It is commonly accepted as a fact now that the visible matter (made of known particles) accounts only about 5% of the mass of this universe while 95% of it is invisible. In recent years, the neutrinos although not normally visible are ruled out as the key factor on this issue. Today, most of the hopes for the answer are placed on the s-particles, postulated by many SUSY (supersymmetric theories). Yet, the recent LHC data has ruled out many standard types of SUSY. Thus, many SUSY advocators are now desperately hanging on to some bizarre theories which require many fine-turnings.
In this Axiomatic physics (AP), the above SUSY arguments are simply wrong for the following reasons.
A. The Naturalness principle (NP) --- no fine-tuning is allowed in the Nature physics. See the article “Axiomatic physics, the final physics, at http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/axiomatic-physics-final-physics.html “
B. The SUSY with s-particles are simply wrong in AP, see the following articles,
i. “Origin of time, the breaking of a perfect symmetry, at http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/origin-of-time-breaking-of-perfect.html “.
ii. “Supersymmetry, Gone with the wind, at http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/supersymmetry-gone-with-wind.html “.
iii. No s-particle is allowed in AP --- see the article “48, the exact number for the number of elementary particles, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/48-exact-number-for-number-of.html “.
While the above articles showed that s-particles cannot be the dark matter, they do not give an answer to the issue. As the “dark matter” effect is very much the fact of our universe, it is a genuine issue also in this AP. Thus, a solution must be derived axiomatically.
I will begin this axiomatic derivation by looking the example of proton’s mass. While the proton can be written as the composite of three quarks [u, u, d], its internal structure is, in fact, very complicated according to many test data. In addition to the three quarks, there are many “quark and anti-quark” pairs and many gluons. And, there is no fixed number for them as they change from time to time, and is, of course, different from proton to proton. That is, every proton has a different internal structure. Even the same proton has different internal structure, evolving in time. However, the total number of up quarks minus the total number of up antiquarks is 2, and the total number of down quarks minus the total number of down antiquarks is 1.
Yet, all protons are still “identical” to the external world even with the internal structure as described above.
These two facts seemingly form a paradox. However, this paradox can be resolved with a kaleidoscope model. For two identical kaleidoscopes (with identical internal structure and identical colored beats), they will give out completely different images. Even the same kaleidoscope will give out different images in its time evolution. The complexity does not arise from its internal structure per se but arises from its “void space” which allows the random movements of those colored beats. With this kaleidoscope model, the apparent internal structure complexity of proton gives the hints about the spacetime structure “inside” of proton.
For a kaleidoscope, there are three parts,
a. a container, and it carries the majority of its mass,
b. a set of mirrors, they have some masses too. Yet, most importantly, they allow the “essence” of the empty space to be visualized, a mirror for the invisible,
c. a few colored beats, they account very small percent of the total mass. Yet, the existential essence of the void space was expressed via these beats’ existential present.
This description for kaleidoscope is almost identical to Proton’s. Proton’s three quarks (u, u, d) accounts only about 1% of its total mass. Most of the proton’s mass is carried by its gluons and the fluctuation of the vacuum inside of proton (in the forms of quark/anti-quark pair).
In the Standard Model, the gluons are viewed as particles, such as rubber bands which bound the quarks together. Regardless of what the essence of gluons is, the end result is that an envelope was formed to confine those quarks and the internal vacuum of proton. Thus, in this AP, the gluons of a particle are viewed as an envelope for that particle. For proton’s case, that envelope accounts for about 80% of proton’s mass while the spacetime (the vacuum) enclosed by that envelope accounts for the remaining 20%.
In fact, this AP cosmology is similar to this proton model and has three parts.
i. The visible matter (the galaxies, etc.), similar to the [u, u, d] of a proton, accounts for less than 5% of the total mass.
ii. The boundary (the space-time front) of the universe, similar to the proton’s envelope, accounts for the majority of the mass, perhaps over 80%.
iii. In this AP, mass can be defined in terms of space and time. That is, the spacetime (vacuum) also has mass.
a. Ms (space-defined mass) = (h-bar/c) * (1/delta s), c (light speed), s (space)
b. Mt (time-defined mass) = (h-bar/c) * (1/[c * delta t]), t (time)
So, M (mass) = (Ms * Mt)^ (1/2)
See the article “Origin of mass, gateway to the final physics, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/origin-of-mass-gateway-to-final-physics.html “.
Thus, in this AP, there is no “dark matter” in terms of any kind of particles per se while the visible matter, indeed, only accounts for 5% of the total mass.
In addition to this proton/kaleidoscope model above, the “gravitation constant evolution” also contributes some to this dark matter issue, especially on its appearance counting. See the article “The rise of gravitation, and hierarchy problem no more! , http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/rise-of-gravitation-and-hierarchy.html“. Furthermore, the total mass of the universe can be estimated by the difference between the measured Alpha values, as the Alpha for the old galaxies must be slightly different from the younger ones. See the article “Axiomatic physics, the revolutionary physics epistemology, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/05/axiomatic-physics-revolutionary-physics.html“.
Update (March 26, 2013): The iceberg model is a precise description of the prequark field. After the new Planck data was released, I have shown that the iceberg model fits the Planck data perfectly (see Planck data, the last straw on Higgs’ back, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2013/03/planck-data-last-straw-on-higgs-back.html ).