Dark matter and dark energy as gravitational

v. 6 n. 20

Cover image caption: Einstein looks to convergence with Newton for gravity. But what if Newton got it backwards?

The recent sequence in these Letters involving dark matter and dark energy is a lead-in to emphasize the possible nature of these persistent unknowns as gravitational in these Letters. It is something of an embarrassment to physics that some 95% of the Universe is unknown; only the some 5% is visible matter with some understanding, near and far.

One of the difficulties is viewing dark matter, dark energy and gravitation as separate subjects. The previous Letters indicate that dark matter is not necessarily different in kind from dark energy. [1][2]

Conventionally, dark matter is mainly thought of in terms of condensed matter adjacent to visible matter that has not yet been detected. Various hypothetical particles have not been identified after decades of search. These hypothetical particles are said to have an attractive effect, similar to that for the close-by visible matter. This is often exemplified by the misleading term "dark matter halo" about galaxies, which could be a carry-over from earlier and cruder gravitational lensing, where dark matter about a galaxy seemed to be some three times the visible disk of a spiral galaxy, for instance.

But subsequent conventional studies, have indicated that dark matter actually extends an order of magnitude beyond spiral galaxies. [2]. This is in agreement with the findings in these Letters. [3]

This view of dark matter stems from classical Newton's gravity, where ostensibly all matter tends to attract all other matter. This is Newton's personal view of matter within the Solar system. Yet it persists to this day regardless of scale; for the most part all matter is repelled by all other matter (all clusters of galaxies are repelled from one another, ignoring means for the moment).

Enter dark energy.

Even though thought up until now is classical Newton's gravity, as soon as the "axiom" -- all matter attracts other matter -- is voided by large-scale repulsive observation, instead of reexamining the axiom, another unknown actor is introduced, dark energy.

As soon as the "axiom" -- all matter attracts other matter -- is voided, instead of reexamining the axiom, another unknown actor is introduced, dark energy.

Accelerated repulsion is universal. Acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity according to Einstein. Why is it not recognized in the case of the Universe at large, when it is recognized in all other instances? This equivalence is the basis of general relativity, and is ignored in the universal case ... and replaced by "dark energy."

The reason universal acceleration is not recognized as gravity could be because universal acceleration is repulsive, while it is "known for some 400 years that gravity is always attractive among particles," from Newton's "axiom." Newton's short-sightedness has been formalized in the updated general relativity. This makes dark energy (cosmological constant, Lambda) distinct from gravity and a separate subject.

What if Newton got it backwards?

If he had a large enough telescope at the time he would have observed universal accelerated repulsion after looking far enough and perhaps made the following interpretation of activity within the local galactic supercluster undergoing accelerated expansion,

gravity effects = inertia effects

Gmm'/r^2 = m'A

m/r^2 = A/G

where given m, r, G, acceleration of the supercluster (effectively of the Universe at large) A ~ 10^-14 m/s^2, m is the total mass of the supercluster to include dark matter, dark energy and visible matter within sufficiently large radius r. The same set of equations for repulsion holds for the scale within the Solar system for apparent attraction, but the large-scale interpretation has been shown to be scale-invariant, so that the cosmological constant (dark energy) is implicit and gravitational in nature.

Gravity is seen as coincident with the acceleration of the Universe instead of opposed.

In other words, gravity is seen as coincident with the acceleration of the Universe instead of opposed. Gravitational attraction might be apparent at smaller scales because there is less accelerated expanding space between than about particles, so that particles are pushed together from outside the pair by the accelerating Universe at large. This view retains locality (because clusters of galaxies and all particles within are imbedded in space), while the classical view is non-local and unexplained, as Newton "made no hypothesis." This coincidence of universal acceleration and gravity may explain structure beyond the 300 million light years; this conundrum arises from the conventional interpretation of gravity opposing the acceleration of the Universe. [4][5] Also, the masses of electron and first-generation quark are derived with the above equations, [6][7] a ratio of which is the fine structure constant. [8]

[1] Is gravity actually repulsive? | LinkedIn

[2] Since dark matter is coincident with dark energy, might they be the same? | LinkedIn

[3] An explanation of dark matter and dark energy from unmodified Newtonian gravity* | LinkedIn

[4] Large-scale structure and dynamics | LinkedIn

[5] Why is there too much structure in the Universe? | LinkedIn

[6] (2) A brief derivation of electron mass | LinkedIn

[7] (3) A brief classical derivation of quark mass | LinkedIn

[8] (3) Yet another interpretation, and (brief) derivation, of the fine structure constant | LinkedIn

Cover image: Einstein meets Newton in the Thereafter | LinkedIn