Anti-Dark Matter

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by joepistole, Nov 18, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. prometheus viva voce! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,045
    That's a calculation I would genuinely like to see.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    I'm fairly sure that's not what the paper I linked to demonstrates.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Gosh.
    You've never been quite this transparently clear to me before. You're absolutely and udderly full of BS.

    It's quite refreshing really.

    This: "It indicates that most of the matter in the Universe consists of nonbaryonic dark matter" precisely and explicity states that the dark matter is made up of WIMPS of non-baryonic particles. It's right there in the clause "most of the matter in the Universe consists of nonbaryonic dark matter".

    What they've ruled out, with this paper, is effectively the contribution of things such as unilluminated GMCs to the darkmatter question. Things like Hanny's Voorwerp (although Hanny's Voorwerp is actually illuminated at the moment, however it isn't "ordinarily").
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Gosh. I can answer this one.
     
  8. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    Hi everyone.

    All this talk of WIMPS etc has prompted rethink of the 'free Neutron decay' and what conditions may prevent or even 'oscillate' the decay back and forth between "Neutron" and "Neutral Hydrogen Atom". There are rare cases when a Neutron 'decays' but the electron has insufficient energy to 'leave the proximity' and so remains bound in a 'neutral Atom' feature instead of in the original 'neutral Neutron' feature.....with most of the 'neutron decay energy' going to the anti? neutrino leaving the scene. So, to extend the speculative possibilities/considerations to different 'environments'....

    Question:

    (1) Is it conceivable that some form of neutron-matter can coalesce in the dark and cold reaches of space into large clouds/agglomerations of gravity-collected 'dark matter' consisting of neutronic matter in some 'oscillatory state' wherein the neutrons keep decaying into hydrogen atoms and then 'UN-decaying' (as it were) back into neutrons?

    (2) Is it conceivable that the collective environment (cold and mostly neutrons/hydrogen) of vast cloud of such oscillatory neutron-hydrogen 'condensate' may interact with the ubiquitous neutrino-antineutrino so that the neutronic/hydrogenic condensate's oscillatory behaviour is sustained back and forth between states by the local neutrino-antineutrino flux?

    (3) Is it conceivable that that is why we cannot see the dark matter which may be baryonic after all?


    If not, can anyone point me to any studies of these questions which actuallt address and explain why neutronic/hydrogenic clouds of cold dark matter cannot behave as questioned above? I am ware of the 'free neutron' instability/lifetime etc in the usual conditions/states. I as just wondering if there isn't some obverse of the NEUTRON STAR scenario (ie, extreme gravity condensate of neutrons), like gentle gravity condensates in empty space where extreme cold may be the overall 'conditions' for behaviour in a low-energy/low pressure condensate.

    Any help with references covering this specific cold deep space neutron-hydrogen state oscillation scenario would be greatly appreciated!

    Please note: No claims are made; just pondering possibilities outside of the usual WIMP and 'dark' baryon/non-baryon speculatory paths already well trodden.

    Thanks in advance. Back in a couple days. Enjoy your discussions. Cheers!
     
  9. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Based on the unconfirmed prediction for the WIMP and non-baryonic dark matter it's pretty simple. You'd have to be able to read so I would predict Farsight won't try to answer Prom's question. Cranks are the pariah of public science forums. It's NOT about the science it's always about the CRANK being right. This thread is a perfect example. Joe starts the discussion and then it degenerates into fending off nonsense from the crank Farsight. This is a very interesting subject on dark matter proposals but instead of discussing this subject we're discussing the shortsight nonsense again. At least some interesting literature got linked.
     
  10. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    When hell freezes over.
     
  11. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    I don't think that this is possible to square with the estimates of both matter energy density and baryonic matter density from the observations of the relative abundance of the light elements and the background radiation. This places limits on how much baryonic matter that there was back in the early universe when the background radiation was released.

    I'm not sure exactly what you are suggesting, but if reactions to and from a neutron are going on now, they would have been going on to a greater degree before the release of the background radiation and this would change the nature of the background radiation and it would change the relative abundance of the light elements. This would have to be worked out.
     
  12. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    Thanks for your reply, PhysBang. Like I said, the 'environment' of cold and sparse space is different from that inside Neutron Stars and also that which obtained in space before hypothesized CMB release era.

    I just wanted to see what others have considered when speculating on nature/behaviour of WIMPS of whatever mass/collective behaviour in various 'environment' scenarios as I mentioned.

    Sorry I can't stay, I just had time to check my incoming PMs, and to answer your very welcome reply/interest. Thanks again! Bye for now.
     
  13. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    A WIMP is a particle. A Weakly Interacting Massive Particle. Non-baryonic dark matter isn't necessarily any kind of particle at all. It could be a just region of space where the energy-density is higher than in the surrounding space. This will exert a gravitational field in the surrounding space. And a gravitational field in itself a region of space where the energy-density is higher than in the surrounding space. That's why "the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of the energy".

    Note that gravitational fields have a binding effect. Remember the raisins-in-the-cake analogy. The space between the galaxies expands whilst galaxies do not. Assuming conservation of energy the energy density drops in the expanding space but not within the galaxy. So the energy density of the galaxy is even higher than in the surrounding space. This will exert an even greater gravitational field in the surrounding space. Only there's no sharp cutoff, instead you get flat galactic rotation curves. The bottom line is that notwithstanding the vacuum catastrophe, inhomogeneous spatial energy has a mass equivalence. It causes gravity. And space is dark. And there's a lot of it about.
     
  14. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    OK, so you are back to your basic lie.

    If you really believe this, then you should have no problem showing the direct evidence in the form of, at the very least, a calculation of how much "the energy of the gravitational field" should influence a rotating galaxy. Since you have been sneering at the work that people have actually done on galaxy rotation curves, you must have some sort of direct analysis of these curves.

    You can, of course, retract your claims here like you have in other places and admit that you are proposing something for which you have no evidence.
     
  15. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    I came across this index. Huge resource.
    A Knowledgebase for Extragalactic Astronomy and Cosmology
    http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/index.html

    From the 'Knowledgebase'.
    NON-BARYONIC DARK MATTER
    http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept05/Gondolo/Gondolo_contents.html
    WOW. Check out the Author Index.
     
  16. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    586
    Seriously, I wonder if anybody can find the point where particles (relative mass in 'wonderland') are turned back to rest mass (in reality)?

    The reduced Compton wavelength is used in calculations for relative mass, the standard Compton wavelength is used for rest mass and the conversion factor is 2 * Pi.

    When you divide your 'anti matter' relative mass by the conversion factor, 2 * Pi, you get the rest mass and a minor fraction of 'anti matter'.
     
  17. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    I'm not lying, I haven't retracted my claims in other places, and a calculation isn't direct evidence. If I spent a month doing a calculation you'd just say it was wrong or that I was lying, so I'm not going to bother thanks. Meanwhile the fact remains that inhomogeneous spatial energy has a mass-equivalence and a gravitational effect, the space between the galaxies expands whilst galaxies don't, and Einstein wasn't lying when he said "the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of the energy".
     
  18. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    So you are admitting that you have no calculation and you have no idea if your proposal will account for dark matter. You are admitting that you have read a specific passage in English from Einstein without bothering to determine the physical significance of the claim. Because it is clear that the physical significance of the claim here is the actual physical change brought about by gravity; on the one hand we have all the scientists working in this field who have worked through the calculations and on the other hand we have you who has read one thing and never bothered to work it out.

    As one can easily discover on the internet, people often say that your calculations are wrong because they are wrong. Yet it seems that rather from learn from this and determine how to be more careful with your physics calculations, you would rather try to use this as an excuse to never do mathematics. In this case, this has lead you to lie. Your lie is that the self-energy of a gravitational field can provide enough of an effect to produce the phenomena that we associate with dark matter (e.g., galaxy rotation curves, gravitational lensing, differential mass distributions in galaxy clusters, CMB anisotropies). You are lying because you have no way of knowing what the effect of this self-energy is. You are lying because you know that you have no way of knowing.

    Please, come in from the cold. If you learn to do this mathematics--even for rough approximations, I promise you it will be rewarding.
     
  19. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,222
    Farsight isn't a liar any more than you are for claiming the opposite without also doing the calculations. If you want to object to the air of certainty with which he presents his ideas (particularly if they are unfalsifiable) then go ahead, but there is no lying going on around here unless I missed something. He's simply tossing around an idea; relax.
     
  20. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Physbang may not have posted the calculations, but to the best of my recollection the calculations have, in fact, been done. So yeah, you missed something, and Farsight is a liar in as much as he is presenting something he does not know to be true as the truth and is arguably presenting something he knows to be untrue as the truth.
     
  21. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,222
    I just have a problem with the label "liar" you are attributing to him. I can name a couple of people here who are known for changing their previous posts after they've been proven wrong on something; THAT is lying (or worse) as far as I'm concerned. And if we go by your definition in bold almost anyone who has ever made a statement of fact regarding reality is likely to be a liar, given how much our understanding of Physics has changed throughout history.

    What I think you guys are trying to say is: "Farsight, the certainty in your demeanor is offensive to me, given the fact that I don't believe you have sufficient evidence to make these conclusions." If he says he's done the work but won't share it with you THEN you can come out with "liar, liar, pants on fire"...
     
  22. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    You have missed something: Farsight has made these claims many places before, he has admitted to having no evidence for these specific claims about dark matter before, he has admitted as much in this thread, yet he continues presenting claims that he knows are groundless and insults the work of scientists working in the field. There are calculations out there; these form the basis of many, many papers that are freely available.

    The truth is that Farsight came into this thread prepared to deceive readers. He began with a dismissal of one kind of evidence for dark matter as if it was the only kind of evidence. He then went on to present his own proposal for an alternative, one relying on attacking the competency of others, that has no support theoretical or otherwise.
     
  23. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Misrepresenting stuff is the same as lying. Awhile back Farsight said this [OPTICS and GRAVITY, Post #73] about Kevin Brown and this section of his book Reflections on Relativity http://mathpages.com/rr/s8-04/8-04.htm

    "Kevin Brown is a good bloke, but it would be wrong to discard some concept on his say-so." I asked Farsight what concept Kevin was discarding on his say-so? I asked more than once and never received an answer. So he glibly misrepresented the good author of a very good book on relativity theory. Obfuscate, lie, and flee.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page