January 2, 2012
by Arnold Lasky

Blog Preface

Those interested in pursuing the subjects of dark matter, dark energy, the three families of matter, or any other topic mentioned in my book, “The Case of the Missing Siblings”, are invited to engage with me, and with each other, at https://arnoldlasky.com, for the purposes of extending the boundaries of knowledge, and of sharing the intellectual enjoyment of it all.

March 11, 2012
by Arnold Lasky


New fundamental force of natureHi, cosmic mystery buffs. While browsing my excerpt library, I came upon an article in the 1/20/07 issue of NewScientist, in which Glennys Farrar, of New York University, proposed that certain gravitational deviations of movement in the Bullet cluster could best be attributed to the existence of a fifth fundamental force of nature that would: interact only with dark matter; account for the missing dwarf galaxies; explain the excess of galaxy clusters; and resolve the emptiness of galactic voids. Let us supplement this list with the stellar deficit in spiral galactic discs, the Pioneer spacecraft anomaly, the axis of evil, the variable acceleration of the expanding universe, the cosmological constant a/k/a lambda, the density of the universe a/k/a omega, the large/small scale structure of the universe, quintessence, negative gravity, the repulsive force, and the fabric of spacetime.

Dr. Farrar noted that “There are a number of alternative explanations for each of these phenomena,” (on her list) “but the fifth force is the only explanation that solves them all in one fell swoop.” I agree, and include those on the supplemental list.

On page 167 of my book, The Case of the Missing Siblings (2001 copyright), there is the adaptation of an ancient scientific principle, which deals with the situation of a body that floats in liquid, to the situation of a body that floats in space. I call this theory MAP, for Modified Archimedes Principle, and it holds that a massive body, which is immersed in space, displaces a volume of that space, centered on such body, and that such volume contains an amount of vacuum energy, which is not only equal to the mass of such body, but also varies as a function of the distance from such body.

I propose that a massive body not only induces the gravitational force, which is attractive, but also induces, what I call the displacement force, which is repellent. Both are equally strong, so that vacuum energy is exponentially driven into a mass equivalent torus, with very little vacuum energy surrounding the focal body, which explains the negligible value for Casimir plate measurements that are taken at the surface of the earth. It is this reciprocal relationship, which I call gravitodisplacement induction, that generates the unequal but structured distribution of vacuum energy, and creates all of the above listed phenomena.

Let us now apply MAP to the bullet cluster image in the heading of this blog. Accordingly: the center of each set of contour lines marks the location of a galactic black hole; each respective contour line represents a serial halo of vacuum energy (dark matter); each initial line represents the periphery of a primary halo that was gravitodisplaced by its respective black hole; each subsequent line represents the periphery of a halo that was gravitodisplaced by the mass equivalence of the preceding halo; and the volume between each such halo contains progressively attenuated vacuum energy, which equals either the mass of the displacing black hole, or that of each preceding or subsequent halo. Notice how the integrity of each spherical halo remains roughly equidistant from its respective black hole, which means that vacuum energy is tightly bound to its displacing body, and was largely unaffected by the collision, even as the baryonic mass component of both galaxies was gravitationally bifurcated. It also means that the quantity of vacuum energy was merely redistributed within the same volume of space that had been present prior to the collision of these galaxies.


March 9, 2012
by Arnold Lasky


Hi, cosmic mystery buffs. It has recently been reported that the Spitzer survey data reveals an order of magnitude more stellar formation in the Milky Way disc than had previously been seen. These new stars appear as bubble-like images. Yet, close to the galactic center, there is a drop-off in their number. The mystery is that most stellar formation should occur at the galactic center, because that is where most gas is supposed to be concentrated, it is said.

During the past month, on the following blogs, I proposed: on 2/4/12, that the sharp edges of the recently discovered Milky Way gamma ray bubbles were probable manifestations of the Milky Way halo, and I predicted that a similar sharp edged envelope would be detected around the galactic disc; on 2/15/12, that a massive body displaces its mass equivalence in surrounding vacuum energy, increasing with increased distance from that body; and on 2/23/12, that (weakly interacting) massive particles are likely to be gravitationally bound within the halo of the Milky Way.

It seems serendipitous that “the drop-off in the bubble census on either side of the galactic center” is evidence: that the galactic black hole of the Milky Way displaces most of the surrounding vacuum energy into the periphery of its halo, so that very little surrounds the black hole; that there is a sharp cutoff, at such periphery, when a sufficiently large spherical volume encompasses the exact amount of mass equivalent vacuum energy that is equal to the mass of the black hole; that the concentrated mass equivalent vacuum energy gravitationally binds the ambient gas and dust within such periphery; that star formation is spawned by the concentrated gas and dust in such periphery; and that insufficient gas and dust remains close to the galactic center to support star formation.

For a more detailed explanation of these conclusions, you are invited to contact me, at science@arnoldlasky.com

February 25, 2012
by Arnold Lasky


Hi, cosmic mystery buffs. Once upon a time (1987), Alan Dressler and his “seven samurai” colleagues had to fall on their swords, when The Great Attractor, which they were touting, turned out to be a great illusion. The fact that the Milky Way’s local group of galaxies were all moving in the same direction, was misinterpreted as the result of the gravitational attraction of a huge mass, which lay in the direction of movement, and which was up to a million times more massive than the Milky Way. It is now known that such effect is caused by parallel lines (galactic orbits) meeting at a distant point.

Nevertheless, the unidirectional movement of the local group remains a fact, as is the movement of the local cluster of galaxy groups, which indicates that the orbits of all these galaxies may contain a component of motion, which follows a very shallow arc, around a profoundly more massive central object, perhaps containing half the mass of the universe, and lying a great deal farther away, but at a 90 degree angle to the perceived direction of movement. Let us consider this central object to be a fossil artifact of the Big Bang, and call it, the Great Centripeter.

There may be evidence that the observable universe is rotating on the largest scales, even as it uniformly expands in all directions. Measurements of the cosmic microwave background, from many sources, reveal a dipole effect, which amounts to a 0.1 percent asymmetric caloric difference from opposite ends of the night sky, as measured from earth- i.e., this snapshot of the primordial radiation at some moment in time (allegedly about 400,000 years) after the Big Bang, appears 0.1 percent hotter than an equally colder location that is 180 degrees opposite in the sky- i.e., for a total 0.2 percent heat differential. This heat differential implies that opposing parts of the background radiation are moving toward us and away from us, at the same time. For our purposes, the dipole effect indicates that every part of the Expansion is revolving around a central point.

If our universe were, in some way and at some time, connected to one or more other universes, a group led by Laura Mersini-Houghton, of the University of North Carolina, made a prediction “that was so outrageous that nobody believed it, but it has been confirmed”, she said. It was that quantum entanglement would require spacetime to flow in a particular direction (NewScientist, January 24, 2009).

In Physical Review Letters, an article by Borge Nodland and John P. Ralston reports measurements suggesting that the rotational symmetry of space is being violated at cosmic distances. It appears that polarized light from distant galaxies is twisted as a function of its distance from the earth, and as a function of the direction of the light relative to the angular distance between each such galaxy and the constellation Sextans- i.e., the twisting is most pronounced, when the direction to an observed galaxy is most nearly parallel to a line drawn between the earth and Sextans, and least pronounced when the direction is nearly perpendicular to that line. Nodland offers that this twisting effect would occur if spacetime exhibits a preferred direction. Because angular momentum is conserved, such a preferred direction would not only indicate that the original source was rotational in nature, but that the CMB may have always rotated perpendicular to the earth/Sextans axis.

Michael Longo, of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, came to the same conclusion, but by a different route. He established that there is a preferred spin to the arms of thousands of spiral galaxies, along the same axis, near and far, and in both northern and southern skies. As quoted in the October 15, 2011 issue of New Scientist, he concludes, “If this asymmetry is real, it means that the universe has a net angular momentum,” so that it must have been spinning from the outset.

In a 1995 paper, in the Journal of Mathematical Physics, John W. Moffat and Neil J. Cornish provided mathematical support for the proposition that the expanding universe is rotating as it moves outward. They modified Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity to provide for the twisting and bending of space-time in the presence of a large mass. The Great Centripeter could just be that mass.

To consider an alternative Big Bang – Big Crunch model, you are invited to contact me, at science@arnoldlasky.com

February 23, 2012
by Arnold Lasky


Gravitational Force, Displacement Force

Gravitodisplacement Force

Hi, cosmic mystery buffs. As reported in the January 7th issue of NewScientist, pgs 31 – 33, a contretemps seems to be brewing about the dark matter candidacy of the weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP). On the one hand, dark matter, or some alternative, is needed to explain the gravitational effects in and between galaxies, among other things. On the other hand, the existence of any type WIMP has almost been excluded, due to recent LHC mass measurements, at CERN, and to the failure to account for small-scale structure in the universe- e.g., the dearth of galactic dwarves. One might say that the WIMP is becoming a less than enlightening dark matter contender.

Enter Dan Hooper, of Fermilab, who thinks that dwarf galaxies have not been sighted because they could be entirely composed of dark matter, in the form of low-mass WIMPs, which have a decay signature of GAMMA RAYS (even though the Fermi space telescope has failed to locate them in any nearby dwarf galaxy). Well, it may be that WIMPs have already been detected in the halo of the Milky Way galaxy (whether they constitute the entire halo, or are only embedded within it).

In my last blog, serial halos, I set forth the principle, which I call the Modified Archimedes Principle (MAP), that “a massive body, which is immersed in space, displaces a volume of that space, centered on such body, and that such volume contains an amount of vacuum energy, which is not only equal to the mass of such body, but also varies as a function of the distance from such body.” One of the ramifications of this principle is that a focal mass not only induces the attractive gravitational force, it also induces a repellent displacement force, which is equal in strength to, but propagates in opposition to (1800), the gravitational force, so that most of the surrounding vacuum energy is gravitodisplaced to a distant torus (halo), and very little remains near the displacing body. It is not only likely that a massive WIMP would be gravitationally bound within such a mass equivalent halo, it is also likely that the mass equivalence of that halo displaces a secondary halo, which is equal in energy to, but much more diffuse than, the displacing (primary) halo.

The blog goes on to propose that recent data from the Fermi, Planck, and Sloan surveys indicate that the Milky Way is surrounded by an outer halo of microwaves, which encloses an inner halo of GAMMA RAYS. It may be that Dan Hooper is correct in assuming that WIMP decay produces gamma rays. If so, such energy would be absorbed by the ambient dust of the outer halo, and be reradiated as microwaves.

To learn more about another WIMP candidate, which may be the source of ultra-high energy atmospheric cosmic rays, and which I call the limboson, you are invited to contact me, at science@arnoldlasky.com

February 15, 2012
by Arnold Lasky


Hi, cosmic mystery buffs. Here is an update of my second blog, which dealt with the recently discovered, sharply edged, gamma ray “double bubble” that is centered upon the Milky Way’s central bulge. This information had been gleaned from Fermi gamma-ray telescope data.

New data from the European Space Agency (ESA) Planck satellite has revealed a second, more diffuse, “haze” of energy, which is also centered upon the galactic center, but which radiates in the microwave range, and extends well beyond the Fermi “bubbles”. Although it resembles synchrotron emission, these microwaves exhibit a harder spectrum than other such emissions found elsewhere in the galaxy- i.e., they do not decrease much with increasing energy.

Using data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, Masataka Fukugita, Naoki Yoshida, and Shogo Masaki conducted large-scale computer simulations of galactic dark matter distribution (2/10/12 Astrophysical Journal 746, 38). It appears that they have reconciled the contribution of dark matter to the density distribution of all matter, thereby eliminating the gap between global cosmic mass density and the density that results from counting the number of galaxies times the weight of their masses. As a result, they found that “empty” intergalactic space is filled with dark matter. They also found that dark matter, as projected from twenty four million galactic images, extends a hundred million light years beyond the galactic centers where stars are located, and that intergalactic dark matter is well organized, but has no stellar edges.

Another way of interpreting the combined Fermi/Planck/Sloan data is that an outer halo, of relatively less concentrated energy, encloses an inner halo, of relatively more concentrated energy, and that the outer halo has a well organized, but relatively less sharply defined edge, than that of the inner halo.

Based upon the principle that “a massive body, which is immersed in space, displaces a volume of that space, centered on such body, and that such volume contains an amount of vacuum energy, which is not only equal to the mass of such body, but also varies as a function of the distance from such body,” I propose: that dark matter/energy is just vacuum energy, by another name; that it is the unequal distribution of mass equivalent vacuum energy, which skews the apparent contributions of ordinary matter (4.5%), dark matter (22%), and dark energy (73.5%) to the total mass/energy budget of the universe; and that such proportions are EXACTLY divided (50/50%) between ordinary matter and dark matter/energy, which are opposite sides of the same unified energy coin. Since the Fermi energy measurement of the smaller, but higher energy, gamma ray “double bubble” approximates that of 100,00 supernovae, it is likely that a measurement of the larger, but lower energy, microwave “haze” will produce the same gross value.

Some ramifications of this principle, which I call the Modified Archimedes Principle (MAP), are that a focal mass not only induces the attractive gravitational force, it also induces a repellent displacement force. To see how the gravitodisplacement of vacuum energy bears upon the related problems of galactic halos, omega, lambda, sigma, the Pioneer anomaly, the axis of evil, voids, large/small scale structure of the universe, dark matter/energy, and the variable accelerating universe, you are invited to contact me, at science@arnoldlasky.com.

February 13, 2012
by Arnold Lasky


Hi, cosmic mystery buffs. I just added this example of different phenomena that act in similar ways, to my book, The Case of the Missing Siblings. A team of physicists, at Rice University, have coaxed the outer electron (cloud) of a gigantic Rydberg atom to act like a Lagrangian body. Barry Dunning, a member of the team, explained “The classical physics that you use to describe (Trojan asteroids and electrons) is identical, except in one case you’re using gravitational fields and the other electrical fields.” (NewScientist, 2/4/12, p.12).

This has great relevance to the proposition that a galactic halo is a structural torus of mass equivalent vacuum (dark) energy that is displaced away from an energy equivalent focal mass (galactic core). The point is that vacuum energy can be formed into an energy bearing, self propagating, curvilinear disturbance of a gravitational/displacement field, in a manner similar to that of the plasma torus in an electrical/magnetic field- e.g. a Tokamak fusion reactor.

To see how the unequal displacement of vacuum energy bears upon the related problems of galactic halos, omega, lambda, sigma, the Pioneer anomaly, voids, dark matter/energy, the axis of evil, and the variable accelerating universe, you are invited to contact me, at science@arnoldlasky.com.

February 7, 2012
by Arnold Lasky


               Hi, cosmic mystery buffs. For some time, I have been advocating that the universal matter/antimatter problem can be explained by third family Bose Einstein condensation (BEC). The proposed scenario is: that Big Bang nucleogenesis did not result from a quark/gluon plasma; that there are at least four families of matter; that just after the cooling plasma of higher family virtual matter (mostly baryons and neutrinos) had condensed into third family particles (mostly top and bottom quark combinations of proton-like and neutron-like baryons, and tauons), they reached the weak boson energy range; that these third family fermions formed one or more universal BECs, because they were packed so closely that their deBroglie waves overlapped; that such BECs were in thermal equilibrium, because all collective members had the same energy at formation; that there is a progenitor W± boson which is neutrally charged, and before it decays into a W+ and W- boson, within the weak boson energy range, it is unable to mediate antimatter transformations (like the neutrally charged Z boson); that such BECs decayed within the weak boson energy range; that 8% of the product of such decay was first family baryons of matter only (no antimatter); and that antineutrinos carried off the opposite charge.

             My approach to ultra high energy BECs is the analogy: if first family bosons of actual matter can be induced to remain, as a BEC, at near absolute zero, because that is a thermally equal FLOOR; then a third family BEC of virtual matter might be (briefly) coerced into passing through the identical (high) energy level that was present at its creation, because such a creation event is a thermally equal CEILING, through which all such bosons had to pass, at the same time, as the ambient background cooled. Although I couldn’t figure out how entanglement could arise at the 355.5 GeV energy level of a third family proton-like baryon (one 4.5 GeV bottom and two 175.5 GeV top quarks), I was encouraged by the ongoing thermal increase of newly created BECs. Then came my diamond Xmas present, on page 14 of the 12/10/11 issue of New Scientist. Enter Ka Chung Lee and Michael Sprague, of Oxford University, who came up with the bright idea of measuring an entangled state, at extremely short intervals, so that random perturbations did not have enough time to destroy its coherence. For tens of millions of carbon atoms, in two separated diamonds, at room temperature,  each of those intervals was 10-13 seconds (the half-life of a top quark is 10-25 seconds).

                For a more detailed explanation, please contact me, at science@arnoldlasky.com.

February 4, 2012
by Arnold Lasky


Hi, cosmic mystery buffs. It has just been reported, in the January issue of Astronomy, that Douglas Finkbeiner and his students, Meng Su and Tracy Slatyer, all of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, discovered a puzzling characteristic about two recently discovered (2010) gamma ray bubbles, each: 25,000 light years across; perpendicular to the Milky Way’s disc; and the energy of 100,00 supernovae.

Their discovery is that the bubbles have fairly sharp edges, and their “best guess”, as to the source of these structures, is matter accretion onto the galactic black hole, while others venture that it could be a massive burst of recent, but long term, star formation at the galaxy center. For one thing, the manifestation of black hole accretion is jets, not bubbles, and for another, bubbles of that size are the not-so-sharply-edged sign of an individual supernova, which would not have been sufficiently energized to match the data, and a sufficiently energized series of supernovae would have had to have been contemporaneous, or too numerous and long-lived, to match the data. It is thought that bursts of star formation are formed by black hole activated pressure waves that collapse randomly distanced gas clouds, so that, at this distance, we should be able to detect them as an evenly distributed torus, circling the galactic center, and to measure the ongoing expansion of the bubbles. Besides, where are all those young, bright, leftover stars?

The tip-off is the sharpness of the bubble edges, which has been interpreted as a recent past event. Why not an ongoing event, and why not the hemispheres of one bubble, instead of two separate bubbles? Not only do I propose that the bubble structure is singular, but also that it is static, is an artifact of every galactic bulge, and that a flatter/thinner version surrounds every galactic disc.

At last, here is proof that early suggestions, quickly discarded, were correct– i.e., vacuum energy is Fritz Zwicky’s missing mass. Yes, Casimir plate measurements prove that vacuum energy “weighs” much too little, at the surface of the earth… but not in our galactic halo, part of which, I believe, is what has really been discovered. I predict that further measurements will reveal an equally sharp gamma ray envelope, which closely follows the outline of the galactic disc, and which varies in depth as a function of stellar mass- i.e., the more massive the arc section of disc, the greater the depth.

If you want to know how vacuum energy density can vary, with distance, and its affect on galactic halos, the Pioneer anomaly, and the accelerating universe, among other things, please contact me, at science@arnoldlasky.com.

January 20, 2012
by Arnold Lasky
1 Comment

Entropy and the Cyclic Universe

Hi, cosmic mystery buffs. I was reading an interesting article in the 1/14/12 issue of New Scientist, p.6, which basically sets forth our current understanding of where the universe came from, and where it is going- i.e., no one really knows.

The problem is that the universe would be “beautiful” if it had no beginning or end, but the hang-up is its disorder. Alexander Vilenkin, of Tufts University, summed it up clearly, by showing how Guth’s inflationary model conflicts with the Hubble constant, in that the universe had to start somewhere. He then mused upon the cyclic model, which would be great, if it weren’t for that pesky entropy.

I think that the answer to this problem is the explanation of why there are three families of matter. The way I see it, entropy only rules in the expanding universe of first and third family matter, which begs the question as to what happens in the contracting universe of a black hole, or even a neutron stellar core.

In my opinion, the boundary between the first and second families of matter is an energy divide, beyond which things tend to increase in order, entropy decreases, and what I call ANTROPY, increases, to the boundary with the third family, where entropy reappears, in the expansion phase of a three-part cycle, at the Big Bang.

For more details, you are invited to contact me, at science@arnoldlasky.com.