Dark matter and tachyon gravity

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

newtonian

Guest
Theoretical physicists have postulated tachyons, which would be particles that travel faster than light but cannot travel slower than light or exactly the speed of light.<br /><br />If tachyons are present in our universe, could they exert gravity?<br /><br />If so, could they in part account for the gravity that causes scientists to postulate the existence of dark matter?<br /><br />I thought of this question when considering questions about dark hole incoming matter that would reach the speed of light. Could such matter be converted to tachyons inside black holes - and rotate FTL around a singularity or near singularity?<br /><br />Can FTL orbits exist, of tachyons, around galaxies?<br /><br />Or could tachyons produced at the big bang be causing acceleration of expansion due to gravitational attraction?<br /><br />Could they be causing acceleration of expansion due to their FTL gravitational attraction (causing ordinary matter to try to keep up)?<br /><br />Could ordinary matter be converted to tachyons inside black holes - still exerting the same gravitational attraction as if they were ordinary matter?<br /><br />If not tachyons, what properties would dark matter need to have to cause the effects we observe?
 
R

rhinorulz

Guest
????????<br />two connected blackholes will cause an instant time warp. this leads me two belive yes. if it can reverce time it is faster than light.
 
C

contracommando

Guest
<font color="yellow">If not tachyons, what properties would dark matter need to have to cause the effects we observe? </font><br /><br />1) Dark matter would have mass and move slower than the speed of light; therefore, DM will probably not be tachyons.<br /><br />2) DM does not emitt light.<br /><br />There are several possible explanations as to what DM may be: <br /><br />1) It may be composed of a new type of particle unlike the ordinary Fermion (gluons, leptons, etc - mass particles) called an <b>Axion.</b><br /><br />2) It may be an illusion caused by a small misunderstanding of Newton’s laws of motion. Something called MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) seeks to explain DM by stating that the inertial mass of a particle is decreased below a certain acceleration - giving the illusion of DM. But MOND possesses several defects which leads many to believe that it is false. <br /> <br />Problems with MOND - <br /><br />*Doesn’t explain gravitational lensing.<br /> <br />*Provides no real underlying principal of why the inertial mass of a particle is altered beyond that predicted by Einstein. <br /><br />3) <b>Strangest of all</b> - DM is ordinary matter in a universe approximately one millimeter above our own universe, but it is rendered invisible because it is on a different brane (universe). Because gravity can seep out of a universe (which helps to explain why it is so weak) it can add gravity to our universe; like sticking a magnet under a table top and using it to move a piece of iron around. <br /><br />We simply can see it because it is on another brane. Example: Imagine for a minute that we all live in a place called “Flatland,” (which is just an ordinary piece of paper). In flat land only two dimensions are known: X and Y (length and width, not Z which would be looking up or down out of the paper). The only thing one could see in flatland are those things which are written on the paper - so if I draw a line on the paper they can see the line. If, howeve
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Ahhh, presuming they exist (and they do NOT exist), they would be massless, and so have no gravitational effects whatsoever. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
G

george_w

Guest
Since we don't know what dark matter is (or if it even exists), anything is possible at this point.<br /><br /><br />
 
Z

zeke12

Guest
Hi there,<br /><br />I'm no scientist, I only have an A level in Physics (UK qualification), so take what I'm about to say with a pinch of salt. I would be grateful for your comments however.<br /><br />Is it not possible that the universe is expanding because more matter is being created? If matter is being created out of matter, then you would see exponential growth of the universe as is being witnessed. And if the universe started from a singularity, is it not possible that rather than the singularity being superdense at the dawn of the universe, matter is simply being created, causing the universe to expand whilst maintaining its existing density?<br /><br />I look forward to hearing your views and observations.<br /><br />Thanks, Zeke
 
C

contracommando

Guest
The matter creation theory, I believe, was once used by supporters of the steady state theory. But as that theory was discredited, so was that idea. <br /><br />There are several things to consider about this idea: <br /><br />*If matter were being continuously created, then where is it coming from?<br /><br />*Is the matter supposedly being created enough to explain the expansion of the universe? (probably not, one theory proposed that only a small amount was created every few years - about what you would find in a milk carton).<br /><br />*Were is this matter being deposited and why is it being created?<br /><br />*Wouldn’t this violate the conservation of mass / energy, that mass and energy can neither be created nor destroyed - they can only be interchanged.
 
Z

zeke12

Guest
Thanks ContraCommando for your quick response.<br /><br />The points you have raised are certainly valid ones, though I have never heard this idea expressed before. I understand what you mean in relation to the conservation of mass / energy rule; however, if this rule was carried back to before the dawn of time, it would be impossible to speculate where all of the mass and energy came from in the first place. Something must have created it, it must have come from somewhere, or it simply could not exist.<br /><br />With regards your first and second points, if matter was produced by matter itself, there would always be sufficent available to fuel the expansion of the universe; in fact the amount produced would increase exponentially, resulting in the accelerating expansion of the universe that we are able to ascertain today.<br /><br />I couldn't even begin to suggest why and how matter could be created by matter. Your knowledge is far advanced than mine, so perhaps you could speculate in this regard. <br /><br />Thanks again for your most helpful reply.
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
matter creating more matter.<br /><br />mysticism....<br /><br />unless....<br /><br />you are talking about energy being absorbed by mass...<br /><br />then it's not mysticism.
 
T

trisco

Guest
What if you think about matter being created from dark matter. Since dark matter has gravity does it eventually come together at some point like clouds of dust and gas out in space. The story on SDC about dark matter gravitational lensing leaned toward yes. If this is so will the "<i>clouds</i>" of dark matter compact so much as to create <i>normal</i> matter? Seems to me if this can happen then there is a lot more universe out there to be made!
 
Z

zeke12

Guest
Yes, I can see where the both of you are coming from! <br /><br />If there were residual energy (dark energy?) in the universe, and this were being converted into matter - possibly by some property of the existing matter - the universe would expand exponentially. Would it ever be possible to determine the mass of the universe, or the density? If such a feat were possible, we would be able to determine if the mass of the universe is increasing in line with its expansion (i.e. new matter is being created), or if it is stable (i.e. the universe is simply growing less dense as it expands).<br /><br />Could clouds of dark matter really condense into normal matter? I read recently that the neutrino was a type of dark matter, and this particle is known to exist on our planet and has mass (albeit incredibly small). Is it possible that the constituents of dark matter could be quarks and leptons, the fundamental building blocks of matter, which are being pulled together by gravity - as you suggest - to create matter itself?
 
T

trisco

Guest
I have another idea for y'all (yes I'm from Texas). There are many theories out there about multiple universes and also about just one universe. What if in a multiple universe system they exchange matter in a kind of 'tug of war' like tidal forces here on Earth. Our universe is expanding; could that be because another universe has reached its expansion limit and is contracting, forcing matter (or dark matter) into our own universe? When our universe is at its maximum expansion the other universe will no longer exist until ours starts to contract... causing matter to suddenly come into existance as another universe and <b>BANG</b>! A universal see-saw. This contradicts the idea that our universe will expand forever but hey, anythings possible right?!
 
Z

zeke12

Guest
Like many multiple universe theories, thats pretty interesting. <br /><br />What kind of boundary would have to exist between the two universes that would allow matter to be exchanged between the two, and where would this be located - on the periphery of the universes?<br /> <br />And how many universes might there be taking part in this exchange? It need not necessarily be a case of a see saw, but rather like a dymanic membrane, with many intertied universes along a single plane vying for the fixed quantity of matter. <br /><br />Key question... what created all the matter and those universal see saws in the first place? My idea suggests matter (growing?) suddenly from a singularity somewhere in space. What created all the matter, and what forces are at work in distributing it between the universes? <br /><br />The two universes would have to be like a closed container, with a movable section in between (like in a syringe, though not the best metaphor... ). Continuing the metaphor, if there were perforations in this movable section, then when compressed some of the matter might escape over to the other side.<br /><br />A greater force would have to be behind the perpetual expansion and contraction of the universes. Its all food for thought though, I guess.
 
A

alkalin

Guest
Yes I see, said the old blind man. Matter/energy could not come in certain types of form to support steady state because it violates conservation of energy, yet BB says differently for its own view. How so?<br /><br />Some interesting questions and answers so far on this thread but the notion that steady state was discredited is ridiculous. None of the predictions of BB theory have held up until the theory was highly modified by math in each case. The latest major finding proving death to BB theory is still not accounted for. <br /><br />Not so with notions of near steady state. I do not believe in the classical steady state either, but there are some ideas close to SS that make more sense. It is easy to explain DM if one simple adjustment were made in our thinking about intergalactic space. But the 101 astronomers would not allow it because it poses a danger to the religion of BB. The popular institutions of men rule for obvious reasons.<br /><br />But we like mystery and are drawn to it like the fly to the web. To me, BB quacks like, waddles like, and swims like--Sci-fi. Ducks might even eat spiders for all I know? Does this make much sense? If not, then certainly a movie thriller could be made of it. <br />
 
C

contracommando

Guest
<font color="yellow">matter is simply being created, causing the universe to expand whilst maintaining its existing density?</font><br /><br />If that were true, then a balancing act of extreme exactitude would be necessary (if expansion outpaced matter creation even by just a little, then over billions/trillions of years the difference would be enormous). Also, if matter were being created exponentially, then the density of the universe would increase dramatically over billions of years, thereby causing the universe to contract into a big crunch ( the more matter there is in the universe, the more likely it is to collapse in on itself; it would reverse expanding and contract if a significant amount of matter were added).<br /><br />Matter being created from matter.<br /><br />Matter and energy are interchangeable. In order to create matter, one might need a source of free energy - like vacuum energy (the energy of empty space) or negative energy; then one might, by some advanced process, convert one into the other. But so far, even theoretical attempts to devise a way of extracting this energy result in only small amounts being generated. If matter were being created naturally, then I would expect some type of conservation principle to take effect. Example: if one were to look at the Hawking radiation being generated by a black hole (seemingly free energy), then one might think that extra energy were being added to the universe; but if one were to observe the black hole’s diameter, one would see it slowly shrink - faster for smaller black holes. Thus, the total amount of energy added is 0 because the negative energy of the BH decreases as the positive energy of the HR is released into the universe. If matter were being added to the universe, one might expect some conservation principle to come into effect so that the total net amount generated is 0 (because matter and energy are equivalent by E=mc²). <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Thanks again for your</font>
 
C

contracommando

Guest
<font color="yellow">Matter/energy could not come in certain types of form to support steady state because it violates conservation of energy, yet BB says differently for its own view. How so? </font><br /><br />When you add up all the positive energy of the universe and compare it to all the negative energy present, such as gravity, the two cancel down to almost zero. Thus, the BB doesn’t say different because the universe is essentially made from nothing. (Remember, matter and energy are equivalent). <br /><br /><font color="yellow">notion that steady state was discredited is ridiculous. None of the predictions of BB theory have held up until the theory was highly modified by math in each case.</font><br /><br />Sorry, but the standard steady state theory is completely dead - and there are several reasons for this:<br /><br />1) Cosmic microwave background radiation, something that exists and is predicted by the Big bang, but not by SS.<br /><br />2) The Big Bang theory predicts that the universe was opaque for the first 380,000 years of its existence -emitting nothing-, after that the universe had expanded enough to emit radiation without it being absorbed. Guess how old CMB radiation is?…….it dates to 380,000 years after the BB. <br /><br />3) There are <b>many</b> other factors, too. But the CMB layer was the death nail for steady state; even its most prominent scientific supporters abandoned it after CMB radiation was discovered.
 
Z

zeke12

Guest
Indeed, the observation of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation does look a death knell to steady state theory, but it seems foolhardy to discredit a whole theory on the basis of a single observation. Perhaps there is a yet unexplained cause of the CMBR. <br /><br />I was reading that mass is sometimes generated (or rather, transferred from energy) in the high energy collisions that occur within particle accelerators. Is it not possible that such high energy collisions out in space could be responsible for creating the matter or adding mass to the universe? Could such collisions also be responsible for the expansion of the universe, through distributing the scattered particles in a Brownian motion kind of manner. And might the accelerating expansion of the universe be the result of the presence of more mass; hence more collisions; hence more mass generated - a cycle along these lines?
 
Z

zeke12

Guest
alkalin, please expand on the points made in your post. <br /><br />How does the big bang theory violate the conservation of energy rule?<br /><br />How has the big bang theory been modified by math to make it fit experimental data, and what latest finding should have proven the death of big bang theory?<br /><br />What such adjustment might make more sense of dark matter?<br /><br />Thanks.
 
A

alkalin

Guest
contraCommando,<br /><br />I do not believe in notions that cannot be supported by data. That does not mean I am unaware of those notions. I do not accept the standard or classic theory of SS, as I stated before. But there is a model you would fight tooth and nail over because it would dispute BB, so forget it. A propagandistic institution is not my cup of tea.<br /><br />When you say CMB, do you mean what comes strictly from BB, or does it come from the stars everywhere that pour their energy into the universe, or is there some kind of portion you would give each source. If you do not give any portion to the stars, then I would guess you believe that star energy simply falls into a black hole somewhere and we do not actually see any stars. The stars are just a figment of a dream.<br /><br />Cosmologists actually were quite wrong in the predictions of CMB before it was measured. So once it was measured accurately they needed every quanta of it to help change their math, so the answer is they cannot give a quanta to stars.<br /><br />Penzias & Wilson are credited with the first discovery of a background, and published in Nature in 1965. A prediction from physics indicated based on black body that if it were accurately measured, it would be in the range of about 1 to 5 degrees K based on star output in the universe. It was the cosmologists that suggested a much higher value because of BB, and they bleew it good. So where do you get your information, I sure hope it is not a propagandistic institution such as cosmological math support.<br />
 
A

alkalin

Guest
Zeke12,<br /><br />Excellent questions.<br /><br />First, conservation says nothing can come from nothing. Yet BB says everything came from nothing.<br /><br />Your second question is rather complicated and could be very time consuming for me to answer completely, so I must make it as brief as possible. The following two issues come to mind: Expansion did not work, so was elaborated on in fancy math. NO DATA TO BACK IT UP. It did not work alone to explain expansion, therefore failed. (Sorry guys, but red shift does not mean expansion)<br /><br />RESULT: Inflation, BUT NO DATA TO BACK IT UP. The sad result is even more theory to try to patch these two opposing notions together to make them work.<br /><br />The BB theory has completely failed in predicting the early universe. It should have only small blue galaxies in the very first stage of existence. What has been found are all objects we see right in our back yard; small galaxies, mid sized ones, and even very large ones. Those cannot be there if BB theory is correct.<br /><br />Your last question on DM is fairly straight forward; the adjustment is nothing more than what is already being measured—it is real data. The universe does indeed contain a good deal of gas, plasma, matter, whatever you want to call it. We do not yet see it directly with the technology we currently have. But we can see it indirectly with techniques such as polarization. The result of this is that the distant universe will appear further from us due to absorption of the intervening matter or gas. So there is no need for DM.<br /><br />I sure hope this makes a bit of common sense, because the fellows in 101 astronomy would argue otherwise.<br /><br /><br />
 
C

contracommando

Guest
<font color="yellow">But there is a model you would fight tooth and nail over because it would dispute BB, so forget it. A propagandistic institution is not my cup of tea.</font><br /><br />No, it’s more likely that you won’t present this theory (creationism?) because it would be easily debunked. Better yet, why not submit this grand theory to a journal for publication - probably because it would be laughed all the way into the garbage. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">Cosmologists actually were quite wrong in the predictions of CMB before it was measured.</font><br /><br /><b>No</b>, actually the prediction was <b>quite accurate.</b> George Gamow, Robert Herman, and Ralph Alpher predicted it in 1948 to within 2.3 degrees Kelvin above absolute zero. If I could predict the stock market with that accuracy, I would be a billionaire. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">So where do you get your information, I sure hope it is not a propagandistic institution such as cosmological math support. </font><br /><br />Books, research, experimentation. Where do you get your lack of information? The sci-fi channel? The “Tom Cruise church of Scientology” ? <br /><br /><font color="yellow">So once it was measured accurately they needed every quanta of it to help change their math</font><br /><br /><sigh /> Another amateur who thinks math is wrong just because he can’t understand it (or if it doesn’t fit into his “Aliens are visiting Earth theory” ).<br /><br /><font color="yellow">When you say CMB, do you mean what comes strictly from BB, or does it come from the stars everywhere that pour their energy into the universe,</font><br /><br />1) Yes, when referring just to CMB. <br /><br />2) The intensity of the energy emitted by stars falls off by an inverse square law; therefore we can use that fact to determine that the two are separate. If CMB radiation were being emitted by stars, then the distribution of this layer would be both
 
C

contracommando

Guest
<font color="yellow">First, conservation says nothing can come from nothing. Yet BB says everything came from nothing.</font><br /><br />Wrong. I’ve already answered this fallacy. R-E-A-D.
 
C

contracommando

Guest
<font color="yellow">RESULT: Inflation, BUT NO DATA TO BACK IT UP.</font><br /><br />Wrong again. The almost complete uniformity of the CMB layer means that at some point in the past the universe must have been small enough for every side to communicate with each other (to achieve almost complete uniformity). Then, for the universe to preserve this imprint in a particular way it had to expand (inflate). There is another competing theory called the “Eupyrotic” model, where universes collided in higher dimensional time-space. Both, however, are inconsistent with steady state.<br /><br />More evidence against steady state:<br /><br />1) Predicts that early galaxies in the universe should look very similar to ones today (since matter was supposedly being created throughout history, and into the present, in a uniform manner). But the Hubble space telescope has utterly disproved that notion, because its pictures of the early universe show galaxies that look quite different from the galaxies of today - much more primitive; implying that galaxies evolved from a particular point in the past (big bang) into the galaxies of today.<br /><br />2) Steady State predicts too little helium; BB predicts just the right amount. <br /><br />3) Offers no predictive power. Fred Hoyle, the greatest steady state proponent, in admitting defeat: “What really killed the steady-state theory was psychology.....Here, in the microwave background, was an important phenomenon which it had not predicted.”<br />
 
C

contracommando

Guest
<font color="yellow">The result of this is that the distant universe will appear further from us due to absorption of the intervening matter or gas. So there is no need for DM.</font><br /><br />First, wrong. Second, wrong again.<br /><br />The galaxies on the other side of the universe are red shifted because of the Doppler Effect. As the universe expands it decreases the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation, which corresponds to the red end of electromagnetic spectrum. <br /><br />Also, Newton’s laws of motion (confirmed by the motions of planets in our own solar system) say that most galaxies, including our own, are spinning too quickly to stay together - they should be flying apart (also, the edge of the Milky Way is revolving around the center much too quickly.....our star is moving at approximately 220 kilometers per second around the center). This can only be explained if the galaxies (and the universe) had several times the amount of matter in it than is currently observed. In fact, about 90% of the matter in the universe is DM. <br /><br />If DM were simply ordinary matter (DM could be something called neutralinos, predicted by string theory) such as plasma and heavy elements, then most of it might be found near the center of the galaxy, which doesn’t explain the galactic rotation curve. Furthermore, most ordinary matter in the universe is contained within the stars. If DM is regular matter, then the number of invisible, burnt out stars necessary to compensate for DM would mean that the number of stars in the Milky Way might be so great as to conflict with the age of the universe; with the galaxy being older than the universe. Also, if there were THAT many burnt out stars, then we could observe their gravitational effects upon their neighbors and chart their positions much more easily than is done today. Continuing, we can use a phenomena called “Einstein lenses” to measure the number of MACHOs in the universe (dead stars, dust clouds, etc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts