Dark Matter or Dark Force

[TakenItSeriously]

Can we stop using the name “Dark Matter” for the name of the unknown force that induces the extra motion of stars around a galaxy or induces the paths of galaxies to follow paths of intergalactic tendrils and instead call it by all we know is true in that there must be a Dark Force that induces those properties in the Universe?

 

 

[LaurieAG]

Instead of talking about dark matter in universal matter calculations we could just say that our total calculated matter equals our total visible matter x 2  x Pi.

If you want to be really pedantic you could say that the thing previously known as universal dark matter equals (2 x Pi) x visible universal matter.

 

[TakenItSeriously]

1 minute ago, LaurieAG said:

Instead of talking about dark matter in universal matter calculations we could just say that our total calculated matter equals our total visible matter x 2  x Pi.

If you want to be really pedantic you could say that the thing previously known as universal dark matter equals (2 x Pi) x visible universal matter.

 

it’s not being pandentic to call a force a force and matter matter since they are not equivalents.

Using “Dark Matter” is an unwarranted assumption that creates a bias in peoples minds and causes scientists to look far particles when they should be focusing on unknown forces that may or may not be caused by matter.

[SuperPolymath]

Micro black holes in just all of the baryonic matter & energy could account for all mass in the universe, including that of dark matter. Higgs field demystified.

In teleparallel gravity, they could account for the other three fundamental interactions, or eigen values, as well.

& so much more involving LIGO's detection of gravity waves.

Edited December 1, 2017 by SuperPolymath

[TakenItSeriously]

2 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

Micro black holes in just all of the baryonic matter & energy could account for all mass in the universe, including that of dark matter. Higgs field demystified.

Maybe, but so could a far field gravity loop force such as the type that we know exists in Electromagnetic Fields theory.

[SuperPolymath]

Just now, TakenItSeriously said:

Maybe, but so could a far field gravity loop force such as the type that we know exists in Electromagnetic Fields theory.

Oh you're gonna love how I edited that post before you quoted it 

[TakenItSeriously]

42 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

Micro black holes in just all of the baryonic matter & energy could account for all mass in the universe, including that of dark matter. Higgs field demystified.

In teleparallel gravity, they could account for the other three fundamental interactions, or eigen values, as well.

& so much more involving LIGO's detection of gravity waves.

 

37 minutes ago, SuperPolymath said:

Oh you're gonna love how I edited that post before you quoted it 

I’ve never heard of teleparallel gravity but the name sounds like it could be related. Do you have a link to a good source?

Never mind, I found it in Wikipedia.

Very interesting, thanks!

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[Strange]

2 hours ago, TakenItSeriously said:

Using “Dark Matter” is an unwarranted assumption that creates a bias in peoples minds and causes scientists to look far particles when they should be focusing on unknown forces that may or may not be caused by matter.

As there are dozens of alternative gravity (and other) theories being explored, that doesn't seem to be true. Unfortunately, one reason that there are so many is that none of them work: they just don't fit all the evidence. An unknown form of matter does, which is why it is still the favoured explanation. As Katie Mack puts it, "Dark matter: still the worst explanation. Apart from all the others."

[TakenItSeriously]

6 hours ago, Strange said:

As there are dozens of alternative gravity (and other) theories being explored, that doesn't seem to be true. Unfortunately, one reason that there are so many is that none of them work: they just don't fit all the evidence. An unknown form of matter does, which is why it is still the favoured explanation. As Katie Mack puts it, "Dark matter: still the worst explanation. Apart from all the others."

 

Actually If you modeled gravity and dark matter forces in a loop field that consisted of particles moving along world lines from Big Bang to Black Holes and negative energy returning over parallel dimensions in deterministic reverse time from white Holes to the Big Crunch. Then it should create a consistent model for gravity that radiates in the near field and dark matter that can induce motion of stars or plasma clouds in parallel world lines in the far field loops around their galactic cores or organize the movements of multiple galaxies over distinct intergalactic tendrils of space.

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[Strange]

1 minute ago, TakenItSeriously said:

 

Actually If you modeled gravity and dark matter forces in a loop field that consisted of particles moving along world lines from Big Bang to Black Holes and negative energy returning over parallel dimensions in deterministic reverse time from white Holes to the Big Crunch. Then it should create a consistent model for gravity that radiates in the near field and dark matter that can induce motion in parallel world lines in the far field loops around their galactic cores or organize the movements of multiple galaxies over intergalactic tendrils of space.

 

It has to explain, consistently, the motions of galaxy clusters, the velocity curves of galaxies, gravitational lensing, the Bullet cluster, the patterns in the CMB, large structure formation, and so on.

Until you can show, in mathematical detail, that your ... erm... "model" is able to do that, then you might as well invoke unicorns.

Currently, only dark matter as a form of non-interacting matter is able to meet all the requirements.

[TakenItSeriously]

 

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

It has to explain, consistently, the motions of galaxy clusters, the velocity curves of galaxies, gravitational lensing, the Bullet cluster, the patterns in the CMB, large structure formation, and so on.

Until you can show, in mathematical detail, that your ... erm... "model" is able to do that, then you might as well invoke unicorns.

Currently, only dark matter as a form of non-interacting matter is able to meet all the requirements.

I don't have to as their is a proper analog that already exists and can explain all those things which are the electromagnetic loop fields

Edited December 1, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[Strange]

Just now, TakenItSeriously said:

I don't have to as their is a proper analog that already exists and can explain all those things which are the electromagnetic loop fields

Until you can show, in mathematical detail, that "electromagnetic loop fields" are able to explain all the evidence, then you might as well invoke unicorns.

Currently, only dark matter as a form of non-interacting matter is able to meet all the requirements.

[TakenItSeriously]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Until you can show, in mathematical detail, that "electromagnetic loop fields" are able to explain all the evidence, then you might as well invoke unicorns.

Currently, only dark matter as a form of non-interacting matter is able to meet all the requirements.

Not true. Look up how loop inductance fields in the far field induces motion in neighboring loops of charged particles.

which would be the analog to DM  

While capacitance is the analog to gravity in the near field that radiates attractive forces according to

F = K⋅c₁c₂/r²

which can even divert the path of a light wave.

[Strange]

49 minutes ago, TakenItSeriously said:

Not true. Look up how loop inductance fields in the far field induces motion in neighboring loops of charged particles.

which would be the analog to DM  

While capacitance is the analog to gravity in the near field that radiates attractive forces according to

F = K⋅c₁c₂/r²

which can even divert the path of a light wave.

Can you show that this reproduces the motions of galaxy clusters, the velocity curves of galaxies, gravitational lensing, the Bullet cluster, the patterns in the CMB, large structure formation, and all the other evidence for dark matter? If not, it is a pretty hollow claim.

[Airbrush]

12 hours ago, TakenItSeriously said:

Can we stop using the name “Dark Matter” for the name of the unknown force that induces the extra motion of stars around a galaxy or induces the paths of galaxies to follow paths of intergalactic tendrils and instead call it by all we know is true in that there must be a Dark Force that induces those properties in the Universe?

 

The "unknown force" is gravity.  Stop using the name "Dark Matter"?  Motion of stars around a galaxy is caused by gravity alone.  Galaxies follow paths because of gravity alone.   Superclusters are drifting apart because dark energy is able to overcome gravity.  Yes, there is a dark force, it is called gravity.

Now please try to explain your theory in plain English that a novice as myself will understand.

[swansont]

15 hours ago, SuperPolymath said:

Micro black holes in just all of the baryonic matter & energy could account for all mass in the universe, including that of dark matter. Higgs field demystified.

In teleparallel gravity, they could account for the other three fundamental interactions, or eigen values, as well.

& so much more involving LIGO's detection of gravity waves.

!

Moderator Note

Keep the pet theories out of other people's threads. 

 

6 hours ago, TakenItSeriously said:

 

Actually If you modeled gravity and dark matter forces in a loop field that consisted of particles moving along world lines from Big Bang to Black Holes and negative energy returning over parallel dimensions in deterministic reverse time from white Holes to the Big Crunch. Then it should create a consistent model for gravity that radiates in the near field and dark matter that can induce motion of stars or plasma clouds in parallel world lines in the far field loops around their galactic cores or organize the movements of multiple galaxies over distinct intergalactic tendrils of space.

 

!

Moderator Note

If you want to pursue this, I can move the thread to speculations, and you may present your model. You will be expected to follow the speculations guidelines.

But as long as this is in a mainstream section, stick to mainstream physics

 

[TakenItSeriously]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Keep the pet theories out of other people's threads. 

 

!

Moderator Note

If you want to pursue this, I can move the thread to speculations, and you may present your model. You will be expected to follow the speculations guidelines.

But as long as this is in a mainstream section, stick to mainstream physics

 

Noted. Sorry about that.

Strange‘s arguement against the name change was that all hypothesis based on forces or fields alone have been shown to be logically inconsistent and only discovery of particles could explain the effects of DM.

I only used that hypothesis as an example to refute his claim, ie. it hasnt been proven to be inconsistent as he suggested, its just not been rigorously validated yet which I still hope to do some day. 

However, while I will probably introduce as a new hypothesis in speculations one day, I have no time on my plate to try and defend it right now, so there is no need to move it to speculations at this time.

Sorry again for any confusion I may have created.

Edited December 2, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[Strange]

5 hours ago, TakenItSeriously said:

Strange‘s arguement against the name change was that all hypothesis based on forces or fields alone have been shown to be logically inconsistent and only discovery of particles could explain the effects of DM.

I never said anything of the sort. 

1. My argument against the name change would be that you don't have much chance of changing a name that has been use by millions of people for 80 years (especially not by posting on a science forum). But I never made that argument because it seemed too obvious to be worth saying.

2. It has nothing to do with "logical inconsistency". I'm sure most or all of the alternative gravity (and other) theories are logically coherent. But they don't fit the evidence. And that is what science is about.

3. I didn't say "only discovery of particles could explain the effects of DM". The discovery of particles is irrelevant (although it would be nice). I said that dark matter as some form of matter is currently the best explanation we have for all the evidence.

[Vmedvil]

Honestly, Here is what I think Dark Matter is, as I have said many times. It is The Flavor Mirror (Symmetry) of the Strong Nuclear Force that does not require a charge to make a stable matter system unlike normal matter which requires a charge of some sort being like how Anti-matter particles have the opposite charge, well these have the opposite flavor which does not require a Charge to be stable. All of the other Forces besides this one have a symmetry besides flavour, so removing all the other possibilities it must be across that. 

Generation -I  = Cold Dark Matter, Generation -II = Warm Dark Matter, Generation -III = Hot Dark matter.

Flavour wiki

Here is this in Charged matter

Charged Matter vs Non Charged Dark Matter

Edited December 2, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

No this will require peer review support to be in the mainstream physics section.

Back this up with a peer review paper or I recommend it gets moved to its own thread under Speculation as  a personal model development.

First off quark antiquarks are not the generations. Secondly there is no supportive evidence that the three types of hypothesized DM particles are seperate generation particles. Nor can DM be comprised of quark combinations as that will allow interactions with all 4 forces.

All known mesons, leptons, Diquarks tetraquarks pentaquarks do so. As all quarks do so. This encompasses the baryonic familiy. DM is non baryonic.

Further more quarks belong to the boson family and DM matches fermionic characteristics the generations of the quark family is due to stages of symmetry breaking as the guage bosons. This process does not apply to the fermionic family. If you like I will supply the related formulas.

LCDM strongly supports the cold dark matter as the main candidate from the other two previously hypothesized variants.

Provide supportive peer review studies for the DM generations claim you have made.

Note Supersymmetric particles also do not change the above, so don't waste your time digging there for support. Nor look under Higg's seesaw under the types 1 to 4 seesaw mechanisms under metastability under MSM nor MSSM

Edited December 3, 2017 by Mordred

[TakenItSeriously]

51 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No this will require peer review support to be in the mainstream physics section.

Back this up with a peer review paper or I recommend it gets moved to its own thread under Speculation as  a personal model development.

First off quark antiquarks are not the generations. Secondly there is no supportive evidence that the three types of hypothesized DM particles are seperate generation particles. Nor can DM be comprised of quark combinations as that will allow interactions with all 4 forces.

All known mesons, leptons, Diquarks tetraquarks pentaquarks do so. As all quarks do so. This encompasses the baryonic familiy. DM is non baryonic.

Further more quarks belong to the boson family and DM matches fermionic characteristics the generations of the quark family is due to stages of symmetry breaking as the guage bosons. This process does not apply to the fermionic family. If you like I will supply the related formulas.

LCDM strongly supports the cold dark matter as the main candidate from the other two previously hypothesized variants.

Provide supportive peer review studies for the DM generations claim you have made.

Note Supersymmetric particles also do not change the above, so don't waste your time digging there for support.

Well, you should do what you feel is right.

However, I would like to understand your reasoning. Are you saying that the extra orbital motion of stars around their galactic centers are not induced by some kind of unknown force?

[TakenItSeriously]

Edit to add.

oops, I just read Vmedvl’s reply and I guess you were referring to his post?

Never mind.

[Mordred]

correct

[TakenItSeriously]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

correct

I’m probably partly to blame. Speculation invites speculation I’ll try to be more careful.

[Mordred]

Nothing wrong with your valid opening question. It is a good question to ask. Though it isn't a force but rather an unknown  form of matter 

Edited December 3, 2017 by Mordred