Dark Matter or Dark Force

[TakenItSeriously]

 

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

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 

That’s what I don’t understand.

How can we know that it couldnt be a force that we don’t yet understand?

Or if it were gravity from some kind of undiscovered particle that has the properties of a WIMP, why would the DM gravity only influence the motion of matter that was in a plasma state and not influence the orbits of planets or stars that were too cool to exist in a plasma state?

Edited December 3, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[Vmedvil]

10 hours 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. Nor look under Higg's seesaw under the types 1 to 4 seesaw mechanisms under metastability under MSM nor MSSM

I know they are not Generations (Matter versus Antimatter) which is symmetry across the SNF I and Charge.

But Antimatter does have Generations of matter just like normal matter but with Anti-colors and opposite charges, going generation (I,II,III)(Normal,Mu,Tau)

What I was pointing out is that there is a missing Symmetry mirror across flavour, which the others seem to have, it is non baryonic so it would have no residual SNF, but would will have the fundamental SNF if it exists as chargeless quarks, which it has no interaction with photons so it may very well be that. Don't you think there are 3 levels of DM  as (Hot,Warm,Cold) being the same levels as (Normal,Mu,Tau).

Higher Rest mass goes this way ------>.

<-------- Higher Velocity goes that way.

Something is binding it or it wouldn't be in this shape, gravity is not strong enough to do that shape then Charge is missing because of lack of interaction with photons so that just leaves the fundamental SNF since it is non-baryonic and it seems the less velocity they have the more connected DM is it seems they are resisting something with velocity/Kinetic Energy/Momentum otherwise they would all look exactly the same in large scale shape.

(Hot,Warm,Cold)

So, they would be WIMPs, Cold Dark Matter being the Tau State, but WIMPS must be able to bind via Fundamental SNF, otherwise why are there those Line Groupings, which would be (WNF,SNF I, and Gravity) , but not (Charge or SNF II)

WIMP Wiki

Edited December 3, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Vmedvil]

So, it would go like this Red connected to Anti-red connected to Red connected to anti-red and so on, Then would cycle between Red, Blue, and Green at the same time  its partner WIMP Anti Red, Anti Blue, and Anti Green as neutral Pionlike particles made of Flavoured WIMPs bound by fundamental SNF.

So this would also place DM as generated by Z⁰ bosons, which would bind like mesons.

Neutral Pion in Normal matter, which DM would bind like Neutral Pion form and not triplet.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Strange]

3 hours ago, TakenItSeriously said:

why would the DM gravity only influence the motion of matter that was in a plasma state and not influence the orbits of planets or stars that were too cool to exist in a plasma state?

It does affect all matter: stars, dust, cold hydrogen, ...

[Mordred]

Hot warm and cold DM have significant diifferences in their momentum terms. Hot DM would have the Relativistic equation of state. So would behave as radiation.

Are you referring to the fact we have yet to observe or find any right hand neutrinos predicted by our model ?

If so then I agree that this is one of the DM candidates. A lot of research is being done in this direction

[Vmedvil]

33 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Hot warm and cold DM have significant diifferences in their momentum terms. Hot DM would have the Relativistic equation of state. So would behave as radiation.

Are you referring to the fact we have yet to observe or find any right hand neutrinos predicted by our model ?

If so then I agree that this is one of the DM candidates. A lot of research is being done in this direction

Yes, see I used to think it could be Sterile Neutrinos too but WIMPs just make more physical sense, how does WNF charge things.....? It has never acted like that ever in normal matter unless bound with a charge  like in W+ and W- , when why doesn't DM have effect by photons if that is true, but see when those split it becomes an electron or positron with a neutrino which is neutral, which says the WNF cannot be charged for long without decay along with after that split itself does not charge things. In Electroweak state, yes it can charge but after the decouple of EM and Weak, Weak cannot. W+ and W- are Electroweak, Neutrinos are just weak as the EM splits off into that electron or positron, but the Electroweak is horribly unstable itself.

What is a force that we know is very stable with a ton of energy dumped into it the SNF which makes SNF+WNF a better physical coupling answer for DM.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

Sterile neutrinos is a member of the WIMP family

[Vmedvil]

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Sterile neutrinos is a member of the WIMP family

But Sterile Neutrinos are charged, WIMPs are not necessarily.

The main theoretical characteristics of a WIMP are:

• Interactions only through the weak nuclear force and gravity, or possibly other interactions with cross-sections no higher than the weak scale.
• Large mass compared to standard particles (WIMPs with sub-GeV masses may be considered to be light dark matter).

What I am saying is that last concept is false "or possibly other interactions with cross-sections no higher than the weak scale."

and interacts with SNF.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Mordred]

True Ok we are on the same school of thought and I can see the direction your going. The main connection is how the Higgs interacts with the neutrino family via the seesaw mechanism during the symmetry breaking stages. MSSM obviously adding additional seesaw mechanisms for each Higg's/Higglets.

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

But Sterile Neutrinos are charged, WIMPs are not necessarily.

Neutrinos (sterile or otherwise) are not charged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_neutrino

No form of dark matter can be charged as it doesn't interact via the electromagnetic force.

 

[Vmedvil]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Neutrinos (sterile or otherwise) are not charged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_neutrino

No form of dark matter can be charged as it doesn't interact via the electromagnetic force.

 

Well, but it has Electroweak interaction thus it must have some charge in the Sterile Neutrino model, where WIMPs do not, if it were the Sterile Neutrino case then photons would interact.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Well, but it has Electroweak interaction thus it must have some charge in the Sterile Neutrino model, where WIMPs do not.

"Due to the lack of charge, sterile neutrinos would not interact electromagnetically, weakly, or strongly, "

(From link above)

[Mordred]

WIMP is simply weakly interactive massive particles. All neutrinos fall into this category 

[Vmedvil]

Once, again how could they have electroweak interaction without a charge.

[Mordred]

Flavor charge not electromagnetic charge

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Once, again how could they have electroweak interaction without a charge.

1. They don't.

2. Non-sterile neutrinos have no charge but do have weak interactions. (Remember, the electroweak symmetry was broken about 13 billion years ago)

[Vmedvil]

Okay, it looks better now.

[Mordred]

Glad to help, remember charge types are electromagnetic, flavor and color for the weak and strong in that order 

[TakenItSeriously]

16 hours ago, Strange said:

It does affect all matter: stars, dust, cold hydrogen, ...

If DM exists all around us, why do the planets in our solar system move in orbits that are predicted by visible matter alone?

Also Brown Dwarfs orbit galaxies at speeds far below the flat oribital velocities that hot stars orbit at.

[Strange]

2 hours ago, TakenItSeriously said:

If DM exists all around us, why do the planets in our solar system move in orbits that are predicted by visible matter alone?

Because the density is too low. It is only because the galaxy is large that there is enough dark matter to have an effect.

2 hours ago, TakenItSeriously said:

Brown Dwarfs orbit galaxies at speeds far below the flat oribital velocities that hot stars orbit at

I have not heard that before. Do you have a reference?

[Janus]

9 hours ago, TakenItSeriously said:

If DM exists all around us, why do the planets in our solar system move in orbits that are predicted by visible matter alone?

 

Because the solar system has a high concentration of visible matter in it even compared to the local galactic neighborhood.  The local part of our galaxy has an average density of ~2e-9 kg/ km³.     If we take the total mass of the solar system and average it out into a sphere with a radius equal to Neptune's orbit, its average density works out to being ~5 kg/km³.  Much more tightly packed. The density of dark matter in the vicinity of the Solar system is ~6e-13 kg/km³.  Much less dense than even even the average galactic neighborhood. ( it works out that the expected amount of dark matter within the confines of the solar system is equal to about the mass of a small asteroid.

So if dark matter is so sparse, how can it have such a large effect on the galactic rotation curves?.  It's not confined to the galactic disk like the vast majority of the visible matter is;  it is spread out into a spherical halo in which the visible galaxy is embedded.  To work out how much gravitational effect it would have on a star orbiting a galaxy, you would need to calculate the total mass of DM contained in a sphere with a radius equal to the stars distance from the center of the galaxy.

With our own sun, some 26,400 ly out, and using the average density of DM in the local neighborhood, this work out to 2e10 solar masses, or a sizeable fraction of the galaxy's entire visible matter mass. (the real amount will actually be a bit more, since the dark matter density does increase a bit as you move towards the center of the galaxy.)

So while there would not be not enough dark matter in the solar system to measurably effect the motion of the planets, it would still add up to be more than enough to effect the galaxy as a whole.  

Solar system =  relatively heavy concentration of visible matter in a small region.  

Galaxy as a whole = lower concentration of visible matter, over a larger volume

 DM = even lower concentration of mass, but over even a huger volume.

[TakenItSeriously]

12 hours ago, Strange said:

Because the density is too low. It is only because the galaxy is large that there is enough dark matter to have an effect.

I have not heard that before. Do you have a reference?

I found it in this site’s data hosted Bernard Bligh where he provided sources 

http://altcosmology.com/The-Sun-is-Electrically-Positively-Charged.php 

It was part of his evidence for his hypothesis that the sun has a slightly positive net charge which, given the size of stars, is a large absolute value. He argues that the consequences are that there is no need for extra mass of DM to explain the orbits of Stars in spiral galaxies, based on EM forces, but I wouldn’t want to misquote him so I dont want to go into the details of his paper.

However, he also made a compelling arguement that the velocity profile of stars are not smooth but scattered and using DM to explain the motion would require a smooth curve.

The only model that I can think of that could provide that kind of scattered motion would be something analogous to loop inductance which behaves globally but but can interact locally. The analogy would end up as a near-field/far-field crosstalk effect. Its a very difficult property to easily explain.

Edited December 4, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Citing a site called altcosmology isn't what you want to do in a mainstream discussion. If the brown dwarf source is legit, cite that. But leave the self-identified alternative sources out of it.

 

[TakenItSeriously]

55 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Citing a site called altcosmology isn't what you want to do in a mainstream discussion. If the brown dwarf source is legit, cite that. But leave the self-identified alternative sources out of it.

 

I’m unfamiliar with the methods scientists use to cite sources. 

He gave names and years in parentheses in the body of the paper and gave a list of references but I didnt see any way to link the two.

Can you give me a hint as to what is required?

Also how to access research data if its possible, (I really didnt think it was stored in the public domain)

Edited December 4, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[Vmedvil]

16 minutes ago, TakenItSeriously said:

I’m unfamiliar with the methods scientists use to cite sources. 

He gave names and years in parentheses in the body of the paper and gave a list of references but I didnt see any way to link the two.

Can you give me a hint as to what is required?

Also how to access research data if its possible, (I really didnt think it was stored in the public domain)

Go to a journal, Experiment, or Observation to prove your case, that can be multi-viewed that was under the scientific method.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Vmedvil