Thread: Can the Standard Model define Dark Matter : Large non-baryonic hadrons made from quarks, etc.?

Looking through a google search on something, came across a blurb from someone at the LHC suggesting they had seen a 'very minor, maybe possible hint' of an "quark octet". They actually used this kind of "terminology" as they were not at all sure of what they had seen, but that the "signal" might be related to such a "particle". A quick search indicates such particles are not associated with the WIMPs model for Dark Matter (DM).

Having very little exposure to all this stuff, found a reference to the hexaquark (1), which apparently has real data suggesting it likely exists, possibly for very extended periods of time. It seems possible that such non-baryonic hadrons came out of the quark-gluon plasma in large numbers, which occurred very early in the BB, before the formation of elements (2). Such particles are postulated as candidates for DM.

Some extra searches came up with one recent article where it appears that some experts in this field postulate "a stable, neutral, as-yet-undiscovered hadron in the standard model" (3). As this abstract was posted last year, it seems such particles may still be in the running for DM.

Perhaps simplistically, it seems there are a considerable number of combinations of subatomic particles which could form such DM candidates, and it may actually be composed of more than one form based on quarks, such as quark-gluon combinations. This is all very new to me, but references to such things date back many years, so it does not appear to be coming out of left field, so to say. The LHC is apparently the only place right now to look for them.

A search of thescienceforum.com has some comments regarding the subject of DM, but most are from quite some time ago.

Does anyone know of a reference (which is not overly complex, assuming that is even possible) for these hypothetical particles, regarding their possible formation and composition for DM formation during, and their fate after, the BB? And could such particles, perhaps by decay processes, play a role in Dark Energy?

TIA

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexaquark

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark%...93gluon_plasma

3. https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.10378

Originally Posted by Double Helix

Looking through a google search on something, came across a blurb from someone at the LHC suggesting they had seen a 'very minor, maybe possible hint' of an "quark octet". They actually used this kind of "terminology" as they were not at all sure of what they had seen, but that the "signal" might be related to such a "particle". A quick search indicates such particles are not associated with the WIMPs model for Dark Matter (DM).

Having very little exposure to all this stuff, found a reference to the hexaquark (1), which apparently has real data suggesting it likely exists, possibly for very extended periods of time. It seems possible that such non-baryonic hadrons came out of the quark-gluon plasma in large numbers, which occurred very early in the BB, before the formation of elements (2). Such particles are postulated as candidates for DM.

Some extra searches came up with one recent article where it appears that some experts in this field postulate "a stable, neutral, as-yet-undiscovered hadron in the standard model" (3). As this abstract was posted last year, it seems such particles may still be in the running for DM.

Perhaps simplistically, it seems there are a considerable number of combinations of subatomic particles which could form such DM candidates, and it may actually be composed of more than one form based on quarks, such as quark-gluon combinations. This is all very new to me, but references to such things date back many years, so it does not appear to be coming out of left field, so to say. The LHC is apparently the only place right now to look for them.

A search of thescienceforum.com has some comments regarding the subject of DM, but most are from quite some time ago.

Does anyone know of a reference (which is not overly complex, assuming that is even possible) for these hypothetical particles, regarding their possible formation and composition for DM formation during, and their fate after, the BB? And could such particles, perhaps by decay processes, play a role in Dark Energy?

TIA

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexaquark

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark%...93gluon_plasma

3. https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.10378

I knew nothing about this so can't help you, but thanks for drawing it to my attention. I see this entity has spin zero and no charge, so it would not be expected to interact with EM radiation and would indeed be "dark". It would also be quite hard to detect, I suppose, for the same reason. Though, unlike the neutrino, it would make its presence felt through its mass.

Interesting.

Originally Posted by exchemist

I knew nothing about this so can't help you, but thanks for drawing it to my attention. I see this entity has spin zero and no charge, so it would not be expected to interact with EM radiation and would indeed be "dark". It would also be quite hard to detect, I suppose, for the same reason. Though, unlike the neutrino, it would make its presence felt through its mass.

Interesting.

Agreed. It is very interesting, and it seems to offer a lot of variables for those familiar with EPs and the Standard Model.

And we may not know all of those from which such constructs could be assembled. Only that they must have formed very early, when energy was at extreme density (avoiding aspects suggested in neutron stars).

We both need a real high-brow in EPs and DM to provide some reasonable evaluation.

Thanks for the feedback, exchemist.

Nothing defines dark matter, and the standard model is meaningless without dark matter.

Originally Posted by Quantated

Nothing defines dark matter, and the standard model is meaningless without dark matter.

That sounds rather definitive. Are you suggesting that nothing known defines dark matter, or nothing can define it? And how would this be proven?

And how do we know that "the standard model is meaningless without dark matter?" And how would that be proven?

Would guess there are a few out there who would not accept that The Standard Model is meaningless by something that is not or cannot be defined.

But it is only a theory, yet one with enormous amounts of empirical evidence to support it. This is very unlike dark matter, where "cosmic scale" gravitational issues are the only reason people even consider it.

Originally Posted by Double Helix

Originally Posted by Quantated

Nothing defines dark matter, and the standard model is meaningless without dark matter.

That sounds rather definitive. Are you suggesting that nothing known defines dark matter, or nothing can define it? And how would this be proven?

And how do we know that "the standard model is meaningless without dark matter?" And how would that be proven?

Would guess there are a few out there who would not accept that The Standard Model is meaningless by something that is not or cannot be defined.

But it is only a theory, yet one with enormous amounts of empirical evidence to support it. This is very unlike dark matter, where "cosmic scale" gravitational issues are the only reason people even consider it.

Dark matter is called dark not because it is but because it is unknown. At present dark matter is nothing more than a quantity in an equation based upon observations of a universe that are so poor that they mean nothing. If the equation is wrong then dark matter is not needed. Gravitational math and relativity both say that matter can not move faster than light, yet this is observed, so either relativity is wrong or the observations of the universe are wrong, or both. So logically dark matter may be dark because it may not be there. The question you should ask yourself is are galaxies really moving at 5 times light speed in a universe expanding to oblivion? and if so why? The sad thing is that for all we know we know very little more than the first Neanderthal did hundreds of thousands of years ago

Originally Posted by Quantated

Originally Posted by Double Helix

Originally Posted by Quantated

Nothing defines dark matter, and the standard model is meaningless without dark matter.

That sounds rather definitive. Are you suggesting that nothing known defines dark matter, or nothing can define it? And how would this be proven?

And how do we know that "the standard model is meaningless without dark matter?" And how would that be proven?

Would guess there are a few out there who would not accept that The Standard Model is meaningless by something that is not or cannot be defined.

But it is only a theory, yet one with enormous amounts of empirical evidence to support it. This is very unlike dark matter, where "cosmic scale" gravitational issues are the only reason people even consider it.

Dark matter is called dark not because it is but because it is unknown. At present dark matter is nothing more than a quantity in an equation based upon observations of a universe that are so poor that they mean nothing. If the equation is wrong then dark matter is not needed. Gravitational math and relativity both say that matter can not move faster than light, yet this is observed, so either relativity is wrong or the observations of the universe are wrong, or both. So logically dark matter may be dark because it may not be there. The question you should ask yourself is are galaxies really moving at 5 times light speed in a universe expanding to oblivion? and if so why? The sad thing is that for all we know we know very little more than the first Neanderthal did hundreds of thousands of years ago

Dark matter is not just something in an equation. The observed behaviour of galaxies is consistent with gravitation stronger than can be accounted for by the visible matter in the stars they contain.

And there is no evidence that matter can move faster than light. Where do you get that idea from?

Originally Posted by Quantated

The sad thing is that for all we know we know very little more than the first Neanderthal did hundreds of thousands of years ago

What an absurd thing to say.

Originally Posted by Origin

Originally Posted by Quantated

The sad thing is that for all we know we know very little more than the first Neanderthal did hundreds of thousands of years ago

What an absurd thing to say.

It would appear that Neanderthals have not gone extinct after all.

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by Quantated

Originally Posted by Double Helix

Originally Posted by Quantated

Nothing defines dark matter, and the standard model is meaningless without dark matter.

That sounds rather definitive. Are you suggesting that nothing known defines dark matter, or nothing can define it? And how would this be proven?

And how do we know that "the standard model is meaningless without dark matter?" And how would that be proven?

Would guess there are a few out there who would not accept that The Standard Model is meaningless by something that is not or cannot be defined.

But it is only a theory, yet one with enormous amounts of empirical evidence to support it. This is very unlike dark matter, where "cosmic scale" gravitational issues are the only reason people even consider it.

Dark matter is called dark not because it is but because it is unknown. At present dark matter is nothing more than a quantity in an equation based upon observations of a universe that are so poor that they mean nothing. If the equation is wrong then dark matter is not needed. Gravitational math and relativity both say that matter can not move faster than light, yet this is observed, so either relativity is wrong or the observations of the universe are wrong, or both. So logically dark matter may be dark because it may not be there. The question you should ask yourself is are galaxies really moving at 5 times light speed in a universe expanding to oblivion? and if so why? The sad thing is that for all we know we know very little more than the first Neanderthal did hundreds of thousands of years ago

Dark matter is not just something in an equation. The observed behaviour of galaxies is consistent with gravitation stronger than can be accounted for by the visible matter in the stars they contain.

And there is no evidence that matter can move faster than light. Where do you get that idea from?

Actually the observed behavior of the galaxies can be turned into an equation which does not function without dark matter. In fact the amount of dark matter and energy is 85 percent more than the observed mass in the universe, the number 85 percent is the number that makes the equation work. Simplified the equation defines gravity as it is known however gravity as it is known can not account for the observed movement unless 85 percent more mass and energy are added. As for galaxies moving faster than light argue with NASA because they observed it not me. https://www.space.com/33306-how-does...han-light.html

As dark energy causes the universe to expand ever-faster, it may spur some very distant galaxies to apparently move faster than the speed of light. This Hubble Deep Field Image shows some of the most distant galaxies ever observed.(Image credit: UDF, Credit: NASA, ESA, S. Beckwith (STScI) and the HUDF Team)

https://www.businessinsider.com/galaxies-travel-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-2015-10

Originally Posted by Quantated

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by Quantated

Originally Posted by Double Helix

Originally Posted by Quantated

Nothing defines dark matter, and the standard model is meaningless without dark matter.

That sounds rather definitive. Are you suggesting that nothing known defines dark matter, or nothing can define it? And how would this be proven?

And how do we know that "the standard model is meaningless without dark matter?" And how would that be proven?

Would guess there are a few out there who would not accept that The Standard Model is meaningless by something that is not or cannot be defined.

But it is only a theory, yet one with enormous amounts of empirical evidence to support it. This is very unlike dark matter, where "cosmic scale" gravitational issues are the only reason people even consider it.

Dark matter is called dark not because it is but because it is unknown. At present dark matter is nothing more than a quantity in an equation based upon observations of a universe that are so poor that they mean nothing. If the equation is wrong then dark matter is not needed. Gravitational math and relativity both say that matter can not move faster than light, yet this is observed, so either relativity is wrong or the observations of the universe are wrong, or both. So logically dark matter may be dark because it may not be there. The question you should ask yourself is are galaxies really moving at 5 times light speed in a universe expanding to oblivion? and if so why? The sad thing is that for all we know we know very little more than the first Neanderthal did hundreds of thousands of years ago

Dark matter is not just something in an equation. The observed behaviour of galaxies is consistent with gravitation stronger than can be accounted for by the visible matter in the stars they contain.

And there is no evidence that matter can move faster than light. Where do you get that idea from?

Actually the observed behavior of the galaxies can be turned into an equation which does not function without dark matter. In fact the amount of dark matter and energy is 85 percent more than the observed mass in the universe, the number 85 percent is the number that makes the equation work. Simplified the equation defines gravity as it is known however gravity as it is known can not account for the observed movement unless 85 percent more mass and energy are added. As for galaxies moving faster than light argue with NASA because they observed it not me. https://www.space.com/33306-how-does...han-light.html

As dark energy causes the universe to expand ever-faster, it may spur some very distant galaxies to apparently move faster than the speed of light. This Hubble Deep Field Image shows some of the most distant galaxies ever observed.(Image credit: UDF, Credit: NASA, ESA, S. Beckwith (STScI) and the HUDF Team)

https://www.businessinsider.com/galaxies-travel-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-2015-10

OK, I see what you are referring to. The expansion of the universe can make some objects recede from one another faster than c, sure. But that is not the same thing as objects travelling through space faster than light. It is the expansion of space itself that is responsible for the effect.

As for the observed behaviour being turned into an equation, well yes of course, that is commonly what scientists do, to derive general principles from specific observations. But it is false to suggest, as you did, that dark matter is just an idea arising from some equation or other. It is an idea arising from practical observation.

Originally Posted by Quantated

As for galaxies moving faster than light argue with NASA because they observed it not me. https://www.space.com/33306-how-does...han-light.html

And if you read your links you'll find that there is no conflict between relativity and the observations.

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by Quantated

Originally Posted by exchemist

Originally Posted by Quantated

Originally Posted by Double Helix

Originally Posted by Quantated

Nothing defines dark matter, and the standard model is meaningless without dark matter.

That sounds rather definitive. Are you suggesting that nothing known defines dark matter, or nothing can define it? And how would this be proven?

And how do we know that "the standard model is meaningless without dark matter?" And how would that be proven?

Would guess there are a few out there who would not accept that The Standard Model is meaningless by something that is not or cannot be defined.

But it is only a theory, yet one with enormous amounts of empirical evidence to support it. This is very unlike dark matter, where "cosmic scale" gravitational issues are the only reason people even consider it.

Dark matter is called dark not because it is but because it is unknown. At present dark matter is nothing more than a quantity in an equation based upon observations of a universe that are so poor that they mean nothing. If the equation is wrong then dark matter is not needed. Gravitational math and relativity both say that matter can not move faster than light, yet this is observed, so either relativity is wrong or the observations of the universe are wrong, or both. So logically dark matter may be dark because it may not be there. The question you should ask yourself is are galaxies really moving at 5 times light speed in a universe expanding to oblivion? and if so why? The sad thing is that for all we know we know very little more than the first Neanderthal did hundreds of thousands of years ago

Dark matter is not just something in an equation. The observed behaviour of galaxies is consistent with gravitation stronger than can be accounted for by the visible matter in the stars they contain.

And there is no evidence that matter can move faster than light. Where do you get that idea from?

Actually the observed behavior of the galaxies can be turned into an equation which does not function without dark matter. In fact the amount of dark matter and energy is 85 percent more than the observed mass in the universe, the number 85 percent is the number that makes the equation work. Simplified the equation defines gravity as it is known however gravity as it is known can not account for the observed movement unless 85 percent more mass and energy are added. As for galaxies moving faster than light argue with NASA because they observed it not me. https://www.space.com/33306-how-does...han-light.html

As dark energy causes the universe to expand ever-faster, it may spur some very distant galaxies to apparently move faster than the speed of light. This Hubble Deep Field Image shows some of the most distant galaxies ever observed.(Image credit: UDF, Credit: NASA, ESA, S. Beckwith (STScI) and the HUDF Team)

https://www.businessinsider.com/galaxies-travel-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-2015-10

OK, I see what you are referring to. The expansion of the universe can make some objects recede from one another faster than c, sure. But that is not the same thing as objects travelling through space faster than light. It is the expansion of space itself that is responsible for the effect.

As for the observed behaviour being turned into an equation, well yes of course, that is commonly what scientists do, to derive general principles from specific observations. But it is false to suggest, as you did, that dark matter is just an idea arising from some equation or other. It is an idea arising from practical observation.

Dark matter is the 85 percent of matter and energy that makes the equation work. If the equation required 55 percent more mass then that would be the number that fits into the equation. Dark matter has never been seen, or proved in any way. If the equation is found to be wrong dark matter may disappear. But wait something that has never been seen can not actually disappear, can it.

Are you aware that some respectable physicist are actually saying that there is no matter either light or dark in the universe? Now some are claiming that the universe is a computer simulation and that this is why it moves faster than light because computer simulations do not follow physics but they follow their programming. And please do not get mad at me for Tyson's buffoonery

Originally Posted by Quantated

Are you aware that some respectable physicist are actually saying that there is no matter either light or dark in the universe?

Source?

Now some are claiming that the universe is a computer simulation and that this is why it moves faster than light because computer simulations do not follow physics but they follow their programming.

Source?

And please do not get mad at me for Tyson's buffoonery

Buffoonery? With regard to...?

Oh -

Dark matter is called dark not because it is but because it is unknown.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Quantated

Are you aware that some respectable physicist are actually saying that there is no matter either light or dark in the universe?

Source?

Now some are claiming that the universe is a computer simulation and that this is why it moves faster than light because computer simulations do not follow physics but they follow their programming.

Source?

And please do not get mad at me for Tyson's buffoonery

Buffoonery? With regard to...?

Oh -

Dark matter is called dark not because it is but because it is unknown.

Wrong.

Sure no problem

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgSZA3NPpBs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYAG9dAfy8U&t=31s

You do understand that computer simulations are computer code pretending to be matter which is exactly what Tyson claims.

And please do not get testy with me because this is not my idea nor am I backing it, I am just the messenger

[QUOTE=Quantated;631869][QUOTE=Dywyddyr;631866]

Originally Posted by Quantated

And please do not get testy with me because this is not my idea nor am I backing it, I am just the messenger

Well Thamolos was a messenger too.

Originally Posted by Quantated

Now some are claiming that the universe is a computer simulation and that this is why it moves faster than light because computer simulations do not follow physics but they follow their programming.

Source? You haven't answered the part about the speed of light. (And you've misunderstood the "faster than light" part).

And please do not get mad at me for Tyson's buffoonery
And please do not get testy with me because this is not my idea nor am I backing it, I am just the messenger

Then, surely, it would behove you to get the message right. Tyson is also "just the messenger".

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Quantated

Now some are claiming that the universe is a computer simulation and that this is why it moves faster than light because computer simulations do not follow physics but they follow their programming.

Source? You haven't answered the part about the speed of light. (And you've misunderstood the "faster than light" part).

And please do not get mad at me for Tyson's buffoonery
And please do not get testy with me because this is not my idea nor am I backing it, I am just the messenger

Then, surely, it would behove you to get the message right. Tyson is also "just the messenger".

Actually quantum entanglement has been described as instant and is from a human perspective. However the current best estimate for the speed of quantum entanglement is 10,000 times faster than light.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...ter-than-light

No one disputes this, but then they say photons are not real so they do not count.

OK so photons travel at least or a minimum of 10000 times light speed or 1,860,000,000 miles per second but that is not really faster than light at 186,000 miles per second.


See you are getting mad at me for relaying the message and you are refusing to accept the veracity of the message.

The fact is that entangled photons travel massively faster than light, however they are not really traveling, what is traveling that speed is the information relayed by the entangled state.

Not really sure why scientific achievement gets scientifically oriented persons so upset but it seems to do this.

Originally Posted by Quantated

Actually quantum entanglement has been described as instant and is from a human perspective. However the current best estimate for the speed of quantum entanglement is 10,000 times faster than light.

Which has what to do with topic?

OK so photons travel at least or a minimum of 10000 times light speed or 1,860,000,000 miles per second

Not true.
Please re-read the linked article and, more specifically, the other articles linked in that one.

See you are getting mad at me for relaying the message and you are refusing to accept the veracity of the message.

You really shouldn't make assumptions about my mood.
Nor should you claim veracity when it isn't so.

The fact is that entangled photons travel massively faster than light, however they are not really traveling, what is traveling that speed is the information relayed by the entangled state.

Exactly.
Information not objects. Therefore, not refuting Einstein.

Not really sure why scientific achievement gets scientifically oriented persons so upset but it seems to do this.

Not so far. You'll note that the reports are from scientifically oriented persons. As are the experiments that generated those reports.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Quantated

Actually quantum entanglement has been described as instant and is from a human perspective. However the current best estimate for the speed of quantum entanglement is 10,000 times faster than light.

Which has what to do with topic?

OK so photons travel at least or a minimum of 10000 times light speed or 1,860,000,000 miles per second

Not true.
Please re-read the linked article and, more specifically, the other articles linked in that one.

See you are getting mad at me for relaying the message and you are refusing to accept the veracity of the message.

You really shouldn't make assumptions about my mood.
Nor should you claim veracity when it isn't so.

The fact is that entangled photons travel massively faster than light, however they are not really traveling, what is traveling that speed is the information relayed by the entangled state.

Exactly.
Information not objects. Therefore, not refuting Einstein.

Not really sure why scientific achievement gets scientifically oriented persons so upset but it seems to do this.

Not so far. You'll note that the reports are from scientifically oriented persons. As are the experiments that generated those reports.

Since your thoughts as transmitted here are information, then information counts as something. I know that you agree, if not please detail why your concepts as transmitted do not count as real?

130 confirmed by Wall Street

Originally Posted by Quantated

Since your thoughts as transmitted here are information, then information counts as something. I know that you agree, if not please detail why your concepts as transmitted do not count as real?

I never wrote, or implied, that concepts are not real.

130 confirmed by Wall Street

Whut?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Quantated

Since your thoughts as transmitted here are information, then information counts as something. I know that you agree, if not please detail why your concepts as transmitted do not count as real?

I never wrote, or implied, that concepts are not real.

130 confirmed by Wall Street

Whut?

I am just using philosophy to demonstrate different ways of looking at the same information. My view is that information is the most precious thing known to humankind. That said information is stored electrically in the human brain and it has been discovered that the human brain actually uses photons in some manner. When this information is juxtaposed onto entangled particles (photons) I believe that the information is tangible not intangible. So your thoughts matter here, the same as they will matter on a quantum entangled internet that is currently in testing in multiple places many of them military which implies the same inferences of the current internet that began as military code.

Originally Posted by Quantated

I am just using philosophy to demonstrate different ways of looking at the same information. My view is that information is the most precious thing known to humankind. That said information is stored electrically in the human brain and it has been discovered that the human brain actually uses photons in some manner. When this information is juxtaposed onto entangled particles (photons) I believe that the information is tangible not intangible. So your thoughts matter here, the same as they will matter on a quantum entangled internet that is currently in testing in multiple places many of them military which implies the same inferences of the current internet that began as military code.

In other words nothing to do with what we've been discussing...

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Quantated

I am just using philosophy to demonstrate different ways of looking at the same information. My view is that information is the most precious thing known to humankind. That said information is stored electrically in the human brain and it has been discovered that the human brain actually uses photons in some manner. When this information is juxtaposed onto entangled particles (photons) I believe that the information is tangible not intangible. So your thoughts matter here, the same as they will matter on a quantum entangled internet that is currently in testing in multiple places many of them military which implies the same inferences of the current internet that began as military code.

In other words nothing to do with what we've been discussing...

Do you find the concept that 85 percent of the universe is missing (laughing) more pertinent than the means to discuss this instantly