Are dark matter and dark energy related?

[Strange]

This question was raised in another thread (where it was considered off topic)

Is it possible to be more vague with this moderation note? I assume it is in response to my post. I just used the google to search for "dark+matter -energy" and it was all simply stuff about tv and movies. My understanding is that all descriptions/theories wrt dark matter include dark energy.

Am I missing something? Is dark matter really something that that can be discussed separately from dark energy? Is dark energy really considered off topic?

 

There is no obvious relation between them. To quote from Katie Mack's FAQ:

 

 

As far as we've been able to tell, there doesn't seem to be a connection between dark matter and dark energy, though some theories suggest that they could both be related to the evolution of some third unknown component of the Universe. Given that we don't have any solid evidence for this, though, I'm inclined to think they're completely separate, given that they act totally differently. Dark matter is (as the name suggests) a kind of matter, which means it has gravitational attraction and forms clumps. Dark energy, on the other hand, acts sort of counter to gravitational attraction, in the sense that it makes the Universe expand more quickly, and it seems to be uniform throughout cosmos. So probably they are only related in an accounting sense, in that they are two components of the Universe that we can't see and don't fully understand. Yet.

http://www.astrokatie.com/faq/#DMDE

 

[Airbrush]

All dark matter and dark energy may have in common is how unknowable they seem to be.

[Strange]

All dark matter and dark energy may have in common is how unknowable they seem to be.

 

 

I don't think they seem unknowable, just unknown. A big difference.

[steveupson]

 

There is no obvious relation between them. To quote from Katie Mack's FAQ:

http://www.astrokatie.com/faq/#DMDE

 

 

If it were obvious we'd have nothing to discuss. That link was very helpful. I haven't studied matter, even the "normal" kind, and so I'm very much a novice on that subject. I know that I'll be making a lot of childish mistakes here and there and I hope the other members will correct me when I do. At this point everything that I look at, every post I read, every new report that comes out, seems to confirm what the basic math is saying.

 

We look at the universe as comprising [latex]4\pi[/latex] steradians. We naturally assume, from Euclidean geometry, that all steradians are the same. This is only half true because some funny stuff starts to happen when we move from Euclidean 3space to spacetime. I'm going to try and present an additional model that is very different from the standard view, but is equally relevant mathematically.

 

If we consider a star to be a point in the sky, then when we look at that point what we see has the same weight as what someone who is there sees when they look at us. If we look at a solid angle centered on that star then the magnitude of what we see is the same as the magnitude of what they would see if they looked at the same solid angle centered on our sun. These directions commute to one another.

 

Each point has this reciprocal relationship with every other point. When we add a third star it sees the same solid angle as what we see when we look at it, and it sees the same solid angle as the one the first star sees when they look at them. In Euclidean 3space this is true no matter what sort of triangle the three create, it doesn't matter at all.

 

As as we add time to the picture then everything changes. The three cannot be arranged as a classical equilateral triangle where there isn't any difference in the size of the solid angles that they all see, and there isn't any difference in the distances between them. The change occurs because there has to be at least two different lengths between any two stars that have the same angles as seen from the other one. It's one of those quirks that is born out of relativity. In this model, any reference frame can only contain one point where length commutes, where two points AB=BA. It's very much like the hairy ball thing with trying to comb a sphere. This leads to some unavoidable inequalities (at least I haven't yet found a way mathematically to avoid them.)

 

If we see both stars in the same steradian then the quantity is different than when we see them in a solid angle that is greater than a steradian. I'm not just talking about volumes or solid angles. The actual directional density is different. This only works because time keeps these things properly oriented to one another. It would never work if spacetime didn't include relativity.

If you study the function you'll see that any solid angle that we can interact with will only be [latex]2\pi[/latex] steradians, maximum. We can only see what can see us. These [latex]2\pi[/latex] steradians are also weighted in a specific manner toward a cardinal direction. Every point and particle has this [latex]2\pi[/latex] steradians relationship with every other particle, and they share a common cardinal direction.

Certain things seem to make more sense once you implement this model, while others make less sense. The first thing that must be understood is that in this form, direction is a base quantity so it can't be mixed with other base quantities like length. Our normal tendency is to see the relationship between length and direction in a certain light to which we are accustomed. This model shares nothing in common with the standard geometry that I can see. In this model length doesn't have any particular orientation. The rules for combining things are different.

 

The math can be explained, but there has to be some context first, in order to make sense of it. I should work on this post some more because it's too long and it can be improved on. Some feedback would make that task more focused, though. I'm sorry that it's become another wall of inscrutable text, but I'm unable to think of another way to do this.

 

And yes, this is relevant to dark matter and dark energy. We need to understand that what we're actually looking at certainly isn't Euclidean 3space. At least that isn't the whole picture.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Responses are supposed to be mainstream science. speculation belongs in the speculations forum.

[Airbrush]

 

 

I don't think they seem unknowable, just unknown. A big difference.

 

I used the term unknowable because not much progress has been made in knowing what they are. Or did I miss a discovery about them? What do we know about them (dark matter and dark energy) NOW that we didn't know when the terms were introduced?

Edited December 28, 2016 by Airbrush

[Strange]

 

I used the term unknowable because not much progress has been made in knowing what they are. Or did I miss a discovery about them? What do we know about them (dark matter and dark energy) NOW that we didn't know when the terms were introduced?

 

 

As far as dark matter is concerned, the evidence is now pretty overwhelming that it is a form of matter (although that hasn't stopped people looking at alternatives).

 

But the main point is that "unknowable" implies (to me) that it cannot be known, even in future. And there is no reason to think that is the case.

[Airbrush]

Ok "unknowable" is not the proper word because we don't know what we cannot know.

 

Has anything been discovered that we know about dark matter besides a definition? The term "dark matter" implies it is a form of matter, yet nothing else is known yet, or did I miss a discovery since the term was coined? Such as "WIMPs" which is just another way of saying "a form of matter". Same goes for dark energy. Nothing yet known, just speculation.

 

​"The first to suggest the existence of dark matter (using stellar velocities) was Dutch astronomer Jacobus Kapteyn in 1922..."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation_.28CMB.29

 

​​The term "dark matter" has been around since 1922, yet still not much "known" about it.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Airbrush

[Strange]

Ok "unknowable" is not the proper word because we don't know what we cannot know.

 

Has anything been discovered that we know about dark matter besides a definition? The term "dark matter" implies it is a form of matter, yet nothing else is known yet, or did I miss a discovery since the term was coined?

 

 

More has been learnt about the apparent distribution of dark matter. Initially it was only a problem for galaxy clusters. Then it was found to also be an issue within galaxies. Nicely, the same amount of dark matter with the same properties works in both cases.

 

Analysis of the properties required show that it must be "cold" dark matter (i.e. not moving at relativistic velocities) hence ruling out neutrinos as a possibility.

 

A large number of other types of particles (e.g. some classes of supersymmetry) have also been ruled out by the failure to detect them in various experiments.

 

It has also been found that the same amount of dark matter (with the same properties) is required in simulations of the formation of large scale structures in the universe in order to get results consistent with what we observe.

 

Dark matter is also required to explain features of the cosmic microwave background (CMB).

 

And so on, and so on. So, yes, although we don't yet know what it is, I would say we have learnt a lot in the last 94 years.

[whocares386]

We still try to learn more new undiscovered things about universe but it no longer gives us new answers or expands our unlimited horizon because we have seen significantly advanced ones before..

 

I think we have satisfaction problem.

 

Also there is an article which is called as a ''key issues in science'' it explains us about ''dark matter'' and ''dark energy'', you can read it here:

 

link removed

[Strange]

Also there is an article which is called as a ''key issues in science'' it explains us about ''dark matter'' and ''dark energy'', you can read it here:

 

 

That is a very dull and ignorant article.

Edited February 20, 2017 by Strange

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

whocares386,

 

Please do not use this forum to advertise your blog.

[steveupson]

On 2/20/2017 at 4:22 PM, Strange said:

That is a very dull and ignorant article.

and now for something completely different...

 This is the key identity:

[math]\alpha={\cot}^{-1 }(\cos\upsilon\tan{\sin}^{-1}(\frac{\sin\frac{\lambda}{ 2}}{ \sin\upsilon}))[/math]

We know that, since space is isotropic, the identity must hold true both locally and globally.  This is not an issue in flat Euclidean 3-space.  However, once we include time into the model and are confronted with relativity, some issues arise. How does the identity remain true both locally and globally?

The answer appears to be that [math]\alpha[/math], [math]\upsilon[/math] and [math]\lambda[/math] are not only dimensionless quantities as we tend to think they are, but they are also actual quantities (or scalars, or numbers, or a measurable entity, or however you wish to say it.)  

Because this is the case, the addition of time into the coordinate system can be accomplished by understanding that, when this is done (when time is introduced),  the coordinate system must wrap back on itself.  This is an abstract solution, but it illustrates the problem with having this new identity hold true in the global and local domain.  By this I mean that the equation holds true for both sets of points, those that are adjacent and those that are not.

Once you grasp the significance of this reality it becomes clear that the dark energy doesn't exist in the "model" and that's why we don't see it.  Once energy becomes oriented such that it is 90 degrees to the "model" it disappears because its amplitude goes to zero while its wavelength goes to infinity.  It's a geometric artifact created by the way we choose to make the "model" mathematically.

An alternative model uses time, length and direction as the three dimensions.  We have coined the term "synchronous geometry" to differentiate this model from the standard model.  In this model things flip symmetrically with the way they are represented in the standard model.  In synchronous geometry the length triplet that is used to identify a point or event  is replaced with a direction triplet. The vector quantity that is present in the standard model (direction) becomes the scalar quantity in the synchronous model. 

Following along, the scalar value (length) in the standard model becomes the vector quantity.  In the standard model the direction has no magnitude or scalar quantity or length.  In the synchronous model where things are swapped, the length has no direction (think of the unoriented radius of a sphere), since direction is the scalar quantity in this version of spacetime.

Because this can be done, it becomes clear (or murky) that there should be an additional effect on the phenomenon that we call frame-dragging, which is more clearly another artifact of the way we are choosing to do the math.  Rather than try and explain the math to you (since I don't have the algebra skills to write the expressions that would be necessary to get the point across to you), I can suggest another thought experiment.

The rings of Saturn are orbiting the gas giant and are frame-dragging spacetime around with them.  If we were to look closely at the interface between the plane in which the frame-dragging is represented mathematically, and the adjacent spacetime, we should see one of two things: either the spacetime that the gas giant occupies adjacent to this plane interacts identically with the frame that is being dragged, or, the two opposite sides of the plane interact differently due the effect on spacetime caused by the Sun's gravity.  In other words, the advancing and retreating sides of the frame that is being dragged, relative the the Sun's field, will produce different effects.  Doesn't this mean that the spacetime itself is rotating in the frame?  I think it does mean that, except that I don't have the math skills to show it one way or the other.

In any event, the dark matter question is another effect caused by the same issue with how we do the math.  It isn't a trivial thing to understand this or to explain it to someone.  It is impossible to explain it to anyone who doesn't understand the identity above, or what it means.  My best description of it is to say that directions or angles can be used to construct a coordinate system in a symmetrically identical manner as what is done in the Cartesian system.

I''ve been looking at how we model quanta mathematically and sure looks like the same question arises there as regards to how we are using the standard model of spacetime.  In the synchronous model it is almost trivial to show how energy states transition at the rates at which they occur.  There isn't really a step-function, but rather a hyperbolic function that goes to zero.  Also, once direction is viewed as a quantity it become clear (or murky) that direction has no sign associated with it, which very likely explains spooky action at a distance.  We have time and distance which each have signs associated with them and direction which does not have a sign associated with it.  These are the three quantities that exist in synchronous geometry.

When distance ([latex]l[/latex]ength) and [latex]t[/latex]ime are combined in spacetime the result is bounded by [latex]-c[/latex] and [latex]+c[/latex]:

[latex]-c\leq lt \leq +c[/latex]

When direction ([latex]\tau[/latex]urns) and [latex]t[/latex]ime are combined in spacetime the result is bounded by zero and infinity:

[latex]0\leq \tau t\leq \infty[/latex]

Note that the sign is actually associated with length rather than direction. This has an effect when spacetime is curved.

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by steveupson

[Vmedvil]

From what I understand the most plausible cause of Dark Matter is Sterile neutrinos, There is 3 types of neutrinos being Electron, Muon, and Tau neutrinos, This could correspond to the 3 types of Dark matter being Cold, Warm, and Hot dark matter being the levels along the flavor levels of particles each type being generated from a different density of energy or flavor chosen when the neutrino becomes sterile, just as we see higher energy levels of normal quarks and leptons going into higher flavors with higher energy densities. 

 

Neutrinos are the most likely cause of dark matter due to the lack of interaction with charge as Dark matter has a lack of charge too. Most of Normal matter is in the lowest flavor state just as most of the dark matter is in a cold state, but unlike normal matter there would seem to be a complete lack of interaction with electromagnetism as photons pass directly through dark matter, So the Interaction would be Strong and Weak only or just Weak which makes this a interesting problem in how the energy of this Dark Matter system is being stored stable possibly like a Z boson, which still decay but that is where the list ends, otherwise it must have Strong Interaction as quarks.

Now, this is not mainstream but within the laws by elimination we can say that Dark Matter must be a combination of the Strong Force and Weak Force only in the case of Sterile Neutrinos or Z-boson like interactions, Otherwise they would fall apart since decay does not really hold things together, another possibility is that the Weak Nuclear Force changes how it interacts with matter in the case of Dark Matter in the case of only having weak interaction.  In any case, whatever makes this shape possible. It seems to look as if it is being held together by something maybe the Strong Force who knows, I cannot imagine that all just being held together by the Weak Nuclear Force.

 

still not mainstream but Semi-mainstream, I have clues about the origin and nature of Dark Energy was created during the time when all the forces were still joined, I am sure there are tons of now disappeared interactions that caused that probably only active during the Gravity and Strong-Electroweak since right after the Gravity-Strong-Electroweak  decouple did large amounts of expansion happen during the inflationary epoch, so whatever created that Dark Energy probably now does not exist only allowed during the Strong-Electroweak before its decouple into Strong and Electroweak, possibly the Boson of that period, that is my guess. The universe is accelerating which in a previous post does not necessarily mean a increase in Dark Energy, which is mainstream, all of the Dark Energy that will be generated very likely could have already been generated due to energy conservation laws and a lack of a way to explain its generation currently. It is one of the many causes of the universe's expansion another known fact.

 

The Non mainstream parts are a Medvil guess under logic not scientific method, the rest is mainstream unless labeled otherwise, but we can say with certainty that Dark Energy has nothing to do with Dark Matter besides both being Strange forms of Energy-Mass sharing the name Dark!

 

Debate me your distrust of my methods only make me stronger but seriously little is known about Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

Edited October 16, 2017 by Vmedvil