Gravitons, Dark Matter, and stars, OH my!

[anhourtofall]

An origin of Dark matter. Here's the basic idea. When a star goes nova atoms and the things that make them up, Quarks I beleive, are "destoyed". Meaning they break down to smaller parts. Much in the way an atom is destoyed in a nuclear explosion. <br /><br />What results is Dark matter. This matter is almost a mist, and is very hard to detect because it is so small. Eventually the mist comes together to form back into atoms.<br /><br />Would not this explanation explain the problem where objects are spinning at the same speed regardless of thier radius. Much like the EM field. Inside a sphere of EM there seems to be the same charge everywhere inside the field. If the gravity is the same everywhere in a field everything inside shoudl be revloving at the same speed since speed is a result of the gravity forces between teh revolving object and the center of the sphere.<br /><br />Tell me what you think. It's just a crazy idea I've been floating around.

 

[weeman]

Dark matter is a very mysterious thing. If you think about it, anything that is not a bright star, galaxy, or nebula is essentially dark matter. You want to see dark matter? Look at your hand, look at yourself, look at the keyboard in front of you!! These can all be classified as dark matter, because if we were trying to view these objects from thousands or even millions of lightyears away, we simply could not see them.<br /><br />Aside from that, it may be possible for supernova to create this so-called dark matter. However, it seems that there would have to be an additional source that creates dark matter. Novae are rare in the universe, and dark matter is being discovered everywhere.<br /><br />So to answer this, we might have to look further back in time, close to the beginning of the universe. Is it possible that the majority of the dark matter still exists from the earliest stars and galaxies? Some scientists believe that the supermassive blackholes that exist at the centers of galaxies, were created from the earliest stars in the universe. These stars were massive, and they lived very very short lives, dying off in cataclysmic explosions.<br /><br />So, these stars might be another source to your theory. This might also be why we see such large amounts of dark matter collected around galaxies. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[anhourtofall]

From what I heard dark matter has never actually been found. Isn't that what the big discussion is. And from what I've seen on documentaries and such they accounted for all of the possible stuff that we just might not be able to see. Such as all of the things that are not producing light, ie planets, asteroids and such. They also said that even with a very liberal POV on it this could only account for about 10% of the dark amtter that we can not see.<br /><br />As for novas being quite rare. I find that hard to beleive, don't all stars go nova at some point? What you're saying to me sounds likg saying that death is very rare now-a-days for humans.<br /><br />

 

[docm]

2 types of 'novae';<br /><br /><b>Nova:</b> thermonuclear explosion on the surface of a white dwarf. 20 to 60 per year in the Milky Way.<br /><br /><b>Supernova:</b> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova about 300 to 400 supernovae are seen each year across the sky (few if any in the Milky Way)<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Quarks I believe, are "destroyed". Meaning they break down to smaller parts. Much in the way an atom is destroyed in a nuclear explosion.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Not likely since quarks are a fundamental particle whose behavior is well known. Fundamental particles like quarks are either recombined with bosons (gluons) into a new hadron (proton, neutron, mesons etc.) or converted into energy. The other fundamental particles are the leptons; electron, muon and tau + their antiparticles. <br /><br />One thing you need to understand is that 'dark matter' doesn't need to be exotic, just unseen by our instruments. Your body is for all practical purposes 'dark matter' to someone in Andromeda. Non-luminous gas clouds the same, and now that neutrinos have been shown to have mass there's a whole lot of those zipping around & adding to the count too.<br /><br />Then there is Tensor-Vector-Scalar gravity (TeVeS), which modifies Newtonian gravity and dispenses with the need for dark matter completely. It does this by varying gravity's strength over large distances, doing away with the galaxy rotation problem, while staying consistent with general relativity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[weeman]

I should have simplified my argument a little more, supernovae are somewhat rare. Even if we spotted 300-400 each year, that is an absurdly small number compared to the estimated number of stars in our observable universe!<br /><br />Dark matter is still just a theory, we call it this because we see the rotations of galaxies orbiting in ways that they shouldn't be, they seem to be defying Kepler's third law:<br /><br />The squares of the periods of the planets are proportional to the cubes of their semimajor axes<br /><br />In other words, planets closest to the center of gravity (our sun) orbit faster than planets that are at greater distances. So this should apply to galaxies as well. Our solar system is about 2/3 of the way out from the Milky Way's galactic center, so according to Keplers law, we should move at a faster rate than stars that are on the very edges of the galaxy. However, astronomers see the outer reaches of galaxies moving at the same speed as inner regions. So their only hypothesis is that there must be some other unseen force that extends far beyond the observable galaxy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

thread should be retitled: <br /><br /><b>Gravitons, Dark Matter, and Leprechauns, OH my!</b><br /><br />all are related.

 

[newtron]

I'd just like to posit a thought that dark energy might be finite, and that eventually gravity may overcome it or it may dwindle to a small enough point so that the universe would indeed begin to contract.<br /><br />| | - Agree<br /><br />| | - Disagree<br /><br />| | I'm unabashedly incorrect.

 

[bonzelite]

i can buy into believing there is non-radiative dust and debris everywhere. but non-detectable, non-radiative, non-traceable, untasteable, massless, odorless, inert, non-existent dark matter? nope. and NASA claims to have incontrovertibly found it? nope. <br /><br /><br />

 

[docm]

Very weakly interacting particles like neutrinos, axions (evidence for them recently found) and others no doubt exist, but not in the quantities presumed by the DM'ers. <br /><br />IMO they're right up there with those who deny recent water flows on Mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

right.