This is my theory of the Gravitational effect of Electromagnetic energy in transit. If you have time, please do read it and i would love to hear your thoughts on the topic!!

**********************

I watched some Youtube videos about dark matter and dark energy. I have been researching dark matter and dark energy for some time now. Please take the time to consider my theory or proposal for a possible explanation.

These are my rough notes i took after i watched the videos. I had to write quickly to get the thoughts down on paper. If you have any thoughts on the matter, please do get back to me, my details are below.

*******************
25th March 2010 notes;
My theory -
"The gravitational effect of Electromagnetic energy in transit"
A more practical explanation for the gravitational effects of dark matter and dark energy.
I now have a much more complete understanding of the dark matter/dark energy problem.
I watched these 4 Youtube videos;
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx1Wf84bC2M
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzrxXxkdN1w
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xKFrdzhM2Y
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvQz2eWBkmg

The videos were produced by Dr. Damian Pope of the the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, in Canada - https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=72&pi=Damian_Pope .
The videos seem to explain the dark matter/dark energy problem quite well.

This is my theory to explain the dark matter/dark energy problem;

Its light in transit!!!!! This is the key to solving the problem!!!!!!

The videos never at any stage even mention taking "light in transit"
into account in the calculations for measuring the mass of galaxies or stars.

This is how it should work; My theory, my more complete understanding;
A star in a galaxy 13 billion light years away shines.
We take a picture of the star with Hubble.
The picture shows us what the star looked like 13 billion years ago.
Between us and the star is 13 billion years of "light energy in transit".

According to Prof. Jess H. Brewer of Univ. of British Columbia;
http://musr.physics.ubc.ca/~jess/me/jhb_personal.html
Light HAS an effective mass;
http://musr.physics.ubc.ca/~jess/hr/skept/EMC2/node11.html
{QUOTE}
"Thus, even though light has no REST MASS (because it can never be at rest!),
it does have an effective mass which (it turns out) has all the properties one
expects from MASS - in particular, it has weight in a gravitational
field [photons can "fall"] and exerts a gravitational attraction of its
own on other masses. The classic Gedankenexperiment on this topic is one in which
the net mass of a closed box with mirrored sides increases if it is filled with light
bouncing back and forth off the mirrors!"{END-QUOTE}

Back to my theory;
Therefore the "light in transit" should have a gravitational effect on the galaxy!!!!
The gravitational effect of the light energy in transit, i think, should be
inversely proportionally to the square of the distance the light energy has travelled.
You could think of it like a continuous halo of energy emanating from a star in
all directions, for however many billions of years the star has been shining.
This halo of energy would get weaker the further away you get from the star. The halo
of energy would have no gravitational effect on the star itself, but it would have a
gravitational effect on other bodies it passes by.

This would cause several effects;
1. Light travelling away from near the centre of a galaxy would have no gravitational
effect on the mass actually in the centre of that galaxy, because its travelling away
at the speed of light.
But!!!! That same light WOULD have a gravitational effect on the stars further out
in the galaxy as that light would be travelling past these other stars.

2. Conversely, light travelling inward from a star near the edge of that galaxy would
have no effect on the stars at the galaxy's edge. But it would have a gravitational effect
on stars further into the galaxy as the light travelled past them.

3. This light energy in transit would be invisible to us. Why???
Because we can only see and measure the light energy that is travelling exactly in our direction.
We cannot see the light in transit at 90 degrees to us, or light at any other angle to us
other than the exact set of photons that hit the lens of the Hubble telescope.
So we kind of cannot see 359.999999 degrees, in all directions, of the light emitted from the source star.
But we should easily be able to calculate how much light energy IS in transit if
we know the age of the star and its current mass.

4. Also, other stars in other galaxy’s are shining, in all directions, and have been for X amount of time.
So the light from other galaxy’s is now reaching the galaxy we are taking the picture of with Hubble. This
light will also exert a gravitational effect on the galaxy in our Hubble picture. So, the galaxy in
our Hubble picture is being gravitationally effected by light that is now reaching it from other
galaxy’s that surround it in all directions.

5. I have explained this effect using visible light as an example. But really, this
gravitational effect of "light in transit" would also apply to energy spanning the complete
Electromagnetic spectrum. so really the effect could be better described as
"Energy in transit"
or
"The gravitational effect of energy in transit"
or
"The gravitational effect of Electromagnetic energy in transit"

6. Theoretically this effect could well account for the observed expansion of the
universe. If this theory was correct, then its possible that in a closed universe
only containing the matter, energy and stuff we can see, light and other Electromagnetic
radiation would be kind of "leaking out" from the edge away from the direction of the
big bang. This would result in loss of both energy and mass from the observable universe and
the observable universe would get lighter. This would result in continued accelerated expansion.
The currently observable universe would have been loosing mass continually from the start of
the big bang.

7. If this "Gravitational effect of energy in transit" did turn out to be true, there would
be another gravitational effect on really tiny things, on the quantum level. But i need
more time to understand this effect to be able to explain it.
I believe this is a far more plausible explanation for the observational effects of
dark matter and dark energy.
The simplest explanation is usually the right one. Also, as with the vast majority
of effects in science and physics, everyone should be able to fully understand the effects
when they are fully explained, even young children. You should not have to be a genius
to understand science, physics, space and cosmology.

I would be very glad to hear your thoughts about this theory.

******************
I emailed 17 physicists and cosmologists who study dark matter and dark energy on the 4th April 2010 about this topic and not a single one responded to the email.

John in Ireland.

---

Interesting idea, makes sense

- but I am always wary of "common sense" so easily mis-interpreted

---

Join TeamACC

Sometimes I think we are alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we are not. In either case the idea is quite staggering.

John, my son. I too am intrigued by the apparent conundrum of missing mass and missing energy. I am always amazed that the answer to much of theoretical and actual physics phenomena is always a particle.

I think that the whole structure of observation/belief/theory needs to be examined. Is there something that causes light to lose energy as it travels -the Fritz Zwicky theory of "tired light"- this would make the doppler method off kilter in determining speed if it were true.

If the medium of space itself were spinning (about what axis? and in what dimension?) then rotational speeds would not depend on the gravitational effect of mass. Stir some black coffee and then while it is spinning sprinkle in some powdered creamer and watch it rotate and expand forming a galactic body inside your coffee cup. The energy from the rotating medium explains the rotational speed and expansion-not the mass of the creamer particles.

All crackpot theories to be sure; but it may turn out that there are no wimps or axions . It may turn out that our observations are flawed, it may turn out that the theories of Newtonian and Einstein's gravity might need to be modified drastically on very large and very small scales

---

Bill my old friend,
I think that modern physics is misinterpreting the observations from the worlds largest telescopes and science today is stuck somewhere between observational science and science-fiction.--- When we don't understand how something works, peoples minds go wild with speculation and far flung theories. The big bang, dark matter and dark energy are currently caught in this fight.

I think there is no dark matter and no dark energy, or at least no new mysterious exotic matter and energy, we are simply seeing the gravitational effect of conventional Electromagnetic energy in transit. Its the same light energy (Electromagnetic energy at all wavelengths) we are seeing when we take a picture with any of the worlds largest telescopes.

I'm saying light in transit, or Electromagnetic energy in transit has a Gravitational effect and scientists are NOT taking this into account when calculating the speed and mass of very distant stars and Galaxy's. In the 4 videos in my first message, Dr. Damian Pope did not attempt to calculate this Gravitational effect. I think Dr. Damian Pope and other scientists are neglecting this from the calculations because they believe the effect is negligible. But its not negligible, not when Electromagnetic energy in transit has been building up in space for 13.7 billion years, the effect is massive!!!. But we can only see the effect on very large scales, like when we take measurements of the speed of very distant Galaxy's and stars. This makes sense because we do not notice the effects of dark matter and dark energy on the smaller scale, like in our solar system, we only see its effects on galactic scales.

If it turns out that i am correct, this has massive implications for the whole of science. If my theory is true, then the theoretical particle, the Higgs Boson, will NOT be found in particle collisions in the LHC. They theorise that the Higgs Boson is a sub-atomic particle responsible for "mass". But i'm saying that its NOT!. I'm saying that its conventional Electromagnetic energy in transit that is responsible for mass. The LHC is now running, so pretty soon we will know if i'm wrong. I'm betting they won't find the Higgs Boson and my theory is correct!. When they smash the particles, all energy will be equal and fully accounted for without any special particle being singly responsible for mass.

John.

---

The Black light emanating from God, that I saw emanating from him is the black energy

---

" All The Universe sings the Praises Of Your Lord, but you do not understand its singing(song) ".

Yes, but I would suggest that as energy is emitted from a star, it's mass would decrease in proportion to Einstein's E=MC^2. Some calculations would be helpful . Also remember that there are huge distances between stars; but if gravity has an effect among galaxies which it does (and it is a weak force) it's probably worth trying to impute an effect due to the aggregate amount of light energy in the Universe. Also, if in fact the Universe is expanding, then why would this effect act to push matter apart rather than push it back together.

If the Universe is expanding then space is expanding and the energy would be attributed to and contained in the vacuum. If all true, then I would like to know the mechanism that causes space to expand. For sure the matter in the universe must be expanding since the average temperature is a cool 3 degrees Kelvin and it was unbelievably hot at the moment of creation.

Just some thoughts.

I am extra busy today John --lets try a skype maybe this Friday-we usually would go on for a long while. It's now 11:14 AM here so we are 6 hours or so displaced in time.

Also, if in fact the Universe is expanding, then why would this effect act to push matter apart rather than push it back together.

I'm glad you asked the question Bill,
If my theory is correct, the visible universe would have been loosing mass, in the form of energy from day one, the time of the big bang. Hence it would be getting lighter as it looses mass, in the form of energy, moving away from the direction of the big bang and less mass would cause constant increased acceleration as time goes by.

I will also be busy in the coming days, we can Skype at a later date. Next week maybe. LOL, yes, displaced in time, funny how London is the centre of time in our universe.

John.

---

Yes it would accelerate at an increasing rate only if there were a constant force pushing outward. Gravity retardation would decrease due to the dilution of mass density and as you say the stars would be lighter since they were turning their mass into energy.

The key here is to define what and how this force emanates from the expanding vacuum. I seems to be constant --if in fact the acceleration increase is a reality. This force is not diluted by the expansion of space but seems to be uniform per volume of space which is alledgedly increasing.

I have also been a touch confused by the absence of mention of things which are commonly said. You bring up one about photons and yes this has bothered me. And I paid for the damned BS degree and they still didn't tell me. But I bought it a long time ago and neutrino still did not have mass back then. And now they do and where is the effect of that mass? And since they have finite velocity and do interact and even if weakly after 14 billion years or so where are they now?

And I still have a problem with all the brown and black and ultra-black dwarves which have to be out there. No view which has only browns and brighter makes a lick of sense.

And this whole thing of dark energy seems to be based upon the red shift accelerating the further away. Pardon but if there was a bang time then things are not reciprocal. There was a start. So does that not mean the more recent shift is decelerating? The energy driving expansion is being transferred to another form. I have no idea what form but I don't see how some magic dark energy fits into it.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

Matt,
Everybody is confused by the very biggest and the very smallest things in the universe. Both cosmology and particle physics have been locked for many years now and the best minds in the world are having trouble explaining how it all works.

Nobody has the right answer yet Matt, but lots of people are working to solve the things we don't understand. Thats most likely why you did a BS degree and came away not understanding some of these things. Your teachers did not have all the answers either.

What i wrote in the first post in this message is my personal theory, its not from any book and might or might not be correct. Its just my theory, its just one theory.

John.

---

Yes, but I would suggest that as energy is emitted from a star, it's mass would decrease in proportion to Einstein's E=MC^2. Some calculations would be helpful . [...]

I'll do one because I don't think, this theory can be right. Just think about our sun: it was shining for billions of years and will continue to shine equally long but the amount of mass that it has lost through EM radiation is only an extremely small fraction of its own.

I'll calculate the theoretical maximum fraction of mass that can be converted to energy (what actually is converted will be much less). The energy that is released through a fusion process in a star is the binding energy in the atom cores. But that can only work until iron is produced. If elements with a higher mass like uranium are formed, energy must be added (that's why they usually are formed in a supernova). That's why we can get energy, too, if we split uranium.

The isotope 58Fe has the highest binding energy per nucleon (neutron or proton). It's 8.792 MeV. (from http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlights/binding_energy/binding_energy/index.txt).

I'll convert that to a Mass:
M = E/c^2 = 8.792MeV/((2.9979*10^8m/s)^2) = 8.792*1.6022*10^-19MJ/(2.9979^2*10^16m^2/s^2) = (8.792*1.6022*10^-13kg*m^2/s^2)/2.9979^2*10^16m^2/s^2) = 1.5674*10^-29kg

The Mass of a nucleon is 1.673*10^-27 kg. So the maximum fraction of mass that can be converted to EM energy through fusion is 1.5674*10^-29/1.673*10^-27 = 0.94*10^-2 = 0.94%.

That means, that the absolute maximum of mass that can be converted through fusion is about one per cent. But then the whole universe would consist of iron while its mainly all hydrogen and helium, so we are faaar away from that, about 0.05 per cent should be converted by now. If only 0.05 per cent of the whole mass of the universe consist of EM energy, its gravitational effect is in fact negligible.

That means, that the absolute maximum of mass that can be converted through fusion is about one per cent. But then the whole universe would consist of iron while its mainly all hydrogen and helium, so we are faaar away from that, about 0.05 per cent should be converted by now. If only 0.05 per cent of the whole mass of the universe consist of EM energy, its gravitational effect is in fact negligible.

Yes but ... At Bang Time there was all that energy only fraction of which decided to become matter. But all decisions are imperfect so it so there was a few parts per billion more matter than anti-matter particles and thus the current amount of matter represents those extra parts per billion all the rest being gamma rays. Don't you just hate it when you let inanimate things make decisions?

Rash decisions aside, where is all that energy and what is it doing while no one is watching?

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

wulf 21 and Matt,

wulf 21 your maths are correct. In the life time of "OUR SUN" it will loose roughly 1% of its total mass. This will be emitted as electromagnetic energy spread across the complete spectrum. Our sun is about half way through its 10 billion year life, our sun is about 5 billion years old.

So, if all the stars in the universe where the same as our Sun, all lasting 10 billion years, that would knock my theory on the head, end of story.

Ahhhh.... But we know that many more stars are born and die in a much shorter time. There are many more massive stars, much larger than our sun and they live and die much quicker. Not only that, but we know of many other events in the universe that release massive quantities of electromagnetic energy on a truly colossal scale.

Things like Supernova, Gamma ray bursts, quasar's, pulsars, Massive stars that burn quickly, etc, etc, and or coarse, the big bang itself. So slow burning stars like our sun will only have contributed a small amount to the total amount of mass in the universe that has been converted to Electromagnetic energy in transit.

Without using any maths, do you see the point i am making? This mass that has been converted to energy in transit, since day one of the big bang, its not gone! Its still there! And it has a gravitational effect on objects with mass. We can never see the vast majority of this mass that has been converted to energy, but my theory is that this is what we are describing today as Dark Matter.

Think about it, we can only detect dark matter through the gravitational effect is has on the rotation of galaxy's and on the movement of galaxy clusters. But if there is such a large amount of it,why don't we see its effect on the scale of our solar system? No, only see its effects on the massive galactic scales. Its because the gravitational effect of large amounts of real matter, like the planets in our solar system is much greater. Because planets and stars are compressed energy, or matter as we like to call it,cos we can see it.

John.

---

Bill,
My last post was more of an explanation of my theory of "Dark Matter" not dark energy. So it was only dealing with galaxy rotation and galaxy clusters.

Bill said:

There are some conundrums in my mind however. They say that the farther away galaxies are receding at an accelerating rate--well--for the far away galaxies we are seeing what happened billions of years ago when gravity still held the expansion in check and probably slowed it down for a good long while. So I am missing something here.

Yea, thinking about this causes all kinds of problems in peoples minds, mainly to do with Einstein's relativity. Everyone has the same problem. Its real hard to get your head around it. But they are correct, what we see is not just travelling at a constant speed, the key word is its "accelerating". So this is the main hypothesis for "dark energy".

My "dark energy" theory is based around the following;

In a completely empty vacuum of space, void of anything, we have 2 suns, the same as our sun. The 2 suns are gravitationally bound and they are orbiting each other, lets say 1 billion miles apart. These 2 suns are shining, slowly converting their mass into energy that is travelling away from them. So, over time, as the two suns slowly get lighter, what would happen to the distance between the 2 suns?

I hypothesise that these 2 suns would slowly move apart, because they loose mass, at a constantly accelerating rate during their lifetime. Just ignore what happens when they run out of fuel for this experiment. Without going into the greater detail of all the various scenarios, apply this on a universal scale and you get a universe that is "expanding" and "accelerating"

Bill said:

Yes the energy that is radiated is still there but it has cooled to only 3 degrees Kelvin which is very cold indeed.

Yes, but i maintain that 3 K is very warm!!!! It is compared to the infinity value of a completely empty vacuum void of anything!! The cosmological constant that everyone keeps adding to calculations. 7 billion years ago, half the time back to the big bang, what value would we have measured for the CMB? double the value? No, i speculate that its decreasing by the inverse square rule, it was much larger, having a larger gravitational effect, holding everything together more tightly. Remember the cosmic microwave background is "microwave" energy, its electromagnetic energy in transit!!

My belief is that if you consider the mass that has been converted to energy, from the start of the big bang, to be negligible, this is a mistake. This has a gravitational effect, i believe!! (No, i know it has a gravitational effect!)

John.

---

The thing is that the maximum amount of energy that was converted from the mass of the stars since the big bang appears to be less than one ten thousandth of a percent. The missing mass or dark matter appears to be at three to 9 times times the mass that we can see. This is far too large a disparity to attribute to radiated energy.

Since energy can be neither created or destroyed the amount of total energy( ??) is the same as it was at the Big Bang. In the beginning it was all energy. Of course I would like to know where the energy of the vacuum comes from and why more vacuum is being created.

Several large scale efforts are underway now to detect Wimps and other particles that might account for this missing matter. This to me is not such a mystery--Dark Energy though that is a true unknown.

regards,

Daddio

The thing is that the maximum amount of energy that was converted from the mass of the stars since the big bang appears to be less than one ten thousandth of a percent. The missing mass or dark matter appears to be at three to 9 times times the mass that we can see. This is far too large a disparity to attribute to radiated energy.
regards,

Daddio

Are you sure Bill? The figure of one ten thousandth? Are you deducing this from your calculation in your second last message? We are talking about the total conversion for the last 13.7 billion years, its not just for our Sun.

To be honest, i am having difficulty finding a reliable figure for how much total mass has been converted to energy since the big bang. This would be a very valuable figure to find! Even a reliable estimate from someone who spent time working it out. its a very complex calculation, you won't do this is ten minutes.

John.

---

wulf 21 and Matt,

wulf 21 your maths are correct. In the life time of "OUR SUN" it will loose roughly 1% of its total mass. This will be emitted as electromagnetic energy spread across the complete spectrum. Our sun is about half way through its 10 billion year life, our sun is about 5 billion years old.

So, if all the stars in the universe where the same as our Sun, all lasting 10 billion years, that would knock my theory on the head, end of story.
...
John.

However the calculation of the total amount of energy which can be released by fusion is what I addressed.

I am not for a pious belief in symmetry back at bang time but that appears to be one of the features of cosmology with which we currently suffer.

I believe I am correct in reciting the current "explanation" of only one kind of matter (which is not anti-matter) is a very small, nearly negligible asymmetry in the kinds of matter which appeared and that his asymmetry was on the order of a few parts per billion.

So despite the calculation of the total amount of energy yet to be released there is a huge amount of unaccounted for energy if the asymmetry explanation is legitimate. At even 100 parts per billion there is 10,000,000 times the mass equivalent of energy out there with a mere 100 parts of our kind of matter to be affected by it.

So if there is energy in transit as suggested then the amount of that energy is somewhat larger than in the everything turns to iron calculation which can only be a fraction of the "100" parts per billion which would be a negligible increase in the amount of energy in transit from long ago.

Of course if this is the case would not the measurements of the intensity of cosmic background radiation be somewhat greater? If bang time radiation is to be reduced to a fraction of a degree K because the universe expanded then there should be a second burst of energy when the symmetric quantities of matter and anti-matter annihilated. And as the universe was a noticeably greater percent larger its contribution to the background should be a bit warmer. But certainly no continuous spectrum. Again assuming all this talk of bang time is true which I doubt but that is another thread entirely as I have nothing better to propose. I merely observe we have western creation against eastern eternal existence and Hoyle's buddy was in the latter category. I would be terribly impressed if one of the two competing pre-scientific ideas happens to be the case.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

That's right. The annilation of matter and anti-matter would produce pure energy. All of the matter would be converted to energy. If the theory is right, what was left due to a small surplus of positive matter would form the mass we have today.

The problem may be that space is so incredibly vast with a very low average density of mass. Thus, this energy has cooled to the background level that we see now. So even though the energy due to annilation is vast it is diluted drastically by the enormaty of space itself. Remember that our nearest star is 4 light years away and that the average density of mass if far lower due to huge distances between galaxies.

The universe is now a sphere or perhaps a torus that has been purported by some to be about 150 billion light-years in diameter. This size is due to space expanding at faster than light speed. So you could take the known mass of the universe, throw in the dark matter multiply by the matter antimatter ratio and then use E=MC^2 to find the total energy loose in the universe due to the annilation and then divide this by, say, a sphere of diameter 150 billion light years in diameter to see the average energy density that would exert pressure.

The average mass density of the universe is on the order of 1 x 10^-30 grams per cubic cm. or about 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter.

The energy or negative pressure that is accelerating the universe can only come from the vacuum. Perhaps we should have another go at General Relativity or ask WHY and How do things actually work in addition to WHAT .