https://DevOpsCloud.io -- Cloud Monk Losang Jinpa

See: Fake Physics, Non-Physical Physics, Quantum NON-Physics (Quantum Physics) or Quantum NON-Mechanics (Quantum Mechanics - QM)

Return to Quantum, Quantum Computing, Quantum Computer, Quantum Mechanic

“If I have learned anything from a long life’s ponderings it is that we are much further from a deeper insight into the elementary processes than most of our contemporaries believe, so that noisy celebrations are not much in line the the real state of affairs.” — Albert Einstein

Snippet from Wikipedia: Dark matter

In astronomy, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that appears not to interact with light or the electromagnetic field. Dark matter is implied by gravitational effects which cannot be explained by general relativity unless more matter is present than can be seen. Such effects occur in the context of formation and evolution of galaxies, gravitational lensing, the observable universe's current structure, mass position in galactic collisions, the motion of galaxies within galaxy clusters, and cosmic microwave background anisotropies.

In the standard lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the mass–energy content of the universe is 5% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter, and 68.2% a form of energy known as dark energy. Thus, dark matter constitutes 85% of the total mass, while dark energy and dark matter constitute 95% of the total mass–energy content.

Dark matter is not known to interact with ordinary baryonic matter and radiation except through gravity, making it difficult to detect in the laboratory. The most prevalent explanation is that dark matter is some as-yet-undiscovered subatomic particle, such as weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) or axions. The other main possibility is that dark matter is composed of primordial black holes.

Dark matter is classified as "cold", "warm", or "hot" according to its velocity (more precisely, its free streaming length). Recent models have favored a cold dark matter scenario, in which structures emerge by the gradual accumulation of particles, but after a half century of fruitless dark matter particle searches, more recent gravitational wave and James Webb Space Telescope observations have considerably strengthened the case for primordial and direct collapse black holes.

Although the astrophysics community generally accepts dark matter's existence, a minority of astrophysicists, intrigued by specific observations that are not well-explained by ordinary dark matter, argue for various modifications of the standard laws of general relativity. These include modified Newtonian dynamics, tensor–vector–scalar gravity, or entropic gravity. So far none of the proposed modified gravity theories can successfully describe every piece of observational evidence at the same time, suggesting that even if gravity has to be modified, some form of dark matter will still be required.

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0

From: “An Analysis of Dark Matter”: “Let us look at the first paragraph at Wikipedia” (see above), “under the title Dark Matter. In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is matter that is inferred to exist from gravitational effects on visible matter and background radiation, but is undetectable by emitted or scattered electromagnetic radiation. Its existence was hypothesized to account for discrepancies between measurements of the mass of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and the entire universe made through dynamical and general relativistic means, and measurements based on the mass of the visible “luminous” matter these objects contain: stars and the gas and dust of the interstelar and intergalactic medium. It is probably cold and if so, probably weakly interacting massive particles or many primordial intermediate mass black holes between 30 and 300,000 solar masses, or both.” Fair Use Source: “An Analysis of Dark Matter”

“The second sentence should read, “Its existence was hypothesized to account for discrepancies between calculations of the mass of galaxies. . . .” General Relativity is a math, not a measurement. The mass of the universe is a calculation, not a direct measurement. This means that the possibility exists that the math is wrong, and has been since the beginning of this mess. You should find it amazing that this possibility is so quickly dismissed, despite the fact that our math is known to be wrong in hundreds of other ways. Disregarding for the moment all the ways I have shown that mainstream math is compromised, the mainstream itself was forced to admit this a few years ago, when they reported a 15% general error in distance measurements. They downplayed the crushing importance of this, of course, but an error that size in something so basic is like a sky falling on modern theory. Again, these are distance calculations, not measurements. You can't measure astronomical distances directly, as with a yardstick. You have to use math to come to a distance estimate. Which means that the previous math was very wrong. If you correct not just the distance calculation, but also every bit of math that depends on distance (which would be just about all of it), you get total errors way over 100%. That is, your margin of error exceeds your data, so that your math is useless.” Fair Use Source: “An Analysis of Dark Matter”

“We can see that the margin of error has exceeded the data and the math in modern theory just by looking at the last sentence of the first paragraph. I would call that sentence a weakly interacting sentence, since it leaves the reader with absolutely no confidence the writer knows what he is talking about. We have two big squishy possibilities that aren't even remotely related to one another, and both possibilities come with zero data. They are wild speculation; and they aren't even what one would call good speculation, since they rely on stories made up just for the occasion. Meaning, they are completely ad hoc. Nothing exists to recommend either of those possibilities to the rational and reasonable, and they are on the table only because someone happened to think of them. That is like saying “I had a dream of a unicorn last night, and not of a griffon, therefore I think I will run with the unicorn theory for now.”

“After this thoroughly flaccid opening paragraph, we get shunted immediately into misdirection. We are told, “Ordinary matter accounts for only 4.6% of the mass-energy density of the observable universe, with the remainder being attributable to dark energy. From these figures, dark matter constitutes 83%, (23/(23+4.6)), of the matter in the universe, while ordinary matter makes up only 17%.” Unfortunately, that conflicts with the diagram posted:” Fair Use Source: ”An Analysis of Dark Matter“

“As you see, you have been equation finessed at Wiki once again, to get the number down from 95.4% to 83%. They are trying to separate dark energy and dark matter, but matter and energy are interchangeable, according to Einstein and therefore current theory. Besides, they admit below that that dark matter is not thought to be baryonic or atomic. Therefore, we don't care what percent of “matter” is dark matter, since dark matter is not matter as we know it. Matter as we know it is baryons and leptons and so on. To remain honest, dark matter theorists should always lump dark matter and dark energy together, since this is what tells us how much missing mass/energy they have: over 95%. That is how much their calculations fail.” Fair Use Source: ”An Analysis of Dark Matter“