Further proof or disproof for dark matter

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ramparts

Guest
csmyth3025":3kfnmst5 said:
acsinnz":3kfnmst5 said:
...Why not forget about negative matter and look unblinkered for the dark force...
CliveS

I haven't heard the term "negative matter" used before. Are you referring to anti-matter, or something else?

I think he was referring to the fact that dark energy has a repulsive gravitational effect, so he assumed that it needed to have a negative mass. While that would be true in Newtonian gravity - all gravity is attractive between objects of positive mass - that's not actually true in GR, where while gravity is almost always attractive, it's perfectly possible to have repulsive gravity - the cosmological constant being an example. There are plenty of other possible configurations of matter and energy that would lead to that kind of repulsion - the trick is figuring out where they would come from :)
 
R

ramparts

Guest
kk434":1vz4lfzy said:
The latest data says that ordinary matter is 4%, dark matter 23% and dark energy the rest (about 73%).
I understand that Dark matter is some kind of "matter", but why is Dark energy counted in the equation? Dark energy sounds more like a force (against gravity) and no one counts gravity as some kind of "missing mass". Is the LambdaCDM model messed up?

Dark energy isn't a force acting against gravity. It's all gravity. With normal stuff, gravity is attractive, but (see my post above) certain kinds of exotic stuff will make gravity repulsive.

(To be more mathematical: you can think of the cosmological constant in two ways. The first way is as a modification to Einstein's equations of general relativity describing how gravity works, by adding a new term in. But if you move that term to the other side of the equation, then you can just as well interpret it as a type of matter/energy, albeit a very bizarre one. However, that bizarre type of energy corresponds exactly to what we would expect from the quantum vacuum, a prediction from a completely separate branch of physics, which is suggestive.)

The numbers you've quoted are, as Chris mentioned, the density parameters for different contributions to the mass-energy of the universe, using the Greek letter omega. For things like matter and radiation, these measure density in spacetime. Even if you interpret the cosmological constant as an element of gravity, rather than a kind of stuff (which, as I said, are mathematically equivalent, so it's an open question as to whether those two scenarios are different at all), its value fits into the Friedmann equation - which governs how the Universe expands - in a similar way to the matter densities in the same equation, so we can define the "density" of those objects even if before it wasn't obvious how to do so. In the same way we're even able to talk about the density of spacetime curvature, which definitely isn't a "stuff" which you can weigh in the same way as you can matter. But, from the way it tells spacetime how to expand, you can still figure out its density (which, incidentally, is almost certainly zero). Some of the mathematical details are here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_ ... _equations

csmyth3025":1vz4lfzy said:
As I understand it, various lines of evidence indicate that the overall curvature of spacetime in our observable universe is very nearly "flat" (like a sheet of paper) as opposed to being positively curved (like a beach ball) or negatively curved (like a saddle). I don't pretend to know what this really means, except that cosmologists say that in order for the geometry of the universe to be "flat", it must contain a certain critical density of matter/energy. The reason that energy is included is that energy possesses an equivalent mass according to Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2. For the purpose of this calculation the preceding formula would be rearranged in order to give the equivalent mass thus: E/c^2=m.

If you set c=1 you don't have to rearrange anything, the formula's just E=m ;) Much less catchy, but makes things a bit more intuitive. And saves some writing.

Anyway, think of a balloon rising into the air. (This is not the same balloon which we put dots on and blow up as an analogy to the expansion of the Universe. This is a completely different balloon. That balloon was red. This one is purple.) It's rising in the air, but you want to bring it down, so you tie a large rock to it. That sends it down. If you tied a pebble to it, it probably wouldn't have done much, though, the balloon would have kept on its merry way up. But there's some key rock weight that's right in the middle - when you tie it to the balloon it's not quite heavy enough to bring it down, but not too light to let it continue rising.

That's basically what the critical density is. Matter, as you know, curves spacetime. If there's a lot of matter, spacetime gets curved a lot - in fact, so much so that it becomes positively curved, or closed. Closed really just means that the Universe is like a 3-D version of the Earth's surface: if you go far enough one way, you come back the other side.

On the other hand, if there's very little matter, then the Universe can be negatively curved, or open. As Chris said, this is kind of a 3-D version of a saddle, but unlike the positive curvature case, where there's a 2-D analogue, there really is no 2-D equivalent of a negatively curved space that we can draw. The curvy part of a saddle is only a good approximation.

So, like Goldilocks, in order to have curvature right in the middle - corresponding to flat, like a 3-D version of a sheet of paper - the matter density needs to be right in the middle. There's only one density which will work, and that's called the critical density. Omega, the density parameter, is just the ratio of a particular density to the critical density. So, matter (dark and normal) has omega_m = ~0.3, so the density of matter is about 30% of the density needed to make the Universe flat. In fact, it was the observation that there wasn't enough matter to make the Universe flat, combined with the theoretical prediction (from inflation) that the Universe should be flat, that led some people to believe in the cosmological constant before it was detected.

Since subsequent observations have shown that the Universe is, in fact, flat (or very nearly so), this allows us to also say that matter comprises about 30% of the total stuff in the Universe. Luckily, when we discovered dark energy, we found that its density is just about that 70% necessary to close off the Universe. The evidence for dark energy (at least the initial evidence) and the evidence for the Universe being flat are pretty much completely independent, so it's comforting that they both point to the same conclusion to a fairly shocking amount of mathematical accuracy.

(Note: when I said "matter" above, I meant generically all forms of matter, energy, and the like. As far as gravity is concerned, they're the same.)

I don't know how gravity fits in to the whole energy thing when calculating "omega" (the ratio of the observed mass/energy in the universe to the "critical density" of mass/energy).

Chris

See above - for things which don't have an easily defined density, it's their contribution to the Friedmann equation - which comes from their interactions with gravity - which determines their share of omega.
 
C

csmyth3025

Guest
The idea of a cosmological constant is interesting in that, as I understand it, it's an intrinsic property of space and exerts a constant ("outward") force whether there is local mass/energy present or not. Gravity, on the other hand, is a local distortion of spacetime resulting from the presence of mass/energy.

The idea of "negative gravity" is hard for me to fit into my understanding of the Hubble expansion of space since, to my mind, it implies a local (and, perhaps variable) effect on spacetime rather than the large-scale uniform expansion of space.

Are the terms "cosmological constant" and "negative gravity" two different concepts, or are they commonly used interchangeably to describe the same thing?

Chris
 
R

ramparts

Guest
The difference between a cosmological constant and negative gravity is that one is a term which makes sense and is used widely in gravitational physics, and the other isn't. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which one's which ;)
 
A

acsinnz

Guest
If we can identify only 0.2 atoms per cubic metre and the maths says 5 atoms is critical density then the maths is incorrect. If there is an electric dark massless force pushing the universe apart of -25G then what we see is what we have got. Seems simple enough to me.
CliveS
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Was that post supposed to make sense? If so, please try again, since it didn't.
 
C

csmyth3025

Guest
acsinnz":11e02bmb said:
If we can identify only 0.2 atoms per cubic metre and the maths says 5 atoms is critical density then the maths is incorrect....what we see is what we have got. Seems simple enough to me.
CliveS

One of the reasons why cosmologists feel that "...what we see is [not] what we have got..." is the so-called "flatness problem". You can find the Wikipedia article on this here (it explains it a lot better than I can):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_problem#Current_value_of_.CE.A9

Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts