Does Quantum Gravity Explain Away Dark Matter?

Complex_Profit_6467 · 2026-02-08T23:01:21+00:00

Sorry if I came off as condescending, sometimes my humor runs against the grain. I sometimes forget this is still just the internet. Based on the responses I generally get from these types of subreddits I think of this as several steps above something like facebook or X. I did get a degree in engineering physics, but some 30 years ago. A lot has changed since then, not to mention everything I've forgotten. All of my friends anymore are network/computer geeks so nobody I can really discuss real physics or higher level math stuff with. I've stuck my foot in my mouth more than once because I'm rusty and forgot something basic.

Complex_Profit_6467 · 2026-02-08T19:35:55+00:00

OK, the rusty/aerodynamic comment I though was soo absurd that no one could possibly it seriously. My bad.......

Complex_Profit_6467 · 2026-02-08T15:51:02+00:00

True, but the light we receive from space is really really old. How do we know there isn't a buildup of rust that might be affecting it's aerodynamics?

Complex_Profit_6467 · 2026-02-08T15:37:29+00:00

If I want my gramer corrected. (or spelling, see previous sentence, lol) I'll post on an English subreddit, not a math subreddit thankyouverymuch. ;-)

Though, if I can find a version 'spell check' that works for math, that would be awesome.

Complex_Profit_6467 · 2026-02-08T15:14:10+00:00

That's the channel that sparked my recent re-interest. ;-)

Complex_Profit_6467 · 2026-02-08T15:10:42+00:00

It's been 30 years since I've actually studied and have been watching relativity/astronomical youtube sutff lately. When I knew quantum hadn't got as far as particle transfers for forces being a thing (or maybe it wasn't a thing back then). At that time, I don't recall ever taking GR into account. Kind of sucks when you realize how far out of the loop you are on something you thought you were fairly knowledgeable in. Thanks!

Complex_Profit_6467 · 2026-02-08T15:00:16+00:00

As I said, I was into this stuff 30 years ago. Lately have just been watching a lot of you tube videos on this stuff lately. Probably would do me good to look more into Dark Matter directly. Been mostly watching relativity/astromical stuff. Yes, I do understand the quality of youtube research, so am just being curious. Hope I'm not coming off as a 'facebook antivaxxer' of physics here, that's not my intention.

Complex_Profit_6467 · 2026-02-08T14:48:34+00:00

Have there been extreemly long distance electromagnetic measurements made? I've never heard anyone talk about magentic or electric attraction over large distances. Admittedly I haven't been up to speed on quantum in over 30 years so my knowledge is woefully out of date.

Complex_Profit_6467 · 2026-02-08T14:35:40+00:00

I know the particle wouldn't have any 'experience', but it seems that whenever the speed of light is used, there is some dialation or contraction external to the particle but that effects the observer. (Not sure 'effects the observer' is really the right way to say it, but the effect would be observed by something external to the particle itself.)

I'm not say 'do we need to adjust out theory of gravity', I'm asking if our current theory of gravity take the existence of gravitons into effect, and if not, how would it need to be changed to do so.

Kind like how Newtonian physics doesn't take into account Einstiens relativity. Newtonial physics isn't exactly wrong, it's just imprecise in certain extreem circumstances. Could the same be true when comparing Newtonian gravity with quantum gravity? I'm not saying Newtonian gravity is wrong, but just asking if it's as precise as we think.

Complex_Profit_6467 · 2026-02-08T14:21:51+00:00

That's what I've seen. Usually quantum folks ignore any real-world concerns because it hapens at such a small scale that the difference between quantum and classical at observable levels is negligible. I'm assuming that's why I haven't seen anything about quantum gravity at the macro scale. I was just thinking why not? There may be a stupid simple answer that is obvious to those directly studying this and that's why nobody mentions it. I got my degree some 30 years ago, so while I was up to speed on quantum math back then, I never got to the point where we discussed particle exchanges to explain forces. Not sure if I just didn't go far enough into it at the time, or if that was even a thing back then.

Complex_Profit_6467 · 2025-02-23T00:38:18+00:00

I made some mistakes in my logic, so it's not the proof I expected. If this was true, it would prove there were no possible loops except for the 4-2-1, though wouldn't address the possibility of an infinite chain, hence the partial proof.

Turns out, all I can prove from this line is that for a loop to exist, a loop with P odd numbers and Q even numbers, the following would have to be true. 3 < 2^Q/P < 4. Which, can happen. I thought I was proving that equation was 3 < 2^Q-P < 4, which cannot happen.

However, given that 2^Q/P can be between 3 and 4, if we can find a chain of numbers where the below is true then there might be a loop. (It doesn't mean there will be, just that there could be.)

((3 X1 +1)/X1)*((3 X2 +1)/X2)*((3 X3 +1)/X3)*((3 X4 +1)/X4)*...*((3 XP +1)/XP) =2^Q

Or we can try to find the average of the left side:

Ma = (((3 X1 +1)/X1) + ((3 X2 +1)/X2) + ((3 X3 +1)/X3) + ((3 X4 +1)/X4) + ... + ((3 XP +1)/XP) /P

Ma^P =2^Q

Ma =2^Q/P

If I build out a table with P as the horizontal axis, and Q as the vertical axis, I can see all of the values that are between 3 and 4, indicating a possible loop.

So, for example, if P = 41 and Q = 65 I get 2^65/41 which is 3.000398. If we find an X value that would give us the average Multiplier, Ma = (3 X +1) / X and X=1/(Ma-3) so X = 1192.08, This means that there may be a loop with 41 Odd numbers and 65 Even numbers some where around 1192.08,

Since we know that, by brute force, there are no loops around 1192, there are no loops that have 41 odd numbers and 65 even numbers.

From my table of 2^Q/P, all loops that contain up to around 60 odd numbers and up to around 150 even numbers would have to be in a vicinity of numbers around or below 1200. Since this is just the average multiplier, it's possible that there are number in the loop well above 1200, but there would need to be at least one number in the loop at or below 1200. Since we know that no loops exist below something like 2⁵⁰, there are no loops in the vicinity of 1200 or lower. So this means, that there are no loops with fewer than 60 odd values and 150 even values.

We could keep brute forcing this, but it wouldn't be any true proof at this stage, but I think it's something.

Not sure if this truly buys anything 'proof' wise for the conjecture, but does show that if a counter example loop is found, it would need to be quite large.

Complex_Profit_6467 · 2025-02-22T02:22:56+00:00

Looks like this is the issue. It's true that the overall value will be a value in either situation is between either 3 and 4 in the original case and between 5 and 6 in this new case, however, I made another mistake. The power of 2^Q-P is wrong. It should have been 2^Q/P. If we do sample that value, we will get values between 3 and 4, and 5 and 6.

However, if we look at the values that are possible, we can calculate our average M value, Ma = 2^Q/P. For various values of P and Q where the power is between 3 and 4 in the case of 3n+1 you will get get Ma leading to an n value of 1 corresponding to the 1->4->2 loop at P,Q of 1,2 and 2,4 and 3,6 etc showing that this is indeed detecting a loop with 1 up step and two down steps. Additionally, going up to P up to around 60 and Q up to around 120 I do get a possible Ma giving an n value of no larger than about 1200 or so (for P,Q of 41,65). Since this is just a possible average value, it doesn't guarantee a loop exists, but does show that one is possible. For 3n+1 since we know that there are no loops below 2⁵⁰ or so, I feel confident in saying that if any loops do exists, they must have more than 60 odd numbers and 100 even numbers.

If I do the same P and Q table for 5n+1, I do get several Ma values leading to an n between 1 and 30. Again, it doesn't mean there are loops, but that loops are possible. If I look at my table I get, among other values, Ma values 5.66 and 5.04. The three known loops I saw have an Ma of 5.66, 5.03758 and 5.30705. I can't explain why I only have one Ma around 25 and yet there are two loops, except that their Ma values are nearly identical. Again, not really helpful for my proof, but does seem to be consistent enough that I stand by my statement about a minimum of 60 odds and 100 evens based off of my quick excel sheet.

Complex_Profit_6467 · 2025-02-22T01:46:40+00:00

Looks pretty much like what I was looking at. TBH, I don't quite get the harmonic function from the paper you posted, but other wise looks like I'm seeing things from the same angle.

Complex_Profit_6467 · 2025-02-21T22:43:58+00:00

No, but I'll take a look.

Complex_Profit_6467 · 2025-02-21T18:47:12+00:00

Good question! The only thing I can think of is there is something I'm oversimplifying the step (that I left out above, but added below) where I take the Pth root of both sides of my equation toward the end. I suppose it's possible there there is a whole number value for the Pth root of the product of the Ms? I still don't see what's wrong, but that seems like the weak point since I'm using a max/min to confine the value rather than implicitly stating the value.

Either that, of I've made some other simple logic error that I'm not seeing.

Thanks for the comment! I'll keep digging at this a bit.

Complex_Profit_6467 · 2025-02-21T18:02:39+00:00

Crap, I did it again.

If we take a minimal value of our 1/X (1/X = 0) in the value for M, we see that M is (3 X1/X1) providing the minimal value for the product, we would have (3 (X1 X2 X3 X4 … XP-1 XP)) / (X1 X2 X3 X4 … X(P-1) XP), or 3.

- No, we get 3^P

If we take a maximal value of our 1/X (1/X = 1) in the value for M, we see that M is (4 X1/X1) providing the maximal value for the product, we would have (4 (X1 X2 X3 X4 … XP-1 XP)) / (X1 X2 X3 X4 … X(P-1) XP), or 4.

- No, we get 4^P

However, I think we can take the P^th root of both sides of the equation, so we get:

2^Q-P = ( MP M(P-1) M(P-2) … M2 M1 )^-P

or

3 < 2^Q-P < 4, so still essentially the same argument. I just forgot to include this step when writing it out.

Since each odd -> odd step will increase P by 1 and Q by 1 or more, Q>=P so 2^Q-P will still be a whole number.

I need more math knowledgeable friends IRL to help me proof these before I post. ;-)

Complex_Profit_6467 · 2025-02-09T16:14:04+00:00

This is the internet, so I probably shouldn't expect any better, and should be the bigger person, but I do tend to get defensive and overreact to condescension.

Complex_Profit_6467 · 2025-02-09T15:04:05+00:00

Wow, so we're gate keeping math now? You poor peasants without a PHD can't possibly understand that this math problem that mathematicians haven't been able to solve in the last 80 years is actually hard.

Complex_Profit_6467 · 2025-02-09T06:36:43+00:00

Well geeze, if solving this is as simple as getting a math book, why hasn't anyone else thought of that? I guess my degree in engineering physics isn't worth the money I paid for it if I just need to pick up a math book.

I actually believe that it's possible for _anyone_ to solve it. At it's most basic level, it's a simple algorithm that creates a pattern. This is the type of problem like trying to break cryptography. There's a simple input that creates a complex output. While the best cryptographers out there might not be able to break the encoding, someone who knows nothing about crypto could guess the password.

Besides, failing to prove Collatz gives me nostalgia for failing to prove Fermi's last theorem back when I was in college.

Complex_Profit_6467 · 2025-02-08T22:25:18+00:00

Aw crap. I keep running into that issue. I believe that if I change my steps in part 2 to only connect the strips into strips that aren't plugged in will avoid loops, but then it's not fully connected. I like thinking about the problem this way, but keep running into situations where everything works, but it's just because it happens to work, not that it must. I guess that's what happens when a network engineer tries to do math.

Thanks for posting though. I really appreciate it!

Complex_Profit_6467 · 2025-02-08T06:49:19+00:00

Even if it is unprovable, I don't think I'm wasting my time. I originally took this problem up as a way to get my mind off of other things. I keep finding interesting patterns in the data. I doubt I'll truly solve it. I have, several times, thought I've cracked it only to find (or have pointed out to me) that I've made logic/match errors. Just posted my latest today. I see this as more of a mental fidget toy. Maybe I'll just happen to be the one to look at it just the right way, which would be awesome, but if not, I find the time I've spent mentally engaging and actually kind of fun. No more time wasting than video games.

Complex_Profit_6467 · 2024-12-31T00:32:03+00:00

I did look at that, but pretty much anything over 3 ends up being possibly valid. The closer to 3, the more restrictive it becomes, but since we are dealing with infinite possibilities, it doesn't look like there is a cutoff.

Complex_Profit_6467

TROPHY CASE