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: 31
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: 31
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: 31
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

Previous