Notices
Results 1 to 27 of 27
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By mathman
  • 1 Post By Robittybob1

Thread: Why does Normal matter= Dark energy times Dark matter squared, m=DE(DM^2) ?

  1. #1 Why does Normal matter= Dark energy times Dark matter squared, m=DE(DM^2) ? 
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    45
    Sense all things have an equal and opposite, I tried to imagine what might be the counter-part to E=mC^2. So I took the latest #'s from Wikapedia on the percentages of the universe
    matter=4.9%
    Dark Energy=68.3%
    Dark Matter=26.8%
    I then took the equation, and simply replaced the "E" with "m" (sense
    matter converts to energy). I then took the "m" and replaced it with Dark Energy
    (sense energy converts to matter). Lastly I took "C^2" and replaced it with
    Dark Matter^2.
    And Indeed : matter=DE(DM^2) = .049=.268(.683^2)

    Can anyone explain why this is?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    And Indeed : matter=DE(DM^2) = .049=.268(.683^2)
    No. (0.683*0.683)*0.268 = 0.125, and not 0.049 at all.
    Even if this did work out, it would be a pure coincidence - E=mc^2 is a special relativistic relation for stationary, massive objects only; it doesn't apply on cosmic scales. You can't just swap around terms, apply the formula to something completely unrelated, and expect to get a sensible result.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by David Hawkins View Post
    Sense all things have an equal and opposite, ...
    Assuming you meant "since" instead of "sense," the problem you have begins right at this declaration. You have taken some sort of aesthetic sense of symmetry and then assumed that it is literally true as a physical law. It is not. Indeed there are deep symmetries underlying nature, but "equal and opposite" is too facile and too crude to capture accurately what that nature is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    112
    Don't take it to heart. Even great scientists get hung up on numbers. Eddington tried to "prove" the fine structure constant was exactly 1/137 by combining some other numbers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    165
    That is pretty uncanny.



    I must admit I don't know what to make of it. Great observation. It may well be a coincidence, but it also might not be. I guess that's the nature of treasure hunting. I hope you are lucky and it turns out to be significant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    No. (0.683*0.683)*0.268 = 0.125, and not 0.049 at all.
    Even if this did work out, it would be a pure coincidence - E=mc^2 is a special relativistic relation for stationary, massive objects only; it doesn't apply on cosmic scales. You can't just swap around terms, apply the formula to something completely unrelated, and expect to get a sensible result.
    You squared the wrong term.
    A mathematician and an engineer were at a party. An older colleague of theirs was there with his daughter. The two each asked if they could speak to her. He said it was ok, but they had to approach her by going half way across the room, then stop, then half way again and stop and proceed in that manner. The mathematician realized that he would never reach her and gave up. The engineer determined that he could get close enough to talk. --Approximate retelling of a joke by my math teacher.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by Kojax View Post
    You squared the wrong term.
    I followed exactly what the OP did :

    .049=.268(.683^2)
    which isn't correct. The main point, however, was that E=mc^2 is not a formula that has anything at all to do with the composition of the universe, as pointed out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I followed exactly what the OP did :

    .049=.268(.683^2)
    which isn't correct.
    Yes, the OP made an error with the numerical calculation, but the stated formula:

    matter=DE(DM^2)
    does uncannily give the right answer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    The main point, however, was that E=mc^2 is not a formula that has anything at all to do with the composition of the universe, as pointed out.
    I think it's likely that E=mc^2 is just a red herring in all this, and that one ought to consider if there could be any reasonable basis for the OP's equation, or if it's just a numerical coincidence.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    45
    thats .683*(.268*.268)=.049 = DE(DM^2)=m
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post


    I think it's likely that E=mc^2 is just a red herring in all this, and that one ought to consider if there could be any reasonable basis for the OP's equation, or if it's just a numerical coincidence.
    Yeah. I agree that it probably doesn't have much to do with E=MC^2. C is a constant, while the other two are variables, so it wouldn't make sense to insert three variables into that equation.


    But it makes sense to expect there to be a reason for the relative abundances. Investigation into the abundances of Hydrogen, Helium and various other isotopes is what lead to the Big Bang nucleosynthesis theory. We might expect that the relative abundances of DM, DE, and matter would map back to something also.

    So to generalize this a little bit, we're looking at a situation where:

    such that Where a = Dark Energy, b = Dark Matter, c = Ordinary Matter, and m = Total Matter/Energy.


    Does that generalization sound about right? Is there perhaps a simpler way to state the relationship?
    A mathematician and an engineer were at a party. An older colleague of theirs was there with his daughter. The two each asked if they could speak to her. He said it was ok, but they had to approach her by going half way across the room, then stop, then half way again and stop and proceed in that manner. The mathematician realized that he would never reach her and gave up. The engineer determined that he could get close enough to talk. --Approximate retelling of a joke by my math teacher.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    45
    Dark Matter is squared not Dark Energy. Allthough you could say "the square root of matter= the square root of Dark Energy * Dark Matter
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #11  
    Senior Member AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    161
    Dark Matter and Dark Energy have nothing to do with each other, except they both use the word 'Dark'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #12  
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    45
    then why does normal matter= Dark energy * (Dark Matter squared.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #13  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    112
    Quote Originally Posted by David Hawkins View Post
    then why does normal matter= Dark energy * (Dark Matter squared.)
    It doesn't. The only thing you have is a numerical coincidence.

    normal matter ≠ E.
    dark energy ≠ m.
    dark matter ≠ c.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #14  
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    45
    You may dismiss this if you want, but I see it as we now have three new equations for which to ponder the Universe with, all of them mathematicaly true, m=DE(DM^2),
    DM^2=m/DE, and DE=DM^2/m.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #15  
    Senior Member AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    161
    If they're mathematically true, show me the data.

    You've taken three unrelated things, all with different units, and come up with three meaningless, random... equations(?).

    The first is saying that mass is Dark energy times Dark Mass^2 What are the units? (hint, mass is kg).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #16  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by David Hawkins View Post
    You may dismiss this if you want, but I see it as we now have three new equations for which to ponder the Universe with, all of them mathematicaly true, m=DE(DM^2),
    DM^2=m/DE, and DE=DM^2/m.
    It's dimensionally inconsistent, and hence wrong. As stated several times now, this is merely a numerical coincidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #17  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    MODERATOR NOTE : This is now better suited to Personal Theories. Moved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #18  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    It's dimensionally inconsistent, and hence wrong. As stated several times now, this is merely a numerical coincidence.
    The numerical values entering into the formula are dimensionless. My "gut feeling" is telling me not to dismiss so quickly this relationship as merely a numerical coincidence.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #19  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    My "gut feeling" is telling me not to dismiss so quickly this relationship as merely a numerical coincidence.
    Really ? My intuition is saying the exact opposite...I don't see how the percentages of the global make-up of the universe can possibly be related to Einstein's formula E=mc^2. Or do you mean that the relation between the percentage figures is possibly not a coincidence, though they have nothing to do with the aforementioned formula ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #20  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Or do you mean that the relation between the percentage figures is possibly not a coincidence
    This.


    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    though they have nothing to do with the aforementioned formula ?
    There's no doubt in my mind that E=mc^2 is irrelevant here.


    I should remark that I see no particular significance in the form of the proposed formula, but the idea that there is a mathematical relationship between matter, dark matter, and dark energy is somewhat tantalising.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #21  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    There's no doubt in my mind that E=mc^2 is irrelevant here.
    Yes, and that was actually my point
    As for the numerical values - I am really not sure what to think; it's an interesting coincidence for sure. On the other hand, the percentage values given reflect only the situation within the observable universe. The actual universe might be very much larger, and the actual breakdown over the whole universe might thus be substantially different from these percentages. We don't know for sure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #22  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    This.




    There's no doubt in my mind that E=mc^2 is irrelevant here.


    I should remark that I see no particular significance in the form of the proposed formula, but the idea that there is a mathematical relationship between matter, dark matter, and dark energy is somewhat tantalising.
    Do they know what dark matter and dark energy is? If you don't know what it is why does AlexG complain about the units, and maybe it gives a clue as to what the units of DM and DE are?
    David Hawkins likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #23  
    mvb
    mvb is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    228
    I an intrigued by this observation, even though it could be a total accident. Isaac Asimov once said "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka' but 'Thats funny...' The quantities here are percentages of the total mass of the observable universe, but energy conservation surely keeps the denominator nearly constant over time. The denominator would be exactly constant except that Fermion masses and perhaps gravitational potential energy are not included, but both are no doubt relatively small. Therefore the surface result, if it is caused by some principle, is a direct relationship not changed by the normalization of the variables. Moreover, it is relating the energy associated with baryons, a thoroughly quantum mechanical quantity, to the energy associated with dark matter, which is rather mysterious, and the energy associated with dark energy, which is a thoroughly General Relativistic concept. The relation of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is perhaps the major current mystery in physics. So while it is surely likely that the relation of these abundances is an accident, if it isn't an accident it may address a major interest. I am surprised that I haven't seen the relation mentioned before.

    [Nonetheless I am sure that the relation has nothing to do with E=mc2 . It might be a equilibrium relation of some sort, although that is even further out than is believing that the result is meaningful.]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #24  
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    45
    would it make any sense to incorperate the age of the Universe into the equation? m=DE(DM^2) for example

    13,800,000,000 to the root of 3 * the square root of DM * DE = normal matter, or 13.88 * .517687164 *.683 = 4.9

    so "(the age of the Universe to the root of 3) times (the square root of Dark Matter) times (the energy of expansion) = normal matter
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #25  
    mvb
    mvb is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by David Hawkins View Post
    would it make any sense to incorperate the age of the Universe into the equation? m=DE(DM^2) for example

    13,800,000,000 to the root of 3 * the square root of DM * DE = normal matter, or 13.88 * .517687164 *.683 = 4.9

    so "(the age of the Universe to the root of 3) times (the square root of Dark Matter) times (the energy of expansion) = normal matter
    No, surely not. It is very difficult to conceive how a cube root of the age or the square root of a density could appear in any formula. No one has shown that the other equation is meaningful either, but at least one can get a glimmer of a possibility of getting it to work. Still, the chances of even that equation being real physics is very, very small.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #26  
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    45
    Here is how matter can be squared or the square root of matter to be conceivable:

    If one of the quarks in a given hadron is pulled away from its neighbors, the color-force field "stretches" between that quark and its neighbors. In so doing, more and more energy is added to the color-force field as the quarks are pulled apart. At some point, it is energetically cheaper for the color-force field to "snap" into a new quark-antiquark pair. In so doing, energy is conserved because the energy of the color-force field is converted into the mass of the new quarks, and the color-force field can "relax" back to an unstretched state.

    or Weak interactions and the decay of massive quarks and leptons into lighter quarks and leptons. When fundamental particles decay, it is very strange: we observe the particle vanishing and being replaced by two or more different particles. Although the total of mass and energy is conserved, some of the original particle's mass is converted into kinetic energy, and the resulting particles always have less mass than the original particle that decayed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #27 Parallel matters between Astrophysics and Quantum Physics 
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    45
    I submit this for consideration because there seems to be some parrallel things going on in quantum physics:

    That a nuetron decays producing an electron at the speed of light an anti-nuetrino at the speed of light and a proton.

    Because neutrinos were produced in great abundance in the early universe and rarely interact with matter, there are a lot of them in the Universe. Their tiny mass but huge numbers may contribute to total mass of the universe and affect its expansion.

    and this sounds very familiar : "We cannot account for the nucleus staying together with just electromagnetic force." Strong force aside, I'm reffering to galactic arms and gravitational mass.. . . could this be infering that : as matter moves away from a point of singularity and gravity grows weaker, that the Electro-weak field gets stronger? or force carrier particles get closer to (or further from)each other?

    Just as electrically-charged particles interact by exchanging photons in electromagnetic interactions, color-charged particles exchange gluons in strong interactions. When two quarks are close to one another, they exchange gluons and create a very strong color force field that binds the quarks together. The force field gets stronger as the quarks get further apart.

    What happens when two quarks are seperated by space? couldn't they exhist that way since they only condense around matter(or very near other quarks)?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •