Possible explanation of dark matter

[36grit]

I can't be the first person to think of this but here it is anyway. If you took a golf ball sized chunk out of a neutron star, or quazar and threw it into outerspace, it would probably have enough weight to cause a gravitational time dialation strong enough to warp the fabric of space time and cause light to bend around it's gravity well field.

Some of these molecules might be escaping through the jets of energy that form from time to time at the polar regions.

I don't know, what do you think?

[imatfaal]

how does the golf ball sized chunk of matter escape the crushing gravity of a neutron star? even hypotheticals need to explain their origins

[insane_alien]

more to the point, how does that lump of neutron star stay stable?

 

without the massive gravitational field of hte parent star it will quickly explode back to non-degenerate matter by beta decay.

[baric]

I can't be the first person to think of this but here it is anyway. If you took a golf ball sized chunk out of a neutron star, or quazar and threw it into outerspace, it would probably have enough weight to cause a gravitational time dialation strong enough to warp the fabric of space time and cause light to bend around it's gravity well field.

Some of these molecules might be escaping through the jets of energy that form from time to time at the polar regions.

I don't know, what do you think?

 

The radius of a golf ball is about 2 cm, which translates to about 33.5 cubic cm, or 3.35e-5 cubic meters. The density of a neutron star varies, but can be approximated as 5e17 kg per cubic meter.

 

Therefore your hypothetical neutron golf ball would have a mass of 1.67e12 kg, or 1.67 trillion kilograms.

 

Because it is significantly less massive than a full neutron star, its ability to warp space and photons would be much weaker than the star it was ejected from.

 

Also, it's misleading to call something as massive as a million mountains a "molecule". Besides, there is no way something this small could maintain this high density outside of the crushing pressure of the star. It would explode immediately and dramatically from decompression.

 

What do I think? There is no known mechanism for something this massive to be ejected from something as gravitationally strong as a neutron star.

 

Those streams of energy shooting out from the poles of rapidly spinning neutron stars do not come from the star itself, but from infalling matter that is whipped up to high accelerations and funneled out by the star's magnetic field.

Edited October 28, 2011 by baric

[36grit]

So there's no way that dark matter can be a cloud of neutron star dust, Unless some unknown mechanism keeps the material from expanding after an improbable flight away away from the stars gravitational field.

 

Back to the drawing board.

[insane_alien]

no because neutrons are more reactive than dark matter.

 

neutrons can react electromagnetically, weak nuclear forcey, strong nuclear forcey, and gravitationally.

 

dark matter can only interact gravitationally.

[imatfaal]

no because neutrons are more reactive than dark matter.

 

neutrons can react electromagnetically, weak nuclear forcey, strong nuclear forcey, and gravitationally.

 

dark matter can only interact gravitationally.

 

Or possibly through gravity and the weak force - WIMPS

[insane_alien]

yes, this is a possibility too but i think its unlikely.

[timo]

Why so?

[insane_alien]

As I haven't researched it indepth enough to form a properly informed opinion my statement cannot be taken as absolute truth.

 

From what I have read it seems that WIMPS would be putting out a fair bit of radiation from those weak interactions particularly in the early universe which we haven't seen.

 

Now, I'd be quite happy to hear other wise so if you have anything I'll have a read over it.

[timo]

Nothing in particular. I merely remember that in particle physics Neutralino WIMPs were being sold as the most viable candidate for dark matter a few years ago. But this is of course a very biased view on the issue as particle physicists tend to love supersymmetry. I have not had any contact with the topic for several years now, so I am not up to date - hence my question.

[36grit]

Well i just had anther thought. What if two extremely powerful jets were lined up and blasting out of some large galatic black holes at some distance. The extreme velocity of the energy moving towards each other would surley create a time dialation, or field of relativity, strong enought to bend light.

This line of reasoning might predict that galaxies and solar systems are joined togeter by strings of force that are tied together by a velocity time dialation knot.

These rays and dialations determine logical position in the universe.

[scatterbrain]

Dark matter, like 'Darkest Africa' in century old maps, is fascinating.

 

I read about antiphotons recently, and wondered if there could be a class of matter, glowing in the universe, but invisible because its radiation are 'dark' photons which no instrument or eye would pick up. But my question, that an astronomer could answer - would such matter still register mass in our measurements of the mass of the universe.

Edited November 20, 2011 by scatterbrain

[IM Egdall]

Dark matter, like 'Darkest Africa' in century old maps, is fascinating.

 

I read about antiphotons recently, and wondered if there could be a class of matter, glowing in the universe, but invisible because its radiation are 'dark' photons which no instrument or eye would pick up. But my question, that an astronomer could answer - would such matter still register mass in our measurements of the mass of the universe.

 

"Dark" photon and antiphotons are not the same thing. Antiphotons and photons are the same particle. See link:

 

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1153

 

I have no idea what "dark" photons are.

[Widdekind]

Some 'DM' >0 is 'dim stars' & 'dim star remnants', i.e. 'MACHOs', e.g. BDs, WDs, NSs, BHs.

[rabe]

It seems one can get much simpler answers when you start asking in a simpler way. Forget for a moment to think about all the forces and have a look at the unknown primary matter. The first steps when building the world should have been very simple, according to the famous principle of Occam's razor. Have a look at http://www.ars-una.net/thealltheory.htm

[G Anthony]

I can't be the first person to think of this but here it is anyway. If you took a golf ball sized chunk out of a neutron star, or quazar and threw it into outerspace, it would probably have enough weight to cause a gravitational time dialation strong enough to warp the fabric of space time and cause light to bend around it's gravity well field.

Some of these molecules might be escaping through the jets of energy that form from time to time at the polar regions.

I don't know, what do you think?

 

What's this got to do with Dark Matter? Is DM supposed to be due to chunks of neutron stars floating around and inside galaxies and galactic clusters? How do they get there? If a piece of a neutron star is taken out of its context within the star, its gravitational field would still be enormous, but not great enough to keep neutrons bound. It would fly apart into component neutrons, protons and electrons (basically, hydrogen). It would become just another puff of gas. Look:

 

Origins, emergence and eschatology of the Universe: Dark Energy & Dark Matter

Should we mean "the universe" or "the meta-verse" or "the multi-verse"? (Hugh Everett)

 

Presumably, when the universe formed from an ensemble of some sort of "inflaton" point particles (Alan Guth) as a statistically inevitable child of an extremely excited field, possibly the gravitational field itself, its hyperbolic (proportional to 1/r) field began to collapse into a parabolic (1/r2) one. That collapse continues to this day. But, the process is almost done. There cannot be an infinite amount of energy sequestered in the hyperbolic 1/r field that would be available to fuel acceleration of the Hubble expansion rate by such a transformation. Transition to a lower potential energy parabolic field must provide a distinctly limited supply of extra impetus. Surely, after 13.72 billion years, the (1/r) potential energy mainspring has almost run down by now. The remaining (1/r) potential energy is called Dark Energy.

 

It accounts for the "missing mass " or "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" in audits of universe contents and provides a convenient, theoretically rigorous and parsimonious basis for "acceleration". Dark Energy could account for around 80% of the universe's total mass, but audits are not so accurate. Dark Matter accounts for another 15%. Still, The Mainspring may still has enough oomph to last for at least 140 billion years more! The total mass, including Dark Matter, of the universe is enough to "flatten" it while acceleration may stop, but Hubble expansion will not.

 

The hyper-excited gravitational field sprang into existence simply because it could. It came to be in a tremendously excited state because very high excited states are much more probable than lower ones, because of the zero point cut-off. This is just like virtual particles come to exist and be annihilated all the time on the quantum level (this is confirmed by experiment). None of them become universes, though, because there is already one here. It's a sort of a Pauli exclusion principle.

 

There has been some confusion about variable labels. So, let us switch definitions of "r". In the following, r is the rate of acceleration of expansion of the universe (or rotational acceleration around black-hole).

 

If the acceleration of the expansion rate is called a, and its present value is called P, then a = P at any given time, including the present. The simplest equation for the expansion rate's effect on P would be an exponential decay expression, P = h_o e^(-rt), where h_o is an initial value for h, r is the rate of increase in this expansion and t is time.

 

We can get an estimate of a value for h_o from Alan Guth's formulation of the theory of simple inflation. The presentvalues of both the expansion rate, P₁, and acceleration rate, r, is observable.We can set t = 1, for the present value of t. So, we can summarize all relevant observations with this simple equation or the associated exponential expansion equation, R = R_o e^(rt),where R is the putative instantaneous "radius" or scalefactor of the universe.

 

The current value of the expansion rate is H_o, the Hubble "constant", so P₁ = H_o.

 

Back to our original definition of r (not R) as a radius or scale factor:

 

Exponential decay equations exhibit what is called a "dormancy" period or late plateau region. In this part of the discussion, here, "r" refers to distance from a center of rotation. Sorry. I missed this inconsistency in previous posts. I need a nicer symbol for the exponential period, another name for r; maybe Cyrillic backward "R"? Maybe a lower case Cyrillic "r"?

 

Using "r" as a radius or scale factor: the hyperbolic 1/r curve levels off to near zero and continues to subside gently almost linearly for an indefinite time. Plot a graph yourself on the back of an envelope! Use mass M = 1, the smaller mass, m, drops out for acceleration. And, assume G is any self consistent constant like G = 1. This is just for comparison purposes, so it matters not. The equation for orbital acceleration around a galactic center, say, levels off to a constant, even at infinity, for a hyperbolic 1/r black-hole galactic gravitational field potential diagram. (You have just DERIVED modified Newtonian Dynamics or MOND!) You must multiply r by the constant k = 1m (Systeme Internationale) for dimensional purity.

 

NOW, let us MIX the "r" metaphors. The current state of the universe itself may be considered as being in this (1/r) – implying both of the ways we defined "r" - exponential decay late dormancy or plateau period. The conclusion here is that acceleration of expansion may continue for a long time while very slowly decreasing nearer to zero.

 

The black-hole rotational acceleration connection implies that the universe may be rotating very very slowly right now. But, we cannot know. We would have to observe the universe from the outside, from the perspective of the meta-universe, to tell. From the standpoint of general relativity, we simply cannot tell from our perspective here and now.

 

Yet, in other words, even with acknowledged acceleration of the Hubble expansion rate, there does not necessarily have to be a "Big Rip" wherein the fabric of the cosmos is irreparably torn apart as expansion proceeds beyond a certain point.

 

By the way, "M Theory" doesn't exist. M Theory is just an "ideal". Brane Theory is not M Theory. Neither one has ever predicted anything that can be experimentally verified and neither one is falsifiable. Therefore, they cannot qualify as legitimate scientific propositions. Not one single unique result has ever come from either. Furthermore, they are both unnecessary. Shrewd development of general relativity and quantum are slowly causing both to merge. What's the hurry? Let true "M Theory" and "Brane theory" grow organically directly out of quantum and GR. Each step will be independently validated, then. No worry.

 

Origins,emergence and eschatology are fertile fields for philosophers. This is why we scientists are sometimes called "Doctors of Philosophies", Ph.D. Philosophi Doctori. I took Latin for three years and I am still not sure of this. German and Russian too, but this is no help. What happened to my old Latin grammar texts?

 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2011 by G Anthony