Was the majority of the universe created by fusion?

[DaveC426913]

Beac, three of your last four posts contain non sequiturs - two things you've connected that have no immediately apparent relationship with each other:
- dark matter passing through us and the universe accelerating,
- dark matter in galaxies and hydrogen
- matter reaching the speed of light and fusion.

They hint at some misunderstandings you may have. Why not gather your thoughts and rephrase them as questions?

 

[exchemist]

Beac, three of your last four posts contain non sequiturs - two things you've connected that have no immediately apparent relationship with each other:
- dark matter passing through us and the universe accelerating,
- dark matter in galaxies and hydrogen
- matter reaching the speed of light and fusion.

They hint at some misunderstandings you may have. Why not gather your thoughts and rephrase them as questions?

Good luck with that.

But kudos to Beaconator for raising an interesting issue.

 

[Beaconator]

Beac, three of your last four posts contain non sequiturs - two things you've connected that have no immediately apparent relationship with each other:
- dark matter passing through us and the universe accelerating,
- dark matter in galaxies and hydrogen
- matter reaching the speed of light and fusion.

They hint at some misunderstandings you may have. Why not gather your thoughts and rephrase them as questions?

At some point dark matter has to interact with itself, whether it is because of a huge mass under the stress of gravity or two different bodies in a head on collision, otherwise there would be no fusion and no universe as we know it?


Glad to see you took me off you ignore list. You would have missed all the fun.

 

[DaveC426913]

At some point dark matter has to interact with itself, whether it is because of a huge mass under the stress of gravity or two different bodies in a head on collision,

No. Like photons, dark matter passes right through itself.

otherwise there would be no fusion and no universe as we know it?

It only needs to interact gravitationally to fulfill its cosmological function.

 

[Beaconator]

It only needs to interact gravitationally to fulfill its cosmological function.

I don’t know if that is true or not… it seems to me that dark matter would only have temperature when interacting with something in a way other than gravitationally. Yet there are many competing theories of both hot and cold dark matter and how they shaped the beginning of galaxies.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don’t know if that is true or not… it seems to me that dark matter would only have temperature when interacting with something in a way other than gravitationally.

Why does dark matter need to have a temperature?

Again, I think that there some hidden assumptions you have.

Gravity - contributed by both dark matter and vanilla matter - still causes vanilla matter to gather and clump. It is that clumping that brings about fusion in stars.

 

[Beaconator]

Why does dark matter need to have a temperature?

Again, I think that there some hidden assumptions you have.

Gravity - contributed by both dark matter and vanilla matter - still causes vanilla matter to gather and clump. It is that clumping that brings about fusion in stars.

it doesn’t, except in the Big Bang. Dark matter has to transform into regular matter. This process may not happen in fusion but has to elsewhere. Perhaps in black holes?

dark matter not having temperature means it is a precursor to the Big Bang?

 

[DaveC426913]

Dark matter has to transform into regular matter.

No it doesn't.

The rest of your statements seem to depend in this misconception.

 

[Beaconator]

No it doesn't.

The rest of your statements seem to depend in this misconception.

Why not? is there another mechanism for the Big Bang?

dark matter existing before the Big Bang may be a misconception but ultimately a hard one to rid or prove either way.

 

[Beaconator]

True. However, it also raises the question of how an ensemble of dark matter entities can exchange energy so as to come to a Boltzmann distribution. Can they repel one another electrostatically if they don’t interact with an EM field? After all, electrostatic interactions are mediated by virtual photons, aren’t they? So without that, how can they “collide” ?

Perhaps they pass through one another, a bit like neutrinos. If they do that they won’t settle into an equilibrium energy distribution - and then they won’t have a temperature, it seems to me.

So I agree that this is a rather interesting issue.

perhaps we can derive gravity from both the relativistic and non relativistic Maxwell- Boltzman equations? Taking all aspects of temperature off the non-relativistic one? Or the pressure of gravity…

 

[DaveC426913]

perhaps we can …

Perhaps you should start with learning what we know so far. That seems to be a big enough bite to chew for now.

Why not? is there another mechanism for the Big Bang?

What do you mean by "another" mechanism? What's the one you think is default?

dark matter existing before the Big Bang may be a misconception but ultimately a hard one to rid or prove either way.

There is a hypothesis that dark matter was created during the inflationary epoch, between 10^-36 and 10^-32 seconds after the creation after the creation of the universe.

But that has nothing to do with whether dark matter interacts with itself or anything about converting to regular matter. I really don't know where you're getting all this.



Look, every time I answer one question, you respond with another misconception, though you never state your belief overtly. This is a known trolling technique. You may or may not be deliberately trolling but either way, you're asking me to put more effort into teaching you about dark matter than you've done yourself.

I think I'm going to step back from this, and wait to see if you can compose a coherent question that includes what physics you already believe to be the case, so that it can be systematically corrected. If that doesn't happen soon, I will likely put you back on Ignore. Up to you.

 

[Beaconator]

Perhaps you should start with learning what we know so far. That seems to be a big enough bite to chew for now.


What do you mean by "another" mechanism? What's the one you think is default?


There is a hypothesis that dark matter was created during the inflationary epoch, between 10^-36 and 10^-32 seconds after the creation after the creation of the universe.

But that has nothing to do with whether dark matter interacts with itself or anything about converting to regular matter. I really don't know where you're getting all this.



Look, every time I answer one question, you respond with another misconception, though you never state your belief overtly. This is a known trolling technique. You may or may not be deliberately trolling but either way, you're asking me to put more effort into teaching you about dark matter than you've done yourself.

I think I'm going to step back from this, and wait to see if you can compose a coherent question that includes what physics you already believe to be the case, so that it can be systematically corrected. If that doesn't happen soon, I will likely put you back on Ignore. Up to you.

Perhaps dark matter revealed itself in the inflationary period… but a gravitational object without temperature that doesn’t interact with anything including itself (most of the time) stands to reason it may have been there all along?

 

[DaveC426913]

Posting guesses about stuff you don't know about in the first place does not constitute a coherent question.

You're still just trolling. Shame on you.

:ignore:

 

[exchemist]

Why does dark matter need to have a temperature?

Again, I think that there some hidden assumptions you have.

Gravity - contributed by both dark matter and vanilla matter - still causes vanilla matter to gather and clump. It is that clumping that brings about fusion in stars.

It seems cosmologists do talk of hot, warm and cold dark matter, but this is somewhat figurative, being related to something called free streaming length. I don’t fully understand how free streaming length is assessed, though.

 

[Beaconator]

It seems cosmologists do talk of hot, warm and cold dark matter, but this is somewhat figurative, being related to something called free streaming length. I don’t fully understand how free streaming length is assessed, though.

On that I’ll admit I have no idea either. I’m not sure if it implies dark matter moving at a speed has a “warm temperature” and stationary has a “cold temperature”

 

[Beaconator]

Posting guesses about stuff you don't know about in the first place does not constitute a coherent question.

You're still just trolling. Shame on you.

:ignore:

Hey! I’m just trying to make sense of things just like anybody else. I’m just not very good at it.

 

[Beaconator]

Beac, three of your last four posts contain non sequiturs - two things you've connected that have no immediately apparent relationship with each other:
- dark matter passing through us and the universe accelerating,
- dark matter in galaxies and hydrogen
- matter reaching the speed of light and fusion.

They hint at some misunderstandings you may have. Why not gather your thoughts and rephrase them as questions?

alright I stepped back a bit and rethought my arguments.

Dark matter may be the currier that displaces temperature into normal matter. Causing the expansion of entropy.

dark matter under immense gravitational pressure may act sort of like a black hole in the way in which hydrogen is formed.

 

[Beaconator]

I just had another thought.

Dark matter only moves in a line. It does not have an interference problem.

if gravity were to take hold of dark matter it would move in a perfect straight line before and after encountering the source of gravity.

 

[Beaconator]

Is dark energy bound by the speed limit of light or by the speed limit of gravity?

 

[James R]

Beaconator:

Every time you have made a claim in this thread, you have completely failed to tell anybody why you think it is - or could be - the case. In a few instances, you have alluded to vague pseudo-explanations, but either they are just random thoughts or else you've not actually investigated any of them to do even the most basic check for plausibility.

Dressing your pseudo-speculations up as questions doesn't help. If you actually want to learn something, don't tell us your half-baked "theories". Ask some real questions.

Your posts read like you are unable to concentrate on any one thing for very long, or as if you're deliberately trying to muddy the waters by introducing new concepts or problems in every post.

Try resolving one issue before introducing 20 new ones.

Try something other than idle speculation in a knowledge vacuum.

If you're honestly interested in cosmology, astronomy or particle physics, why not try to actually learn something about the topic? You have to learn to walk before you can run. It's blindingly obvious that you're not currently equipped to meaningfully speculate on the topics you're trying to discuss in this thread (if that's what you're actually trying to do). So why not try to fix that?

Let's look at what you've said, then.

At some point dark matter has to interact with itself...

Why? What brought you to that conclusion? What physics do you know that led you to that conclusion? Why don't you explain to other readers what convinced you that this statement is true? Your posts would be a lot more useful if you included some reasons for your beliefs - if you actually believe them and you actually have reasons, that is. Do you?

...whether it is because of a huge mass under the stress of gravity or two different bodies in a head on collision, otherwise there would be no fusion and no universe as we know it?

Explain how a "huge mass under the stress of gravity" is relevant to question of whether "at some point dark matter has to interact with itself".
Explain how two bodies in a head on collision bears on the question of dark matter interaction.

The "otherwise" in your statement also doesn't connect to anything went before. Are you okay?

I don’t know if that is true or not… it seems to me that dark matter would only have temperature when interacting with something in a way other than gravitationally.

What led you to that hypothesis, exactly? Please explain. Refer to the physics you think is relevant.

dark matter existing before the Big Bang may be a misconception but ultimately a hard one to rid or prove either way.

Do you have any reason at all to think that dark matter existed before the big bang? If so, tell me your reason(s).

perhaps we can derive gravity from both the relativistic and non relativistic Maxwell- Boltzman equations?

Which specific equations are you referring to? Can you post them? Can you link to them?

Explain what led you to think that maybe we can "derive gravity" from the equations to which you refer.

but a gravitational object without temperature that doesn’t interact with anything including itself (most of the time) stands to reason it may have been there all along?

Please give me ONE example of "a gravitational object without temperature". Tell me why you beleive that such objects exist.

Dark matter may be the currier that displaces temperature into normal matter. Causing the expansion of entropy.

These two statements are nonsensical. Are you okay?

dark matter under immense gravitational pressure may act sort of like a black hole in the way in which hydrogen is formed.

Tell me how. What physics is relevant to this conclusion? Why do you believe it? What evidence or arguments convinced you of the usefulness of this speculation?

Dark matter only moves in a line.

Please cite ONE source that supports your claim (other than yourself, obviously).

if gravity were to take hold of dark matter it would move in a perfect straight line before and after encountering the source of gravity.

Please cite ONE source that supports this claim.

I expect a detailed response from you to this post. I sincerely hope you are not simply trolling.