Across the universe, dark matter annihilation could be warming up dead stars

[Admin]

Neutron stars could act as gravitational traps for dark matter, forcing these mysterious particles to collide, annihilate and warm up otherwise cold dead stars.

Across the universe, dark matter annihilation could be warming up dead stars : Read more

 

[Unclear Engineer]

There certainly is a lot of speculation in this hypothesis.

But, why would dark matter annihilation necessarily produce heat in regular matter?

Why would dark matter self-annihilation produce regular photons instead of "dark photons" that do not interact with regular matter? If they produce "dark photons"that do not interact with regular matter, then they would not heat the regular matter - they would just pass through.

This is another one of those speculations where "dark something" does exactly what the theorist wants, and not what the theorist does not want. Handy, but not convincing.

I could just as easily speculate that dark matter annihilation is the driving mechanism for dark energy, and probably get a media story out of that.

Still, it is probably good to be able to look for unexpected things in places like neutron stars. We might find something enlightening even if it is not what we are looking for.

 

[Atlan0001]

The dark matter universe and the anti-matter universe may be the same negative. Now how could that be if galaxies, and things like us, aren't being annihilated on a regular basis?! It might be because we hardly get any effect from such particles as neutrinos. Or a universe on the other side of the mirror zero (the grand total of matter and energy equals zero), and a universe on this side of the mirror zero, perfectly balancing in horizon, in mirror zero, simply don't do much interacting, if any interacting, unless there are special circumstances, specialized physics, involved, to cause interaction . . . an always very temporary, very localized, unbalancing (a radicalized exception to the rule).

 

[Victor N Dlamini]

Neutron stars could act as gravitational traps for dark matter, forcing these mysterious particles to collide, annihilate and warm up otherwise cold dead stars.

Across the universe, dark matter annihilation could be warming up dead stars : Read more

The dark matter could be an existence niche: a gaba domain frame of reference in systemic parallax within and gaba parallax with respect to matter. It may not interact with matter due to its different time-sweep and apparition fringes; among other gaba parallax forming dimension punctuations.

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Initial transformation from DM to Matter-Energy would interact with all namely Electro-weak, Strong (cause of Neutron stars in this example), gravitation, and Electromagnetic (Photons) and it is not clear why it would be preferential with respect to neutron stars except these being massive gravitational body that warps local spacetime fabric.
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSEB Apollo
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
SAE Fuel Cell Tech Committee voting member for 20 years.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drravisharma

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Stating what "dark matter" would do or how it's "annihilation products" would interact with any known force should not be stated as fact, because it is all very speculative. There are no known "facts" about how dark matter behaves beyond its assumed existence to explain gravitational force observations that we cannot otherwise explain.

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Yes Unclear Engineer,

My article to be yet published starting in 2023 Winter and hopefully Spring or Summer 2024 issues of a Journal, that will clarify many issues surrounding DM and I will send readers a link when both parts are available.
After review you will kindly agree or disagree with that description and it will relate to our current BSM LHC and astrophysics based efforts that many have described in these threads as constituents of physical universe ranging from 5% to 15%+ of total mass needed.

Till then you are right that many do not believe in existence of DM.

Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSEB Apollo
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
SAE Fuel Cell Tech Committee voting member for 20 years.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drravisharma

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Even if you "believe" that dark matter exists, there is no direct evidence of how it interacts with other matter, or itself, other than the gravitational observations.

All I am saying is that speculation should not be posted as fact.

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Yes I agree it is about semantics "as until" explained, based on readers current knowledge. And what I am adding is that the whole process of how DM interacts with forces mentioned above will become clear after the publication and then you still can either accept the fact or deny it!
The reason I can not spell out all is then the journal will not most likely publish if it knows that this is already published information, hence please hold on your opinion and all I can also do is wait.
Regards,
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSEB Apollo
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
SAE Fuel Cell Tech Committee voting member for 20 years.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drravisharma

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

It is an interesting result, that tidal interaction with normal matter should be able to capture and thermalize dark matter so prodigiously.

The self annihilation requirement is having a modicum of “Majorana” particle character mixed in with the normal “Dirac” particle character. The mix results in the particle being its own antiparticle at some decay time set by the mix ratio (among other things) but needs to be observed. Majorana properties of e.g. sterila neutrinos, a likely candidate here, has been probed in experiments but the interactions turns out to be so weak (rare) that they will likely remain dark matter candidates indefinitely. Hence the astrophysical observations may observe something like that.

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

There certainly is a lot of speculation in this hypothesis.

But, why would dark matter annihilation necessarily produce heat in regular matter? Why would dark matter self-annihilation produce regular photons instead of "dark photons" that do not interact with regular matter?

This is another one of those speculations where "dark something" does exactly what the theorist wants, and not what the theorist does not want. Handy, but not convincing.

Less speculative than your personal opinion of it, if you read the paper. The same goes for observed dark matter and dark energy in general, but for reasons of too many independent observations to convince scientists that these things do not exist. So why shouldn't we accept that, they are the experts after all? It is also reasonably easy to check every result they have.

Stating what "dark matter" would do or how it's "annihilation products" would interact with any known force should not be stated as fact, because it is all very speculative. There are no known "facts" about how dark matter behaves beyond its assumed existence to explain gravitational force observations that we cannot otherwise explain.

Even if you "believe" that dark matter exists, there is no direct evidence of how it interacts with other matter, or itself, other than the gravitational observations.

All I am saying is that speculation should not be posted as fact.

We do know it is particles so the interactions are possible and can therefore be published in peer review and later researched. We also know it interacts with gravity which even in the case of normal matter means a finite decay time, only more so. (Normal matter Higgs stabilization is long lived, dark matter likely not so much.)

You should trust the process of science, among other things it has given us the engineered web things (based on semiconductor research, for one) that we comment with here.

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

The dark matter universe and the anti-matter universe may be the same negative.

Not the normal antimatter production. The observed photon density of the cosmic background radiation neatly fits the expectation from a Standard Model CP asymmetry breaking, such as is possible in the neutrino sector. (We'll know within a decade, from neutrino oscillation observations.)

Yes, besides these self annihilating dark matter candidates there are "dark ("mirror") universe" candidates. But that has nothing to do with antiparticles.

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

The dark matter could be an existence niche: a gaba domain frame of reference in systemic parallax within and gaba parallax with respect to matter.

Gaba-domains, from cell receptors? This makes no sense, and it furthermore looks like an software c&p of terms.

[Mostly a list of an ontology career.]

I reported all 3 such comments as self promoting spam under the guise of comments or suggestions of "journals". If it has any merit it could stand for itself and specifically for journals become recognized after they have reached the market.

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Dear Torbjorn Larsson

Greeting and thanks for your critique, that prompted this response.

I request you to not attribute any false motivation or such words.
It is not my intention to promote myself any more than an author of any new research would.

This work with slow learning over a few years part time required me to understand Euclidean and other multidimensional spaces, HEP physics and other languages, links to unique interpretation of not yet well known academicians.

It is best for me to hold back somewhat till I send you the link to all three parts of Journal reference. This being a paper based journal, it is behind as the Winter 2023 issue is not yet printed and it will be available soon but only for 1 of 3 parts.

Hence I apologize for this delay and if it contributed to confusion.
My publications are not many but are listed in journals on my ORCID profile and yes lately on ontologies but in past in nuclear, particle and space physics as well. Many of NASA HQ, DoD, ISRO and General Motors papers are internal only. SAE Standards Publications are collective work of a Committee of Experts.

Regards,
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSEB Apollo
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
SAE Fuel Cell Tech Committee voting member for 20 years.

Dr. Ravi Sharma - RS Enterprises | LinkedIn

Objectives (Technical Leadership areas):<br><br>• Technical Leadership Areas:… · Experience: RS Enterprises · Education: Yale University · Location: Elk Grove · 500+ connections on LinkedIn. View Dr. Ravi Sharma’s profile on LinkedIn, a professional community of 1 billion members.

www.linkedin.com

 

[Questioner]

What evidence indicates is mass without an identified source/cause. DM is a conventional theory reflexive proposal with as yet no discernable evidence.

At least these researchers are respecting the law of gravity whereby masses interact with one another and trying to find evidence in a plausible location based on the hypothesis of DM.

Most DM proposals seem to ignore the law of gravity with hand waving.

My alternative thought is what might be going on is a secondary/additonal mass curve from black holes that remains stronger very far from the BH.

This fits with evidence that hypothesized DM in galaxies tightly correlates with the size of their respective central BHs.

 

[Questioner]

PS. It also fits with the center of 'halos' at (mostly) identifiable BHs.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

We do know it is particles . . .

You should trust the process of science, among other things it has given us the engineered web things (based on semiconductor research, for one) that we comment with here.

Well, we really do NOT "know" it is particles - that IS speculation - until you can actually find particles that you can show cause the observed effects.

As for "trusting the process", I do. THAT is why I am posting that others should not be stating as fact things which have not been proven to be facts. Otherwise, speculation that becomes accepted as if factual HURTS the scientific process.

YOU may believe your own theories, but there are competing theories that have not been disproven. Pretending that the ones you believe are already accepted as factual is NOT acceptable scientific method.