Other Explanations Suffice Dark Matter and Energy?

[Mystery111]

I might be disliked for this post... There may have been many discussions on this subject of what is the reasonable cause for these phenomena in the title, but I can't help think of ''great superfluous amounts of gravitational effects from Dark Matter (a strange class of particles),'' is a big jump to explaining extra gravitational effects.

 

If I had been modelling an extension of the Standard Model, which these theories are hoping to do, I would have actually said it was a mixture or configuration even, of known phenomenon. In the case of Dark Matter atleast, surely the possible explanations could be:

 

1) Black Holes

 

2) Off-Shell Particles (because they exhibit different masses to real particles)

 

3) Motion of Stars and Galaxies that have not been taken a proper measurement of which will pertain to accurate gravitational and curvilinear measurement. In theory, the measurements we have a rough but loose approximation of gravitational influences that we can observe, arguably.

 

4) The early universe has thought to have been dominated by primordial black holes, which will have dissapated long before now, but they will have dominated gravitational effects only a fraction after the radiation era. So gravitational deformation of early universe should be taken into account.

 

5) On top of these, neutrino fields will also play a reasonable part, from my understanding.

 

6) For any other unexplained phenomenon that has not been accounted for or properly measured leaving more room for error

 

 

Surely all of these examples of gravitational influences we have probably all taken into account at some time, could tally up graviational effects that we can't account for, atleast simply by looking at the whole? The fact there is a large gravitational distortion we cannot account for only presents to us that maybe a number of things are at work here. Does anyone else share my contentions on the Dark Matter field as not being simply the reason for all these discrepencies?

 

PS. I was going to say something about dark energy, but I realized I didn't have enough to say against this idea of a negative energy exotic pressure. The only other case if this I know is present within small distortions of the zero point energy field, which actually produces a very small amount of negative energy which arises because as you enclose an area to very small degrees the space inbetween becomes increasingly negative. The space is energy.

[mathematic]

A quantitative analysis (which I believe has been made by physicists) would refute your ideas. What are off-shell particles???

[Mystery111]

Off shell particles are virtual particles which can have larger gravitational effects than a real particle. Besides that, yes, mainstream would disagree, but only because the main idea is dark matter, but then, I thought we would know this since the OP is really all about questioning it.

[Ophiolite]

You seem to be proposing that all of these unaccounted for effects would all generate an error/omission in the same direction. That seems unlikely.

[Mystery111]

You seem to be proposing that all of these unaccounted for effects would all generate an error/omission in the same direction. That seems unlikely.

 

Why? It seems more likely such a large amount of error can be made up in these known phenomenon. I mean, without them all participating, we have revolutionary papers suggesting that maybe black holes alone are responsible. Which is more believable? The one where we have all phenomenon participate to errors large or small, or are we thinking along the lines of a single reason, such as black holes, or dark matter?

 

See where I am coming from?

[DrRocket]

While there appears to be quite a bit of evidence supporting the idea that there exists in the universe a rather large quantity of matter that does not participate in the electromagnetic force, it remains only a working hypothesis. So there is very little to actually refute.

 

There is a pretty clear anomaly involving galactic rotation rates that can be explained by "dark matter". But it can also be explained by modifications to gravitational theory -- MOND cum TeVeS for instance.

 

Dark matter remains basically a name for the unknown solution to a problem. What, if anything, it is remains a mystery, though things like massive black holes have been pretty much eliminated.

 

"Dark energy" is similar. There is good evidence for the accelerating expansion of space. The obvious culprit, vacuum energy, is over-predicted by a factor of about 10^120 by QED calculations. So, while no one has a clue what is going on, it has, in the long tradition of physics, been given a name -- dark energy. You cannot refute it, because there is nothing to refute.

 

This truth unfortunately won't sell books, so you see a lot of hype and distortion in popularizations. "Beats the hell out of me" doesn't make a best seller.

[questionposter]

Why? It seems more likely such a large amount of error can be made up in these known phenomenon. I mean, without them all participating, we have revolutionary papers suggesting that maybe black holes alone are responsible. Which is more believable? The one where we have all phenomenon participate to errors large or small, or are we thinking along the lines of a single reason, such as black holes, or dark matter?

 

See where I am coming from?

 

A large amount of error was already made by assuming galaxies rotated as though there wasn't dark matter and saying there's more visible mass even though there wasn't.

Edited October 29, 2011 by questionposter

[Mystery111]

A large amount of error was already made by assuming galaxies rotated as though there wasn't dark matter and saying there's more visible mass even though there wasn't.

 

By the looks of it, we were off the mark more than what was first proposed. I assume this of course.

[questionposter]

By the looks of it, we were off the mark more than what was first proposed. I assume this of course.

 

Well, we have equations to describe just how much a specific mass will bend light, and when we try and solve for the equation of mass in something like a galaxy when starting with the degree at which less is bent (as well as distance and stuff which is already known), there's more mass than what's visible. There has to be mass we aren't seeing, or you have to disprove relativity.

Edited October 30, 2011 by questionposter

[Mystery111]

So it is easier to believe in a non-EM interacting sea of exotic particles (located over the observable universe) than to believe this ''matter that we aint seeing'' is simply a collection of known phenomena? May I remind that we have only probed a very small part of space with observations. Granted there is a lot we can view in a single picture, but they are shots of a much larger picture. We surely have not been able to make an accurate reading - an approximation at best. Relativity doesn't need to break down.

 

While there appears to be quite a bit of evidence supporting the idea that there exists in the universe a rather large quantity of matter that does not participate in the electromagnetic force, it remains only a working hypothesis. So there is very little to actually refute.

 

There is a pretty clear anomaly involving galactic rotation rates that can be explained by "dark matter". But it can also be explained by modifications to gravitational theory -- MOND cum TeVeS for instance.

 

Dark matter remains basically a name for the unknown solution to a problem. What, if anything, it is remains a mystery, though things like massive black holes have been pretty much eliminated.

 

"Dark energy" is similar. There is good evidence for the accelerating expansion of space. The obvious culprit, vacuum energy, is over-predicted by a factor of about 10^120 by QED calculations. So, while no one has a clue what is going on, it has, in the long tradition of physics, been given a name -- dark energy. You cannot refute it, because there is nothing to refute.

 

This truth unfortunately won't sell books, so you see a lot of hype and distortion in popularizations. "Beats the hell out of me" doesn't make a best seller.

 

 

Ok, so I am refuting something which cannot be refuted. A bit of a paradox I've created.

Edited October 31, 2011 by Mystery111

[Widdekind]

I agree that "we have only probed a very small part of space with observations". For, roughly, the HDF was a 1 week exposure, that detected 3,000 galaxies; and, the HUDF was a 2 week exposure, that detected 10,000 galaxies. Thus, in no sense have "super deep super long super exposures" yet had time to "bottom out". By analogy, our "eyes" have yet to adjust fully to the "darkness" of space.

 

(I was told a memorable story, in high-school history class, of two Iroquois warriors who ransacked a colonial-era house, looking for some white man, who was hiding in the attic. The braves basically wound up staring into the straw-strewn trunk he was hiding in. But, they didn't see him, b/c, in their impatience, they didn't let their eyes adjust (the memorable moral of the story); and, they concluded that the dim shadows didn't hide their man.)