Is dark matter all it's cracked up to be?

CalliArcale · Mar 14, 2006

I had a thought in another thread (RobNissen's thread on comets) and thought I'd share it here for further elaboration. bonzelite has postulated that a significant number of comets (but not all of them, perhaps not even a majority) formed through accumulation of material in the dark spaces between star systems. If this were true, it would suggest that there is far more material in those dark spaces (or far more concentrations of it) than we realize. Since I don't know enough on this subject, I want to ask the question: is this plausible? And could the rate of extrasolar comet formation be used to deduce a likely amount of cold dark matter? After all, that's basically what these comets would be forming from. There is material in interstellar space. It is very, very diffuse, to the point of being virtually a vacuum. There's no sign of any material there dense enough to form into an object of more than negligible size. But given the enormous space between stars, could it be possible for slight irregularities in the interstellar medium, if it is much denser in places than we realize, to lead to occasional formation of small bodies? It seems beyond reason to think that it could give birth to stars, but is it reasonable for this tenuous cold dark matter to occasionally give birth to objects of comparatively negligible mass, such as comets? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Saiph · Mar 14, 2006

I figure I'll post this here too. If comets form in such a region, they'll be accounted for already due to the techniques used to quantify the amount of dust there. First note: They won't change the average density to much. Sure, they're clumpy...but the volume under consideration is immense. Second: One way to quantify the amount of stuff there is to measure the absorption (which will tend to miss coments) the other is by judging hte mass present...which will include comets. So it could do something...but not much. Now, if brown dwarfs are more common than thought...we've got something that'll make a dent in the percentage of baryonic dark matter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

CalliArcale · Mar 14, 2006

Well, so much for that idea, then. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> I'm a layperson; I'm glad there are folks like you who study this stuff seriously enough to tell me when I'm offbase. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

cosmictalk · Mar 15, 2006

If your referring to the Bose Einstein Condensation than what your really looking at is a death in motion on a thermo level , however I'm looking at the possibility that when something electro stops having motion it is a form of death and in that death a change in dimension which would have another form of motion. The infinity than only exists in that constant change!

cosmictalk · Mar 15, 2006

so on smaller scale particles wouldn't there be some form of reflection of radiation even if its cooled?

nova_explored · Mar 15, 2006

what is this change in dimension (physical properties of the matter? or in the space it occupies?) what is the upper state level of decay for a hydrogen atom? I remember vaguely the properties of electrons from my physics where spin rotation and electron cloud are infinite variables. they can decay to a certain extent, but the cloud keeps its overall kinetic energy in equilibrium throughout, so its upper limit doesn't allow the electron to ever stop, or die as you put it. i gotta go back and refamiliarize myself with QM again. loose, or free electrons have higher spin ratios and form electric current, and when captured, reduce spin and transfer the energy to the overall kinetic state of the atom electron cloud. but, in accordance with Dirac, electrons are a negative energy and have a counterpart, the positron. is this what you are referring to for a change in dimension? i like where you're going with it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

cosmictalk · Mar 15, 2006

Maxwell is a genius WAY BEFORE HIS TIME! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> What I'm saying is that observed behavior can appear and seem infinite but because of causes and effects be changed. Like for instance : When an atom is hit by a fast-moving particle, like those emitted by radioactive materials, or absorbs light, an electron may be torn off. What is left is an electrically charged atom or "ion," carrying a positive charge, and the process is known as "ionization." the electron is like a subatomic particle that carries a negative electric charge but what about the neutron with no electric charge? this was what I was talking with inner workings and how I do not believe in empty space. it just appears to be empty space because of our inability to see things so small or in other dimensions so different than ours. So when something appears to have an infinite spin or rotation , everything dies over time because of cause and effect (most matter we observe is born dying and must adapt) and we can not call something infinite unless we stick around in infinity to dictate that. that is why I can not see how anyone can decide something is infinite when they can not , its impossible!

buzzzsaw · Mar 16, 2006

Ok, here goes my pet theory. Dark matter and dark energy are attempts to make up for observations that there isn't enough matter found to account for certain observed motions of galaxies. I propose that vacuum energy (zero point energy), and the quantum vacuum are the driving forces that should replace or be considered for gravity theory. My concept for gravity involves strings, and zero point energy. First that strings are the basis for all particles and importantly that the center of strings are devoid of energy. Therefore energy trying to fill the void gathers on the outside of strings (in electronics called skin effect). This energy is attracted to the strings in the same manner as specific frequencies are gathered to an antenna of a specific length. The important point is that the energy of a string is not stable and DOES radiate way. If the energy is not replaced the partical would disappear and leave a naked string. Since this is not possible, the replacement energy is supplied by the pool of zero point energy. When the energy radiates away from the string the string is given a whack and moves the string. When energy is replaced the string again is given a whack and moves the string. This is demonstrated by the quantum oscillator never coming to rest. Now the tricky part, quantum vacuum energy is not linear, it has a gradient. Such that, when energy radiates it radiates away from a mass and when energy is replaced on the string the probablity is that the energy is coming away from the mass. The net result is that the string is pushed toward the mass. The bigger the mass the higher the gradient. Gravity is not a pulling force it is a push from the zero point energy field.

buzzzsaw · Mar 16, 2006

Ok, now part 2, how the universe expands. It is speculated that space is frothy, like a foam at the smallest level. It is further speculated that because of vacuum energy this foam is electrically polarized. I propose that as the vacuum energy increases the force of polarization increases to the point where space grows like a cell dividing. Otherwise as the vacuum energy increases we would boil from this energy. This is a dynamic process in that space sometime can actually shrink a bit before the polarizing force increases or the vacuum energy increases to reach equlibrium again. Space isn't expanding it's growing and has since the big bang. That's how space can expand or appear to expand at or above the speed of light. Space doesn't move it just grows fast, no velocity to deal with at all. No negative energy to contend with either.

Saiph · Mar 16, 2006

well...there's the small problem of you can't extract energy from the "zero point" energy states... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Saiph · Mar 16, 2006

polarizing force? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

buzzzsaw · Mar 16, 2006

polorizing ... yes ... virtual particals are formed and decay quickly. Also energy tries to fill the void in the center of the string... example is demonstrated by the Casimir effect same thing happens to a strings.

Saiph · Mar 16, 2006

and how is that a polarizing force? I'm just not following what you're saying at all. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

cosmictalk · Mar 16, 2006

Trying to figure out exactly what your saying here so I get it right. Your saying that gravity is not a pulling or attraction force but the opposite of and pushes and in so doing creates a polarization effect? Kinda like what is seen in magnatism!

cosmictalk · Mar 16, 2006

You mean your not capable of understanding? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

cosmictalk · Mar 16, 2006

What? Do you need math to understand? Math will not explain the universe! Math can not explain a attration between matters, or a behavior of one. That is why I stay away from math when dealing with quatum ideas, and using it for substantiating my ideas. Math does not work in explaining inner workings of matters.

cosmictalk · Mar 16, 2006

(well...there's the small problem of you can't extract energy from the "zero point" energy states... ) Something about attraction of the opposite and having something to hold that allows something to be created and come about inside (matter/space) comes to mind. Like for instance magnetics attracts and allows for energy to come about in copper. It is very similar to zero point idea because it has no energy.

yevaud · Mar 16, 2006

Could you rephrase that please? As posted, it makes no sense. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

cosmictalk · Mar 17, 2006

sure it does! If you understand anything about magnetic and electric and have read up on it than it should be self explainatory. Your real good at not making sense of more than half the posts here. Maybe you should read up some more instead of having everyone explaining stuff to you down to doing the homework for yah. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

nova_explored · Mar 17, 2006

Thought i would put this here as it pertains to dark matter and dark energy. "Astronomers Detect First Split-Second of the Universe " http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060316_wmap_results.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

yevaud · Mar 17, 2006

It's very interesting that they've been able to determine the percentages of what was created, exists today. Excellent work. And to think we were all excited when COBE confirmed the 2.7 k CMBR and anistropic nature thereof. Science marches on... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

nova_explored · Mar 17, 2006

Yeah, truly amazing. Its inconcievable to imagine the new data that shows the universe was the size of a marble and in less than a second was larger than the known universe. How the, bleep, does that kind of expansion happen? It just makes me wonder about the idea of space having properties. a trillionth of a second! Wow. Forget C. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

yevaud · Mar 17, 2006

Inflation (which is a terribly complicated subject, really). Since space itself expanded, there was no limitation on what we would consider "velocity." No limiting factor. Edit: here's a reasonably good site on Inflation: Sussex University, UK <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

nova_explored · Mar 17, 2006

thanks for the link. It is terribly complicated. terribly....... I just wonder what the next 25 yrs in observation will reveal. It's exciting. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nova_explored · Mar 17, 2006

according to another link, we have 30 billion years left. It is strange to think of the universe, all it has given us, coming to an end, and knowing that end. Even though its 30 freakin billion years away. But with that finite number, it makes you wonder, where will we be? 30 billion years. Will we even be here? will we even have the single most infinitisemal shred of proof of existence? Or will we be a spec, a grain of sand, swept up without the slightest recognition from the currents of the universe, not even missed, not even noticed, in this mammoth thing of the universe? Are we that insignificant? or will we conquer the stars? Is there divinity in us that truly states are place is larger than the universe? That we are not pions, subject to its overbearing weight of size and distance, but godlike, able to out steer past its certain, albeit, very distant end? personal beliefs aside, and putting this aside...aside, I think the next 25 yrs is going to reveal an awnser to our physical limits in our place in this universe (not necessarily, the abilities, but the awnsers.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Is dark matter all it's cracked up to be?

CalliArcale

Guest

Saiph

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

cosmictalk

Guest

cosmictalk

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

cosmictalk

Guest

buzzzsaw

Guest

buzzzsaw

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Saiph

Guest

buzzzsaw

Guest

Saiph

Guest

cosmictalk

Guest

cosmictalk

Guest

cosmictalk

Guest

cosmictalk

Guest

yevaud

Guest

cosmictalk

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

yevaud

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

yevaud

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page