قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Science / A strange "dark liquid" could explain the missing 95 percent of the universe

A strange "dark liquid" could explain the missing 95 percent of the universe



Galaxies turn faster than they should. The room expands when it should not. And it all feels like we are in the dark forever when it comes to the big questions of physics.

The solution of a physicist lies in a hypothetical "liquid" with negative mass. No, such material has never been seen before. However, the search for exotic particles and energies is becoming more difficult from day to day. So it pays off to keep our options open.

Jamie Farnes of the University of Oxford suggests using Einstein's general theory of relativity – the one that describes gravity in the form of space-time geometry ̵

1; and changing it slightly to allow matter of negative mass to pop in Existence.

This advent of a weird pushing particle could solve two of physics' most frustrating secrets – why do galaxies stay together when they spin? And why does the universe seem to grow so fast today compared to the past?

At present, the best explanation for any observation is that very hard-to-detect stuff requires a lot of pushing or pulling.

Dark matter is what happens to be responsible for contracting stars and galaxies in addition to anything we can see. It is most likely a kind of massive particle that does not interact well with visible matter and becomes virtually invisible.

Dark energy, on the other hand, is a theoretical phenomenon that counteracts gravitational forces, dispersing large-scale structures, and making the universe appear as if it were expanding at an accelerating rate.

The best answers we have. Although there are many suggestions as to what is behind each of them, we are still a little closer to a smoking weapon. Despite the fact that the two together account for about 95 percent of the total energy and matter in the cosmos.

"It's embarrassing," says Farnes in his article on The Conversation . "But astrophysicists are the first to admit it."

Farnes wonders if this dark 95 percent share amounts to the same thing. He suggested an all-pervading dark "liquid" that appears in empty space and weakly presses against the surrounding matter.

This gentle thrust not only disrupts galaxies, but creates extra space for more dark liquid to "jump" into the real world, penetrating their stars and preventing them from moving freely as the galaxy swirls.

As for potential theories, she feels rather frugal. Nothing like a two-to-many solution.

And even better: Farnes negative mass models could be tested on galaxy distribution data collected using the square kilometer array.

"The result seems pretty nice," says Farnes.

Dark energy and dark matter can be combined into a single substance, both of which can simply be explained as positive mass mass surfing in a sea of ​​negative masses.

Fine, sure, but even Farnes agrees that the idea of ​​supporting physics is a bit out there.

First of all, there are phenomena that have negative mass characteristics, but they are not the same as Second, while quantum mechanics causes particles to jump back and forth in a vacuum, this is not the permanent production of a dark soup of negative masses.

Even before we come Albert Einstein himself struck a similar fudge.

Factor when he outlined the theory of general relativity, so there is room in mathematics to explain such a concept.

"In relation to Newtonian theory," he wrote in 1918, "a modification of the theory is required. so that "empty space" plays the role of gravitating negative masses that are distributed over the entire interstellar space. "

Mind you, he also dismissed the negative mass of empty space as his biggest mistake, we have no answer.

If all other ideas fail, we could use a few more suggestions in the sleeve, in which case Farnes & # 39; extravagant model of a dark liquid emanating from a universe may yet see its day in the sun.

"If it really is, this would mean that the missing 95 percent of the cosmos had an aesthetic solution," he says

"We Forgot to Insert a Simple Minus Sign."

This research was published in Astronomy & Astrophysics .


Source link