Idea for the explanation of dark matter

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

michaelr

Guest
Hello, first post here. I'm a layman to be sure in this area (I'm a construction estimator by trade) but could not help but wonder about an idea I got while watching The Science Channel tonight. The show I was watching was about dark matter. I'm fairly sure you guys can explain to me why I'm wrong so if you don't mind, would you please?<br />Pardon my simplistic and possibly naive explanation. Feel free to me what you exactly what you think, I can take it.<br /><br />Here's my idea - <br /><br />If the mass of the universe is made up of approx. 6% solid matter, could the balance and unseen matter be a product of time? In other words, could there be diminishing residual effects of mass over time. Perhaps mass is relative to time. Maybe it's gravity I'm talking about, I'm not sure.<br /> <br />Perhaps mass diminishes at the speed of light and that allows enough time for the diminishing residual mass of the huge mass that is in our universe to increasingly accumulate. Maybe this could explain why the universe is expanding.<br /><br />So if someone could please tell me why this makes no sense I would be grateful as I could then get the idea out of my head.
 
H

harmonicaman

Guest
<i>"Hello, first post here."</i><br /><br />Welcome aboard!<br /><br /><i>"I'm a construction estimator by trade...</i><br /><br />Wow; somebody with an actual job! That might be a first for SDC... <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br /><i>"If the mass of the universe is made up of approx. 6% solid matter..."</i><br /><br />All the mass ("m") in the universe, (and all the energy ["E"] too, for that matter), was created during the big bang event and does not change<sup>(1.)</sup>. The "m" and "E" is basically <b>solid,</b> static and exists in three spacial dimensions -- length, width, and depth.<br /><br /><i>"... could the balance and unseen matter be a product of time?</i><br /><br />I would argue against this point of view. The temporal dimension of infinitely expanding space and time ("c<sup>2</sup>") cannot co-exist with the solid "m" and "E" in the universe. The "c" <i>does</i> cause the "m" and "E" to interact, but there is no observational evidence that the temporal dimension has any diminishing effect on the spacial dimensions.<br /><br /><i>"Maybe it's gravity I'm talking about..."</i><br /><br />Gravity is merely the manifestation of the temporal dimension being displaced by the solid spacial dimensions. Even here on Earth, where the "m" is mostly open space, we experience the effect of space and time eddying around the static mass and energy. In a black hole, (a place where the "m" and "E" is infinitely compacted), space and time are all together absent and the spacial dimensions rule. Time and space are forced to infinitely curve around this area of the universe.<br /><br /><i>"Perhaps mass is relative to time."</i><br /><br />Hmmm... I think it's more accurate to say that "m" and "c" are relative to the Singularity, which is where our universe is theorized to have originated. Every point in the entire universe shares the same relative perspective of seeing themselves as being the oldest and most central point in the universe. <br /><br />Even though "m
 
D

dragon04

Guest
I have a question. Do traditional estimates of known mass of the universe take into consideration any estimate of "non stellar" mass within star systems?<br /><br />While the Oort Cloud, Kuiper Belt, planets, moons and asteroid belt of our solar system are a fraction of the sun's mass, the number is not so insignificant when relative to tens of billions of galaxies.<br /><br />Does present theory assign an arbitrary amount of additional mass for each star system? <br /><br />Furthermore, regarding relative velocities of receding galaxies that approach c, is the possibility of mass outside our observable abilities considered?<br /><br />I'm trying to not be obtuse, but imagine the stars that we observe that have pumped mass out in concentric spheres over time. Am I wrong in assuming that the initial expulsion of a star's mass was the largest?<br /><br />I'm trying to reconcile the notion that perhaps we can't observe the larger and more ancient mass that was first ejected in the Big Bang.<br /><br />Are there any models that operate under that assumption?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
 
E

enigma10

Guest
The scary notion that a black hole sits at the center of all galaxies could be a factor too. I'm sure there is plenty of ancient mass in those, since there is a theory that they play a pivitol role in the creation of galaxies. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
I believe that non stellar matter was taken into consideration and it was ruled out.<br /><br />Thing is, like with our solar system, the sun is by far and large the bulk of the mass and planets make up just small percentage of the whole which is fairly negligible. There had been estimates made taking into account dust clouds and what not and there is not anywhere near the mass in the non stellar type of matter that dark matter phenomenon says there is or should be. There was search for brown dwarfs (stars that failed to ignite) but they weren't found to be plentifull enough, not by wide margin.<br /><br />That's from fairly reputable astronomers in the field.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>perhaps we can't observe the larger and more ancient mass that was first ejected in the Big Bang. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />its not like like the mass we are looking for is somewhere far away, hidden in some godforsaken corner of universe to escape our attention so far, it should be right here in our galaxy and in every galaxy for that matter.<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

nova_explored

Guest
In Big Bang models, space expanded to the current size of the universe in less than 3 seconds. This explosion of a singularity was basically the creation of our four dimensions and was a direct result of the size of the singularity and in ratio to its mass, which is no more and no less than the mass we still have (as pointed out).<br /><br />that will never change.<br /><br />the trick is to figure out the size of the universe at the time of the BB, this would give us irrefutable evidence of the known mass of the universe and tell us just what is 'missing', if indeed it is.<br /><br />right now we have a good idea of what the universe is composed of and how the mass is distributed. but that is not entirely accurate. we don't know what is happening in the core of galaxies. we don't know for certain if it is a black hole of 'said' magnitude. we don't know if there exists baby blackholes within the galaxies outside the galactic center. <br /><br />unfortunately, spin and brightness of a galaxy tells us little of what is happening at the center.<br /><br />personally, i think super blackholes make sense. they fit well. the chandreskar limit would undoutedly cause galactic centers to heat up and emit radiation across all spectrums to such a high degree in regards to blackholes. but unfortunately this doesn't tell us the extent of their mass.<br /><br />as far as mass diminishing at the speed of light...<br /><br />tricky thing. goes back to the original 3 seconds in BB. Space expanded. everything went with it, and it was pretty isotropic. once the expansion stops, physical properties take over and anything with mass can no longer move at or beyond the speed of light. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
H

harmonicaman

Guest
<i>"...question of a matter/antimatter balance that should exist after the big-bang; a balance which is currently believed to be lacking."</i><br /><br />I have a totally unsupported idea that lots of anti-matter may be tied up in the supermassive black holes at the center's of galaxies.<br /><br />These objects are speculated to be as old as the big bang itself, and depending on when they began existence, they may have started forming well before all the matter and antimatter annihilations were completed during the early universe.<br /><br />The missing antimatter may be forever stuck in supermassive black holes where time can't get to it, and the universe must remain forever out of balance!<br /><br />I've also had the speculative notion that matter - antimatter annihilations may be behind the energetic plumes of debris observed in Quasars, which we see in the early universe; but there are other more plausible explanations for these objects...
 
T

temporalmechanic

Guest
Could it be that the space-time we exist in is actually a false vacuum? A false vacuum would allow space-time itself to contribute to the overall (and excess) mass/energy we observe. I know about the casimere effect, but that's measuring known energy......i.e., electromagnetic.
 
D

dragon04

Guest
<font color="yellow">The scary notion that a black hole sits at the center of all galaxies could be a factor too.</font><br /><br />But even if a supermassive BH has been sucking in matter since every galaxy was formed, it apparently doesn't explain the disparity between what we observe, and the effects that indicate missing mass that needs to be accounted for.<br /><br />If we're to believe current theory and observational data, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.<br /><br />Only one of two phenomena can explain that. Either some force at the origin point of the BB is still not only spewing out mass, but it is doing so with increasing force. Much like if you fill a balloon and then let go of it. <br /><br />Air will vacate at an accelerating rate until the internal pressure of the balloon matches the "outside" atmospheric pressure relative to the properties of the rubber that the balloon is made of. The rubber wants to return to its uninflated state.<br /><br />The other condition would not be one of expulsive exansion, but one of it universe being "pulled apart" either by hyperdimensional gravitational influence, or by extreme mass we can't observe.<br /><br />So is the Universe a rubber balloon working at achieving its "uninflated state", or is it being pulled apart?<br /><br />If anyone had a question about my expertise, it should be obvious by now, that I'm just a hack with questions. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
 
G

gwilym

Guest
I was wondering if the estimate of abundance of dark matter at about 80% was an indicator that it can be associated with the fundamental mode of vibration of strings
 
M

minotast

Guest
Dark Matter could very well be matter less dense than air. Or it could very well be subatomic particles assembled in something that can be recognised like matter, but isn't actually matter because it's components don't add up to the composition of actual matter. <br /><br />Technically if it is matter, it should be made of quarks.
 
G

gwilym

Guest
I dont think this links to what dark matter is, but I know from the theory of strings that 100 pi^2/12 or approx 82.7% is the % of the energy of a vibrating string reserved to the fundamental mode of vibration and dark matter is being estimated at 82.5% ie. quite close to 82.7%. I note the inference of quantum mechanics and see the 82.7 % as a classical figure, none the less it is quite a close correlation. I suppose if one wanted to appear knowledgeable one might go on the geometrical algebra root and say it is a method of treating what might have been considered quantum effects in a classical way, none the less I am sure we all realise that science is trying to tease out more and more hardly discernable properties and it would be unusual if this was a really in your face issue or macroscopic in nature.
 
A

alokmohan

Guest
If there are sufficient brown dwarf we explain dark matter.
 
A

alokmohan

Guest
Ever since their discovery 11 years ago, brown dwarfs have baffled scientists. First it was the question of how to categorize them. These celestial orbs are too massive to be a planet and not massive enough to be a star. Now scientists are investigating astonishing weather patterns on brown dwarfs that could rival Jupiter's Great Red Spot and even Earth's intense hurricanes.<br />Sometimes called "failed stars," brown dwarfs are too small to trigger the fusion of hydrogen that keeps stars like our sun shining for billions of years. Instead, over tens of millions of years brown dwarfs slowly cool and fade. <br /><br />Meanwhile, the weather on these strange objects is some of the wildest in the galaxy. <br /><br />Studying brown dwarfs has proven difficult, however. "These objects are very far away and everything is just a point of light," explained Adam Burgasser of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.<br /><br />To get a better "look" at brown dwarfs, scientists including Burgasser, and Katharina Lodders, a senior research scientist in the Planetary Chemistry Lab at Washington University in St. Louis have relied on infrared-capable telescopes and mathematical models. <br /><br />The atmospheres contain primarily gases, including gaseous iron and silicate. At hotter temperatures — 3,140 degrees Fahrenheit (2,000 degrees Kelvin) — typical of younger brown dwarfs, the iron remains in its gaseous phase. Over time as the glowing body cools, the iron condenses to form iron-rich clouds and droplets of liquid-iron rain.<br /><br />This by itself was unexpected. <br /><br />"We think of clouds as being on planets like Earth or Jupiter so it's kind of weird to think of a cloud on a star," Burgasser said recently. <br /><br />And when it rains it pours: Not only did Burgasser and his team find these metallic clouds, but they also spotted evidence of violent storms. Thermodynamics would predict that as brown dwarfs release heat, they would dim — similar to a cooling ember. But the astr
 
G

gwilym

Guest
I was tending to think of the cosmic microwave background as representative of the origin and seeing the 82.7% figure as justification of an original string property, how one then conjectures events then to proceed and what results will follow in general I would not wish to consider. I did have a cursory glance at the 1/r force and I'm sure we all realise that relativity predictions are dependant on choice of metric and space. My feeling is that the 82.7% is an aggregate figure that has survived through time so I would not think the 1/r and (1/r)^2 argument is particularly relevant and also string theory is not all that well understood.
 
V

vandivx

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>alokmohan:<br />If there are sufficient brown dwarf we explain dark matter.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>but the point is, there cannot be sufficient mass in brown dwarfs, on one hand, the direct observational evidence doesn't indicate there is enough of them by far and there is also evidence from quite another direction, the direction of how much mass (of any kind) can there be for observed abundance of certain elements which would be different if there were more or less mass in universe than what we observe<br /><br />it turns up that there is sufficient amount of mass that we see out there to account for the observed abundance of elements, if more mass were somehow found to account for dark matter, the currently observed element abundance would be grossly off the mark and something would have to yield<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<i><br />To resolve the problem of coincidence and the problem of whether there are "new" "Dark" particles or MOND becomes moot. The distinction is blurred and in a sense both Dark particles and MOND are both simultaneously correct.</i><br /><br />Just got my August Discover magazine today. Interesting article on MOND on pp.35-37. MOND is the leading opposing theory to Dark Matter. It has evolved into a new theory called TeVeS. An acronym for tensor, vector, and scalar which are mathematical terms that describe how matter and energy interact with space and time in general relativity (p.37). It can explain the phenomenon of Gravitational Lensing (p.37). Here's two other links:<br /><br /> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOND<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeVeS <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
isn't saying brown dwarf a bit racist and insulting? geez. we don't need to devolve into online hatemongering. i think i'm going to report this. you could at least, next time, call them jap dwarfs or something less harsh <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />
 
G

gwilym

Guest
I did notice that there is some opinion that the yakawa klein theory has something to offer, well at least it's more understandable than string theory. although a simplistic point it crossed my mind that a 1/r force would give a divergent potential, which doesn't seem a good result. I think it will be interesting to see if refinements for abundance of dark matter converge more on 82.7%.
 
A

alokmohan

Guest
When extrasolar planets we dicovered we knew only few.Now there are 170 odd in number.Same with KBO.We may have patience for more brown dwarfs to come.
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
"Idea for the explanation of dark matter":<br /><br />scientific faux pas.<br /><br />
 
E

enigma10

Guest
Matter that exists in a state that does not reflect or emit any form of known energy signature over long distance. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>When extrasolar planets we dicovered we knew only few.Now there are 170 odd in number.Same with KBO.We may have patience for more brown dwarfs to come.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />you just don't have any perspective on these things and I won't go into supplying it. <br /><br />I am sure more brown dwarfs will be found, that's given thing, but to dissapoint you, it is fairly sure thing that that won't be enough to supplicate the role of dark matter.<br /><br />You are free to maintain your position though, whatever floats your boat.<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY