Pavel Kroupa: On the Non-Existence of Dark Matter
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 жов 2021
- Dr. Kroupa is a Czech-Australian astrophysicist, whose research interests focus on the dynamical properties and evolution of stellar systems, structure and mass of the galaxy, and the dark matter content of galaxies, among others. He presented the first stellar-dynamic computations of star clusters, in which all stars are born as binary systems. He is famous for the eponymous Kroupa initial mass function (IMF), which describes the distribution of stellar masses at their birth. In 2008, he pointed out that the intergrated-galactic IMF theory implies that disk galaxies have a radial star formation law. Since 2010, Dr. Kroupa is increasingly concerned with various aspects of cosmology. One of the implications of his work is that effective gravity must be non-Newtonian in the ultra-weak field limit, and that the observed structures on scales of dwarf galaxies and below are fundamentally inconsistent with the predictions of the standard cosmological model. In 2007, he was honored by a Swinburne University Visiting Professorship in Melbourne and by the Leverhulme Trust Visiting Professorship at the University of Sheffield. The full title of Dr. Kroupa's presentation was "From Belief to Realism and Beauty: Given the Non-Existence of Dark Matter, how do I navigate amongst the Stars and between Galaxies?"
08:41 - beginning of the presentation
01:14:22 - beginning of the Q&A
Spanish version: TBD
The panel of our 'Golden Webinar' consisted of:
• Pavel Kroupa - Speaker
• Patricio Gonzalez (patricio.gonzalez.interprete@gmail.com) - Interpreter
• Thomas H. Puzia - Co-host, Faculty at the Institute of Astrophysics (IA)
• Elizabeth Artur de la Villarmois - Co-host, Postdoctoral Fellow at IA
• Simón Ángel - Q&A manager, Outreach Team IA
• Gaspar Galaz - Faculty at IA
• Alejandro Clocchiatti - Faculty at IA
• Demetra De Cicco - Postdoctoral Fellow at IA
• Paula Ronco - Postdoctoral Fellow at IA
• Tereza Jerabkova - Research Fellow at the European Space Agency
• Micol Benetti - Postdoctoral Research Fellow at University of Naples Federico II
• Indranil Banik - Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Bonn
• Stacy McGaugh - Professor of Astronomy at the Case Western Reserve University
• Sverre Aarseth - Research scientist at the Institute of Astronomy at the University of Cambridge
• Mordehai Milgrom - Professor of Astrophysics at the department of Particle Physics and Astrophysics at the Weizmann Institute in Rehovot, Israel
The 'Golden Webinars in Astrophysics' series seeks to bring forefront research in astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology to the public in the English and Spanish language. Full schedule of the Golden Webinars series: tiny.cc/GWA-schedule
#goldenwebinars #IAPUC #AstroUC #darkmatter #gravity #science #knowledge #galaxies #astronomy #astrophysics #universe
Follow us:
♥ FACEBOOK: / astrofisicauc
♥ INSTAGRAM: / astrouc_ia
♥ TWITTER: / astrouc
♥ WEB: astro.uc.cl - Наука та технологія
A fascinating talk on an alternative theory of the universe. My thanks to Thomas and the Golden Webinar team. Mond people may struggle to get a fair share of funding but you certainly allow them a fair share of your time. Well done.
Great presentation. It’s about time someone addressed the big elephant in the room and that is Dark Matter. No experiment has found Dark Matter particles and scientist keep having to constrain the search. The flip side is it will end up confirming there is no Dark Matter. It’s time to take another road in the understanding of the missing gravity or missing warping of spacetime. MOND is a good theory explaining the extreme low gravity regime. Now we need a modification to account for the full range of gravity.
It is hard to look away from results showing the outcome that is called DM, but of course that may very well just be a charge dynamical process.
Another outstanding webinar. Please keep these coming. The next pillar to withstand (or not) critical analysis is the existence of vacuum black holes. Same fundamental reason: GR is insufficient and toy models make spurious predictions. Bring it on in another webinar.
🎯Thank you very much sir, it was a privilege for me to listen.
Scientists of the World work hard together.
thanks for helping me (a no background very curious 40yo simple citizen) understand a little bit more our complex Universe.
I feel small but.. it's so Great, to be with you at the edge of understanding !
Thanks again, all my admiration❤👍
So nice of you
this was great. Thx for this. Finally some common sense in the current cosmology
Glad you liked it!
This was a refreshing video that gave me some hope. This is not my area (although I have taken philosophy of science courses), but even as a layperson, I have been troubled by dark matter and troubled about all the issues you discussed with funding and too much scientific consensus. I like your open, questioning attitude.
If there is a problem with a consensus, it is not a problem with science. Science is not the same as consensus. Science is the methodology to resolve questions of nature. If science is turned into "democracy" it is no longer science.
It's been clear to me for some years (a complete layman) that the 'dark matter'idea is a placeholder to explain a discrepancy between how we think the universe works and what we observe. Rather than admit our model of the universe might be fundamentally wrong, scientists (at least the ones who compete for funding) adhere to the dark matter hypothesis for no good reason. It's marvelous to hear someone who is actually a scientist articulating this so clearly.
There are reasons to theorize DM, but let's just say that if there is no good enough proof, than it is not a theory of science. Don't be sloppy about the meaning of the word science.... Science is a methodology, not a belief system.
@@KibyNykraft I'm not aware that I said science was a belief system, and i agree with your statement entirely (apart from the sloppy bit lol).
@@KibyNykraft But like "feminism", what matters is what it is in practice, not on paper. In practice, Science is ABSOLUTELY a "belief system."
Fascinating, thank you.
Are there any new comprehensive review papers on MOND? The only one I can find is 10 years old in "Living Reviews in Relativity".
ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/search/q=title%3A%22Modified%20Newtonian%20Dynamics%22%20year%3A2011-&sort=date%20asc%2C%20bibcode%20asc&p_=0
In 2024 they are claiming it is dead because one journal article (from a previous collaborator) said its predictions did not work. I'm suspicious about their eagerness to hold a funeral. I asked Pavel Kroupa to comment on that article, but I doubt he has time to look at comments under videos. Also, I'm just a layperson. Maybe he will write a journal article in response.
Just happened on these talks. Thanks. Subscribed. Is it possible that the universe is infinite, and that what is called the big bang a relatively tiny fluctuation in it (albeit, to us, an incomprehensibly massive cataclysmic event)?
You can't have both. Either you have a universe or you have infinity. Uni means totality, the lack of infinity of space.
Things are going well: no cold dark matter, no dark energy, no CMB. Keep up the good work and soon expansion will be falsified. Na zdraví!
Well well, we have to keep an open mind and let the universe speak through experiments and measurements.
Stacy McGaugh's examples of funding refusals is very reminiscent of the dogmatism and tribalism surrounding climate research. It seems that human beings are incapable of distancing themselves from religious behaviour. This is a great presentation by Pavel Groupa.
That was very interesting. God job.
I'd like to offer a little advice. Most importantly, it's always best to give your audience a well illustrated encapsulation of where you intend to take them before you start laying all the bricks into the road that leads to the eventual castle on the hill. I wrote it that way so I can say one other thing- All of the effort put into the imaginary fictional story would serve better to be invested into more of the productive graphics.
I do appreciate your efforts and investment of time into this informative presentation. Thank you.
Should the NGC 1052-DF2 results rule out both dark matter and MOND?
The NGC 1052 group is weird in many ways. We are currently looking whether there are more galaxy groups that show the same anomalies.
We really need to be doing thorough polarization analysis in all observations
Just as bohmian effects suggest a phase/ torsion component to qm behavior which is not evident directly as charge
Just as the solar envelope is much larger than is overtly evident many galaxies have a dark matter envelope of viscous amorphous atomic hydrogen
I have come to associate the position of Dr. Kroupa against the DM paradigm to Don Quijote charging the windmills; I hope his story ends better!
The difference between remote conversations and in person panels is very stark and curious. People in their homes or offices not absolutely but tend to not bring their A game whereas with the pressure of being in the spotlight in a room of peers and an audience, they deliver quite admirably. This is not true for everyone by any means. Some people are more comfortable in their own space clamming inward from the spotlight and are to unsure of themselves to perform what otherwise would be a trivial thing to them. It's a curious study of how vastly different particular people's psychologies are when in one situation or another and what level of comfort or discomfort brings out the best in them.
thank you for having the guts to speak up for the TRUTH
interesting, i watched alot of presentations by leading physicists on cosmology, the ones who were proposing alternatives to LCDM
but this one was the most interesting, the field effect is something i didn't hear others talk about much and seems it's the most fascinating prediction of MOND
also even tho some noticed how the minimum acceleration of MOND is related to cosmological constant but nobody seems asking the real question
i think we are on the verge of a real new physics
i think most physicists rejected MOND on the basis of it seemingly breaking symmetries and conservation laws
but didn't those got broken before and we found more fundamental symmerties and conservation laws?
I always felt like there's something very assumptive about the way the Big Bang and the CMB is presented.
Por favor traduzcan esta charla al español, es muy importante transmitir estas ideas al publico hispanoparlante, pues no se sabe de donde puede venir la ayuda para sacar adelante todas estas ideas.
ES SOLAMENTE UNA opinion DE UN UNIVERSO MUY OCULTO
Dear Dr. Pavel Kroupa
I think the biggest problem with dark matter is that in addition to not having been able to detect it after 40 years of searching, we do not have a mechanism that distributes it both globally and locally, the first to necessarily generate and maintain a universe of galaxies homogeneous and isotropic in all directions to avoid any collapse, and the second to be in the necessary quantities and be able to do the work it claims to do, because as we know, there is a lot
quantities of the necessary stops the rotation of the galaxies and if it is small it cannot maintain the galactic structure, so I considered that the hypothesis of dark matter is false, and the real problem arises from the fact that we do not yet know how the universe works.
MOND is also German for Moon. And I like the Moon the most of all celestial objects!🌑
and I also know the pain of no funding. So many lost opportunities for all!
Just took a brief look on the MOND theory on Wikipedia. For me as a self-teaching math and physics guy it makes a lot of sense and best of all it's easy to understand (didn't go into detail though 🌝).
The NGC 1052-DF2 is not the only case, see "A Dearth of Dark Matter in Ordinary Elliptical Galaxies", Science, Vol. 301, (2003), pp. 1696-1698.
Ah yes, this study looks at intermediate luminosity early-type galaxies. These results have to be interpreted with care as they are likely to be affected by the internal group dynamics. It is far better to study isolated dwarf galaxies, like the ones in the NGC 1052 group. Stay tuned!
When the Neutrons re-emerge in deep voids, where quantum basement is most permeable, lowest energy density, they are moving at near c having been accelerated by the gravity of the event horizon they just passed through, this outward flow from deep voids makes them net negative density
I look forward to his paper/s explaining the observations at large scales, which MOND has always failed to do. That is, the lensing observations of colliding clusters and non-colliding clusters. In the former, the mass is distributed on the outskirts, away from the visible matter, precisely as DM would predict from such a collision. In the latter, it is where we also see the visible matter. What has caused the distribution of mass to change in a collision? If gravity acts differently at different scales, why does it only kick in during a collision? Why not before?
Until MOND can explain this (among other things), it will remain a long way behind the standard model. And for good reason.
For anybody that wants a more in-depth explanation of the above, may I recommend the article by Ethan Siegal, in Forbes magazine (online) entitled, 'There's A Debate Raging Over Whether Dark Matter Is Real, But One Side Is Cheating.'
That the crisis in cosmology has escalated into the socialogical realm I believe is because a very similar crisis exists in fundamental physics. One compounds the the crisis in the other because both are sucking scarce resources to support models which no longer fully describe nature. It is clear to me that the logjam in fundamental physics must be cleared first. Fortunately there is a clear and rigorous alternative available to replace quantum mechanics but so far no one seems to have the courage to promote it. The theories of Randell Mills must be addressed in order to solve this crisis.
Este homem vai quebrar a teoria da matéria negra, e receber o Nobel.
está enganado: as instituições da física estão dominadas por gente que não quer destacar nem premiar a teoria de Mond
I get that there are more problems with the standard cosmological models than many of its proponents like to admit. I get that MOND must be taken seriously: it's unlikely that all its successes (on the smaller scale) are pure luck. But it's no good practice to deny that also lamdaCDM has important successes on its side and to suggest that MOND has less problems than lambdaCDM. It's even unfair to make it seem like MOND would solve its problems if it enjoyed enough funding.
Please, be careful before giving such convincing but untrue arguments to science deniers. We don't need this. The situation is genuinely complex. I would not bet even a euro that Galielo, Newton or an Einstein would be able to shift the paradigm these days, were they alive.
Of course, sociology plays a role in the scientific community, it does in all communities of all kinds. It would be interesting to study how sociology skews research, in cosmology, in fundamental physics, and in other areas.
But lambdaCDM is nothing like geo-centrism after the telescope. It might be comparable to geo-centrism in the Hellenistic scientific community, where geo-centrism and helio-centrism were, according to the evidence then available, equally rational.
If adding dark matter is akin to adding an epicycle, explain to me why adding a parameter in the Newtonian gravity is not the same thing. We are at a point where nobody manages without epicycles.
I feel like the story about the aliens was some kind of metaphor
Wow
Talk starts at 8:40
Thank you for this nice and interesting talk!
How can the results from your research be combined with General Relativity? General Relativity is really well proven in the solar system. The Newtonian law can be derived from General Relativity in our solar system for large distances from the sun - and also this is well proven.
Your results are very interesting and promising - but for getting higher acceptance (probably even from dark matter scientists) one needs to find a way to combine your results with General Relativity.
So which approaches have been made to combine your results and General Relativity?
In my opinion, there is one possible, simple, but nevertheless yet UNDISCUSSED way to "increase" the gravity within the framework of General Relativity for galaxies in comparison to the solar system - as the galaxies are not in free fall around a bigger mass as the solar system is:
- to consider GR not as "mass curves space" - but "mass is the source of space"
- to consider the vanishing of space (as a limit value the space is approaching to in great distances)
Well, „mass is source of space“ was my first thought when I heard of Newton, Einstein for the first time. But I now think its nonsense.
It is not so simple. It does not matter what the "source of space" or the "source of mass" is, if you have a massless spin-2 field you get GR. It is hard to avoid GR in the classical limit.
ALSO: another way to account for modified gravity but consistent with GR on galactic scales is the "wormhole gas" hypothesis, there is a weak but at large scales, detectable effect from wormholes. Wormholes are also unavoidable in quantum theory, any phenomenology that includes a spacetime foam has to admit wormholes. Particle physicists and cosmologists completely ignore this because that's the realm of "quantum gravity" which scares the pants off most physicists. These are minimal wormholes, basically entangled fermions. If wormhole throats are far enough apart you get a weak gravitational effect. This alone can account for the data I believe, see papers by Kirilov and Savelova. They have own way to compute the gravitational effect. But there is another way due to Susskind, which is more basic. Susskind argues that gravity can also be thought of as growth of complexity (in quantum information theory). Wormhole topology allows for such growth (the throat can grow up to a certain limit defined by quantum complexity (just statistical mechanics really). Small entangled black holes can also contribute in exactly the same way. It is a modification of the GR gravity calculation, not MOND.
In order to reject the cosmological model of "Dark Matter", Pavel Kroupa seems to forget that it is necessary to simultaneously refute the hundreds of proofs of Einstein's Theory of Gravitation that show the action of Mass over the Time.
the question is: who uis manipulating the research fundings in order to obtain such disastrous results in physics - and which purpose do they have?? - according to me, we are dealing with an ideological project (atheistic), trying to present dark matter as the basis for the multiverse
"All hybrid and other approaches which mimic the "success" of LCDM on large scales (>50Mpc) ... are ruled out ...with equal significance as the LCDM model ..." What is the simplest mathematical way to modify Einstein's field equations? Google "kroupa mcgaugh milgrom" & "fredkin milgrom" & "wolfram kroupa milgrom".
Dark it is because it is an alien to us type of energy and out of phase of our normal luxons energy and spacetime. What make you think that the only type of energy in our universe is our matter and light? What if dark matter and dark energy is superluminal energy and su;perluminal spacetime.
Guys Gals. Atomic activity is variable. Thats what we call time dilation. Here's the thing you need to understand, atomic forces generate atomic activity, and it is variable atomic force that is the cause of variable atomic activity. Just like a classical machine like a car, force is what animates it.
Atomic Mass is a product of atomic force. And so it follows that variable atomic force equates to variable Atomic Mass
Atomic Mass is not a constant. Account for variable atomic mass and you will be able to account for the anomalous gravitational effects that cause the mysterious galaxy rotation curves.
I say again. Dont call it time dilation. Call it variable atomic activity instead. Then ask the question "what causes variable atomic activity? Variable atomic forces do. Atomic forces are the engine that drives atomic activity, are they not. Then consider, if atomic force is not a constant, then neither is atomic mass. Variable atomic mass is the origin of the systematic deviation from predicted galaxy rotation velocity. Account for variable atomic mass within terms of its gravitational effects and you will correctly predict galaxy rotation velocities. This is the answer
Further more, I have other reasons why I know this is the correct answer. Quiz me
Why havent you people noticed that Cellular Biology and Atomic Physics share the same system theme? Both are highly complex interactive systems comprised of nucleus and outer shell, whose units have the propensity to form bonds and build bodies. This description depicts Atomic Physics just as well as it depicts Cellular Biology. Atoms and their electron bonds that build molecular bodies, and animal cells and their collagen bonds that build animal bodies. Or even plant cells and their cellulose bonds that build plant bodies. Same theme's
Knowing how biology came to possess this system theme, self-organizing Darwinian evolution, don't you think it a little odd that the universe would spontaneously create the same elaborate interactive system theme quite by big bang chance? Why doesn't this reasoning mean anything to people? The answer is staring all of you in the face.
Nature only has one organizational principle capable of generating fantastically complex systems. Biology showcases its power. And Atoms physics is not only the same structural theme, but is also a wondrously complex interactive articulated system. And I happen to know the details under which universal physics evolved. And despite all the good reasons given here, and more that I have, nobody will quiz me on it. True disappointment
📍1:11:35
I refuse it all. Subject can't be addressed, as by definition, matter is always dark, a "black body', we identify from the light illuminating it, then returning to us.
'Unseen matter', 'Matter in the dark', can be guessed by its gravitational effects, but I challenge anyone to provide evidence or calculations that drag from rubbing of stars, galaxies, with interstellar matter (Does it have a larger density than one Hydrogen atom in a cube of one year light side?) is significant, can slow turning of stars and galaxies in a mensurable way.
Matter is not distributed in an uniform way, just think in 'Horsehead Nebula', I'm not aware about how much optical phenomena influence our vision of Universes, light propagates slower in a medium of higher refractivity, as gas near a Star, than in 'empty', some 'optical lens' effect could be expected near Sun, besides relativistic, gravitational lens.
Einstein got his Nobel from work about photoelectric effect, after attending lectures on this subject in a German University, his first wife, the mathematician Mileva Maric, a Croatian, as Nikola Tesla, transposed his perceptions into formulae.
It's time to uncover charlatans, reckless, eternally hungry fellowship appliants, and the people who pretend having some connection to Einstein as rationalization for allowing them seize all.
Besides paranoid, this is a criminal attitude, a criminal ethics, lacking any morality.
Aufwiedersehen!
Looks like he's trying to claim sideways gravity, maybe even a left-hand rule for gravity, else a sideways frame shift effect. His equation looks too complicated to do anything but fit. Whether there could even be a repulsive gravity phase in it I have no idea.
A radiated ultra-slowly rotating Planck-scale gravitational dipole effect is the way to quantize gravity. Natural rotation scale for gravity vector field dipole information transmission is set to a ~30kpc stationary wave by upscaling proton impact scale by proton-proton charge/mass force ratios, while composite spin-2 paired vector dipoles (rotations are in-line pitch-type) rotate in effect twice by that scale (one cycle per ~15kpc). A dark matter repulsive-type herding effect peaks before one cycle of field rotation completes. The in-line gravity effect roll-off and reversal beforehand can make it easy to underestimate central mass.
A sideward component of gravity vector field pitch rotation may grow with or replace the longitudinal wave component, which grows in cosine (cosine squared for spin 2 gravity factor fashion. For spin 2 dominated fields with strong sideward bias and the rotation scaling numbers above the sideward DM effect has a first sideward peak over 7 kpc from the galactic center and a 2nd sideward peak ~15kpc from there.
A separate quantum gravity effect of cold field-conformal gravity focus leveraging of galactic center-dominated frame drag effects is responsible for other aspects of placid spinning galaxy morphology.
String theory failed at least partially too
9:00
Ptolemy was in the same league with earth centered universe.
Neutron decay cosmology is the physical process solution to black hole paradoxes, dark energy, dark matter, critical density maintenance
The universe is steady state but as all matter In flowing away from observer, into itself, it appears Expansion
The expansion is from voids into black holes this is geodesic path
This just plain embarrassing. Electricity in plasma environment, thats all they need to know. The 3D infinite universe is electricity in a plasma environment, designed by frequency, vibration. energy, modulation in a fractal aether medium. There is nothing sinister about how it all works, its the opposite. The human body is a classic example of how everything works ( just read above again ).....it could be a tree or a solar system, same principles.
DIK ZE POUZIVAS VLASTNU HLAVU A NIE MAINSREEM
MOND is a phenomenon that only works if there are separate versions of gravity at other places and circumstances in the universe. That's a dodge.
Meanwhile we have plenty of physical evidence that dark matter has footprints in collider technology.
The evidence of dark matter is overwhelming. Sadly the evidence for the standard model particle of dark matter is completely lacking. Here's the problem. Dark Matter has been around for far longer than standard model particles. Since they are so old and slow moving and neutral and massive they are not found just anywhere. In fact they tend to be found only at the centers of large massive objects like stars and planets and moons and the like. Otherwise, they are found in the halos of galaxies. The exception would seem to be large massive yet fragmented objects, such as the asteroid belt protoplanet between Mars and Jupiter. The masses of dark matter particles may well have several varieties from the least massive and youngest to the most massive and oldest. The least massive and youngest may well fall into the logarithmic scale proportional to that between Gravity and Electromagnetism. This is the hierarchical scale with Hadronic and Leptonic quarks at one end, the bottom end of this scale. This spans 10^36 in a scale proportional to the relative number of dimensions applying to this scale. Clearly there must be several dimensions in this scale. Approximately 7 dimensions seems to be the least massive divisision of this logarithmic scale that makes any sense. Applying a natural scale suggests that at minimum 1/18 of 36 or about 10^2 times as massive as quarks for the least massive initial stages or types of forms of dark matter, while 1/7 of 36 or about 10^5 or more times as massive as quarks for the most massive forms of the initial stages or types of dark matter. Consequentially, small quantities of this novel form of dark matter should be able to be detected, then found, isolated, formally discovered, transported, refined and manufactured. Obviously research and developments in the asteroid belt are going to be instrumental in this discovery. The slow pace of space exploration seems to mean that it's going to be a while before we get this discovery at long last. Of course, the future of dark matter doesn't really begin until its formal discovery, so we'll have to wait till then, whenever that may be.
part 2
Ok. So the Chrysanthemum or Mum, sometimes called the Mon when depicted in art, can now be understood in terms of highly temporary but sometimes long lived quark models.
It is sometimes well established that early versions of the mum were constricted within 2 dimensions. They were strongly limited, apparently limited to about 21 petals, as predicted by Fibonnacci. However, in later Mon depictions, full blown 3 dimensional mums have been depicted and are apparently grown and are flourishing. These are much larger than previous 2 dimensional models.
In counterpart, quark models in the standard model have far exceeded the dark matter models contemplated. For instance, Charm quarks are over 600 times larger than standard Up quarks, and Bottom quarks are over 400 times bigger than standard Strange quarks.
In previous models of the Fibonacci model of quark expansion, the numbers (10^2 to 10^5) are well known and within the known potential of this dimension of dark matter.
We can expect this dimension of dark matter stable components within isolated dark matter, such as within isolated galactic halos. However, trapped dark matter components such as within stars, planets and moons may be decaying quickly, as exhibited by our own Moon, which has shut down and become locked in its gravitationally stabilized orbit, and the planets Mercury and perhaps even Mars, which apparently have also slowed down, and headed for stopping. This energetic model is shocking, and further dark matter and similar quark models, may be decaying or already gone, so the Mum/Mon model will be an important strategic exploration and investigation.
I like the Chrysanthemum model for quarks anyway. It depicts the exponential growth of standard model quarks that we have already seen. However, I think we will see a plateauing of such quark expansions, I think the upper limit of further discoveries such as within the Cern Large Hadron Collider may be reached at about 10,000 times the mass of standard model Up quarks.
Spoiler Alert: There may be some new quarks within this range. However, some dimensions or ranges of dark matter quarks may already have expired and would only be available at galactic scales of discovery and investigation.
So dark matter research may still have local frontiers to discover, but may stall at this range.
The good news is that we have an extremely long time to do this research and discovery of standard model quarks before dark energy expansion catches up with us.
Relax. It's cool.
I hope that you have enjoyed this Fibonacci mathematical Chrysanthemum experiment in both quarks and dark matter.
Thank you for reading.
part 3
Ok. So we are now assuming the Fibonnacci based Chrysanthemum model of hyperdimensional dark matter and quarks.
Or we still have sluggards or Luddites who can't keep up.
In this assumptive model, this structure suggests that such matter would be in the range of 10^5 to 10^8 times the mass of standard model quarks. For regular folks this is from 10,000 times to 100,000,000 times this mass.
That is really close to the neutron star category of matter.
While this may be amusing consider where this is going, the next phase of dark matter and as yet undiscovered quark masses would have to be in the range of 10^13 to 10^21, or 1,000,000,000,000 to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 quark masses. Is this in the range of black holes yet? Or are we still stalled at very large neutron stars? Again we must pause and consider where we are.
The first stages of dark matter is from 10^2 to 10^3 masses, the 2nd stage would be from 10^3 to 10^5 masses, the 3rd stage would be from 10^5 to 10^8 masses, and the 4th stage would be from 10^8 masses to 10^13 masses. Whew. Theoretically the 5th stage of dark matter would be 10^13 to 10^21 masses. That still leaves us with the 6th stage of the mass of dark matter and quarks. This is the staggering number of 10^21 to 10^34 masses for quarks and dark matter. Wow. This is clearly the end of our Chrysanthemum dark matter models. It is also the end of our hierarchical mass models. What comes after the end of our Electromagnetism model? I dare not postulate. But I suspect outer space models of dark energy. This is the incredible range of from 10^34 to 10^55 masses, a gut wrenching number
times the mass of standard model quarks.
This is the amount of masses that represents the beginning or the ending of the universe.
It's not just a black hole.
It's the end.
Sorry - not sorry.