T

his is a copy of a submission to Physical Review Letters which I have just mailed (11/22/98). Allthough the Review will not print amateur submissions (nor will they be reviewed by a referee), I took the trouble to send it because I do not want any responsible physicist or astronomer to be able to say "Well, we were never informed.".

It's sort of a chance for the physics establishment (the peer review process) to justify its existence. It won't however.

And it's not because of bad intentions. Rather, they have gone completely conservative in an endeavor which is inherently liberal, i.e. science as a generator of new ideas. Today's scientists, when confronted with data which is wildly at odds with the standard model, will simply spin their wheels trying to get out of the mud & muck they are stuck in without ever thinking to get out of the car (standard model) and "see" what the real problem is.

I've posted it because it deals with the dark matter question. Most of the material is already here but it never hurts to explain something again from a somewhat different perspective. In general, the more one explains something the more one's own understanding solidifies.

Based on a few past experiences, I expect to receive by mail a form response letter of rejection (polite and hand signed) along with my original manuscript. The last time I sent something was about 20 years ago but my guess is that those policies are still in force. I accept this and am grateful for the form letter which is DATED and contains the typed TITLE of my paper. So it is not completely useless. There is a time-proof of knowledge of the subject which establishes priority (not that I give a "rat's ass" about that sort of thing ;o).

When and if I receive the expected response, I shall append it to this page so that the reader can see exactly what I am talking about.

Email sent to Mordehai Milgrom (added 7/24/99)

What's the Matter with Dark Matter? Synopsis Whatever form dark matter takes is incompatible with simple Newtonian gravitation. The entire pantheon of "suspects" is meritless on the basis of an impossible distribution scheme. An alternate theory is presented originating from logical-semantic errors made by Newton which turn out to have real physical consequences. Remarks The most logical conclusion based upon the preponderance of evidence is that dark matter does not exist. Can we honestly believe that experienced scientists of sufficient skill to uncover particles as elusive as the neutrino, omega particle and top quark and stellar objects as remote and seemingly unknowable as quasars, black holes and pulsars are unable to locate 90% of the mass of the universe? ... when the bulk of our own galaxy is supposedly made of it? The "embarrassment" here is not one of technical ability but one of theoretical inability ... namely, the inability to do the primary job of the theoretician which is induction. Something new and entirely fundamental is the problem here. One cannot obtain such ideas by deduction from known principles. Oort, Zwicky, Rubin 'facts' reveal a new principle which "scales up" in quantity as one scales up observations. It is manifestly not Newtonian gravitation. Yet one expects (and even subconsciously demands) that it be subsumed by Newton's general world view. * The Kink in Dark Matter Theories Galactic orbital velocity measurements which do not trail off in accordance with common gravitational expectations seem to demand that a roughly "spherical" shell of "unknown mass" be situated such that the plotted rotation curves comport with Newton. But no one seems to notice that such a shell itself is incompatible with Newtonian gravitation. How can such a shell be formed in the first place? If we are to assume that dark matter is initially homogeneous with "normal" matter (and we must if we are to postulate that it is within every galaxy), then it must have gotten "out of homogeneity" by some mechanism. That mechanism cannot be gravity. Since dark matter gravitationally interacts with normal matter (and vice versa), it should have dispersed in the same pinwheel pattern as the observed spiral galaxy. There is no reason in any gravitational theory for matter, in any guise, to sort itself on a galactic scale. Nor is there any reason to suppose that it was sorted out by the only other long-range force (emf). Ergo, the sorting mechanism must be none other than some new "fifth" force of nature, hitherto unknown with the unlikely property of "non-commutative interplay", i.e. A acts on A, A acts on B, B acts on A, but B does not act on B (in the same manner as the other pairs ... a roughly spherical shell might even suggest a repulsive BxB force). * A Simple Error Newton speculated that matter attracted matter. The operative word here is "attract". No one has ever seen an attraction (or repulsion for that matter). What we see are objects moving and by placing measuring devices on, in or around objects we can quantify the "force" which acts and in what direction it acts (its vector). However, this tells us nothing more about the force itself. For instance, we can't logically state whether it is a push or a pull. We SEE NOTHING. This opens the door to another interpretation which "subsumes" Newtonian gravitation without supplanting it. Nor is any mayhem committed upon it at "local" stellar distances. * Dark Matter as a Reinterpretation of Common Observation Let us suppose that two liquids are mixed (oil and water). Left alone they separate. Now, do we observe that oil attracts oil? ... or ... oil repels water? ... or ... water attracts water? ... or ... water repels oil? More importantly, does it matter? As long as the math works out, this is just an example of pure semantics having no bearing on the conduct of physics. The same cannot be said for matter and its "water". i.e. space. In this explanation of Oort, Zwicky, Rubin anomalies, space is an "active agent" in pushing matter around. In short, as matter acts upon the geometry of space, space acts upon matter directly ... without an intermediary ... a sort of action-reaction. Here is an important question: Why is matter more mysterious than the space in which it is contained? Is it because space is "nothing"? Or, perhaps because we, ourselves, are made from it? There is no "a priori" reason for our assumption of a flaccid spatial parameter. It is my view that a space-generated interaction is the "gravitational concomittant" i.e. the logically necessary "partner" to gravity just as matter and space are necessary partners. Thus, gravity pulls and space pushes. Why? Because we cannot "see" what gravity is ... in principle. Therefore, we are logically obliged to accept both parameters as equally viable. As matter condenses, so does space (but in another place). We must accept that matter attracts matter, space attracts space, and matter-space is repulsive ... because ... this is what we actually see (all permutations laid bare). The pressing question here now is "What possible quantitative difference can this make?" Clearly, if there is no deviation from Newtonian mechanics, then, the entire issue is of semantics only. But there is a deviation. The description by Newton (m1 x m2 / r ^2) pertains to the matter-matter interaction and is certainly accurate in our vicinity. Perhaps not so elsewhere. * Adiabatic Galactic Heating The observation of Zwicky (that galaxies in clusters have excessive velocities yet remain gravitationally bound) can be attributed to the repulsion of matter by empty space. Imagine that these galaxies are in a bag and that the bag is squeezed into a smaller volume. Then the galaxies will heat up adiabatically just as air molecules do and for identical reasons. Galactic clusters are held in place partially by their matter-matter interaction and partly by being "pressed" together by the space outside of the cluster ... an inverse gravitation. The same is true for the observations of Oort. Stars within galaxies are bound both by their own mutual attraction and by the repulsion from extra-galactic space. The observations of Rubin are somewhat more complicated but originate from the same source. Rotations curve anomalies represent the varying pressure from external space. It varies because such pressure "cancels" out in the center of the galaxy for symmetry reasons, i.e. in the center a test mass is repelled in all directions at once, hence, the repulsions cancel. The curve for external repulsions is therefore greatest at the edge of a galaxy going to zero at the center. When both curves (space repulsion and matter attraction) are superimposed the resultant curve will match the Rubin curve. Note: Adiabatic heating of a rotating galaxy results in faster orbital velocities due to angular momentum conservation ... here, mainly supplied to the outermost stars. * The Scaling Parameter The space/matter ratio determines the force of compression that might be observed.Within a galaxy the average distance between stars is ~10 light years. Therefore, there are about 10^3 cubic light years per star. But the distance to the next galaxy is on the order of 1,000,000 light years giving ~10^18 cubic light years or about 10^7 cubic light years per star if we consider ~10^11 stars/galaxy. This yields a force on a star (directed toward the center of its galaxy) as much as 10,000 times greater than the force of compression on an individual star arrising from the space immediately arround it (10^7 / 10^3). Similarly, we might scale up from here using galaxies as "units" instead of stars. Thus, the amount of hypothetical dark matter available to "close" the universe increases as we increase our volume of observation. * Q = ~1 The Q parameter must remain at about 1 because the expansion of space is tied to the gravitational repulsion-attraction interaction. In this way: As matter condenses (shrinks), space expands. If matter stops condensing (gravitating), then the expansion will stop since that expansion represents the inverse spatial condensation. The two are concomitant. We cannot have one without the other. Therefore, the amount of matter needed to close the universe against the concomitant expansion must of necessity be roughly an equality (actually less than one since the the process is ongoing ... i.e. the universe won't expand if gravitation stops but gravitational condensation isn't finished). How much less than "1" must depend on the rate of condensation of matter via gravitation which may change with time. * Intergalactic Voids If we are willing to accept empty space as dynamic, it is no great stretch of imagination to find the apparent cause of the "voids" and "walls of galaxies" on exceptionally large scales. Matter in the form of stars and galaxies is pushed out of growing concentrations of empty space. Anyone familiar with weather (earth or solar) understands that "cells" form where there are conflicting parameters, e.g. heat rising but no vacuum allowed ... ergo ... downdrafts and cells. ~ End ~

Addendum:

From: Physical Review Letters (Their Header)
To: Dr. (my real name here - mispelled ;o) 
Address etc.

29 December 1998

   Re: SZ6302L
      "What's the matter with dark matter?"

Dear Dr. (Same as above),

    We regret to inform you that your 
manuscript is not considered suitable for 
publication in Physical Review Letters.

       Sincerely,
       (Real hand signature here)
       (Typed out)
       Physical Review Letters

sb;js

Comment:

I suspect that the reason they respond at all is related to the murder of a receptionist some years past by a disgruntled would be Einstein. Perhaps they consulted a psychologist to see how such a catastrophe could be averted in the future. Undoubtedly he would have advised them to "at least acknowledge the existence of anyone trying to get published". Giving their submission an 'official' number and hand signing it has probably prevented a great deal of bad feeling toward their establishment.

The peer review process is, of course, a closed system. No one may, in principle, get published unless they have paid their dues in the form acceptable to the Physical Review, i.e. formal training in and initial acceptance of the standard theory.

Then ... and only then ... might one be qualified to "discover" something of importance. The trouble is that only modifications of the standard theory may be discovered since the standard model is, in general, true by definition. It constitutes the identity, the essential oeurve, of every real physicist. Since the standard model does not consider ultimate questions it may very well be fundamentally flawed. This cannot be repaired, in principle, by those now carrying the torch.

Perhaps my day will come before western civilization decays one or two centuries from now.

This is email that I sent to Dr. Mordehai Milgrom 7/19/99 in the remote hope of getting feedback of some sort. I thought that he might be a possiblility because he has proposed the unpopular MOND theory (ca.1983) which conjectures a slight alteration of Newton's gravitational theory at large distances instead of any hypothetical dark matter which nobody seems to be able to find ... for 50 (!) years .

Dr. Milgrom, I am sending this email to acquaint you with a possibly interesting theory concerning the dark matter problem. 'Interesting' to you ... perhaps ... since you are the only publicly extant person to broach the subject of altering Newtonian gravitational mechanics. (I assume you have been assigned the position of 'token flake' by higher echelon physicists who want to "cover their butts" at your expense). I believe you are on the right track principally because of the odd rotation velocity curves found in spiral galaxies (Rubin,etc.). Though no one states it explicitly, such curves indicate an impossible state of affairs in the distribution of any dark matter candidate. Since the curve has a different shape (flat) than the expected (hump-shape), it means that such matter cannot have the same distribution as common baryonic matter, i.e. if dark & regular matter were mixed evenly (as we must expect since it supposed to be everywhere in the cosmos), it should be right here with us ... in our immediate vicinity yielding a similar rotation curve style ... not separated beyond our detection by some unspecified mechanism. [Aside: The dark matter HAS to be far away because ... "We can't find it! (and we ARE brilliant - aren't we?)"] There is a simple way out of the dilemma if one is prepared to accept the universe as a "logical entity" rather than as a "physical entity" which only pays -some- service to logic. Let me elucidate. I read this today in someone's physics book in the local Barnes&Noble. "There was an engineer, a physicist, and a philosopher in the Scottish highlands. A black ewe was spotted which prompted the engineer to say - "I guess here the sheep are black.". The physicist then proclained that - "Some of the sheep in the Scottish highlands must be black.". The philosopher however, injected - "At least one sheep in the Scottish highlands is black ... on one side.". Let me here play the philosopher to Newton's physicist ... When he takes an apple on the head ... that "matter attracts matter according to an inverse square law" ... I must protest an incomplete observation. With this counter observation: Looking at the large scale (galactic) what I see is "clumping" ... I don't see an attraction - that's only infered. A more complete inference would be that perhaps one or more of the following is true. A) Matter attracts matter, or B) The medium (space) repels matter or, even C) Space attracts space. Any or all would yield the same end result. What I am saying is very counter-intuitive but logically justified ... IF ... existence is as I suppose - a logical ... rather than a physical entity. Now, is this just semantics or could it yield a quantifiable difference? Indeed it must since we observe a difference (the extra velocity in galactic clusters,etc.). If there is a push on the cluster from the surrounding space IN ADDITION TO THE STANDARD GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTION, we will have an adiabatic effect on the cluster (higher galactic velocities) which would cause us to infer more mass than was actually there -IF- we are unaware of the push from the surrounding medium. ------------------------------------------ Take the case of a spiral galaxy: Let's say that a typical distance between stars in that galaxy is 10 light years ... then ... each star in the galaxy has associated with it about 10^3 cubic light years of space. Let's also say that a typical distance between galaxies is 1,000,000 light years ... then ... each galaxy has associated with it about 1,000,000^3=10^18 cubic light years. Now, there are about 100,000,000,000=10^11 stars per galaxy ... then ... each star within the galaxy has associated with it about 10^18/10^11=10^7 cubic light years (from the galactic neighborhood). This means that any supposed effect has as much as 10^7/10^3=10^4 (ten thousand) times more effect on the galaxy as whole than the space surrounding a star has in it's own neighborhood. ------------------------------------------ Now observe the following symmetry considerations. ***X*** q Z ***Y*** A test mass at 'Z' is not attracted to galaxy X or Y (being in the middle) A test mass at 'Z' is not repelled toward galaxy X or Y by any hypothetical new force (being in the middle) of the void. A test mass at 'X' is not repelled by any new force arising from Z because of another space to the left of galaxy X (not shown). A test mass at 'q' is however both maximally attracted gravitationally AND repelled by the new "void force". The result of such a force would be, in this instance, to increase the rotational velocity of the outer stars by angular momentum conservation, i.e. the rotation curve will be flattened. This type of reasoning "scales" up with ever larger concentrations of mass (just like dark matter). It can't be located (just like dark matter). No light emissions (just like dark matter). It can't be thought of by a "trained" physicist (just like dark matter). It is easy to see why Newton would not think of such a thing. It would have no appreciable effect on the scale of the solar system with respect to standard gravitational attraction (matter to matter). Hence, no modification would be required for computing the orbits of planets. I call this (as a logical entity) ... the gravitational "concommitant". It is certain to be the answer to this problem (according to my nose ;o) I hope I have shed some light on the "dark" for you. E.L.B_______ (alias EBTX) ebtex@aol.com ------------------------------------------ PS. Why are straightforward logical concepts valid in quantum mechanics but not in astrophysics? Does astrophysics have logical concepts affecting it analogous to, say, "the identity of indiscernibles"? Are very big things less "logical" in nature than those you can't possibly see?

I will post here a summary of his reply if ever I receive one. (I really don't expect a response and will not quote it verbatum if he does -for ethical reasons-)
-Ebtx 7/24/99