Dark matter theory

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by mr. jones, Jul 22, 2009.

  1. mr. jones Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    I've read about dark matter and tried to understand it, but I don't really feel it is a "matter" at all. I believe that dark matter is actually the absence of matter creating a gravtational force that builds up mass creating and binding galaxies together. If it was a matter it would have been seen as one and have an atomic structure, which it does not. So basically, where the 92% of the universe is, is actually where there is nothing, and where there is nothing, there is a force that for some reason, has to compact things together. That force known as dark matter I believe isn't a matter at all; it could as well be the absense of matter getting pulled towards mass creating an oppositional effect of gravity. The more attracted it gets to the mass, the more gravity is produced. But one problem in this sub-theory is that if it isn't matter at all why would it be attracted to matter? Maybe where there is no gravity, which surrounds everything that exists in an atomic state, there is a limited amount of mass and matter that can be allowed in it, and if the universe was to produce too much celestial bodies it would create this gravitational effect in order to keep everything together. Which means that there has to be an approximate amount of emptiness, which is 92% of the universe, and if more celestial bodies are created the more the force has to control it so it won't build up, which works alot like a trash compactor; which is simply gravity.

    This theory has it's spots where it may not seen very believable, but the main point of it is to explain that the dark matter theory may not be as plausible as it would seem, and it doesn't adress gravity on a universal scale.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. kurros Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    793
    "If it was a matter it would have been seen as one and have an atomic structure"

    Matter is not limited to objects with atomic structure. Matter may be thought of as anything consisting of fundamental particles which aren't force carriers. I.e. quarks, electrons, muons, tauons, the neutrinos. The other particles, i.e. photons, gluons, W+/- and Z bosons mediate the forces and so are in some sense less 'matter'-like than the others, although at the fundamental level it's not so clear as that.
    Dark matter is fairly likely to be made up of some new kind of weakly-interacting particle which we would therefore not see.

    The rest doesn't really make much sense to me, sorry.

    "and it doesn't adress gravity on a universal scale."

    Some of the best evidence for dark matter comes from simulations of the large-scale structure of the universe. The observed distribution of galactic superclusters doesn't arise in gravitational simulations without dark matter.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Gravity doesn't work that way.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I read this before but the OP didn't have any promise IMHO. But by the looks of it mr. jones posted once and is gone so maybe you will respond based on your informed reply.

    Your statement about particles, i.e. matter vs. your view of what dark matter is "fairly likely to be" brings up a question. I have been considering dark matter to be a product of nucleosynthesis that does not emit electromagnetic radiation but does have mass. As such dark matter would be a relic of the period of matter formation that never completed the process of becoming fundamental particles. They wouldn't become incorporated in objects composed of matter but would gather in and around matter. The density of dark matter would be higher around galactic structure and lower in the expanding reaches of space between galaxies. You almost opened the door to discussing speculation by your statement so is my view in line with your thinking?
     
  8. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Nucleosynthesis would imply an interaction via the strong force, which creates charged particles, quarks, hence why dark matter is weakly interacting, it doesn't have anything to do with the strong force because that would imply the electromagnetic properties of quarks are signatures of dark matter.
     
  9. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Thanks AN, but matter consists of more than charged particles. I mentioned both matter formation and nucleosynthesis. There are hadrons and leptons that formed before the charged particles but it all happened in the first moments. You might want to review the following links:

    http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/32_n-synth/nucleosynthesis.html

    http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/matter.html

    And I mentioned speculation. Do you object to discussions that involve speculation. Do you know what the consensus is on dark matter? Do you have anything to say about the topic? You just said you didn't like me so is that why you follow me around and troll the threads I start? (rhetorical) Did you have to jump in before Kurros had a chance to reply. I was hoping to get his opinion without him having to deal with your biased input.

    Do you disagree that dark matter exists, or that it seems to gather more around galaxies than in the space separating galaxies? Do you have anything to add to the discussion or are you just intent on sticking to the book and parroting theory while deriding speculation? (rhetorical)
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2009
  10. kurros Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    793
    Hmm, I am not clear on what you are suggesting. Nucleosynthesis doesn't involve the production of fundamental particles. Nucleosynthesis refers to the production of atomic nuclei (i.e. the nuclei chemical elements) from protons and neutrons, which even themselves are not fundamental particles (being composed of quarks, which are). There are some neutrinos and electrons and such created during these processes but I don't think that was what you meant.

    If you are suggesting the dark matter particles did not take part in nucleosynthesis then yes you would be in agreement with most dark matter models, being weakly interacting they would hardly influence nucleosynthesis at all. There is some evidence for dark matter that comes from the relic abundances of the elements from primordial nucleosynthesis, but to be honest I'm not sure how it works exactly. It might be simply that based on the gravitational evidence there is more matter than can be accounted for by the products of nucleosynthesis in the conventional models, but there may be more to it. Here is a passage from a review paper I read, but unfortunately it doesn't really give reasons:

    "When the universe was a few hundred seconds old, at a temperature of ten billion
    degrees, deuterium became stable: p + n → D + γ. Once deuterium forms, helium
    and lithium form as well. The formation of heavier elements such as C, N, and
    O must wait a billion years until stars form, with densities high enough for triple
    interactions of three helium atoms into a single carbon atom. The predictions
    from the Big Bang are 25% Helium-4, 10−5 deuterium, and 10−10 Li-7 abundance
    by mass. These predictions exactly match the data as long as atoms are only 4%
    of the total constituents of the universe."

    Freese, Review of observational evidence for dark matter, astro-ph > arXiv:0812.4005v1

    The stuff you said about how dark matter is distributed, i.e. "They wouldn't become incorporated in objects composed of matter but would gather in and around matter. The density of dark matter would be higher around galactic structure and lower in the expanding reaches of space between galaxies.", is pretty much the current understanding of the dark matter distribution, except that the 'causality' is thought to be the other way around. Since there seems to be so much more dark matter than regular matter, galaxies and galaxy clusters (i.e. ordinary matter) are believed to have formed where they did BECAUSE of the high dark matter density there, i.e. the dark matter is highly responsible for the many of the large scale structures observed in the universe.

    So possibly what you are suggesting is more or less in line with the conventional dark matter thinking. If were talking more about the very INITIAL 'production' of the actual fundamental particles, i.e. perhaps during some supersymmetry breaking process (quite a few dark matter models involve supersymmetry) or electroweak symmetry breaking or something then that would be a different discussion.

    edit: Actually just one more comment on this:
    Hadrons fall into two categories, baryons (things made of 3 quarks, i.e. protons, neutrons and some more unusual particles) and mesons (made of a quark and an antiquark, things like pions and kaons, all of which are pretty unusual), both of which can be charged (clearly protons are charged) because quarks are charged. Leptons are simpler, and they are all fundamental particles. There are only 12 of them, i.e. electron, muon, tauon, a neutrino for each of these, then an antiparticle for all 6. These are all charged too, except for the neutrinos. So I don't really know what you meant with this statement.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2009
  11. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    The difference between physicists and non-physicists, that I've noticed, is that physicists are quick to give up their ideas when they are shown to be wrong, and non-physicists never listen to reason.

    You're not original, you're just stubborn. Sorry.
     
  12. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Thanks Kurros.
     
  13. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Sorry Ben. When I'm shown to be wrong I give it up.
     
  14. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Exactly.
     
  15. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    The source of the dark matter is what I was getting at and my attention to detail of existing theory was not good. I wasn’t trying to use existing theory to make a point, but was saying that there are still unknowns in regard to the dark matter models and the consensus is still not formed as far as I know. If there is a consensus on dark matter then I would read it in detail and get a layman’s understanding of it. I will look closer at Freese, thank you.
    The causality being the other way around is a good point. When I go beyond existing theory into speculation to try to see if my feeble brain can make sense of things for myself, there are times when brainstorming becomes part of the methodology of speculation. In that regard, my speculation about dark matter includes a period of abundant matter formation during the earliest moments of expansion. The question of what is expanding is where I begin the brainstorming and speculation. If the “what is expanding” comes from preconditions to the Big Bang, standard theory is left behind.

    I have seen many alternative ideas and they include the idea of a big crunch preceded the expansion. If it was a big crunch then the big bang released energy accumulated in the core of the big crunch. I am speculating that the burst of the big crunch initiated not only the expansion, but was the source of energy for the period of matter formation. The composition of that energy then becomes the question. Again it is open to theory but I am not aware of theory that takes us from crunch to expansion so I brainstorm about it. Dark matter would be the first product of matter formation after the big bang, dark matter spread homogeneously through an essentially isotropic expanding energy ball with some perturbations from the event.

    Formation of the fundamental particles would follow.
    Spontaneous symmetry breaking has always sounded like a way to explain how something comes from nothing and I don’t see the need for it if there was a big crunch that preceded the big bang.

    I was just being obnoxious to AN because he trolls.
     
  16. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Yes, I might wish to review things I'm much more familiar with than you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And hadrons and half of leptons are electromagnetically charged, when you get to their fundamental makeup (ie neutrons have charged components). You were talking about nucleosynthesis, which the combination of hadrons (ie protons and neutrons) via meson mediation (which I could go into in detail but why bother, it's wasted on you). Meson mediation means the strong force, the strong force means quarks, quarks means charged particles. If dark matter interacted with nucleosynthesis processes then it involved meson mediated interactions, which means quarks, which means they interfer with light, which means its not dark.

    What about that is tough to grasp?

    I didn't say "OMG, you're a retard for even suggesting it!", I explained why your speculation was not going to be valid. You were wrong, I explained quickly and to the point why. Am I not allowed to correct you, even when you're wrong and I do it in a straightforward manner?

    You seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder that I correct you when you're wrong. You do realise part of scientific discussion is being told you're wrong and learning from it? Else why bother to have discussions? Why not just monologue your thoughts on a blog? I'm wrong all the time, stupidly wrong, sometimes so wrong I'm embarassed by how silly I've been for suggesting it, I've emailed professors saying "I'm not sure why you said...." and their reply has been effectively "Because I added 1 and 2 and got 3!" (only something particularly technical). I learn from it, it helps me improve. You seem to really hate it when anyone, particularly me, corrects you even when it means you learn something. And you call me egotistical?!

    You seem to have similar thought processes to Kaneda, that because I don't post my own musings on things or correct others a lot I do nothing other than 'by the book', defending religiously the status quo. No, you (and he) just get simple things wrong which we are very confident about and what musings I do have are not something I'd discuss here because it'd be fairly unhelpful due to the lack of expertise in the forum members (Ben, Prom and I don't overlap enough in our work to be helpful to one another in the details of our research). I'm much more aware of the shortcomings of mainstream theories than any crank here, it's just cranks never raise those issues.
     
  17. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fee fi fo fum&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10

    FYI, I have learned that you never intend to discuss anything with me. You have said you like to make fun of me, you said you don't like me, you have used a variety of ad homs to describe me, and you say I am your entertainment. If I respond to you in a discussion mode you always revert to one of those behaviors and pretend you have slapped me down. That leaves the issue of following me around to perform those objectives; that is trolling.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2009
  18. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    I reply to your posts point by point. You have a tendency to simply mass quote my post and reply to something in a vague way, ignoring direct questions or issues. I think you're projecting yourself onto me.

    If you could respond with a little more informed knowledge and a little less wild unjustified claims maybe you'd be less entertaining to slap you down?

    I post elsewhere. You are a high rate poster, I tend to be too and since we reside in generally the same forums we overlap a lot. I replied to this thread initially with a short, relevant and to the point post. You've made an issue of it, going to far as to PM me and whine how Kurros might not reply now, as if he's waiting to see how I do things. And you even thanked him when he clarified a point I raised which you told me to go away and read some SLAC pages! Quarks and leptons are charged, nucleosynthesis means mesons, means charged particles, means non-dark matter. He backed me up and you thanked him, after PM'ing me to tell me to shut up and now you're claiming I'm trolling because I said it first?! I went so far as to ask you if you didn't grasp something about that when I repeated myself for clarification and you mass quoted me and claim I'm not interested in a discussion?! You are ignoring points I try to discuss. Wow, you really are laying it on thick here.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Like I said, “FYI I have learned that you never intend to discuss anything with me. You have said you like to make fun of me, you said you don't like me, you have used a variety of ad homs to describe me, and you say I am your entertainment. If I respond to you in a discussion mode you always revert to one of those behaviors and pretend you have slapped me down. That leaves the issue of following me around to perform those objectives; that is trolling.”

    I don’t give any value to what you say because of that behavior. If you could give me the golden keys to Tibia I would be out of luck because I would not trust you enough to read your comments after the first sign of your attitude. Usually a line or two is enough. You have a low character that is well known on the forum and just because I deal with your obnoxious arrogance by pointing it out to you, you troll where ever I post.
     
  20. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    So it's not that I don't have anything valid, relevant and on topic to say, it's just you've decided you're going to label all my posts like that, you're going to refuse to discuss anything with me and then claim I'm not willing to discuss things and I'm not saying anything relevant.

    That's like saying if we redefine the dictionary so 'obese' means "87 feet tall and bright green" then we no longer have obese people. It doesn't actually mean your way of describing things is true. I replied with an on topic response. You had a go at me, telling me to read up. Yet I am then backed up and now you're trying to say it's not that you didn't understand what I said (and the links you provided) well enough to grasp that I was right, it's that you've decided I'm worth always ignoring.

    So why'd you try to correct me and tell me to read up on things? That isn't saying I'm just going to get ignored, it means you read what I said, deemed it wrong and you wanted to show it. Except I wasn't and now you're back peddling, making up excuses why you won't listen to a thing I say. If you'd just said "Good point, dark matter can't engage in nucleosynthesis processes" we'd not be having this off topic discussion. Little bit of humility might go a long way perhaps?

    Basically you're trying to justify to yourself why you don't have to put in any effort to learn anything, because you're just ignoring something I'd probably tell you. What a wonderful way to do things, bury your head in the sand. :shrug:
     
  21. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Like I said, “FYI I have learned that you never intend to discuss anything with me. You have said you like to make fun of me, you said you don't like me, you have used a variety of ad homs to describe me, and you say I am your entertainment. If I respond to you in a discussion mode you always revert to one of those behaviors and pretend you have slapped me down. That leaves the issue of following me around to perform those objectives; that is trolling.”

    “I don’t give any value to what you say because of that. If you could give me the golden keys to Tibia I would be out of luck because I would not trust you enough to discuss anything with you. You have a low character that is well known on the forum and just because I deal with your obnoxious arrogance by pointing it out to you, you troll where ever I post.”

    I hope the gold key to Tibia wasn’t in that post because I stopped reading at, “it's just you've decided you're going to label all my posts like that, you're going to refuse to discuss anything with me and then claim I'm not willing to discuss things and I'm not saying anything relevant.."
     
  22. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    You do realise it's hypocrisy you saying I refuse to discuss things when you're just copying and pasting and ignoring my perfectly valid points? Can't you explain why you replied saying I was wrong but then accepted it when Kurros backed me up? Clearly not. Maybe you should spend your time reading those links you provided rather than coming up with hypocrisy and self deception to copy and paste?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Or do you think the copy and paste is somehow taking the high road and I'll stop replying to your posts where you lie or make claims you have no intention of justifying? Yeah, that'll work.
     
  23. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Like I said, “FYI I have learned that you never intend to discuss anything with me. You have said you like to make fun of me, you said you don't like me, you have used a variety of ad homs to describe me, and you say I am your entertainment. If I respond to you in a discussion mode you always revert to one of those behaviors and pretend you have slapped me down. That leaves the issue of following me around to perform those objectives; that is trolling.”

    “I don’t give any value to what you say because of that. If you could give me the golden keys to Tibia I would be out of luck because I would not trust you enough to discuss anything with you. You have a low character that is well known on the forum and just because I deal with your obnoxious arrogance by pointing it out to you, you troll where ever I post.”

    I hope the gold key to Tibia wasn’t in that post because I stopped reading at, “You do realise it's hypocrisy ..."
     

Share This Page