A long-lost type of dark matter may resolve the biggest disagreement in physics

"The new paper doesn't determine what particles the lost dark matter might be made of, but strongly suggests that warm dark matter might have been made up of sterile neutrinos — particles that other physicists also believe are likely out there." My observation - Sterile neutrinos have been reported a number of times, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...22/cosmos-study-dashes-hope-for-new-neutrino/. https://forums.space.com/threads/ri...the-mystery-of-why-the-universe-exists.29733/

I note this in the space.com report "That lost dark matter's mass would have represented a significant chunk of the total mass of the universe when it existed, leading to a different expansion rate when the CMB formed just after the Big Bang. Now, billions of years later, it would be long gone. And all the stars and galaxies we can measure would be moving away from us at speeds determined by the universe's current mass. "When you measure the local Hubble constant you're really measuring that thing: You're measuring how fast things are moving apart from one another, you're measuring how fast space is expanding," Hooper said. But translating the CMB data into an expansion rate requires using a model, such as the Lambda-CDM. "So if you get different measurements from the local measurements and the CMB measurement, maybe that model's wrong."

It seems such differences may change distance measurements calculated for objects with different z values observed today. E.g. https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/help/cosmology_calc.html in the BB model, perhaps.
 
Wow, that paper really underscores how finetuned such explanations need to be as opposed to simple measurement problems!

What they need to do is shoehorn in warm dark matter _after_ big bang nucleosynthesis but _before_ cosmic background releasing recombination to not mess with either. Which in terms of energy is waiting until the standard matter sector is created all the way to the last stage which is neutrino decoupling. (I.e. neutrinos is given a small mass, apparently from Higgs non-linear effects, and eventually the universe becomes cold enough that they don't zip around quite like massless photons - "decoupling from radiation".)

Added to that finetuning there is more as they nicely point out (Hooper is behind several works of dark matter candidate suggestions/testing, I believe, e.g. the eponymous hooperon https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hooperon ). If their warm dark matter couples to standard matter where is it, since (say) LHC doesn't see it? And if it does not couple but is "a hidden sector", why did it appear at the same energies as standard matter did?

And possibly we also have to ask why not all dark matter is of that type, or in other words "who ordered that"!? The dark matter we know and love is there to give us lots of galaxies instead of a scatter of rare stars.

Nitpick on terminology: Since inflationary big bang - LCDM - cosmology appeared with its different eons of different expansion rates, the nomenclature is moving away from "Hubble constant" to "expansion rate". (Or "Hubble rate", but I note that cosmologists have started to use it exclusively for post-inflationary expansion rates, so that is somewhat more taxing to use.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Aug 19, 2020
3
0
10
Visit site
I postulate that dark matter exists at the core of the Earth and all other major astronomical & cosmological bodies. I have also postulated in the past that the interaction with normal matter within the interior would convert of some of this into normal matter, increasing entropy (the number of ways) and therefore the volume. It is a mechanism fo the Expanding Earth hypothesis. It also could account for the Moon moving further from the Earth, because the strong gravitational interaction between their cores would be diminishing. This ideology also lends itself to the discrepancy outlined in the article. It is the strong self-interacting dark matter which is disappearing over time, which results in a faster expansion between galaxies.
 
Apr 7, 2020
162
29
1,610
Visit site
I postulate that dark matter exists at the core of the Earth and all other major astronomical & cosmological bodies. I have also postulated in the past that the interaction with normal matter within the interior would convert of some of this into normal matter, increasing entropy (the number of ways) and therefore the volume. It is a mechanism fo the Expanding Earth hypothesis. It also could account for the Moon moving further from the Earth, because the strong gravitational interaction between their cores would be diminishing. This ideology also lends itself to the discrepancy outlined in the article. It is the strong self-interacting dark matter which is disappearing over time, which results in a faster expansion between galaxies.

The Earth’s mass is quite well accounted for with ordinary matter and as for the Moon’s movement away from the Earth that is quite well understood as well. It’s due to tidal dragging in which the moon steals kinetic energy from the Earth, no dark matter needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torbjorn Larsson
Aug 19, 2020
3
0
10
Visit site
The Earth’s mass is quite well accounted for with ordinary matter and as for the Moon’s movement away from the Earth that is quite well understood as well. It’s due to tidal dragging in which the moon steals kinetic energy from the Earth, no dark matter needed.
You're missing the point that both physics & cosmology have been in crisis for 40 years with no progress in the fundamentals of science. There's a multitude of inconsistencies with gravity theory and observation.
I'm making a major philosophical contribution to the progression of human thought.
 

COLGeek

Moderator
You're missing the point that both physics & cosmology have been in crisis for 40 years with no progress in the fundamentals of science. There's a multitude of inconsistencies with gravity theory and observation.
I'm making a major philosophical contribution to the progression of human thought.
That is a rather bold statement. What evidence do you offer of your theory (major philosophical contribution to the progression of human thought)? That could prove enlightening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torbjorn Larsson
Nov 12, 2020
1
0
10
Visit site
"The new paper doesn't determine what particles the lost dark matter might be made of, but strongly suggests that warm dark matter might have been made up of sterile neutrinos — particles that other physicists also believe are likely out there." My observation - Sterile neutrinos have been reported a number of times, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...22/cosmos-study-dashes-hope-for-new-neutrino/. https://forums.space.com/threads/ri...the-mystery-of-why-the-universe-exists.29733/

I note this in the space.com report "That lost dark matter's mass would have represented a significant chunk of the total mass of the universe when it existed, leading to a different expansion rate when the CMB formed just after the Big Bang. Now, billions of years later, it would be long gone. And all the stars and galaxies we can measure would be moving away from us at speeds determined by the universe's current mass. "When you measure the local Hubble constant you're really measuring that thing: You're measuring how fast things are moving apart from one another, you're measuring how fast space is expanding," Hooper said. But translating the CMB data into an expansion rate requires using a model, such as the Lambda-CDM. "So if you get different measurements from the local measurements and the CMB measurement, maybe that model's wrong."

It seems such differences may change distance measurements calculated for objects with different z values observed today. E.g. https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/help/cosmology_calc.html in the BB model, perhaps.
LOL SO Damn Beautiful
 

Latest posts