Question about Dark Matter

[FlatEarth]

I interviewed Michio Kaku earlier this year (for EnlightenNext magazine) and we got to speaking about dark matter. What struck me most was that he said an entire mountain of dark matter could pass through us right now and we wouldn't even notice it. Its interactions with normal matter are presumably nonexistent except for its gravitational effect, and the gravity of a mountain-sized mass is negligible next to that of the earth.

I'm sure you quoted Dr. Kaku correctly, so my problem is with his example. It makes no sense at all. A mountain of dark matter would indeed have a small gravity well, but having one would mean it would be captured by Earth's gravity. If the property of dark matter allowed it to float freely from Earth, then it would not be bound to any gravity well, and would be unbound to the Milky Way. But this is not what observations indicate. Dark matter remains bound to galaxies, adding the necessary mass to account for the speed at which the outer regions rotate.

Nonetheless, I am a fan of Dr. Kaku.

 

[MeteorWayne]

You actually have it backwards. If current theories are correct, it is the Milky Way that formed and is bound to the mass of the dark matter!

 

[FlatEarth]

Fascinating discussion. What about the acceleration (or even speed) of dark matter - would that impact it's effect on surrounding objects?

Keep in mind that dark matter is theoretical. It has never been proven to exist, and is only a placeholder to account for missing matter.

Dark matter also refers to all unseen matter, including black holes, brown dwarfs, planets, moons, gas, dust, and so on.

The theoretical type of dark matter does not interact with normal matter, regardless of speed. For example, neutrinos travel at near the speed of light, and pass through "solid" matter with no interaction.

 

[FlatEarth]

You actually have it backwards. If current theories are correct, it is the Milky Way that formed and is bound to the mass of the dark matter!

Regardless, they would be bound to each other, right?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Yes, by gravity.

 

[archimedes]

Having thought long and hard about the characteristics of dark matter and dark energy, it seems that there is only one phenomenon that fits all aspects, and that is the remainder of the inflationary stage of our universe. It would explain the continuing and accelerating rate of expansion of the universe, and it would provide the extra energy to drive the various observed actions without necessarily requiring the existence of something so unusual as WIMPS or dark matter, though those might be the form of the inflation. It would also explain the apparent ubiquity of the phenomena. We may not yet have dispensed with our beginnings.

 

[dlham]

Dark Matter, Who Needs It. Scientists invented dark matter to account for the additional mass needed to keep the galaxies from flying apart. Rather then additional matter that cannot be seen or even shown to exist, this article advocates that a body's mass varys with it energy level relative to absolute space, its "space energy level". As a body's space energy level rises its mass increases - this is what we perceive as dark matter. There is not additional unseen dark matter - it only that matter becomes more massive as its energy level relative to absolute space increases.
http://novan.com/dark-matter.htm Don Hamilton

 

[rmoore080]

How do we know that we haven't miscalculated the density of hydrogen atoms in the gulfs between the galaxies and groups? Surely that would provide the necessary mass . . . ?

 

[origin]

Having thought long and hard about the characteristics of dark matter and dark energy, it seems that there is only one phenomenon that fits all aspects, and that is the remainder of the inflationary stage of our universe. It would explain the continuing and accelerating rate of expansion of the universe, and it would provide the extra energy to drive the various observed actions without necessarily requiring the existence of something so unusual as WIMPS or dark matter, though those might be the form of the inflation. It would also explain the apparent ubiquity of the phenomena. We may not yet have dispensed with our beginnings.

Welcome

Theorized dark matter does not have anything to do with the accelerating rate of expansion.

I do not see how the current acceleration in expansion can have anything to do with inflation. Inflaction occured in the very early part of the first second of the uiverse's life and only lasted a fraction of a second. The second point is why is the acceleration just recently occurring and not something that has been seen over the whole life of the universe?

 

[origin]

Dark Matter, Who Needs It. Scientists invented dark matter to account for the additional mass needed to keep the galaxies from flying apart. Rather then additional matter that cannot be seen or even shown to exist, this article advocates that a body's mass varys with it energy level relative to absolute space, its "space energy level". As a body's space energy level rises its mass increases - this is what we perceive as dark matter. There is not additional unseen dark matter - it only that matter becomes more massive as its energy level relative to absolute space increases.
http://novan.com/dark-matter.htm Don Hamilton

Welcome.

So you don't like the 'invention' of dark matter, instead you like the 'invention' of space energy level. Well since we are talking about the effect of gravity I think it makes much more sense to assume that there is some sort of matter that we can not easily detect.

I just read the link and it is basically a bunch of bunk. The author took a partial understanding of special relativity and used it to come up with space energy. Relativistic mass (which is what he seems to be talking about) cannot account for the gravitational behaviour of galaxies. There are other misconceptions in the paper such as the belief that the solar system is moving towards the center of the galaxy.

I would stick to real physics and ignore the pseudo-science stuff.

Edited to add: I just noticed that your initials bear a stricking resemblance to the author. I probably would have worded my reply somewhat if I had noticed that, however my conclusions still stand.

 

[origin]

How do we know that we haven't miscalculated the density of hydrogen atoms in the gulfs between the galaxies and groups? Surely that would provide the necessary mass . . . ?

It is true that a different concentration of intergalactic hydrogen could change the overall mass one way or the other for the universe. However, to account for the motion seen in galaxies the mass must be concentrated in and around the galaxy . One would expect to see a galaxy with the inner stars having many rotations for every rotation of a star farther out in the fringes, similar to what we see in the orbits of the planets around the sun. But instead we see that the outer stars are orbiting at almost the same rate as the inner stars - the most likely culprit is that there is much more mass in the galaxy than we can see. Hence the term dark matter - what this dark matter could be is not known.

 

[LeonW]

Not well educated on these matters, but...

Cannot the mass of a super-massive black hole in the center of a galaxy itself account for the missing matter? What methods do we have to accurately measure the mass of a black hole if light itself cannot escape? It really should have quite a large gravitational force to bind the contents of a galaxy to it.

 

[nohlert@compaqnet.se]

Dark Matter: Do you think the Neutrinos keep some of the secrets behind DM?

Dark energy: To my fantasy this tells that there might be some more "Universes" around us, more far away, ie beyond our 13.7 GYear of expansion since BB.
These other "now unseen" universes would affect our Universe by some gravity pull from "outside", ie like a "vacuum ?

This calls for some kind of "Multiverse"?

/Stig

 

[LeonW]

Dark Matter: Do you think the Neutrinos keep some of the secrets behind DM?

Dark energy: To my fantasy this tells that there might be some more "Universes" around us, more far away, ie beyond our 13.7 GYear of expansion since BB.
These other "now unseen" universes would affect our Universe by some gravity pull from "outside", ie like a "vacuum ?

This calls for some kind of "Multiverse"?

/Stig

Was thinking along the same lines. What kind of technology is available to measure gravitational influence at the outer boundaries of our space time continuum? We obviously cannot detect anything completely outside of our own until it penetrates the outer boundary of our known universe (which hasn't happened as far as I know as there is no known observations of movement against the flow). What happens to our measurement of time as we know it if such a collision occurs? Would we not then have two separate measurements of space time to attempt to comprehend? I suppose we'd be snobs and only comprehend/use our own as we know it now.

 

[HumptyDumptywaspushed]

Space-time, motion, gravity: These are all properties of our Universe. In this sense, I don't think there is an "outside" to the Universe where there are forces that act on it, just as there is no "before" the Big Bang. It would be much more practical to ask if there are properties of the Universe that we do not yet appreciate; at least there would be the opportunity to one day discern them and factor in their effect in the Universe.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Let me guess, this is now linked to the SDC front page :roll:

 

[TheJackel]

Has anyone thought that dark matter isn't matter at all? I have theorized the possibility to the notion of dark matter being similar to the Casimir Effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

This would suggest the possibility that Gravity may actually have an opposite polarity or an uneven polar opposite... Can the unknowns or irregular behaviors of gravity be solved if it were to have a weaker polar opposite?

Further more, can the Void represent Gravity's polar opposite of Push vs Pull/attract? Is our Bubble known as the Universe a bubble of of condensed Gravitational pull being decayed from the out side in and the inside out by it's uneven polar opposite? Can Push represent the majority of what makes up the Void?

Could this theory change the rules to how the Big Bang formed? Gravity collecting into a singularity while trapping its polar opposite until the inner pressure to expand or escape exceeds the force to contract? Hence, gravity can no longer contain the force to expand under pressure due to the unequal and lesser pressure of the void outside the singularity..? Much like a volcano eruption...

Plus I think I have solved the riddle to our existence... We tend to think existence pertains to any given thing or individual thing vs all things and places as a whole... The notion of existence being a Universal set of all sets to where all things are comprised and contained in the Universal set.... I have concluded that existence simply exists because non-existence can not be literally a person place or thing of existence for non-existence states it's self as non-existent...

Thus infinite regress is solved to where 0D (0diminsion) = the base to all existence... A loop to where if you tried to go through 0D you end back to 0D and 1D... This means that a -1D = non-existence or -1D equals impossible...Thus infinite regress and universal set of all sets solved with a loop that defines infinite containment within an infinite container... A universal set of all sets including it's self....

This is where the terms: No, zero, non-existence, nothing, or nothingness are impossibles in terms of actual existence as person, places or things.... And Zero becomes equal to the representation to the base of existence... No = non-existence and impossible... The other terms are thus only descriptive words to describe the following:

Nothing : To describe what is missing that you expect to be there that is likely somewhere else... Nothing can't be an actual thing but a representation of a Thing that is missing....

Example:
We can say nothing is in my cup...However in literal terms that is false... You can not empty your cup of it's existence or the space within the cup... Even if you smash it into pieces or rip all it's atoms apart you can still not empty the cup of existence or the space inside it because the cup it's self is made from the substance of existence it's self.. it is a subset of the Universal set... Even if we rip the cup into all it's separate atoms and disperse them into space the cup never leaves actual existence into a place of non-existence.... It can only break down into the base substance of existence or down to the representation of 0D and 1D...

This means everything can not literally go into non-existence.. They just break down and become something else or apart of something else... "once was is no longer what it once was and is now of something else or somewhere else either in pieces or as a whole"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This means there is no creator because a creator it's self can not represent a Universal set even if it were solipsism.. A mind must have a container regardless if that container is infinite or not.. A mind can not wrap around it's self to contain it's self... Thus all minds are subsets to the universal set of existence it's self...existence,a place of existence, Knowledge, intelligence, identity, self awareness are all separate sets them selves and thus can not be created by a mind that requires those sets in order to exist... Thus you can not pre-exist existence in order to create existence or the substance to your own existence... Hence the contradiction "Only GOD can know how to create Knowledge" Hence, intelligence, identity, or self awareness can not pre-exist the knowledge (information) or base of inquiry to which it must rely on.... Intelligence is the ability to apply knowledge...

In short.. Neither we or a Higher power could every fully quantify the entire sum of our existence or the container to our existence much less obtain the entire sum of existence...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So... Now to the driving point... Is existence a form of energy we can not quantify? Is it ever flowing like the Universal set known as Information that gives everything including it's self representation, currency or value? Is color not information and energy? What exactly is empty space made of? It's a place but to what is it's substance?... It surely is not nothing for it exists.. DOES THIS APPLY TO DARK MATTER?

Thus I think I can define existence...

Existence = anything and everything within existence including it's self. and anywhere and any place of existence without a person, place, or thing of non-existence..... It's is of it's self and comprised of it's self and contains it's self through an infinite loop known as an impossible...

0d and 1D... 1D.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2D.XXXXXXXXXXXXx 3d.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 4D.xxxxxxxxxxxx... Infinite containment in an infinite container...

So the complete sum of our Universe and beyond is actually existence.. Just as we can not quantify every detail of the human species or the planet we live on we can make the simple observation and give it an accurate representation as a whole... We neither need to fully quantify it or study it in order to understand what it is as a whole...

 

[origin]

Let me guess, this is now linked to the SDC front page :roll:

Jumping Jesus, I haven't seen this much, off the wall, pseudo-science stuff in quite a while.

It is amazing how people think they can become astrophysicist with no training. I wonder if any of these guys ever wander into hospitals and suggest improved techniques to brain surgeons?

 

[TheJackel]

Let me guess, this is now linked to the SDC front page :roll:

Jumping Jesus, I haven't seen this much, off the wall, pseudo-science stuff in quite a while.

It is amazing how people think they can become astrophysicist with no training. I wonder if any of these guys ever wander into hospitals and suggest improved techniques to brain surgeons?

The exchange of ideas regardless if you feel they are "pseudo-science" are a key force in what makes science what it is... All scientific ideas have begun as a form of pseudo-science until such ideas are taken and tested... Even if someone is not in the know on the subject can indirectly provide insight to other testable possibilities... "Hence an Idea was born and a moment of genius changes the world we live in"...

 

[MeteorWayne]

You are right and wrong at the same time.

If "ideas" don't even match current observations, then they are worthless. "Out there" ideas that eventually became accepted by science at least started out matching the observations, even if they were novel interpretations. People that make stuff up without understanding the first bit of what they are talking about or suggesting don't add to the progress of science.

It is indeed then just pseudoscience.

 

[HumptyDumptywaspushed]

"Plus I think I have solved the riddle to our existence... We tend to think existence pertains to any given thing or individual thing vs all things and places as a whole... The notion of existence being a Universal set of all sets to where all things are comprised and contained in the Universal set.... I have concluded that existence simply exists because non-existence can not be literally a person place or thing of existence for non-existence states it's self as non-existent..." TheJackel

I once ate a peyote button and arrived at the same conclusion. Later, Douglas Adams told me that the answer to life, the Universe, and everything was 42! I'm so confused!!! I don't know what to believe anymore...

 

[TheJackel]

"Plus I think I have solved the riddle to our existence... We tend to think existence pertains to any given thing or individual thing vs all things and places as a whole... The notion of existence being a Universal set of all sets to where all things are comprised and contained in the Universal set.... I have concluded that existence simply exists because non-existence can not be literally a person place or thing of existence for non-existence states it's self as non-existent..." TheJackel

I once ate a peyote button and arrived at the same conclusion. Later, Douglas Adams told me that the answer to life, the Universe, and everything was 42! I'm so confused!!! I don't know what to believe anymore...

Life must have existence.. Thus is a subset of existence.. Not very confusing what so ever... So don't worry, at 42 you will realize that all things decay and cycle in existence even if they become something else or apart if something else ...

If a pregnant bear were to eat you is the substance that made you used to assist or form cellular growth in the developing cub? Is there not life after death... Is your energy not used or thus merged with other sources of energy and matter?... The answer to life is to exist.. And to exist is life regardless of if you are self aware or not... In essences there is no such thing as actual inactive matter or energy... You can not place a cup on the table and state that it is still as a literal fact... The earth is moving and the atoms within the cup are always moving... Information is ever flowing and so is existence... What is still only appears to be still.. Life is that of a Universal Set..

 

[TheJackel]

You are right and wrong at the same time.

If "ideas" don't even match current observations, then they are worthless. "Out there" ideas that eventually became accepted by science at least started out matching the observations, even if they were novel interpretations. People that make stuff up without understanding the first bit of what they are talking about or suggesting don't add to the progress of science.

It is indeed then just pseudoscience.

Yes.. but that was kind of the point... Even if something is wrong it can still trigger another idea or have influence to further another idea.. Ever watch the TV show House? So although an entire concept can be wrong something in a concept can trigger another more viable idea... Hence, to listen to those who say nothing of value may still provide something of value... At the very least it triggers a defense which triggers the creation of language to better explain any particular thing of debate...

Hence my whole concept of Gravity with a polar opposite can be completely bogus... But could it lead to something that works during the exploration of the theory.. Can the process to attempt to explore this concept lead to new discoveries or a better understanding of existence and our universe within it?

 

[MeteorWayne]

Holy word salad, Batman!!

 

[TheJackel]

Holy word salad, Batman!!

LOL sorry I got carried away