non-quantized field component of space to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

However, the oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established four-dimensional space. 

Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a resonant system or structure can only take on the discrete quantized values associated with its fundament or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.

Therefore these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimension are responsible for the discrete energies of all quantum systems.

Additionally it defines a physical link between the wave properties of light because it derives one in terms of the other.

Yet if this were the reason for the existence of the wave and photonic or particle properties of light then it is possible that its energy could be dissipated by interaction with the field properties of space.

The concept was first proposed in 1929 by Fritz Zwicky, who suggested that if photons lost energy over time through collisions with other particles in a regular way, the more distant objects would appear redder than more nearby ones. Zwicky himself acknowledged that any sort of scattering of light would blur the images of distant objects more than what is seen.

This “Tired Light” concept of energy loss associated with the red shifting of photons by its interaction with space has been dismissed by many because no Compton scattering is observed in them.

Compton scattering is a type of scattering that X-rays and gamma rays undergo in matter. The inelastic scattering of photons in matter results in a decrease in energy (increase in wavelength) of an X-ray or gamma ray photon, called the Compton Effect.  Part of the energy of the X/gamma ray is transferred to a scattering electron, which recoils and is ejected from its atom (which becomes ionized), and the rest of the energy is taken by the scattered, “degraded” photon.

Inverse Compton scattering also exists, where the photon gains energy (decreasing in wavelength) upon interaction with matter. Since the wavelength of the scattered light is different from the incident radiation, Compton scattering is an example of inelastic scattering, but the origin of the effect can be considered as an elastic collision between a photon and an electron. The amount the wavelength changes are called the Compton shift.

Many feel it demonstrates that light cannot be explained purely as a wave phenomenon because Thomson scattering or the classical theory of an electromagnetic wave scattered by charged particles, cannot explain high intensity shifts in wavelength.

The reason why many astronomers believe the entire redshift of a star is the result of its movement away from an observer is because as just mentioned classical theory of charged particles interacting with an electromagnetic wave, cannot explain changes in wavelength or the redshifting of high energy photons associated with gamma rays.

Therefore, if the red shift was caused by an interaction of a photon with particles in space one should observe Compton scattering in red shifted light. Since no Compton scattering is observed in light coming from a star it is assumed by many astronomers it can only be caused by the movement of an object away from an observer because as mentioned earlier it is the only way they can explain it.

However, as was shown in the article “The Photon: a matter wave?” the quantum mechanical properties of photons and charge particles are the result of a resonant “system” generated by a matter wave moving through a continuous field component of space.

Therefore, the reason no Compton scattering is observed in red shifted light may be because as mentioned earlier of particles such as photons and electrons is dissipated by an interaction of their wave properties with a continuous field energy and not with particles and therefore no Compton scattered would be observed in them. 

However, this would mean the assumption of many cosmologists that a redshift can only be caused by the expansion of space between the time the light was emitted, at

The post What the Compton effect tells us about the cosmological redshift appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.