Recent Dark matter energy shift discoveries interpreted to rethin current big bang models matter/anti-matter imbalance problem and explain dark matter

Dec 2019
3
0
Denton, TX
The presence of mass slows the movement of time. Time and space are unified so the same could be true about the expansion/generation of space. This is possibly confirmed by recent studies and is a discrepancy the current model fails to account for. We assume dark energy is consistent because our measurements of it are over an area with mass “evenly distributed over it” even though they're over long distances.


Cosmic Speed Measurement Suggests Dark Energy Mystery
A new measurement of how fast space is expanding disagrees with estimates based on the early universe, potentially pointing toward a break from the standard model of physics
www.scientificamerican.com

Dark Energy May Not Be A Constant, Which Would Lead To A Revolution In Physics
A new study claims that dark energy is changing with time. Here’s what it would mean, if true.
medium.com
Chandra Press Room :: Astronomers Find Dark Energy May Vary Over Time :: 28 January 19
etc.

This means in space that lacks any mass dark energy will peak where time and space are generated at an extremely high/infinite rate. At t=0 every point in space would have this property. Each point would generate mass and space almost or infinitely immediately around them, I explain why in the next paragraph. The space that is generated around the points would not be at this peak because of the matter/energy generated simultaneously in the same area. The generated mass/energy/space/times edge would be unified with the edge of the generated space from the surrounding points. the total of all this new space will cause the original points to spread away from each other as this process continues. The peaks would never lower due to the generated mass around them because ∞ minus any amount is still ∞.

Virtual quantum pairs would appear spilt around opposite sides of the center of a sphere around the exact center of every point in original space and separate accordingly. They would be generated instantly around the peak and be randomly distributed. This random distribution would leave an asymmetry in the amount of matter/anti-matter produced on opposite halves of a sphere an infinitesimal amount of space around the original point. The dominantly generated particle or anti-particle on each half would annihilate its opposite near it leaving pockets of cmbr in space around pockets of quarks. Although the mass/space-time generated by each original peak would never reach each others "zone of creation" their cmbr would.

Virtual particles become actual particles the longer they are separated by an external force.

Space would be spreading very quickly but would slow down as the mass was generated this is concurrent with what we know about the big bang. Lots of generated mass/energy, lots of expansion. that slows rapidly.

This might also explain what dark matter really is, if dark energies acceleration was relative to the mass in the area then the generated space around formed mass would have accelerated slower relatively to the gaps.
 

topsquark

Forum Staff
Apr 2008
3,024
638
On the dance floor, baby!
Virtual particles become actual particles the longer they are separated by an external force.

This might also explain what dark matter really is, if dark energies acceleration was relative to the mass in the area then the generated space around formed mass would have accelerated slower relatively to the gaps.
There seems to be some confusion here. Dark energy and dark matter are two completely different things. It's unfortunate that the names of both are "dark."

Virtual particles are simply particles that are not detected. So a virtual particle cannot be detected or become a what you are calling a "real" particle.

-Dan
 
Dec 2019
3
0
Denton, TX
There seems to be some confusion here. Dark energy and dark matter are two completely different things. It's unfortunate that the names of both are "dark."

Virtual particles are simply particles that are not detected. So a virtual particle cannot be detected or become a what you are calling a "real" particle.

-Dan
I know theyre not the same thing, I tweaked this a little later to be more clear, but the dark matter part is by far the weakest part of this theory, if you have any comments on the rest id really appreciate it even if theyre negative.

"This might also explain what dark matter really is, because the diminishing sphere of gravity around galaxies would exponentially diminish the rate of dark energy the further you moved towards the center and in every point of matter that occupied space that rate would be effectively zero. A professional would have to check the math behind this."
 
Jun 2016
1,254
599
England
There are minds (immeasurably superior to our own) that are pondering these questions
precisely because they offer the promise of a (long sought) break through in physics.
It is recognised that there are some huge glaring gaps in the current theories,
Studies in these areas could offer a revolution in physics.
However (in my view) the evidence available is still too thin to make any really sensible guesses.
My personal view is the "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" theories are "sticking plasters", holding the current theories together,
and that they will be shown to be inadequate descriptions when the full evidence has been accumulated.
However tempting it is to speculate, any ideas that might be thrown into this ring at this time are, at best, premature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: topsquark
Dec 2019
3
0
Denton, TX
There are minds (immeasurably superior to our own) that are pondering these questions
precisely because they offer the promise of a (long sought) break through in physics.
It is recognised that there are some huge glaring gaps in the current theories,
Studies in these areas could offer a revolution in physics.
However (in my view) the evidence available is still too thin to make any really sensible guesses.
My personal view is the "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter" theories are "sticking plasters", holding the current theories together,
and that they will be shown to be inadequate descriptions when the full evidence has been accumulated.
However tempting it is to speculate, any ideas that might be thrown into this ring at this time are, at best, premature.
actually the speculations are late to the party. a particle physicist just talked to me and said it was what they were already working on. so I figured out something a team of physicists did on my own but I get nothing for it. That's awesome and terrible at the same time.