You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

SwiftLion ago

Here's the problem: if you calculate that the universe is holographic in nature, you still need "dark matter" to account for the fact that you can only observe 0.1x as much matter as is needed to produce our universe's behavior.

The holographic principle is the "old and busted" in this area. This theory suggests that information is held in spacetime itself, and the "weight" of that information provides the force usually ascribed to "something real that we just totally can't observe"--unproved, unobserved "dark matter".

https://m.phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-gravity-dark.html

So, all in all, you have a nice idea. But your hypothesis still requires that nine-of-ten particles are magic, weakly interacting, hard to observe particles of "dark matter".

drexhex ago

Dark matter is unnecessary in this theory, and I'm not sure where you got the 'magic particles' idea?

SwiftLion ago

I'm using the term "magic particle" to refer to the unsatisfying definition of dark matter as "weakly interacting massive particles", meaning they only interact insofar as they exert gravitational pull.

I don't see how your hypothesis can get around that issue. Can you explain to me how standard relativity requires dark matter--and can achieve a holographic universe where all information is encoded on the "skin" of spacetime--but this hypothesis you've made has both a holographic aspect, but also predicts the universe's current behavior without a "free variable" to account for 90% of the needed mass being missing?

Specifically, this hypothesis I linked to in my earlier comment explains that extra gravitation by asserting that dark matter is not real, and that we can explain the universe's behavior best if the universe is not, in fact, holographic in nature.

drexhex ago

I'll refer to d8_thc's comment above https://voat.co/v/Conspiracy/1539372/7493939