Thread: Dark Matter

I presented this at the end of the new Hypotheses and Ideas string but I figured it may get more attention and responses if I put it as a seperate topic .

This is not something I have shared before but was interested in presenting it in these forums while still owning the idea as my own. So this is saying, this is the first I have heard this explanation of the behavior of dark matter/dark energy. I'm very interested in hearing what experts and others say on this.
Since I am not qualtified to present any sort of theory and have no skill in developing a theory. This is just a picture I came to in my mind that I thought was an interesting eplanation of the universe expanding. Also it adds the idea that perhaps the amount of matter in the universe is increasing as dark matter.

Basically my understanding is the experts say there needs to be much more matter than we can see in order for the math to be correct ie dark matter. Second the universe is expanding, so you get dark energy opposing gravity and when distances are great enough over powers gravity.

So here is my thought; what if Dark Matter is simply pouring into this universe from another dimension or dimensions all over the universe constantly. This would mean there is no dark energy but dark matter does exist. What causes this entrance of dark matter into our universe from another dimension or place I would leave to figure out if the first concept holds any merit. Since I dont know enough about the math or details of what is considered likely in relation to dark matter and dark energy I would hesitate to build on this concept by proposing what is causing the dark matter to be pouring in.
I will stick with just suggesting that what appears to be the behavior of dark energy is not energy but the dark matter filling up our universe by entering everywhere constantly. When the distance's are close enough gravity causes matter we are aware of to clump together. Where common matter is more distance the dark matter filling space causes the matter we are aware of to be pushed out of the way. If this were the case would that require dark matter to be uneffected or effected differently by gravity.
I would think determining if and how gravity should be expected to affect the dark matter entering our universe would need to be determined and maybe that would help in disproving this concept.
Anyway like I say I'm very interested in what I can learn about the theories of dark matter, dark energy, gravity and physics in general by throwing this out there.
Of course if this idea is taken and run with then I want be able to say hey I thought of that so I dated it.
thanks the Founder. Presented July 29th 2009.

I realized a glarring problem with my concept about dark matter. I would say the problem makes the whole concept unworthy of any real conjecture. Still it looks like others have viewed my topic and have not pointed it out yet.
I am not sure if people are uninterested, or maybe dont want to hurt the newbie's feelings or just the people that have looked at it did not catch the flaw.
So I at this time am not going to share the problem I see. I want to see if someone else will identify it for me. After all this is why I shared it in the first place to get the acid test of others opinions.
Maybe other people will see other problems I did not consider, I have only seen one problem so far but it is a major flaw I think.
If no one shares what the problem is within a couple of days at the most I will share it. I suppose since I really am no expert on this subject someone might even look at what I consider a major flaw and say that isn't such a big problem after all and if so will explain but I really doubt that, Im pretty sure this kills it.

I am not disappointed by my discovery I was wrong. In fact it is pretty exciting to me that I figured it out. I have been carrying this idea around for at least a couple, few weeks now along with another and it is a major reason I found this website. I'm fairly convinced I would have had a hard time personally recognizing the problem had I not put it down and shared it. The problem occured to me while I was laying in bed trying but unable to sleep"(seem to be coming down with something). Anyway I think the fact that I put my idea down on paper (sort of speak) allowed me to let go of the idea a bit and then view it from a different point of view so that is great. This forum is awsome, I really like this thread about pet idea's it really gives a chance to figure out it they have any merit at all.
Finally I would like to say this revelation about the problem with my idea also will be a good example of the next topic I want to share. I will wait on that until I get a response on this topic or at least until I share what I feel is wrong with this idea.
Thank you, sorry for the long reply, I'm just having so much fun I could not help myself .

Ok well, it is time to move on with this subject. It’s interesting that the falsifying of my original idea brought me to think of both a new topic and a new thought about dark matter. The new topic I will do later the new idea I will share after I torpedo my first dark matter idea.

So without any further ado here is what I think my flaw of reasoning was on the dark matter. I assumed that if dark matter were entering the universe everywhere it would cause normal matter to appear to expand. The problem is if dark matter is entering everywhere it would not cause the observable matter to spread out equally but to move randomly in relation to other observable matter. So while much of the matter would seem to be moving away some normal matter would likely seem to be going in the oposite direction because of the effect of the dark matter upon it. This is true also if the dark matter is entering at different rates in different parts of the universe. So this is the glaring flaw in my previous dark matter concept.

THE NEW IDEA


My new concept of dark matter developed out of the premise of my previous dark matter concept. I would say I am even less confident about this idea then the first and I already have determined the first probably would not work. So while this idea may not have any basis in reality it could always inspire someone to think of something that does.

One post I received mentioned the need to come up with a way to test my previous concept if I were to want to get any credit for it. Since I am not a scientist and don’t have the expertise to conduct a proper experiment I did not suggest one originally. Still I did feel that scientists could conceivably test the concept if they have a reasonably way to measure the universe. If they could do measurements that would help them determine the current amount of matter that is in the universe.. A mathematical model would determine based on the measurements how much matter currently is in the universe.
Then at time intervals that would produce reliable results do the experiments and math again. If the math says there is more matter at the later experiments you have a pretty good idea dark matter is actually still entering our universe. If the result is the same then no additional matter is entering our universe and the concept is false.
I also thought a more basic experiment could be conducted to demonstrate how matter would react if dark matter were to be pouring into our universe from everywhere.
I figured one would want to probably use some particles of some kind in water to start. The water would represent our universe and the particles representing matter. I figured at first this would best be done in the zero gravity of space. This way the water would form a ball in which particles could be placed and then different particles would be injected. Then an observation of the behavior of the original particles could be compared to the behavior of matter in our universe.
Then I thought of one of those snowflake globes you can buy that if you shake you see the tinfoil fall like snowflakes over what ever representation they have inside. I figured a more basic example could be done with one of those globes if you could inject some colored oil from a number of tubes that would be added to the globe. This way the snowflakes represent regular matter and the clear liquid I think its water is our space and then the oil could represent dark matter.

So then I thought you would want to also do this experiment on a plate of water as well. This would represent the universe being flat (while the globe and space experiment is the universe in three dimensions). With the bits of material floating on the water on the plate, then spraying droplets of oil or some other particle substance that floats onto the plate of water to see the reaction of the original particles. While these are real basic and not overly scientific demonstrations they may help in determining if the idea had any merit at all.

This led me to think about the oil and water experiment on the plate. I started thinking what if dark matter behaves basically just like oil on water on that plate. However the dark matter did not originally enter our universe from everywhere but from a single location. As in the original singularity of the big bang. Maybe the big expansion was caused by an opening that the singularity created that allowed the oil of dark matter to pour into or onto our universe. This seems to me would cause the universe to expand very fast at first and it would spread out fairly equally. Then maybe the opening closed but maybe dark matter is entering our universe currently from black holes. With the oil of dark matter already present throughout the universe the additional oil from the black holes would simply add to the already present dark matter oil and cause the universe to expand. It seems to me it would also produce the effect that matter at the edge of that oil of dark matter would appear to be moving away faster then matter farther within the envelope of the dark matter.
So then I really start thinking about the properties of oil on water and matter and start applying them to dark matter. This makes me think ok; oil is a lubricant so dark matter may be very slippery in fact so slippery it’s the most slippery substance in the universe. The other property I have noticed is oil tends to cling to itself and other matter as well. So maybe dark matter clings to other matter and maybe dark matter is what gives observable matter mass by the amount of dark matter that clings to the observable matter.
Well then I think ok what about the fact that large objects pull small objects to them (i.e. gravity). Hmm, maybe regular matter is an infinite oil sponge of sorts that causes dark matter to be absorbed by regular matter. Since liquid clings to itself the sponge would pull on the dark matter. The result, normal matter would be affected by the movement of dark matter. This could help explain why gravity is so week since dark matter is so slippery the oil mostly passes right around regular matter but the current caused by the movement of dark matter does push the regular matter towards the larger sponge.

Then I think general relativity is pretty well tested and new observations about dark matter are starting to bare fruit and so this whole idea has got to be garbage but hey it was a fun mental exercise. I would still like to hear what thoughts others have on this wild concept, did it seem plausible to you while reading it and what else.

Originally Posted by Founder

Ok well, it is time to move on with this subject.

You know, I admire anyone who isn't afraid to spit out an idea, a thought, or something right out of the box. Many times those in the "know" lay in wait for hypotheses like this one of yours and my hope has always been that any energy wasted on ridiculing an idea instead be used to encourage more. I can't even imagine anyone wanting to ridicule any guesswork on dark matter though, seeing how nobody knows what it is. I think a true scientist, someone willing to use their knowledge instead of callously displaying it openly as if it's a right of passage, would be very attentive to even the most innocuous statement in the chance that it could propagate into something new. At least the Pseudo sub-forum offers some protection.

Personally I had trouble following your words. Perhaps you need to edit it a little, I don't know. I read somewhere that a scientist had mapped out a region of space where dark matter should be....I guess that would be a good place to search. I think there are experiments going on deep within the Earth to find dark matter, although how I don't know.

When I turn the lights off and close my eyes, everything I sense is dark matter right down to the air I breathe. :wink: Perhaps it is just unobservable and undetectable if you have to use light to find it Matter under observation has been known to behave rather oddly, so maybe the dark or invisible part is just another behavior. Hey, who the hell knows but I think dark matter will probably provoke the thought experiment(s) of the new century. Keep at it Founder and good luck.

in my opinion i think that dark matter is the base mass that everything is made of. its density determines what it is. for example. electrons are super dense balls of dark matter. it would explain how atomic mass came into existence after the big bang. you cant make something from nothing. read my theory on gravity. maybe you can give me some insight.

http://www.thescienceforum.com/how-g...rks-19843t.php

Originally Posted by gravityguru

in my opinion...

Those magic words will keep you out of trouble here.

Welcome to the forums.

As far as I know, one main reason scientists think dark matter exists is because the orbits of planets and stars would not be possible unless something was pulling on them. I believe that they say there should be 5 to 6 times more matter in the universe than is visible. Is this somewhat correct?

I'm no expert on this stuff but I like thinking about it. So can anyone tell me what happens to the energy released after a matter-antimatter explosion? Also, if the universe is a bubble, what would an outer membrane (shell) be composed of?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

As far as I know, one main reason scientists think dark matter exists is because the orbits of planets and stars would not be possible unless something was pulling on them. I believe that they say there should be 5 to 6 times more matter in the universe than is visible. Is this somewhat correct?

Actually I gather that the problem is not really seen on the solar system scale. The inconsistencies that demanded dark matter as an explanation were observed on the galactic scale.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

As far as I know, one main reason scientists think dark matter exists is because the orbits of planets and stars would not be possible unless something was pulling on them. I believe that they say there should be 5 to 6 times more matter in the universe than is visible. Is this somewhat correct?

Actually I gather that the problem is not really seen on the solar system scale. The inconsistencies that demanded dark matter as an explanation were observed on the galactic scale.

I stand corrected. thanks.

Glad to see I managed to spark some conversation on this. I will be checking out that link on gravity. I was just checking in and noticed all the extra conversation.
I certainly wasn't trying to present anything to challenge or overturn current theory. I think the scientist in astrophysics and those that study these concepts and truely understand Einstein's relativity and special relativity are better equiped to make theory and analyze those theories. This is why for me I was just building a concept on top of the theory of the existence of dark matter. It seems I recently read an article about scientist actually detecting and mapping an area of dark matter or at least what they believe is dark matter. It was interesting that it seemed they were saying it was an area with heavy concentration of dark matter suggesting it is not equally distributed throughout our universe.
Anyway I look forward to any more comments on the subject.

Originally Posted by Founder

Glad to see I managed to spark some conversation on this. I will be checking out that link on gravity. I was just checking in and noticed all the extra conversation.

Anyway I look forward to any more comments on the subject.

You don't have to be a scientist to be interested in the subject. I find armchair science just as intriguing. It's kind of like a sneak peek into the human mind. The best part of science is how it stimulates the mind, for both the professional and amateur alike. Personally I'm glad a thing like dark matter is in want of a good theory or evidence because the floor is open to discussion and ideas.

As far as I understand there are some super sensitive dark matter detectors being installed within the depths of the Earth. This must mean that scientists believe dark matter is present everywhere, not just in certain mapped areas of space. So far it has not been observed. Its invisible and scientist are also pretty much in the dark as to what it really is.

How about this? Dark matter is matter that is slightly out of phase with this universe's matter but still able to make its presence felt. We can measure its effect but cannot observe it. On the periodic table, what's between any two consecutive elements? Could there be matter not in phase with this universe between the elements??

I'm no physicist, I think that's obvious. However I remember reading something that said an element's energy is less than the sum of its parts. I believe the term is mass defect or something like that(too lazy to google). Could someone knowledgeable on that subject explain that term? Where does the lost or extra energy go?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Founder

Glad to see I managed to spark some conversation on this. I will be checking out that link on gravity. I was just checking in and noticed all the extra conversation.

Anyway I look forward to any more comments on the subject.

You don't have to be a scientist to be interested in the subject. I find armchair science just as intriguing. It's kind of like a sneak peek into the human mind. The best part of science is how it stimulates the mind, for both the professional and amateur alike. Personally I'm glad a thing like dark matter is in want of a good theory or evidence because the floor is open to discussion and ideas.

As far as I understand there are some super sensitive dark matter detectors being installed within the depths of the Earth. This must mean that scientists believe dark matter is present everywhere, not just in certain mapped areas of space. So far it has not been observed. Its invisible and scientist are also pretty much in the dark as to what it really is.

How about this? Dark matter is matter that is slightly out of phase with this universe's matter but still able to make its presence felt. We can measure its effect but cannot observe it. On the periodic table, what's between any two consecutive elements? Could there be matter not in phase with this universe between the elements??

I'm no physicist, I think that's obvious. However I remember reading something that said an element's energy is less than the sum of its parts. I believe the term is mass defect or something like that(too lazy to google). Could someone knowledgeable on that subject explain that term? Where does the lost or extra energy go?

You have a refreshing attitude. About (dark matter/energy) I have it covered, please see my post at:

http://thescienceforum.com/Makeover-...rse-18199t.php

Also my post on a new concept for gravity/light interaction:

http://thescienceforum.com/New-conce...ion-21156t.php

One of my posts to the physics group got moved here and I started browsing and I have to say I like the way people using this group interact with each other better than in the other groups. I had no idea any of the groups in this forum could be so different.

Anyway if anyone who reads this and does review my other posts please tell me what you think.

It comes down to fundamentals in my opinion. Dark matter is only a factor; because nobody (including scientists and layman as well) can satisfactory explain the current prevailing theory. It needs to ad some unknown to make sense. Never mind the unknown element is not remotely observable or definable. To illustrate this by an example: Some people came up with the notion of tachyons, particle faster then light. In the process nobody asked the question of what this particle speed supposed to be? Is it infinite? If not, what is the max. speed? Do we have to come up with a value and if we do, what is it solve? Graviton, Higgs particle, dark matter on the same line. Why?
It is obvious to me that the search is heading in the wrong direction. At CERN will end up splitting photons at best, requiring more and more energy when we know already that we can’t accelerate anything to more then close to the speed of light. Splitting quarks and neutrinos will never happen with this technology. We need a new concept and this forum as good as any to do it. It would really make a difference if people would concentrate and develop ideas based on known elements what we already can substantiate to exist in the new approach, even if it doesn't fit the whole picture.
I would start to ask the following questions on this subject: Is dark matter part of matter that we have in the universe? If it is not, why are we calling it matter?
Is it because it would explain some discrepancies in the behavior of the gravitational field? In what context dark matter related to gravity better suitable to explain it's irregularities versus regular matter when gravity itself is not defined at all in the first place? In other words; why are we trying to explain an unknown by introducing an other unknown? Nature is basically simple but elegant.
Sorry, I don't buy anything related to dark matter until I have a clear concept of gravity.

What and where is the problem we are supposed to have about dark matter?
Can't it just be stuff we do not see because it is in the dark? Is it amazing that something is not presently glowing? Some stuff might be staying rather chilly due simply to inhibiting factors against initiation of nuclear fusion. If that were so, we hardly need to backfill our ignorance by inventing more subatomic particles or freaking/breaking out with new branches of mathematics.

dalemiller, the problem with DM is that it doesn't interact with EM radiation at all. That is, it doesn't reflect light, it doesn't emit or absorb light and its completely transparent to light. No known type of matter has these properties.

If it was just "dark" because it didn't glow then we could easily detect it when it obscures and blocks light coming from a source behind it.

Originally Posted by dalemiller

What and where is the problem we are supposed to have about dark matter?
Can't it just be stuff we do not see because it is in the dark? Is it amazing that something is not presently glowing? Some stuff might be staying rather chilly due simply to inhibiting factors against initiation of nuclear fusion. If that were so, we hardly need to backfill our ignorance by inventing more subatomic particles or freaking/breaking out with new branches of mathematics.

There are a number of factors to consider.

1. "Cold" is a relative term. Even if a large amount of non-luminous matter existed, it would still absorb energy from the surrounding stars and re-radiate it away. It would "glow" at the radio frequencies and give itself away.

2. Amount and distribution. Dark matter is estimated to exist in amounts 5 times that of normal matter. That much normal cold matter should easily be noticeable. Also, in order to get the galaxy rotation curves we see, the dark matter must be distributed as a halo around the galaxy. However, the vast amount of visible matter is at the core. Why should the distribution be different unless the matter behaves differently?

3. Chemical abundances. If the universe contained a much larger amount of cold baryonic matter, this would have effected the formation of the early universe in such a way as to change its make up. we would see a larger proportion of heavier elements in the universe than we do.

Originally Posted by dalemiller

What and where is the problem we are supposed to have about dark matter?
Can't it just be stuff we do not see because it is in the dark? Is it amazing that something is not presently glowing? Some stuff might be staying rather chilly due simply to inhibiting factors against initiation of nuclear fusion. If that were so, we hardly need to backfill our ignorance by inventing more subatomic particles or freaking/breaking out with new branches of mathematics.

Well, a while back astronomers measured the speed at which the galaxy rotates, the strength at which the proposed black hole in the center pulls everything in (it's mass etc.) and then compared that with how much matter they believed that our galaxy contains. The problem was that our estimate of how much mass is in our galaxy was no where near high enough to balance the force excerted by the black hole. Then someone realized that there must be a lot of matter that we can't detect left in our galaxy and called it dark matter.

... I think that's how the story goes anyway lol, that's what I picked up from my astronomy lectures that I mostly slept through.

Originally Posted by Janus

1. "Cold" is a relative term. Even if a large amount of non-luminous matter existed, it would still absorb energy from the surrounding stars and re-radiate it away. It would "glow" at the radio frequencies and give itself away.

If intergalactic space or perhaps the halos suggested for galaxies were to contain masses of protons, might those particles repel each other to such ranges that they might hardly affect light transmission and diminish perception accordingly? Or something like that?

Originally Posted by Lance Wenban

You have a refreshing attitude.

One of my posts to the physics group got moved here and I started browsing and I have to say I like the way people using this group interact with each other better than in the other groups. I had no idea any of the groups in this forum could be so different.

Thanks for the compliment. I read your black hole thread, very nice. I can honestly say I have wondered about the large quantities of black holes & areas absent of matter that exist within the universe.

You didn't cover it but I for one am always thinking about positive vs anti aspects of matter. The fact that it appears the universe is composed primarily of posi-matter makes me curious as to where is the bulk of the anti matter residing. Where did it go?

I was thinking that if the universe was composed of an equal balance of positive and negative particles then at some point there should likewise be black holes of the same. Eventually these black holes would annihilate each other and since no 2 black holes are the same then after each collision there should be a smaller remnant of the most dominate charged particle remaining. Collisions between like charged black holes would only increase the mass of the BH. Eventually we'd have to come down to two equal masses of oppositely charged particles and the potential of them annihilating one another.

Since this is not what is observed I feel I'm out to lunch and I can accept that. The only thing I like about it is that I was able to to at least think of it if only in laymen's terms with a serious lack of understanding the data in front of me. That's half the fun.

Anyway, have you anything to say regarding matter itself?

From wikipedia, "Dark matter was postulated by Fritz Zwicky in 1934, to account for evidence of "missing mass" in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters. Subsequently, other observations have indicated the presence of dark matter in the universe, including the rotational speeds of galaxies,..."

Well golly gee, since flawed science does not seem to be factoring electrostatic phenomena as working along with gravitation in consideration of orbital velocities, then maybe dark matter has been a mistaken alternative for justifying orbital velocities.

An electrically neutral particle would orbit at some given velocity for some given altitude above a gravitational center. Let us select a super massive black hole as such a center. The neutral particle would sustain its elevation due to its velocity alone. Let a particle charged with the predominate polarity of a given strata be found orbiting at that same altitude, then its velocity would have to be less, because electrostatic repulsion would account for some of its elevation. Conversely, if charged with the opposite polarity, the particle would be travelling faster than a neutral particle.

So there you are!