https://futurism.com/the-byte/dark-matter-mirror-universe

“There's no shortage of far-out theories about the hypothetical material: that it's hiding inside an extra dimension, that it originated in a second Bing Bang, that it's information itself, or even that it doesn't exist at all.
Now, as spotted by Flatiron Institute astrophysicist and indefatigable science journalist Paul Sutter, a new paper offers yet another exotic potential explanation: that dark matter resides in a deformed mirror universe inside of own, where atoms failed to form.“

"Important to note: the paper isn't yet peer reviewed, and it's just another theory among many jostling to crack the mysteries of dark matter, a galling and lingering unknown in our understanding of the universe."'

At this point, it is more speculation than theory.

That’s the great thing about far out theories,
They’re all speculation
Until they are proven
It took Penrose 50 yrs to prove Einstein’s black hole singularity prediction mathematically, and another 50yrs to observe it with a telescope and win a Nobel Prize for it.
But for the previous 100yrs it was ‘Just speculation’
It’s still a theory.
And always was after Einstein did the logic
E=mc^2

Which was originally m=E/c^2L
Mass=Energy/Speed of Light squared Lambda
The Cosmological Constant

Turns out what he called his ‘biggest blunder’
Is now our Lambda CDM Universe.

Most far out theories never get proven and remain far out. I will remind you of the Galileo Gambit and Sagan quote here

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2464753,2464760#msg-2464760

Black holes were more than speculation. They were predicted by general relativity whose validity was pretty well validated by Eddington in 1919 via his observations of the bending of light during a solar eclipse.

In fact, in 1916 Schwartzchild produced a solution to the field equations of relativity that corresponded to a non-rotating black hole. Between then and 1965, similar solutions were found for elactrically charged non-rotating black holes, rotation black holes, and electrically charged rotating black holes by Reissner, Nordstrom, Kerr and Newman.

The original concept of a black hole dates to the late 18th century and John Michell and Pierre Laplace, so black holes were more than speculation before Penrose.

The foist observation of black holes was the discovery of quasars in the 1960s, although it was not understood what quasars were at that time. Observational evidence of black holes was also provided by gravitational lensing by 1979.

Asa an aside, Penrose only showed that if general relativity holds at all scales, black holes must contain a singularity. Most physicists today do not accept that premise to be true - as has been pointed out to you several times.

This idea might prove to be true, and it may not. But at the present time, it is very speculative.

And I would again point out that it has not yet been peer reviewed.

Thank you for adding some dressing (i.e. substance) to El Gato's word salad.

He keeps throwing around the word "singularity" like he actually knows what that term implies. I am under the impression that while the mathematical concept of singularity is well defined, how or whether that maps to what actually happens at the center of a black hole is pretty murky.

Oops - "butt dial" post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2024 01:05AM by Brother Of Jerry.

I am under the impression that while the mathematical concept of singularity is well defined, how or whether that maps to what actually happens at the center of a black hole is pretty murky.

COMMENT: Indeed! The mathematical concept of a singularity is infinity. That is also Penrose's concept as applied to matter density and gravity as derived from Einstein's field equations. Whether that translates into a genuine physical reality in the form of infinite black holes is doubtful.

In the first place, science is fundamentally (and at least traditionally) *empirical.* That is, it is based upon what scientists infer from experiment. Outside of religious mysticism, infinity has never been experienced, either directly or otherwise, and as such arguably has no place in physical science, notwithstanding the speculations of modern cosmology where speculative variables associated with Einstein's equations are applied to the universe itself.

Of course, mathematical infinity begs the question of the existence and nature of infinite mathematical objects. Since infinities are quantifiable (Cantor), presumably they have some sort of holistic existence in some Platonic realm. What this might amount to ontologically is arguably even more mysterious than an infinite black hole singularity.

I am reminded of the "structuralism" of the mathematician Stewart Shapiro, where mathematical objects are deemed to be structures, essentially the structures of set theory, which include, of course, infinities. The comments I made above regarding nebulous ("murky") nature of 'structures' in the context of mind and consciousness, and the physical world generally, can be noted here as well, as now applied to mathematical objects.

When thinking about the reality of mathematical singularities, both as infinite mathematical objects, and as somehow related to physical black holes, we might take note of the following comment:

"[A] popular argument for realism for mathematics focuses on the connections between mathematics and science. One premise is that mathematics is indispensable for science, and another is that the basic principles of science are (more or less) true. From Quinean holism, the argument concludes that mathematics is true as well -- realism in truth value. If we also take the assertions of mathematics at face value, then we are committed to the existence of numbers, sets, and so on, the ontology of mathematics -- realism in ontology. However, even if the premises are true and even if the Quine-Putnam indispensability argument is convincing, it is much too cozy to leave things at this stage. To shore up the argument, the realist must provide an account of exactly *how* mathematics is applied in science. The first premise of the argument is itself a mystery. What does the realm of numbers and sets have to do with the physical world studied in science."

(Stewart Shapiro, Philosophy of Mathematics: Structure and Ontology (1997) p. 245)

In other words, arguably until the above "mystery" is solved, infinite singularities should be deemed not to exist in the real world, notwithstanding Einstein's field equations and Penrose's mathematical proof.

[|] Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most far out theories never get proven and remain
> far out. I will remind you of the Galileo Gambit
> and Sagan quote here
>
> https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2464753
> ,2464760#msg-2464760
>
> Black holes were more than speculation. They were
> predicted by general relativity whose validity was
> pretty well validated by Eddington in 1919 via his
> observations of the bending of light during a
> solar eclipse.
>
> In fact, in 1916 Schwartzchild produced a solution
> to the field equations of relativity that
> corresponded to a non-rotating black hole. Between
> then and 1965, similar solutions were found for
> elactrically charged non-rotating black holes,
> rotation black holes, and electrically charged
> rotating black holes by Reissner, Nordstrom, Kerr
> and Newman.
>
> The original concept of a black hole dates to the
> late 18th century and John Michell and Pierre
> Laplace, so black holes were more than speculation
> before Penrose.
>
> The foist observation of black holes was the
> discovery of quasars in the 1960s, although it was
> not understood what quasars were at that time.
> Observational evidence of black holes was also
> provided by gravitational lensing by 1979.
>
> Asa an aside, Penrose only showed that if general
> relativity holds at all scales, black holes must
> contain a singularity. Most physicists today do
> not accept that premise to be true - as has been
> pointed out to you several times.
>
> This idea might prove to be true, and it may not.
> But at the present time, it is very speculative.
>
> And I would again point out that it has not yet
> been peer reviewed.

I saw that.
I just quoted the article, which I thought was interesting, although speculative, like EVERY other black hole theory, even the ones that win Nobel Prizes.

You think THAT was word salad you should read what NASA has to say about Lambda, the Cosmological Constant,

https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/education/graphic_history/#:~:text=%CE%9BCDM%20assumes%20that%20the%20universe,acceleration%20in%20the%20Hubble%20expansion.


“Assumptions
This model is a mathematical parameterization of Big Bang cosmology, as described by General Relativity and the Friedman-Lemaître-Roberson-Walker (FLRW) equations. ΛCDM assumes that the universe is composed of photons, neutrinos, ordinary matter (baryons, electrons) and cold (non-relativistic) dark matter, which only interacts gravitationally, plus "dark energy", which is responsible for the observed acceleration in the Hubble expansion. Dark energy is assumed to take the form of a constant vaccuum energy density, referred to as the cosmological constant (Λ). Standard (6 parameter) ΛCDM further imposes the constraint that space is flat (Euclidean).“

If Alpha, the fine structure constant, 1/137, were 10% more or less, atoms wouldn’t form.

Perhaps the fine structure constant only forms atoms at 1/500th the speed of light, 600km/s, which just so happens to be the speed we’re headed towards the Great Attractor. And by, ‘we’, I mean our whole region of the cosmos, Laneakea, immeasurable sky.

https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/c/Cosmic+Microwave+Background+Dipole



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2024 01:09PM by schrodingerscat.

"Black holes were more than speculation. They were predicted by general relativity whose validity was pretty well validated by Eddington in 1919 via his observations of the bending of light during a solar eclipse."

COMMENT: The early interpretations and models of general relativity *suggested* the *possibility* of black holes, which as you say lead some people to predict their existence. Yet, as long as such models were only mathematically based, rather than empirically confirmed, they remained speculative. (Mathematical models are not scientific evidence!) Moreover, the bending of light a la Eddington, and most importantly the degree of such bending, *was* evidence that general relativity was generally correct. However, it was not of itself evidence of the existence of black holes, which came much later, in the 70s as I recall.
___________________________________________

"In fact, in 1916 Schwartzchild produced a solution to the field equations of relativity that corresponded to a non-rotating black hole. Between then and 1965, similar solutions were found for elactrically charged non-rotating black holes, rotation black holes, and electrically charged rotating black holes by Reissner, Nordstrom, Kerr and Newman."

COMMENT: Yes, but again these were only mathematical models, not evidence.
____________________________________________

"The original concept of a black hole dates to the late 18th century and John Michell and Pierre Laplace, so black holes were more than speculation before Penrose."

COMMENT: You can think about the possibility of black holes simply by considering Newton's theory of gravity, which is based upon the attractive force of objects having mass density. (F= G ((m^1)(m^2))/ r^2)) Given this formula, as the masses of the two objects become theoretically greater and greater, and the distance between them, theoretically less and less, the force of gravity increases. If great enough, something like a black hole can be mathematically postulated. Nonetheless, the *physical* existence of black holes were entirely speculative until there was actual physical evidence of their existence.
_______________________________________

"The foist observation of black holes was the discovery of quasars in the 1960s, although it was not understood what quasars were at that time. Observational evidence of black holes was also provided by gravitational lensing by 1979."

COMMENT: I have no quarrel with this. At this point, speculation of black holes began to be replaced by actual evidence.
________________________________________

"As an aside, Penrose only showed that if general relativity holds at all scales, black holes must contain a singularity. Most physicists today do not accept that premise to be true - as has been pointed out to you several times."

COMMENT: Exactly! The question, then, is whether general relativity "holds at all scales," particularly at quantum scales. To this day, however, the integration of general relativity with quantum theory is at best incomplete, which is why there is so much fuss about quantum gravity. (See Smolin, *Three Roads to Quantum Gravity*) Thus, until that issue is resolved, the existence of *infinite* singularities remain questionable; and there is good reason why physicists are generally skeptical, as you say. The infinite as a physical reality not only cannot be confirmed by science, in physics mathematical infinities are generally thought to *invalidate* the theories that produce them.

But coffee contains dark matter.

It looks good! I wonder how dear shipping is...

https://www.darkmattercoffee.com/

Apparently you don't know what a theory is.