Dark Matter

[Infinite Bubble]

Hello brethren

Here is a question: what do you believe dark matter is?

And what is the mechanism of dark matter and it in conjunction with dark energy?

Clearly dark matter has an extremely important role within the universe.

Some hypothesize that it is antimatter, some think gravitons, or supersymmetric particles, some even think god...

We want to know what you think.

Look, there's also a colourful graph here!

 

[RaptorWizard]

Maybe dark matter is part of the aether, or some other kind of place beyond the mundane. It could also connect with with "negative (or exotic) matter".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_matter

My best guess is that it's the "spiritual/metaphysical" part of existence we have yet to find.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

I've thought that perhaps dark matter is essentially mass, or what causes the property of mass and gravity, that dark matter is just the macro-equivalent of the Higgs Boson. I agree with the thought that gravitrons could be the make-up of dark matter, for I have had dark matter explained to me by a physicist as the type of matter that holds regular matter together, such as the protons in a nucleus that should repel away from each other.

 

[Infinite Bubble]

Maybe dark matter is part of the aether, or some other kind of place beyond the mundane. It could also connect with with "negative (or exotic) matter".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_matter

Yeah, maybe aether, but that terminology simply invites further investigation.

I was thinking it was exotic matter of sorts, perhaps of all different kinds. So dark matter is merely a set of matter that is beyond us.

Akin to how we can only perceive a minute percentage of light wavelengths.

My best guess is that it's the "spiritual/metaphysical" part of existence we have yet to find.

It could be sort of like giant telephone wires that connects everything somehow over vast distances. Even connections to other dimensions like you're describing.

I've thought that perhaps dark matter is essentially mass, or what causes the property of mass and gravity, that dark matter is just the macro-equivalent of the Higgs Boson.

That seems reasonable. Although, it seems to be set out in giant strings sprawled across the universe in giant web-like formations. Assuming this is true, then there would be 'more' mass and gravity in some parts than others.

I agree with the thought that gravitrons could be the make-up of dark matter, for I have had dark matter explained to me by a physicist as the type of matter that holds regular matter together, such as the protons in a nucleus that should repel away from each other.

Wait, that would mean it'd be the mediator of strong interaction...

But that's known to be gluons.

Gravitons is probably the most realistic guess though.

 

[Mal12345]

There is no dark matter.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Wait, that would mean it'd be the mediator of strong interaction...

But that's known to be gluons.

Gravitons is probably the most realistic guess though.

My physicist friend, who I have not spoken to in a while, was designing a way to prove G.U.T (Strong + Electromagnetism + Weak). I'm not sure how far he got with it though.

 

[Infinite Bubble]

There is no dark matter.

How intriguing! Can you elaborate?

My physicist friend, who I have not spoken to in a while, was designing a way to prove G.U.T (Strong + Electromagnetism + Weak). I'm not sure how far he got with it though.

Ah...

As the three forces are measured on ever higher energy levels, it is shown that graphically the lines never meet, e.i. not equal. But they can, but only can, if supersymmetry is proven to be a real construct.

So he's probably finding a way to prove supersymmetry or something.

It's interesting as to why gravity can't be included. Sigh, we know nothing really.

 

[Mal12345]

How intriguing! Can you elaborate?

How can I elaborate on nothing? Anyway, astronomical anomalies can be explained other ways. And the statement that Dark Matter exists in the present is ludicrous, since those evidences are millions of light years away.

 

[Infinite Bubble]

How can I elaborate on nothing? Anyway, astronomical anomalies can be explained other ways. And the statement that Dark Matter exists in the present is ludicrous, since those evidences are millions of light years away.

By elaborating on why you think there's nothing. Obviously there's something there though. The general consensus is that around 85% cent of the universe's matter is Dark, and its existence can be measured by its effects on other objects in the universe.

The equations state that if dark matter didn't exist, matter on a large scale wouldn't have clumped together to create galaxies and the like. So it makes sense to believe it's gravitons. Its effects seem to be too great to be considered part of an anomaly.

 

[Mal12345]

By elaborating on why you think there's nothing. Obviously there's something there though. The general consensus is that around 85% cent

What does "85% cent" mean?

of the universe's matter is Dark, and its existence can be measured by its effects on other objects in the universe.

All you're saying is that someone observed a contradiction of an accepted law of nature (e.g., gravity), and in order to preserve that law of nature (e.g., gravity), it was necessary to invent a hypothetical form of matter possessing whatever property (e.g., gravity) is required to explain the contradiction.

Why? Because "the consensus" in the scientific community cannot accept that it might be wrong.

The equations state that if dark matter didn't exist, matter on a large scale wouldn't have clumped together to create galaxies and the like. So it makes sense to believe it's gravitons. Its effects seem to be too great to be considered part of an anomaly.

- a graviton has never been detected - moreover, it's not a choice of either "dark matter" or "anomaly" (or coincidence or random chance or...) -

But not every astronomer is satisfied with this interpretation. Some, like Stacy McGaugh at the University of Maryland, College Park, believe that the definition of dark matter is so slippery that it is impossible to prove or disprove. Researchers might be able rule out the existence of any specific conjectured form of dark matter particles, but "we cannot falsify the concept, so if one fails, we are free to make up another," says McGaugh. "This cycle can be endless — as long as we're convinced as a community that it has to be dark matter, we won't take alternatives seriously, but we can never be disabused of the concept of dark matter.

Exactly. It's the same mind-set that led to the creation of Ptolemaic Cycles. Observed contradictions of geocentric cosmology did not prevent the "consensus" from questioning it for over 1,300 years.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

What does "85% cent" mean?



All you're saying is that someone observed a contradiction of an accepted law of nature (e.g., gravity), and in order to preserve that law of nature (e.g., gravity), it was necessary to invent a hypothetical form of matter possessing whatever property (e.g., gravity) is required to explain the contradiction.

Why? Because "the consensus" in the scientific community cannot accept that it might be wrong.



It's not a choice of either "dark matter" or "anomaly" (or coincidence or random chance or...) - a graviton has never been detected - moreover,

But not every astronomer is satisfied with this interpretation. Some, like Stacy McGaugh at the University of Maryland, College Park, believe that the definition of dark matter is so slippery that it is impossible to prove or disprove. Researchers might be able rule out the existence of any specific conjectured form of dark matter particles, but "we cannot falsify the concept, so if one fails, we are free to make up another," says McGaugh. "This cycle can be endless — as long as we're convinced as a community that it has to be dark matter, we won't take alternatives seriously, but we can never be disabused of the concept of dark matter.

Exactly. It's the same mind-set that led to the creation of Ptolemaic Cycles. Observed contradictions of geocentric cosmology did not prevent the "consensus" from questioning it for over 1,300 years.

The only reason we have a concept for dark matter is because we can't explain the space-time warping when we gaze far enough out into the universe, such as seeing an identical entity twice, one right next to the other. Methinks that the cause of this may be that the ancient light from the entity may graze past a huge black hole, causing a distortion when only part of the light from an entity is warped instead of all the light, giving us two very similar images of the same entity.

 

[Mal12345]

The only reason we have a concept for dark matter is because we can't explain the space-time warping when we gaze far enough out into the universe, such as seeing an identical entity twice, one right next to the other. Methinks that the cause of this may be that the ancient light from the entity may graze past a huge black hole, causing a distortion when only part of the light from an entity is warped instead of all the light, giving us two very similar images of the same entity.

Gravitational lensing is well understood. The anomaly that led to the creation of Dark Matter theory involves the speed at which the outer part of a galactic disk actually rotates versus how fast it is supposed to rotate according to gravitational theory.

 

[Infinite Bubble]

What does "85% cent" mean?

According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy. Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the universe and 26.8% of the total content of the universe.

I didn't go as specific as '84.5%' since people seem to hate being given percentages but there you go.

Yeah it can't be directly observed so it can't be completely proven, but it's probably the best theory for filling the gap.

All you're saying is that someone observed a contradiction of an accepted law of nature (e.g., gravity), and in order to preserve that law of nature (e.g., gravity), it was necessary to invent a hypothetical form of matter possessing whatever property (e.g., gravity) is required to explain the contradiction.

It was probably not as simple as that.

Why? Because "the consensus" in the scientific community cannot accept that it might be wrong.

Of course they are open to it being wrong. Why wouldn't they be?

- a graviton has never been detected - moreover, it's not a choice of either "dark matter" or "anomaly" (or coincidence or random chance or...) -

But not every astronomer is satisfied with this interpretation. Some, like Stacy McGaugh at the University of Maryland, College Park, believe that the definition of dark matter is so slippery that it is impossible to prove or disprove. Researchers might be able rule out the existence of any specific conjectured form of dark matter particles, but "we cannot falsify the concept, so if one fails, we are free to make up another," says McGaugh. "This cycle can be endless — as long as we're convinced as a community that it has to be dark matter, we won't take alternatives seriously, but we can never be disabused of the concept of dark matter.

Exactly. It's the same mind-set that led to the creation of Ptolemaic Cycles. Observed contradictions of geocentric cosmology did not prevent the "consensus" from questioning it for over 1,300 years.

Scientists have actually been able to map clouds of dark matter in our galaxy using methods explained here:

http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2013/06/26/does-dark-matter-really-exist/

 

[Mal12345]

According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the known universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy. Thus, dark matter is estimated to constitute 84.5% of the total matter in the universe and 26.8% of the total content of the universe.



It was probably not as simple as that.



Of course they are open to it being wrong.



Scientists have actually been able to map clouds of dark matter in our galaxy using methods explained here:

http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2013/06/26/does-dark-matter-really-exist/

I know, I've been looking into it for years. And its 85% not "85% cent." Yes I know it's more complicated than that. However, the theory arose from the attempt to explain the revolution of galaxies and it now includes gravitational lensing effects. And the mapping only shows the effect of something, not the cause of it.

 

[Infinite Bubble]

I know, I've been looking into it for years. And its 85% not "85% cent." Yes I know it's more complicated than that. However, the theory arose from the attempt to explain the revolution of galaxies and it now includes gravitational lensing effects. And the mapping only shows the effect of something, not the cause of it.

Well, sorry if I annoyed you.

We'll just have to wait until whatever it is can be directly observable, but dark matter seems to be the best explanation right now at least.

 

[Mal12345]

Well, sorry if I annoyed you.

We'll just have to wait until whatever it is can be directly observable, but dark matter seems to be the best explanation right now at least.

How do you know if it's the best explanation?

 

[Infinite Bubble]

How do you know if it's the best explanation?

I don't, but it seems to be. I can even add "IMO" if you like.

 

[Mal12345]

I don't, but it seems to be. I can even add "IMO" if you like.

'IMHO' would be better.

 

[Infinite Bubble]

'IMHO' would be better.

Yours is also an opinion...

 

[Mal12345]

Yours is also an opinion...

And what would that be?