Dark Matter and Dark Energy

[StringJunky]

If scientists confirm their existence to a high level of confidence and can assign specific characteristics to them such that they become mainstream and generally accepted, will their names be changed or will they always be called such?

[timo]

I suspect that if e.g. dark matter turns out to be Neutralinos, then the term "Neutralinos" will at least compete with "dark matter", if not mostly replace it.

Edited June 24, 2012 by timo

[StringJunky]

Thanks. A post in another thread got me wondering if the "Dark" part of the name was just a placeholder name until scientists can get a handle on them experimentally. As you say, it probably is.

[Aethelwulf]

I suspect that if e.g. dark matter turns out to be Neutralinos, then the term "Neutralinos" will at least compete with "dark matter", if not mostly replace it.

 

Yes it would replace it, since the word ''dark'' is to refer to not knowing what the stuff is. If we knew what it was, then there would be no need not to call the matter by its first name.

[David Levy]

I personally do belive that there is no need for dark matter or dark energy.

 

The "dark" came as an estimation solution for some astronom fenomina.

 

Never the less, it is just an estimation.

 

 

[StringJunky]

I personally do belive that there is no need for dark matter or dark energy.

 

The "dark" came as an estimation solution for some astronom fenomina.

 

Never the less, it is just an estimation.

 

There is a need for them or else those models wouldn't have been proposed in the first place. Mainstream science doesn't just dream up "dark stuff" for fun.

[mathematic]

Both dark matter and dark energy have one thing in common, which is why they are called dark. Neither of the can be "seen" by any sort of e-m radiation. The evidence for their existence is gravitational.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

4th Density Earth

You post has been split off to speculations. Please keep in mind that the main board is for discussing fairly mainstream physics. Don't post your own theories as answers to questions on the main board. Thanks

[alpha2cen]

About Dark Matter

1) Does it have it's global shape , for example, a sphere or something?

2) Does it have it's gravity or something?

3) Does it have it's high density area?

4) How about it's the index of refraction about light?

5)Does it have it's Black Hole?

[imatfaal]

About Dark Matter

1) Does it have it's global shape , for example, a sphere or something?

Yes - you could envisage it as lumps connected by filaments

http://www.bostonher...position=recent

http://www.nature.co...evealed-1.10951

 

2) Does it have it's gravity or something?

The only way we know of Dark Matters existence is through its gravitational effect.

 

3) Does it have it's high density area?

These are the lumps that I mentioned above. They are volumes where it seems that dark matter is more closely gathered and volumes where it is rarer.

4) How about it's the index of refraction about light?

Dark matter does not react with any electromagnetic radiation - the light sails straight through.

 

5)Does it have it's Black Hole?

Don't understand this question

[Severian]

Yes it would replace it, since the word ''dark'' is to refer to not knowing what the stuff is. If we knew what it was, then there would be no need not to call the matter by its first name.

 

That is simply not true. Dark matter, for example, is called "Dark" matter simply because it doesn't emit light. It has nothing to do with its unknown nature.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Severian

[StringJunky]

That is simply not true. Dark matter, for example, is called "Dark" matter simply because it doesn't emit light. It has nothing to do with its unknown nature.

 

So, will it always be called "Dark"? This was the essence of my question: whether it was called that as a placeholder name, until more details were known, or for a reason like you just mentioned...it's invisibility using the visible electromagnetic spectrum or indeed all of it.

Edited July 10, 2012 by StringJunky

[alpha2cen]

2) Does it have it's gravity or something?

5)Does it have it's Black Hole?

Don't understand this question

 

Thank you for good answering.

 

2) Do we find it's self-gathering phenomena? Dark Matter - Dark Matter interaction.

 

5)

Do we find any radiation phenomena around Dark Matter?

or

Do we find any light absorption phenomena around Dark Matter?

[PaulS1950]

Dark matter does cause "gravitational lensing" this is how it has been mapped.

Dark energy is a complete unknown - it could be the effect of the photons from the billions of stars in billions of galaxies exerting force (momentum) on objects that are not gravitationally bound. Then again it might be the effect of "anti-gravitational" forces of some new energy.

 

Paul

[alpha2cen]

It is a easy way to find generated DM particles at the LHC or high energy collider. In the past, how difficult to find a nucleus was even in the solid gold! Does DM have so condensed state???

But, if we find a natural DM with other method, the value would be very very high.

Edited July 16, 2012 by alpha2cen

[Matt VW]

I was listening to a discussion on Dark Matter on the radio today and it got me thinking that there must more to it's invisibility than just the interaction with the visible light spectrum. Then this evening I watched a television program about fractals and how everything we see or perceive about us can be generated mathematically by fractals. It then occured to me that maybe we can only perceive that which has a mathematical pattern to it and therefore that which is truely random will be invisible. Maybe "Dark Matter/Energy" is really just "Random" or "Patternless".

[alpha2cen]

Yes - you could envisage it as lumps connected by filaments

http://www.bostonher...position=recent

http://www.nature.co...evealed-1.10951

 

 

Maybe "Dark Matter/Energy" is really just "Random" or "Patternless".

 

 

It seems like oil drops on the water surface.

As if attraction forces between the water molecules repel it from the liquid water.

[StringJunky]

It then occured to me that maybe we can only perceive that which has a mathematical pattern to it and therefore that which is truely random will be invisible. Maybe "Dark Matter/Energy" is really just "Random" or "Patternless".

 

The distribution of matter only appears random up to a certain scale then it starts to take on order and structure...it's probably like this for DM as well:

 

The End of Greatness is an observational scale discovered at roughly 100 Mpc (roughly 300 million lightyears) where the lumpiness seen in the large-scale structure of the universe is homogenized and isotropized as per the Cosmological Principle. The superclusters and filaments seen in smaller surveys are randomized to the extent that the smooth distribution of the universe is visually apparent. It was not until the redshift surveys of the 1990s were completed that this scale could accurately be observed.[36]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos#Large-scale_structure

 

Edited July 17, 2012 by StringJunky

[alpha2cen]

So, will it always be called "Dark"? This was the essence of my question: whether it was called that as a placeholder name, until more details were known, or for a reason like you just mentioned...it's invisibility using the visible electromagnetic spectrum or indeed all of it.

 

We do not know it well. Later we will call it something, related to it's property.

 

How about detecting it by using neutrino beam? We install experimental neutrino beam passing deep under the high energy collider detector, and protect it's pass against the neutrino ray comes from the collider.

If dark particles come form the collider, and interacted with the neutrino beam, we could find existence of Dark Matter. This method is using Dark Matter - neutrino interaction.

Neutrino is more intimate particle to Dark Matter.

 

And do Dark Matter naming.

Edited July 31, 2012 by alpha2cen

[Severian]

What makes you think the neutrino has anything to do with dark matter? It could be, since the sneutrino is a candidate, but it seems rather unlikely.

[alpha2cen]

What makes you think the neutrino has anything to do with dark matter? It could be, since the sneutrino is a candidate, but it seems rather unlikely.

 

We do not know what will be done. But, known source might be more better to search for DM particles. Because, between DM and matter is no interactions.

From our past experience, it seems like better to use more close property particles to search for DM.

 

If there are Dark Matter particles created, which phenomena would occur?

1) Neutrino intensity decrease.

2) Neutrino scattering

3) Neutrino diffraction

4) No interaction

5) Actually a phenomena occurs, but we could not notice it, because it is out of our technical detection range.

6) Others

 

No one knows.

Edited July 31, 2012 by alpha2cen

[Severian]

No DM candidate that has been proposed has "no interaction" with matter. All of them do. But the neutrino itself is incredibly difficult to manipulate, so a very poor choice in using for DM discovery.

[alpha2cen]

No DM candidate that has been proposed has "no interaction" with matter. All of them do. But the neutrino itself is incredibly difficult to manipulate, so a very poor choice in using for DM discovery.

 

We do not know where is the door going into Dark Matter. In the present, neutrino and neutron beta collapse, etc. show us more exact phenomena near faint-light DM area. Neutrino handling is difficult. Till now we do not know how to exactly detect it , how to protect it and how to focuse it. But one of the door to go into the DM field might be neutrino research.

Edited August 2, 2012 by alpha2cen

[EMField]

There is no missing mass and hence no need for Dark Matter or Dark Energy.

 

http://www.space.com...nly-bright.html

 

Not only are the galaxies they can see twice as massive as thought because of the dust gathered around them, but in deep field images one of two explanations are available. Either interstellar dust is blocking us from seeing 70% more edge on galaxies (already half as bright as face on), or the majority of galaxies are face on to us. The second is about as unlikely as is red-shift = speed and distance and plot to the Finger of God plot. A slight majority of face on galaxies should be the average norm in the local galactic clusters. But to assume 70% of them do likewise in a 360 degree sphere around our galaxy is absurd. The interstellar medium (dust and plasma) is obscuring 70% more edge on galaxies because they were already half as bright.

 

Not only can the age of the Universe not be known (as it cannot be seen), the amount of matter within it cannot be known. Therefore, the entire school of thought about "missing mass" is erroneous and false as there cannot be a discrepancy in "size versus matter observed" because 1) size of the Universe is unknown because its boundaries cannot be seen directly or indirectly 2) observed matter and mass cannot be what is actually there in totality because of obscuring dust -not because of there being too little matter in "existence" 3) extrapolation of the Universe's age based upon its size, matter, and "redshifts" from a "Big Bang" cannot be known.

 

Moreover, Hubble "deep field" photographs, at various wavelengths, are not actually seeing the "deep field" implied in the press releases because: 1) the "deep field" stops short of what is actually beyond it due to the impossibility of the instruments being able to see beyond it (if anything, whenever you see --ever again-- the term "Hubble deep field" go ahead and accept that what is being seen is merely the local neighborhood of celestial objects, not the "edge of time" panoramas that NASA and others allege it to be) 2) so-called "at the edge of time" quasars are in actuality embedded, relatively near, close, and associated with "parent galaxies" of lower redshifts (remember, as the light ages its redshift decays to lower values, making quasars actually new objects and not "distant" ones -they are in all likelihood very close objects in the so-called "deep field" --which, as stated previously, must be actually close because the "true" "deep field," to the so-called "edge of time," cannot ever be seen or detected as it is obscured).

 

 

 

http://www.jpl.nasa....fm?feature=2287

 

 

 

Then add some more mass by the underestimation of the number of smaller stars to large stars in the galaxies we can observe that are not obscured by this dust and one begins to see the problem of the missing mass is not that it isn't there, it is that it is hidden by dust and lost in the brightness of closer galaxies that we can observe.

 

And remember the results are only sensitive for "The ultraviolet images are sensitive to somewhat small stars three times or more massive than the sun" even though the discrepancy shows up for larger stars, they still have not counted the stars of the Sun's mass or less that the original math developed in the 1950's relies on.

Edited August 4, 2012 by EMField

[WHR]

Humans are too smart to figure out how stupid we are.