Welcome
Welcome to physicsdiscussionforum

## What was first: The Dark or the Visible matter

### Re: What was first: The Dark or the Visible matter

Indeed, this question is basically wrong. Since dark matter or visible matter is defined based on human senses. We named it as dark matter as it is invisible to senses of human and human-made machines. Thus, it is indeed based on sensing ability. Thus, the origination of matter can't be classified into dark and visible. Moreover, we still can reckon the time if it is asked, but still, we were not there when it happened.

http://helpwritinganessay.com/
serenamikell

Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:37 am

### Re: What was first: The Dark or the Visible matter

Dear Serenamikell,

Many thanks for your remark. Indeed, my question is a provocation and I am going to explain the reasons of your confusion. First of all:

1. The dark matter effects were first discovered via latent gravitational forces due to “senses in your terms” by Jan Henrik Oort, 1932, “The force exerted by the stellar system in the direction perpendicular to the galactic plane and some related problems,” Bull. Astron. Inst. Netherlands, 6, 249; Fritz Zwicky, 1933, “Die Rotverschiebung von extragalaktischen Nebeln,” Helvetica Physica Acta, 6, 110; and Vera Rubin, 1970,“Rotation of the Andromeda Nebula from a Spectroscopic, Survey of Emission Regions". The Astrophysical Journal, 159, 379–403. Bibcode: ApJ...159..379R. doi:10.1086/150317. All this are measurements in my view, not senses. It is a big discussion about what are senses and what are measurements in physics.
2. Now the most important point. Indeed, my question is wrong in case we deal with the time.
May be to say wrong is also not quite right. I do not use time in my math as physical sciences have had done up to the moment. My statement is not on time scale, that’s the root of confusion – I look at the evolution of the universe from the point of relativistic average density of matter decreasing from very high values to lower values. Is it dark or visible – no difference. In the inflation phase when the density was extreme my math shows that only dark matter could inflate the geometry of the universe. However, while density in the evolution process decreases, only then, at some point of lower density, the visual matter happened to emerge accompanying the dark matter. I cannot find better words to explain this mathematical phenomenon.

I have attached an article explaining my math how the p.2 conclusion can be made. Look through attachments. Regards mikku

Mikku-88

Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:41 pm

### Re: What was first: The Dark or the Visible matter

Dear all,

Once again, I was trying to check my Math regarding the interpretation of solutions in terms of dark energy, dark and visible matter composition of the Universe. It was, and it is still very easy to calibrate the composition equation of dark and visible, as well as dark energy – the equilibrium equation – in order to match the current Plank mission with the latest measurements. In doing so, I am still wondering that the interpretation do not contradict any Nasa predictions made and known to me about the dynamics of the Universe in the past.
Indeed, following Nasa, the statement about the acceleration of visible Universe for any alleged observer placed at any point of the Universe in the past, the expansion was slower than it is today. Moreover, in terms of Hubble constant my math shows that Hubble constant is not a constant at all. In the past, I guess, the Hubble constant was much less than it is today and it will be increasing in future. However, a reasonable question arise, as soon as the dark matter effects are explaining the inconsistencies of visible matter dynamics: Does a similar Hubble constant relate to Dark Matter? Making this supposition I found that at the end of the Universe, when the Dark Energy will be almost exhausted, the dynamics of Dark Matter in terms of Dark Hubble constant turns to negative values – the dark matter expansion will stop while showing a shrinking effect. However, in contrast to visible matter, the known Hubble constant will still increase while the visible universe will still continue to expand with growing expansion velocity.
For the reader interested in all these effects, which I have just told, I have made an attachment explaining my math. The attachment is a fragment of a MATHCAD spreadsheet, so I expect the reader will understand what is going on. Unfortunately the MATHCAD cannot solve equations with the precision needed, ca. 100 digits after comma. Nevertheless, I hope that the attached spreadsheet is not too complicated to make the reader familiar with its content at glance.

Best regards
Attachments
Universe.pdf

Mikku-88

Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:41 pm

### Re: What was first: The Dark or the Visible matter

The Big Bang might be a hole in Dark Energy:
How to calculate the density of the Universe as it would be at a radius of one centimeter large occurred in the inflation phase of Big-Bang within Landau-Lifshitz metric space

Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker, i.e., FLRW metric space can be transformed into Landau-Lifshitz 3-D Moebius strip by the replacement of radius $r$ in the form of $r=r_{1} \cdot \left(1+\frac{r_{1}^{2} }{4\cdot a^{2} } \right)^{-1}$ as this replacement is related to Landau and Lifshitz, p. 336, Chapter 12, Cosmological Problems, Pergamon Press. Denoting $a$ by $R$, and additionally replacing $r_{1} =R\cdot \rho$, then the resulting replacement transforms FLRW into:$ds^{2} =R^{2} \left(1+\frac{\rho ^{2} }{4} \right)^{-2} \left[{\rm \; }d\rho ^{2} +\rho ^{2} \left(d\phi ^{2} +\sin ^{2} \phi d\theta ^{2} \right){\rm \; }\right]$, (1)
where $0\le \rho <\infty$, $0\le \phi \le \pi$, $0\le \theta \le 2\pi$, and $R$ have a radius of curvature of the universe, may be around $\approx {\rm 10}^{{\rm 120}}$.

The Universe balance equation in space (1) (similar to topological "closure operators''---known mathematical nomenclature) is given as:

$-4\pi \cdot \left[\tan ^{-1} (\rho )-\frac{1}{2}\cdot\frac{d}{d\rho } \left(\frac{2\cdot \rho }{1+\rho ^{2} } \right)\right]\cdot \mu +\Lambda \cdot \rho ^{\lambda } =0$, (2)

$-\frac{1}{2}\cdot\frac{d}{d\rho } \left(\frac{2\cdot \rho }{1+\rho ^{2} } \right)=+\frac{-1+\rho ^{2} }{\left(1+\rho ^{2} \right)^{2} }$, where the replacement $r=\frac{2\cdot \rho }{1+\rho ^{2} }$
transforms (1) form back into FLRW metric space. In the current phase of the Universe $\Lambda ={\rm 0,91499}$, $\lambda ={\rm 0,83751}$ and $\mu ={\rm 0,12457}$.

For the observer on Earth (the speed of light ${\rm c}={\rm 299792458\; km/s}$) the light reaches the observer according to recent measurements of Planck Mission in about ${\rm 13,82}$ billion years after Big-Bang, i.e., BB in short. This means that the light interval in centimeters starting from BB is equal to:
$${\rm 13,82}\cdot {\rm 10}^{{\rm 9}} \cdot {\rm c}\cdot {\rm 10}^{{\rm 5}} \cdot {\rm 365}\cdot {\rm 24}\cdot {\rm 3600}={\rm 4,5131030207262}\cdot {\rm 10}^{{\rm 31}} sm$$.

At current state in (1) the solution of the closure operator of the equation (2) gives the result $\rho _{1} ={\rm 3,06550478995}$
with regard to the visible matter in current or whatever form the visible matter was at the BB moment $\approx 0$.

The replacement $r=\frac{2\cdot \rho }{1+\rho ^{2} }$ expands the distance $\rho _{1}$ from $\left[0...r_{1} =\frac{2\cdot \rho _{1} }{1+\rho _{1}^{2} } ={\rm 0.5896721275889}\right]$.
In accord with the observer in FLRW metric the $\rho _{1}$ solution of (2) in metric (1) expands from $\left[\infty ...\rho _{1} ={\rm 3,06550478995}\right]$.

What matters is not the rod measure definition of the latter distance but the numerical value itself. If we now divide the above distance $\left[0...r_{1} =\frac{2\cdot \rho _{1} }{1+\rho _{1}^{2} } ={\rm 0.5896721275889}\right]$
by the calculated light interval ${\rm 4,5131030207262}\cdot {\rm 10}^{{\rm 31}}$ to the observer, we get the FLRW undefined rod for one centimeter as
$$o=\frac{\frac{2\cdot \rho _{1} }{1+\rho _{1}^{2} } }{{\rm 13,2}\cdot {\rm 10}^{{\rm 9}} \cdot {\rm c}\cdot {\rm 10}^{{\rm 5}} \cdot {\rm 365}\cdot {\rm 24}\cdot {\rm 3600}} ={\rm 4.5131030207262}\cdot {\rm 10}^{{\rm -32}}$$.
Working around, we can go back to Landau-Lifshitz space (1) system $\rho$ using the replacement $o=\frac{2\cdot \rho }{1+\rho ^{2} }$.
In undefined rods the result yields to $$\zeta =\frac{1\pm \sqrt{1-o^{2} } }{o} ={\rm 4.4315407621211}\cdot {\rm 10}^{{\rm -31}}$$.

Finally, with regards to the emergence of the BB explosion we can speculate about the Universe density within a radius of one centimeter using the balance of the equation (2):

$\frac{\Lambda \cdot \zeta ^{\lambda } }{4\pi \cdot \left[\tan ^{-1} (\zeta )+\zeta \cdot \frac{-1+\zeta ^{2} }{\left(1+\zeta ^{2} \right)^{2} } \right]} ={\rm 1.4804290946176}\cdot {\rm 10}^{{\rm 25}}$,
which would allegedly represent the matter density of the universe at the BB moment $\approx 0$ greater than the critical density $\kappa$
by factor of
$\approx \frac{{\rm 1.4804290946176}\cdot {\rm 10}^{{\rm 25}} }{\kappa ={\rm 0,087267440376136}} ={\rm 1.6964277721871}\cdot {\rm 10}^{{\rm 26}}$ times;

$\kappa$ is the matter density when there is only one root resolving the equation (2), we look at $\kappa$ as critical by analogy with LCDM model.

This latter factor ${\rm 1.6964277721871}\cdot {\rm 10}^{{\rm 26}}$ is a relative measure independent of the density in FLRW metric, or its distance,
that allegedly was possible to determine by roots resolving (2) as a closure of topology (1). It is well known that Friedmann equation solution suggests the Universe critical density in the vicinity of $\approx 10^{-26} kg/m^{3}$. So, our result contradicts Einstein's equations solution in GR theory because the Einstein's solution should be in accordance with the singularity of density approaching $\approx \infty$ at the time $\approx 0s$ in LCMD model.
In view of our speculation of matter density, it is conceivable that the BB matter in inflation $\approx 0s$ phase would be in the form of plasma inception soup $\approx {\rm 1,7\; kg/m}^{{\rm 3}}$.
Thus, we can say that, in contrary with the conventional concept of BB, the BB is not a swelling bubble but a hole in Dark Energy, which first began to be filled by matter with incredible speed,
and then it continues even now to be filled with matter by transforming the Dark Energy into matter. Stars and galaxies appeared later as a result of gravitational forces.

Mikku-88

Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:41 pm

### Re: Expansion 101 pop quiz

Thursday morning pop quiz.

1) On earth we see a red shift that’s on average proportional to the distance of the galaxy being observed. Where would an observer have to be to see the complementary blue shift?

2) Given that light we see coming from the farthest away galaxies takes longer to get to us than light from near galaxies, we can assume that what we see related to near galaxies is more current information. Given that the red shift we see related to nearer galaxies is less than red shift we see from far away galaxies, why don’t we deduce that expansion of the universe is slowing? (farther = older info = faster expansion; closer = more recent info = slower expansion)
Ron2000

Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 5:14 pm

### Re: What was first: The Dark or the Visible matter

Dear all,

I am not suggesting anyone to waste time on my notes. There might be much more important readings than this of mine.
Therefore these lines are only for them that are ready to waste their time on such matters. I am myself testing the data but it is a preliminary result,
which I think is important to discuss. It is about the Hubble interpretation of redshifts. The equation to convert the redshift (z) to distance
is based on recessional velocity (v). The relativistically correct equation for velocity is:

$v=\left(\frac{(1+z)^{2} -1}{(1+z)^{2} +1} \right)\cdot c$ where $c=299792{\rm \; }.458{\rm \; }km/s$ - the speed of light.

Hubble's law states that $v=d\cdot H_{0}$. Thus, dividing the expression for $v$ by $H_{0} =67.15{\rm \; }km/s$ per MpC
(the latest value known to me from Planck mission), the distance for a redshift, e.g., for $0.138$ is:
$\frac{(1+0.138)^{2} -1}{(1+0.138)^{2} +1} \cdot \frac{c}{H_{0} } =573.9{\rm \; }MpC.$

However, I am still in doubt. The function $f(z)=\frac{(1+z)^{2} -1}{(1+z)^{2} +1}$ or in more elegant form $f(z)=\tanh (\ln (1+z))$,
the latter is convex, i.e., $f''(z)=\frac{\tanh \left[\ln (1+z)\right]^{2} -1}{(1+z)^{2} } \cdot \left\{{\rm \; }2\cdot \tanh \left[\ln (1+z)\right]+1\right\}<0$
in the interval $z\in \left[0.03;10.86\right]$, e.g., $f''(0.138)=-0.954669$.

I recently picked up a data taken from NED-D in Table 3, Astronomical Journal, 153:37 (20pp). When observing the data at glance I noticed
that distances distribution in the universe is approximately concave. In authors words the data highlights

Estimates of galaxy distances based on indicators that are independent of cosmological redshift are fundamental to astrophysics.
Researchers use them to establish the extragalactic distance scale, to underpin estimates of the Hubble constant, and to study peculiar
velocities induced by gravitational attractions that perturb the motions of galaxies with respect to the Hubble flow of universal expansion.

So, I am totally confused because Hubble's distances are convex functions and cannot be matched to underpin concave functions by linear transformations.

Some people from, I call them ironically “a members of a diffeomorphsm club”, say that two functions, e.g.,
$1+z=\sqrt{\frac{1+\frac{v}{c}}{1-\frac{v}{c}}}$ and $v=\left(\frac{(1+z)^{2} -1}{(1+z)^{2} +1} \right)\cdot c$

represent a diffeomorphism because those functions represent a mapping, where the direct mapping and its reverse are both differentional functions.
I am not a member of so sophisticated club of diffeomorphists, however, I can suggest a more valuable diffeomorphism for NED-D data estimates, namely:
$g(\rho )=4\pi \cdot \frac{\arctan (\rho )+\rho \cdot \frac{-1+\rho ^{2} }{(1+\rho ^{2} )^{2} } }{\rho ^{\lambda } } \cdot \mu$

where $\lambda =0.8375102$ and $\mu =27.567341$. I call the g-function a weak gravitational potential function,
which reverse function, indeed, is not a convex but concave. One can check that the reverse $\rho$-values of g-function
taken in ascending order on the interval $g\in \left[0.03;10.86\right]$ will match better with NED-D data, at least with the correlation coefficient $0.988238$

Best

Mikku-88

Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:41 pm

### Re: What was first: The Dark or the Visible matter

Dear all,
In order to continue my last post, I have carefully studied the column Mean (Mpc) in Tab.3, The Astronomical Journal, 153:37 (20pp), 2017 January. Reordering the whole table in ascending order based on Mean (Mpc), the 75 categories, represented in Mean (Mpc), arrange a concave curve. This curve of observations fits well with some 75 theoretical distances calculated by me upon a theoretical interval [0,3…9,92] of weak gravitational redshifts: correlation »0,989831. On the other hand. The puzzle with so high correlation lead me to conclusion that it is impossible to fit NED-D data redshifts by REDSHIFT-INDEPENDENT DISTANCES, because Hubble’s law distanced always arrange convex curves while NED-D Mean(Mpc) arranged a concave curve. A puzzle, indeed. Two figures included.

Mikku-88

Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:41 pm

### Re: What was first: The Dark or the Visible matter

Dear all,

To understand my equation,
$\Gamma (\mu,\rho )=-4\pi \left [ arctan(\rho ) +\rho \frac{-1+\rho ^{2}}{(1+\rho ^{2})^{^{2}}}\right ]\mu +\Lambda \rho ^{\lambda}=0$ that deals with my speculations (if it is interesting)
I managed further to increase the correlation of solutions of my equation $\Gamma (\mu,\rho )=0$ with the column of distances carried from the article about NED data,
The Astronomical Journal, 153:37 (20pp), 2017 January, REDSHIFT-INDEPENDENT DISTANCES IN THE NASA/IPAC EXTRAGALACTIC DATABASE: METHODOLOGY, CONTENT, AND USE OF NED-D.

I'm not a physicist by profession and therefore I may be forgiven in making mistakes, but listen to me carefully, because each of my words can be put in math, and more than that - in numerical calculations.
My postulate is that in the universe there allegedly is going on a phase transition of dark energy into matter. By the way, I'm not alone with this idea. Surprisingly, a Big Bang should be understood as a bounce of the area occupied by matter in the ordinary, or in a different form like a dark energy phase transition into matter, no significant difference in my math.

The created total matter $M$ has some average density $\mu$. The density can be understood in the usual sense or in relativistic sense as a parameter if the manifold $S^{3}$ volume inclosing the globe $\Re ^{4}$ at some moment $\mu$ during the universe evolution is multiplied by $\mu$ that equals the total mass $M$ in the universe in that particular moment $\mu$.

So, my next postulate is that we can replace the time parameter by the average density moving as time pass from higher $\mu$ to lower $\mu$. I can assure you that I found a density interval $\left [ \mu _{0},\mu _{1},...,\mu _{n} \right ]$ such that the sequence of solutions of my equation $\Gamma (\mu,\rho )=0$ correlate even with 99% with the column Mean (Mpc) represented in the article referenced above. The $\Lambda$ is actually a constant, which highlights some level of gravitational potential, a forсе per space rod on the surface of a 3-dimentional manifold $S^{3}$ when the phase transition may happen. I calibrated the equation $\Gamma (\mu,\rho )=0$ using Planck Mission of matter composition: dark energy 68.3%, dark matter 26.8% and visual matter 4.9%. I do not understand together with others what the dark matter is, what the dark energy is, and what was the visual matter in Planck mission experiment, but my equation $\Gamma (\mu,\rho )=0$ allows me to calculate the current state of the universe. Moreover, to calculate a critical average density $\kappa$ when the dark energy will be exhausted, etc., etc. It was very easy to calibrate the equation. The $\lambda$ is also a constant, just a tiny modification of classical Newton potential function needed for technical reasons of calibration with Planck mission experiment. I am not alone doing such tiny modifications, see MOND theory.

Next, I have extended the column Mean (Mpc) with the following extragalactic objects using redshift independent distancies: as GRB 060206, GRB 060614, XRF 020903, GRB 9911208, UGC 00014, and UGC 12555 taken from https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu . I came to 81 objects/numbers $\prec a\succ$ at my disposal. I have sorted these objects $\prec a\succ$ in ascending order, which arrange a sequence of distances in internal $\left [a_{0}=0.0479,a_{1}=0.0575,...,a_{n}=7770 \right ]$. From technical and other reasons with regard to the solution of the equation $\Gamma (\mu,\rho )=0$, I made a linear $\Omega (a_{i})=0.010355a_{i}+3.637176$ transformation of sequence of original distances $\left [ a_{0}=0.0479,a_{1}=0.0575,...,a_{n}=7770 \right ]$ into a sequence of densities $\prec \Omega \succ =\prec \Omega _{0}=3.637672,\Omega _{1}=3.681603,...,\Omega _{80}=84.094428\succ$. As a result, I solved a sequence of equations $\Gamma (\mu,\rho_{i} )=0$ for $\rho _{i} ; i=0,1,...,80$ . These solutions, as roots of the equation lead to a sequence of distances $\Gamma (\mu,\rho_{i} )=0$ for $\rho _{i}; i=0,1,...,80$, $\prec \rho \succ =\prec \rho _{0}=179.895453,\rho _{1}=179.897787,...,\rho _{80}=7776.012789\succ$. The sequence $\prec \rho \succ$ has a very high $corr(\prec a\succ ,\prec \rho \succ )=0.99651$ with the original sequence $\left [ a_{0}=0.0479,a_{1}=0.0575,...,a_{n}=7770 \right ]$ from the column Mean (Mpc), also in extended form as it is illustrated by the figure attached.

Mikku-88

Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:41 pm

Previous