Dark matter does not exist ?! What do you think ?

[senzakan]

sorry, translated from french by google

I am not a scientist, but I am passionate about science.

I have imagined some things and I would like to submit it to people who know to tell me if I am a little crazy or if it is possible. Sorry I'm not very good at writing texts or explaining my ideas.



I've seen a lot of videos that talk about dark matter, according to them for galaxies to interact as we see it, it would take dark matter to explain things that we observe.



I saw that there were projects out there to try to capture dark matter particles and that it was almost elusive because it was rare, but if there were a lot we would capture them more easily ?!



I thought to myself why not start from the idea that dark matter is not matter, but a kind of grid, like the grid lines on a sheet of paper. Which would act as a support to fix matter and dictate the physical laws of the universe.

Dark matter and dark energy would be one, they would only be the paper of the architect's plan, with its own physical laws. It would give the mass and energy properties to the particles. As if such and such a particle were a red pencil and another a blue pencil with each their characteristics

Perhaps this medium is intangible or energetic, it is a component of the universe that we do not yet know or that is not measurable.

It would be the thing that makes us speak of force of gravity, gravity would not really exist as an independent force but as a result of the laws of this support.

For example a black hole would be a kind of tearing of this support, creating a hole towards the non-universe where everything that falls in it dematerializes due to this non-grid of support.



What do you think, dear reader?

Armand.S

[joigus]

11 minutes ago, senzakan said:

Dark matter and dark energy would be one,

Dark matter gravitates; dark energy anti-gravitates. Scales are hugely different too. Dark matter's attraction is very noticeable at the range of galactic haloes. Dark energy's repulsion is noticeable only at scales much bigger. So I can't see how they could "be one."

The rest doesn't really amount to a scientific proposal. Mass is known to have to do with chirality and helicity, for example, and you haven't adressed that.

[MigL]

So this dark matter 'grid' would be a geometric field that 'fixes' trajectories of test particles.
Sounds an awful lot like the geometric field of space-time 'fixes' trajectories along geodesics; also known as gravity.

But since you want to modify GR to account for the observed galactic rotation curves, are you, in effect, proposing MOND ( Modified Newtonian Dynamics ) gravity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

So this dark matter 'grid' would be a geometric field that 'fixes' trajectories of test particles.
Sounds an awful lot like the geometric field of space-time 'fixes' trajectories along geodesics; also known as gravity.

But since you want to modify GR to account for the observed galactic rotation curves, are you, in effect, proposing MOND ( Modified Newtonian Dynamics ) gravity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics

My thoughts also from the OP's post...only worded much better than I would have,

[Bufofrog]

10 hours ago, senzakan said:

I saw that there were projects out there to try to capture dark matter particles and that it was almost elusive because it was rare, but if there were a lot we would capture them more easily ?!

I think this is a basic misunderstanding.  Dark matter is common not rare.  Dark matter only extremely rarely interacts with normal matter, except gravitationally.  There may be hundreds of millions of dark matter particles passing through your body per second but they just don't interact with the atoms and molecules in your body.

[LaurieAG]

Dark matter and dark energy are most likely non local cosmological phenomena that arise because our current scientific method cannot conceive anything (balancing energy/mass) existing outside of the big bang/CMBR bubble and as a result looks solely for a solution inside that bubble while our local conception of the Milky Way and other galaxies don't have that restriction.

This appears in the difference between the virial overdensity constant, Δc, in the universal ΛCDM model and that typically assumed locally for galaxies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virial_mass#Virial_radius

This definition is not universal, however, as the exact value of Δc depends on the cosmology. In an Einstein–de Sitter model, it is assumed that the density parameter is due to matter only, where Ωm = 1. Compare this to the currently accepted cosmological model for the Universe, ΛCDM model, where Ωm = 0.3 and ΩΛ = 0.7; in this case,

Δc ≈ 100 (at a redshift of zero; the value approaches the Einstein-de Sitter value with increased redshift). Nevertheless, it is typically assumed that Δc = 200 for the purpose of using a common definition, and this is denoted as r200 for the virial radius and M200 for the virial mass.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

I think this is a basic misunderstanding.  Dark matter is common not rare.  Dark matter only extremely rarely interacts with normal matter, except gravitationally.  There may be hundreds of millions of dark matter particles passing through your body per second but they just don't interact with the atoms and molecules in your body.

100 million as compared to Avogadro's number could be considered rare.

All we can currently discern, AFAIK, is the mass of dark matter in a region (lensing, effects on galactic rotation, etc). If we don't know the mass of an individual particle, we can't quantify how many particles there are. Dark matter could be exceedingly common if it ends up having a very small mass. Less common if it has a large mass. (e.g. 1 eV vs 1 GeV would make the numbers different by 10^9)