dark matter temperature

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by nebel, Mar 10, 2021.

  1. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    We can only visually detect objects above absolute 0 degrees kelvin. so,
    has anybody thought of an alternative theory that proposes matter existing at zero or even negative energy level? invisible matter? matter not giving off any radiation, where not only electro magnetism acts weirdly but not "gravity" ( spacetime warp) or it's effects?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    Can a negative temperature exists ? Yes. (negative energy level i dont know what this mean).
    It is not speculative science, only some scientific curiosity.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_temperature

    Why not, but how could this matter be so cold in space ?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    good question, with even non baryonic gravity waves delivering energy.
    I think there is a cold dark matter theory.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    Perhaps the cold matter could be some Bose-Einstein condensate.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose–Einstein_condensate

    Trying to find something about this hypothesis, it seem that it could be a possibility.

    Per example here :

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-8272-4
     
  8. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    the constraints for zero temperature DM are narrow. It can not absorb or reflect any radiation. Would the Bose- Einstein plama fit that limitation?
     
  9. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    It would be nice if i could answer this.
    But i suppose i am not skilled enough and i do not have many observational facts to draw a conclusion on this eventuality.

    I can only propose an alternative solution to the dark matter problem (but it has nothing to do with matter).
     
    nebel likes this.
  10. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,215
    does a black hole "give off"(active production outward) energy that is detectable ?

    while i realize there may not be a simple answer to that question
    my purpose is to define the nature of detectable version perception of existence by relative actions of other matter/objects etc

    e.g if there was an anti-gravity particle how could we detect it ?
     
  11. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    "other matter objects" might define a sensor, camera that directly captures the original emitted radiation. or an acho glow of it;s reflection.
    The OP question was, could dark matter (and I believe it might be a red herring) give off no light, because it is too cold to do so. and it is not radioactive either.

    have we even detected gravitons, tons of it? or tons of the higgs boson?

    Hawking's radiation, relativity jets
     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  12. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,215
    are all things photonic by observable conclusion ?
    e.g if we are not using photonic devices, what are we using ?[point= can it be detected using something other than its heat]

    does a photon exist outside a vibrational frequency range ?
    particle ?
    do any particles not vibrate ?

    is a particle a stationary object ?(static versus non static?)
     
  13. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    Curently i see at least 3 types of "particles" detectors :
    Light telescop/radiotelescop, for electromagnetic radiation (so photons).
    Collision detector to detect particles (neutrino detectors, Geiger counter, cloud chambers, etc).
    Gravity detector to detect gravity waves.

    Now, to get an image, we can use the first of three here very efficiently, and sometime we can use a little the cloud chambers to say where the particle come from (we see the trail the particles left in the "cloud").

    In physic, a "particle" is a generic term that include atom (particle is a "small part of matter").
    Smaler particle are named "subatomic particles".
    So neutron/proton/electron are particles and the atom composed of these three particles are particles.
    The quarks are particles and they compose the particles neutron and proton.

    E=h*nu
    E : Enregy
    nu : Frequency (vibrational rate)
    h : Planck constant
    So if a particle has no energy, perhaps we can say that it dont vibrate.

    But this is perhaps a too simplified point of view (i am not a specialist), in quantum physic i think that nothing can be in a "resting state". There could be a virtual vibration that can appear in some circumstances (when the particle is accelerated per example).
    Immobility doesent exists.

    An other question is : If we vibrate at the same rate as the incoming wave, can we detect it ?

    A particle is also a wave.
    Perhaps a better question could be : Do any particle expand like a wave ?
     
  14. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    all very pertinent questions, and in a state of matter that is devoid of any energy, not just in place vibration, but even spin. would its presence not be undetectable by any means, safe the effects of its mass on spacetime?
     
  15. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Highlighted

    Could maybe but eventually it will break down to its fundamental constituents .

    None .
     
  16. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    To your last statement , true

    DE . Dark Energy , the energy of speed . Superfluids . Non Friction motion . Absolute Zero ( and greater to my thinking ) is very interesting .

    And the magnetic field is extremely confined , extremely small . Because there is no heat . Heat allows expansion . Cold does not .
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2021
  17. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    Think about this: DM in it's halos has to be sustained in place against gravity. We do it by orbital speed, centrifugal "force" so:
    May be
    DM is so cold it freezes spacetime to kind of a "solid" for itself.
     
  18. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    With this hypothesis, Dark Matter could be the space itself organized in a new unknown state .
    Some are doing such speculation concerning the inner space of the black holes, saying space could be in a different phase we already know.
    The problem is, for black hole we can understand why space could be in an other phase, but for space between galaxys, why ?

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05095-z
     
    nebel likes this.
  19. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,318
    ?
    Is this true for Dark Matter :
    Gravity is inversely proportional to temperature?
     
  20. Dicart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    If you understand well, the above hypothesis is highly speculativ.
    In this case i doubt we can draw a law so simple as "gravity is proportional to temperature".

    On the other hand, gravity could have something to do with "temperature", but not the same as we talk about with agitation of matter. Gravity could be a thermodynamical emergent effet.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity
     
  21. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    In this idea that nebel through out there, , all DM is invisible because of giving off no signal, because at zero kelvin or below, it is not energetic enough to so . so:
    the inverse square law appears to be unaffected by temperature. it just is.

    Dark matter becoming visible by getting warmed up and shining would not change the reading on your gravity instrument
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2021
  22. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    Highlighted

    Disagree

    DE then DM . Then Galaxies and Quasars Because of superconductivity ( cold ) no friction , hence speed , not heat .
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2021
  23. nebel

    Messages:
    2,469
    That is an interesting scenario. if I understand right,
    Energy, existing before the big Bang Bang could be called "Dark" energy, because it must have been there, but we can not see it. or beyond 13.8 light years into the past. The first few years are also opaque to us, but is that because all matter was " Dark Matter" ?--- not what mainstream science found. -- Then some of the dark matter became baronic, turned into galaxies and stars? by emerging internal friction?

    instead of being supercharged with DE, think of DM as deprived of all energy to the point of invisibility. and additionally not being able to absorb or reflect any energy, waves or particles at all.
     

Share This Page