Dark matter and Dark energy

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Odd that none of the half a dozen references I linked in another post regarding accretion mentioned anything but gravity.

I seriously doubt that is true.

I provided the links. You can see for yourself.

Quote:
And how do you know that the laws of physics for ordinary matter ... say in direct collisions ... even apply to dark matter? Is dark matter perfectly elastic?

That question doesn't even make sense. Is an electron perfectly elastic? Is it inelastic? The term doesn't work for single particles.

But we were just talking about collections of particles colliding. Otherwise, your statement that Shoemaker-Levy would pass through Jupiter without electromagnetic forces is false. Fire a neutron at a neutron and they interact. I don't believe they pass through one another. So if you want to deal with large collections of dark matter particles, then perhaps we should discuss the elasticity of dark matter collisions. Because you don't really know how dark matter behaves when it collides. Otherwise you'd be able to explain Abell 520.

Quote:
How do you know that linear momentum is conserved?

Are you suggesting it isn't?

Any observations of dark matter to PROVE it is in the case of dark matter?
 
Who wouldn't dislike the idea? The more stuff you make up, the harder it is to keep track.

Right - and the less predictive it becomes.

I like to think of it like this: every theory has some parameters. For example, Newton's law of gravity has the gravitational constant G. Those parameters have to be fixed using some of your data. Then you can check if the theory "predicts" (I put that in "" because it doesn't really matter for this if the "prediction" happens before or after the data is collected) the rest of the data. If so, good, if not, the theory is ruled out as it stands, and you can try to modify it - typically by adding something, which means adding more parameters.

But the key point is that the more parameters you have the more data you have to use to fix them, and so the less is left over to test the theory with. Therefore the best theories are the simplest - the ones with the fewest parameters. (Of course, you do have to bear in mind that nature is the way nature is, and sometimes it's just not that simple.)

As for the Abell clusters, the data on them is from ground-based telescopes and not of sufficiently good quality to say much. These guys didn't find any significant anomalies, for example: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0702649. Hubble will take a look at some point, which should help clear it up.
 
Last edited:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23236991/from/id/17399245/ “We know [dark matter] exists by secondary methods,” says Peter Limon, a particle physicist from Fermilab, near Chicago. But “we don't know what it is. It's strange stuff. We know it's not regular matter in the sense of protons and neutrons and things like that.”

Nope. The above rules that out.

No, the above is a broken link.

And now everyone sees why I know the dark matter proponents are having trouble with their theory. After 30 years of searching, this is what they tell us dark matter might be?

I'm not one of the researchers on Dark Matter, so taking my opinion or my lack of knowledge on the subject as an indication of the theory's state is quite unreasonable.

And even IF dark matter was a weird, non-baryonic thing, it's still not only certain that SOMETHING exists that throws off our gravity measurements, but it's certain that we've observed it. How do you explain that ?

And ironic statement in light of the above. Don't you think. :)

Only if what you say is true. You shouldn't assume that it is.

So the hundreds of millions (billions?) of dollars spent the last 30 years looking for dark matter hasn't done much to pin down the answers? So why should we think a few billion more will?

Well, perhaps we should have the same opinion on Cancer research...
 
Odd that none of the half a dozen references I linked in another post regarding accretion mentioned anything but gravity.

Why must the dark matter that is coalescing to form a black hole lose energy in order to form that black hole? Can you provide a link that says this, Ziggurat?

Does the dark matter have to lose angular momentum? If so, how do you know it has angular momentum? Does a collection of dark matter have to be rotating about some point (bearing in mind that most rotation in ordinary matter is originally due to electromagnetic effects which black holes presumably don't experience under current theory)? And besides, black holes can spin. Wouldn't the dark matter just collapse retaining that dark spin?

And how do you know that the laws of physics for ordinary matter ... say in direct collisions ... even apply to dark matter? Is dark matter perfectly elastic? How do you know that linear momentum is conserved? You've already created a particle that can do anything you want ... have any property you need. Why not add one or more more cool features to this gnome?

And if I'm wrong about all that, how do you know there isn't a dark mechanism that causes dark matter to lose dark energy?

In fact, how do YOU explain that Abell 520 observation where astrophysicists enchanted by dark matter claim a whole bunch of dark matter appears to have come together and not flown apart? What made it "stick" together, Ziggurat? :D


BAC,,
What makes stuff stick together in accreation instead of bouncing apart.

Even I have understood that, ignorance is bliss.

Gravitational attraction could lead to a sort of swarming of the alleged particles, but unless something ,akes the, stick they will not concentrate just move around the center of gravity.
 
This is utterly false, as this thread is clearly proving. Distortion of the crisis in astrophysics doesn't strengthen your case, sol. What would strengthen it would be to meet the evidence being presented against mainstream astrophysics head on. You can start by providing us with peer reviewed papers that show the conclusions made in the peer reviewed papers I linked about high redshift objects being associated with low redshift objects are wrong. But then you can't, can you. There don't seem to be any. :D

More specious appeal to emotion. Pages of links have been provided to you where this is discussed.

There are alternate explanations for observation and you just don't like them.
 
"In Abell 520, it appears that the galaxies were unimpeded by the collision, as expected, while a significant amount of dark matter has remained in the middle of the cluster along with the hot gas."
Um, large gravity in the middle does not imply accretion, it implies gravity.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod//ap070820.html "Conventional wisdom holds that dark matter and normal matter are attracted the same gravitationally, and so should be distributed the same in Abell 520. Inspection of the above image, however, shows a surprising a lack of a concentration of visible galaxies along the dark matter. One hypothetical answer is that the discrepancy is caused by the large galaxies undergoing some sort of conventional gravitational slingshots. A more controversial hypothesis holds that the dark matter is colliding with itself in some non-gravitational way that has never been seen before. "

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070825/fob5.asp "The Bullet cluster was a spectacular result, because it beautifully confirmed our assumptions about how dark matter, gas, and galaxies behave, [but] Abell 520 does the complete opposite," comments Julianne Dalcanton of the University of Washington in Seattle. One explanation for the new results is that dark matter is composed of particles that interact through forces other than gravity. However, such particles would cause a variety of other effects that have never been seen, such as making galaxy clusters spherical, notes Katherine Freese of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor."

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12497-cosmic-train-wreck-defies-dark-matter-theories.html "Abell 520 turns out to hold a massive dark core, empty of bright galaxies. Some of the core is made up of hot gas, which the team detected from its emission of X-rays, but most of it has to be something else – presumably the same dark matter that astronomers detect elsewhere in the universe. ... snip ... One possibility is that the galaxies were once in the core, along with the dark matter, but then close encounters between the galaxies threw them out to the cluster's fringes. Unfortunately, the team can't get that to happen in their computer simulations, even if they tailor the initial conditions to encourage these gravitational slingshots. A more intriguing explanation is that when the original clusters collided, their dark matter was stripped out. Astronomers expect that to happen to gas clouds in colliding clusters, but dark matter is supposed to be more slippery, barely interacting with other matter or with itself. "We expect clouds of dark matter to flow right through each other," says team member Arif Babul at the University of Victoria in Canada. ... snip ... Could there be two types of dark matter, the conventional slippery form and another that interacts more strongly? Babul says it is possible, but dislikes the idea of invoking yet another invisible cosmic substance to explain these observations."

I'm sure they'll do it if they have to. :D
 
And even IF dark matter was a weird, non-baryonic thing, it's still not only certain that SOMETHING exists that throws off our gravity measurements, but it's certain that we've observed it. How do you explain that ?

There are no other explanations extant. Incidentally, on the issue of baryonic versus non-baryonic, it is true that all the possibilities for baryonic DM which people have thought of are pretty strongly disfavored. But there may well be something which just hasn't been thought of yet, or it could be that there is more than one kind of DM (most of the constraints assume it's all in one form), etc.

Well, perhaps we should have the same opinion on Cancer research...

The AIDS vaccine is a good example: no progress in 20 years despite huge amounts of money being thrown at it. But that's just the nature of the game - you never know in advance how things are going to turn out. Every single study I've seen (which is four or five) on the cost-effectiveness of basic research has concluded that it's by far the most efficient use of money for stimulating technological innovation, and that it pays huge dividends down the road. That's true regardless of whether the core scientific issue gets answered - it happens because new technologies get developed along the way.
 
Because in the last few weeks of discussion on various aspects of astrophysics, we haven't once been talking about chemical bonds when discussing electromagnetic forces. :)



What makes you think you know every property of dark matter?



Well that's obvious.



Well I certainly hope so. Maybe next time you'll think twice about so quickly acting like you know everything about a subject that you apparently know nothing about it. :D
Pure Karl Rove all fluff and no substance.
Why should it? What in the Big Bang equations governs it? Was dark matter even mentioned in the formulation of inflation?
was general relativity part of newton's conception of gravity?
Perhaps dark inflation is perfect in eliminating all dark fluxuations. Just admit you don't and can't possibly know what the initial conditions of something you can't even define or see at this point in time.
Just admit you are making unrelated points that have no meaning.

If a particle doesn't interact throug EM, what will make it not pass another particle and stick. Are you saying that nuetrinos bunch up and accrete?
How do you know they can't? Explain Abell 520.



But they didn't in Abell 520.



How do you know that's the only way they radiate? Maybe they radiate dark energy? Maybe that's why Abell 520 stuck. Maybe that's why there is both dark matter and dark energy ... all that radiating going on. :)



Maybe dark energy radiation isn't a weak process.
 
I provided the links. You can see for yourself.



But we were just talking about collections of particles colliding. Otherwise, your statement that Shoemaker-Levy would pass through Jupiter without electromagnetic forces is false. Fire a neutron at a neutron and they interact. I don't believe they pass through one another. So if you want to deal with large collections of dark matter particles, then perhaps we should discuss the elasticity of dark matter collisions. Because you don't really know how dark matter behaves when it collides. Otherwise you'd be able to explain Abell 520.
Oh my doesn't hurt when you hoist yourself on your own petard?

You have shown you don't know how to think in that very foolish question. Maybe it is not a thinking problem, could be you just run your mouth without thinking.

Why does a nuetron not pass through another nuetron?

Stop and think, then answer.
Any observations of dark matter to PROVE it is in the case of dark matter?
 
Last edited:
"In Abell 520, it appears that the galaxies were unimpeded by the collision, as expected, while a significant amount of dark matter has remained in the middle of the cluster along with the hot gas."
[snip] A more controversial hypothesis holds that the dark matter is colliding with itself in some non-gravitational way that has never been seen before. "
So get back to me if the most unlikely suggestions of that article turn out to be true.
 
But we were just talking about collections of particles colliding. Otherwise, your statement that Shoemaker-Levy would pass through Jupiter without electromagnetic forces is false.

Not so.
Edit to to add: in case it isn't clear to you yet, single particles are not elastic or inelastic. Processes are.

Fire a neutron at a neutron and they interact. I don't believe they pass through one another.

Actually, most of the time they would. Neutrons are deeply penetrating. But they actually do interact via electromagnetism, because they have magnetic dipole moments (which is a key feature for their use in neutron scattering measurements), and they also interact via the weak nuclear force. So you really don't know what you're talking about.

Any observations of dark matter to PROVE it is in the case of dark matter?

Occam's razor: until such time as we find evidence that momentum isn't conserved for dark matter, it's simpler to assume it is, just like for everything else. Any reason we should do otherwise? Or are you just playing... well, I'd say "smartass", but "smart" doesn't apply here.
 
Last edited:
Occam's razor: until such time as we find evidence that momentum isn't conserved for dark matter, it's simpler to assume it is, just like for everything else. Any reason we should do otherwise? Or are you just playing... well, I'd say "smartass", but "smart" doesn't apply here.

Conservation of momentum is equivalent to the statement that the laws of physics are translation invariant - that is, that they are the same other there as they are here. Notice that I'm not saying the environment is the same over there as it is here - that's clearly not the case. But if the laws that govern the interactions of particles are the same, momentum is conserved. And we've tested that supposition to incredible accuracy. It is correct, and it's the basis for all modern theories of physics.
 

Back
Top Bottom