Serious question about "Dark Matter"

BoJangles · Feb 3, 2009

It pains me to start another dark matter thread, but i fear this post will be lost in the other thread i posted.--- What confuses me about Dark Matter is as follows:-<ul><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;margin-right:0cm">Dark Matter obviously moves through space, as the bullet cluster is a prime example of this.</div></li><li><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-left:0cm;line-height:normal;margin-right:0cm">Dark Matter obviously interacts gravitationally with normal matter, that's how we discovered it (rotation curves).</div></li></ul> Q1) Does Baryonic Matter also interacts gravitationally with dark matter, or is this a one way affair? Q2) If Baryonic matter does interact gravitationally with Dark Matter, why hasn’t Dark Matter formed a disk like everything else in a spiral galaxy?Q3) Why doesn’t Dark Matter collapse into the centre of a galaxy in higher concentrations? That's to say why hasn't it condensed?--- If dark matter was a particle (Baryonic or not) and wasn't gravitationally affected by Baryonic Matter, and its size was 1000 times more massive than the largest atomic radius of any element we know (Cesium (Cs)), it still wouldn't be enough to stop it collapsing into a smaller space given enough time.Additionally given that there's a disk in a spiral galaxy, why hasn't the interaction with the gravity inherent with Baryonic matter caused it to form a disk as well? I.e. Given enough time, any normal particle in the halo couldn't hold such a shape without collapsing, furthermore, even if it was the case that dark matter is in orbit around the galaxy (assuming Baryonic matter does affect it gravitationally), the interaction with the disk alone should help it form a disk.It seems (and I speculate due to lack of understanding) that the only way you could keep dark matter in a halo, is if the dark the matter particle (or what not) has a huge radius many millions of times bigger than any element we know (given its gravitational effects). This may explain why it doesn’t interact with the electromagnetic force and it dosnt form black holes, can it not?Does anyone have thoughts on this, or can show me the errors in my ways? ---If someone answers me in the thread Dark Matter - It is not dark matter ill remove this one.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

origin · Feb 3, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Q1) Does Baryonic Matter also interacts gravitationally with dark matter, or is this a one way affair?</DIV>Since the one of the pieces of evidence for the existence of dark matter is how the spiral arms of galaxies move (there appears to be more matter than can be seen) the answer is yes, the normal matter is interaticting gravitationally with the dark matter.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Q2) If Baryonic matter does interact gravitationally with Dark Matter, why hasn’t Dark Matter formed a disk like everything else in a spiral galaxy?</DIV>You got me there, however globular clusters do not typically lie on the plane of the galaxy, but are distributed in a halo around the galaxy.  The dark matter is also distributed in a halo around the galaxy - hmmmm..Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Q3) Why doesn’t Dark Matter collapse into the centre of a galaxy in higher concentrations? That's to say why hasn't it condense?</DIV>I don't think we know enough about the distribution of dark matter to know if it is at higher concentration near the center of the galaxy - I could be wrong on this though.Not a very informative reply but very interesting questions that have spurred me to do some research.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

BoJangles · Feb 3, 2009

Thanks, I appreciate your reply.I use the terms Baryonic and Dark Matter as 2 labels, I should have just said (in some cases) Dark Matter and Non Dark Matter. I just thought I’d clear that up.Secondly, I assume in some cases that Dark Matter and Non Dark Mater maybe gravitationally exclusive ( make sure i don't confuse you ). I.e. One may attract the other but not vice versa. This I have no idea about, so I worded Q2 to say, does Non Dark Matter attract Dark Matter. I assume this would be hard to figure out by lensing. So I covered both ways in my questions and reasonings ( both exclusive AND mutually gravitationally attractive ).  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

UFmbutler · Feb 3, 2009

I'm not an expert on the topic, but I can't understand how one can effect the other gravitationally without it being mutual.  Even a grain of dust spiraling into a black hole will have a gravitational effect on the blackhole.  Unless dark matter is some exotic thing, I think that since it has mass, which it must, then it must also be governed by the laws of gravity.  However, it's hard to see normal matter's effect on dark matter since we can't see it or track it.  I think the Bullet Cluster is the closest thing we have, but I think your questions won't be able to be definitively answered until we find an effective way of looking at and tracking the stuff. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

BoJangles · Feb 3, 2009

Thanks for your thoughts, and i appreciate your reply. Yes i see your point, indeed it would be hard to imagine them not being mutual, but i couldn't find any information on it. the only way to test would be to simulate both in a similar situation to the bullet cluster and compare the results. Basically, i was just leaving the doors open for the second part (the "even if" component) to help cover all bases in the postulation.I.e. Dark matter is already weird, so i wasn't really canceling out anything in my reasoning.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

derekmcd · Feb 3, 2009

Dark matter does concentrate as far as I know.  Dark matter simply doesn't have the same abilities to shed kenetic energy as regular baryonic matter does through electromagnetism and the strong force.  Dark matter, lacking these two forces, takes much longer to concentrate and clump together.Dark matter may head towards the galactic center, but there is nothing to stop it there.  It will essentially sling shot around and find a suitable orbit.  I have no doubt there is a heavier concentration of dark matter in the galactic center, but I seen no reason it should clump there in significant quantities and the same pace regular baryonic matter does.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

derekmcd · Feb 3, 2009

And the Bullet cluster is a perfect example of this in action... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

BoJangles · Feb 4, 2009

Thanks for your reply.Sooo i understand what your saying about shedding kynetic energy, to a certain degree, let see how i go with the following.Q1) No strong force means its not going to clump the way Bayronic Matter does and wont be slowed down by interactions as fast as Bayronic Matter? Q2) An absence of a Strong Force wouldnt stop pure Dark Matter Black Holes or incredibly dense clumping as with the collapse of a gas cloud or does it?Q3) The Strong Force doesn't aid in Galactic disk formation?Q4) An absence of Electromagnetic Force would manifest it self in our inability to see it?Q5) An absence of Electromagnetic Force on a glactic scale donsnt really aid Galactic disk formation or does it?Q6) If Dark Matter is orbiting the galaxy, technically we should have dark matter falling into the sun or does it fly straight through the sun??Not having a Strong or Electromagnetic Force still doesn't describe to me why a galaxy should form in a disk and Dark matter does not (if time is the only constraint), shouldn't the interaction with it self be conserving angular moment and forming a disk like a galaxy  (through gravitational interaction with it self and baryonic matter). note im pretty sure my terminology is wrong.These questions will pretty well sum things up for me.---Though i try to read as much as i can on these topics, i find a direct question can knock a problem on the head instantly, and focus future lines of research more appropriately   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

Saiph · Feb 4, 2009

On disk formation:  The lack of EM properties in dark matter greatly reduce the strength of their interactions with eachother, and regular matter.  The DM may eventually form a disk...but it'll take a lot longer as the EM force is lacking, and EM is much, much stronger than gravity alone.So with only gravity to affect them (collisions don't do anything either, as thats an EM interaction!) it just takes a very, very, long time for anything to happen such as contracting to the core, or flattening into a disk. <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>

BoJangles · Feb 4, 2009

Thanks Saiph, im just about good with this now,Except i just need ultimate clarification of one more point, so basically when 2 pool balls smash together thats a EM interaction? And if thats the case, dark matter could be flying through us now? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

BoJangles · Feb 4, 2009

Look what i just found :/Dark Matter Disk In Our Galaxy, Supercomputer Simulation Shows.<ul><li>Prior to this work, it was thought that dark matter forms in roughly spherical lumps called ‘halos’, one of which envelopes the Milky Way. But this ‘standard’ theory is based on supercomputer simulations that model the gravitational influence of the dark matter alone. The new work includes the gravitational influence of the stars and gas that also make up our Galaxy.</li><li>Stars and gas are thought to have settled into disks very early on in the life of the Universe and this affected how smaller dark matter halos formed. The team’s results suggest that most lumps of dark matter in our locality merged to form a halo around the Milky Way. But the largest lumps were preferentially dragged towards the galactic disk and were then torn apart, creating a disk of dark matter within the Galaxy.</li></ul> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/10/c9244cd3-0652-448b-ba38-d1a78badb55d.Medium.jpg" alt="" />--- I've been Scooped!!Though im not sure how accepted the research is, its interesting all the same.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

Saiph · Feb 4, 2009

Yep, that's an em interaction...for the most part.  What's really happening in most collisions is the electrons (or protons) EM fields are bunching up against the colliding object's fields, and repulsing eachother.  If the object in question is truly neutral (not just a balanced positive/negative charge ratio) then they can basically pass through anything.  There is a small chance of a collision, if the objects pass so close together to trigger the pauli exclusion principle.. This is why neutrinos can pass through us by the trillions every second...and the entire earth...and the entire sun....without hitting a thing.  Well, except for one or two every few minutes...but that's an insanely low ratio hmm? <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>

michaelmozina · Feb 5, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks for your reply.Sooo i understand what your saying about shedding kynetic energy, to a certain degree, let see how i go with the following.Q1) No strong force means its not going to clump the way Bayronic Matter does and wont be slowed down by interactions as fast as Bayronic Matter? Q2) An absence of a Strong Force wouldnt stop pure Dark Matter Black Holes or incredibly dense clumping as with the collapse of a gas cloud or does it?Q3) The Strong Force doesn't aid in Galactic disk formation?Q4) An absence of Electromagnetic Force would manifest it self in our inability to see it?Q5) An absence of Electromagnetic Force on a glactic scale donsnt really aid Galactic disk formation or does it?Q6) If Dark Matter is orbiting the galaxy, technically we should have dark matter falling into the sun or does it fly straight through the sun??Not having a Strong or Electromagnetic Force still doesn't describe to me why a galaxy should form in a disk and Dark matter does not (if time is the only constraint), shouldn't the interaction with it self be conserving angular moment and forming a disk like a galaxy  (through gravitational interaction with it self and baryonic matter). note im pretty sure my terminology is wrong.These questions will pretty well sum things up for me.---Though i try to read as much as i can on these topics, i find a direct question can knock a problem on the head instantly, and focus future lines of research more appropriately   Posted by BoJangles</DIV>Virtually all of your questions remain technically and logically unanswerable because nobody has found any "non baryonic dark matter" to actually experiment with in a lab.  All the "properties" assigned to "dark matter", including it's "non baryonic" nature, and it's ability to pass through other forms of matter, are simply "assumed". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Feb 5, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Q1) Does Baryonic Matter also interacts gravitationally with dark matter, or is this a one way affair?</DIV>By necessity, it would be a two way affair.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Q2) If Baryonic matter does interact gravitationally with Dark Matter, why hasn’t Dark Matter formed a disk like everything else in a spiral galaxy?</DIV>Good question.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Q3) Why doesn’t Dark Matter collapse into the centre of a galaxy in higher concentrations? That's to say why hasn't it condensed?</DIV>How would we actually know what a central black hole is actually composed of?  It seems unlikely to me that only "normal" matter would end up there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

derekmcd · Feb 5, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Virtually all of your questions remain technically and logically unanswerable because nobody has found any "non baryonic dark matter" to actually experiment with in a lab.  All the "properties" assigned to "dark matter", including it's "non baryonic" nature, and it's ability to pass through other forms of matter, are simply "assumed". Posted by michaelmozina</DIV>Neutrinos are non-baryonic dark matter.  Non-baryonic in that they do not have 3 quarks.  Dark in that they do not have an electric charge and do not interact electromagnetically.  Matter in that they are part of the Lepton family.Neutrinos fit the profile of non-baryonic dark matter.  They don't entirely fit current models, but dark matter they are by definition.  They have been experimented with in a lab and their properties, while not completely understood, are not exactly "assumed" either.You might want to refine your statement a bit... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

michaelmozina · Feb 5, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Neutrinos are non-baryonic dark matter.  Non-baryonic in that they do not have 3 quarks.  Dark in that they do not have an electric charge and do not interact electromagnetically.  Matter in that they are part of the Lepton family.Neutrinos fit the profile of non-baryonic dark matter. </DIV>Ok.  Then again, they are *known* forms of *matter* that come from decay processes of ordinary matter.  There is nothing mysterious about their origin, and they show up in controlled laboratory experiments.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They don't entirely fit current models, but dark matter they are by definition.  They have been experimented with in a lab and their properties, while not completely understood, are not exactly "assumed" either.You might want to refine your statement a bit... Posted by derekmcd</DIV>There is a distinct and obvious difference between a *known* form of matter, and a "hypothetical' one who's "properties" cannot actually be "tested".  Whereas the mathematical modeling of neutrinos *can* be emprically tested and demonstrated to have validity, that is not possible with SUSY brands of "non-baryonic' matter, where the "source" of the item in question is not even identitified.Neutrino physics can be tested via the standard emprical method.   I will grant you that neutrino's are non-baryonic, they are "dark" and you are welcome to use them to explain some amount of  "missing mass' because I can verify that they exist in nature, and I can even identify and isolate a source of them.  That is true of MACHO forms of "dark matter" as well.As it relates to his black hole question, I think the point here is that if "dark matter" actually far more abundant than "ordinary matter", then in all statistical probability, it probably composes most of the mass of a "black hole" in the core of a galaxy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

derekmcd · Feb 5, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok.  Then again, they are *known* forms of *matter* that come from decay processes of ordinary matter.  There is nothing mysterious about their origin, and they show up in controlled laboratory experiments.There is a distinct and obvious difference between a *known* form of matter, and a "hypothetical' one who's "properties" cannot actually be "tested".  Whereas the mathematical modeling of neutrinos *can* be emprically tested and demonstrated to have validity, that is not possible with SUSY brands of "non-baryonic' matter, where the "source" of the item in question is not even identitified.Neutrino physics can be tested via the standard emprical method.   I will grant you that neutrino's are non-baryonic, they are "dark" and you are welcome to use them to explain some amount of  "missing mass' because I can verify that they exist in nature, and I can even identify and isolate a source of them.  That is true of MACHO forms of "dark matter" as well.As it relates to his black hole question, I think the point here is that if "dark matter" actually far more abundant than "ordinary matter", then in all statistical probability, it probably composes most of the mass of a "black hole" in the core of a galaxy. Posted by michaelmozina</DIV>So what's your point?  The only thing I can take away from your statement is that because things like WIMPs, Axion, other various forms of SUSY particles or new types of neutrinos have never been detected in the lab we should stop searching for them.  This just makes no sense and would be detrimental to science if we took this approach.My point is that non-baryonic dark matter, by definition, exists.  The properties of these particles exist.  Follow the crumbs...The door is wide open for other, more viable, explanations.  However, to date, there are none.  Follow the evidence where it leads you.  Despite what you think... the evidence is there and it is quite compelling. What would you have science do?  Sit around and pick their noses waiting for something better that may not exist or follow the available evidence?Again... What's your point? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

derekmcd · Feb 5, 2009

Ya know, Michael... Bojangles was simply asking legitimate questions concerning dark matter.  There's no need for you to come in and inject your personal bias against it by stating that his questions are "illogically unanswerable".We've answered his questions.  Nobody cares if you think it is illogical or not.  If you want to start a thread debating the merits of dark matter, feel free.  However, keep your personal bias out of this one... it isn't welcome and is entirely frustrating. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

michaelmozina · Feb 5, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So what's your point?  The only thing I can take away from your statement is that because things like WIMPs, Axion, other various forms of SUSY particles or new types of neutrinos have never been detected in the lab we should stop searching for them.  This just makes no sense and would be detrimental to science if we took this approach.</DIV>I'm certainly not asking you to stop searching for them.   I'm only asking for evidence that they exist *before* we "assume" they have some affect on distant objects.  Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My point is that non-baryonic dark matter, by definition, exists.</DIV>I agree and I accept that neutrinos exist in nature, they have an emprical effect on nature, and they could in fact be considered a form of "dark matter".   Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The properties of these particles exist.  Follow the crumbs...The door is wide open for other, more viable, explanations.  However, to date, there are none.  Follow the evidence where it leads you.  Despite what you think... the evidence is there and it is quite compelling. What would you have science do?  Sit around and pick their noses waiting for something better that may not exist or follow the available evidence?Again... What's your point? Posted by derekmcd</DIV>The point is that the physical "properties" of items can only be demonstrated in "controlled experiments". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

derekmcd · Feb 5, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm certainly not asking you to stop searching for them.   I'm only asking for evidence that they exist *before* we "assume" they have some affect on distant objects. Posted by michaelmozina</DIV>Well... that's how science works.  You make an observation followed by an assumption to explain the observation.  Then you search for evidence to support your assumption.  It's kinda difficult to search for evidence if you don't make an assumption of what it is you should be focusing your search on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

michaelmozina · Feb 5, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ya know, Michael... Bojangles was simply asking legitimate questions concerning dark matter.  </DIV>I agree.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There's no need for you to come in and inject your personal bias against it by stating that his questions are "illogically unanswerable".</DIV>I have a set of "personal opinions" related to this topic (and every topic), but I have no personal bias against the idea of "dark matter".    While his questions are valid, without emprical testing, they are also difficult if not impossible to actually answer.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We've answered his questions. </DIV>And all I did was answer his question too.   Don't I get to have an opinion?Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nobody cares if you think it is illogical or not.  If you want to start a thread debating the merits of dark matter, feel free.  However, keep your personal bias out of this one... it isn't welcome and is entirely frustrating. Posted by derekmcd</DIV>I don't know why you seem to feel this is a "personal bias" in any way, or why you find my commments "frustrating".    Some  ideas and theories can be emprically demonstrated and some cannot.  It's not personal in any way from my perspective, it is purely an issue of emprical verification, or lack thereof.I can physically verify that "neutrinos" are a "non baryonic" form of matter.  I can verify that they "pass through" ordinary forms of matter, and and I can "predict" how they will weakly interact with some types of materials.  I can explain how they are created, etc.  It is therefore "possible" to "verify" a number of "properties" of this form of "dark matter" based upon emprical experimentation.  That is not possible for a "hypothetical" form of "dark matter".  That's all I was noting Derek. There's no point in getting "frustrated" by a statement of fact.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Feb 5, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well... that's how science works.  You make an observation followed by an assumption to explain the observation.  Then you search for evidence to support your assumption.  It's kinda difficult to search for evidence if you don't make an assumption of what it is you should be focusing your search on. Posted by derekmcd</DIV>There is a difference between "assuming" that some "missing mass" is composed of a known form of matter, like MACHO theory, or neutrino dark matter theories, vs. "assuming" that this missing mass is contained in a new and exotic form of matter (like a hypothetical SUSY particle).  There is an additional burden of proof required in the last case that is not required in the former two cases, specifically because the former two items have *already* been shown to exist in nature, and to have specific and "predictable properties" that have been verified by active experimentation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

MeteorWayne · Feb 5, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is a difference between "assuming" that some "missing mass" is composed of a known form of matter, like MACHO theory, or neutrino dark matter theories, vs. "assuming" that this missing mass is contained in a new and exotic form of matter (like a hypothetical SUSY particle).  There is an additional burden of proof required in the last case that is not required in the former two cases, specifically because the former two items have *already* been shown to exist in nature, and to have specific and "predictable properties" that have been verified by active experimentation. Posted by michaelmozina</DIV> It is all a moot point as of the current time.All dark matter is right now is matter that we can not detect, that we know that exists due to it's gravitational effects.There is no assurence that it is baryonic, non baryayonic, SUSY or Mary Jane. It is unknown except for it's gravitational effects. Anything beyond that as of now is speculation. There are many hypotheses, but that's all they are.When some current experiments detect something, we will know more. And BTW, they not be lab experiments, just experiments. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

Saiph · Feb 9, 2009

I chatted with a friend of mine who has done research in the field.  He says that they know very little as to the why of the pattern of dispersal of dark matter.  Typically the dark matter form a fairly uniform/even oblate sphere.  And he says that, for reasons they haven't fathomed yet, the long axis is perpendicular to the disk (i.e. in line with the polar axis).  Which seems counter intuitive...and is why they're left scratching their heads. In short...the answers to your questions aren't definitively answered.  The collision timescale (due to the lack of EM properties) is certainly part of it, but they don't know all (or even most) of the details. <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>

BoJangles · Feb 11, 2009

Thanks saiph, i appreciate your response, along with others that have gone out if their way to help me understand the problems. Its a fascinating subject, and i just wish i could study under a researcher in the field (among other things).Indeed if what this person is saying is correct, its very counter intuitive.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

Serious question about "Dark Matter"

BoJangles

Guest

origin

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

UFmbutler

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

Saiph

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

Saiph

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Saiph

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page