Dark Matter and Dark Energy

[alpha2cen]

About Dark Energy.

 

If Higgs field exactly exists.

Is Higgs field intensity constant from the beginning of the Universe?

Is Higgs field intensity decrease causing the Universe accelerated expansion?

Evidence? Neutron beta decay. Originally neutron is stable. But time is going on, it's stability is changed?

Why neutron was stable at the beginning of the Universe?

If not, how there were so many atoms can created, current self-existing time is too short.

 

If Higgs field intensity were more strong than now, neutron stability would be increased?

Do we have any method to calculate this?

 

Speculation. Then, do we have other evidence?

Edited August 10, 2012 by alpha2cen

[EMField]

The Higg's is highly suspect to begin with. Two protons, accelerated to fractions of c are smashed together and lo and behold, a larger massed particle that instantly decays back into it's constituent parts. Every fundamental particle is smaller, not larger. Neutrons were once believed to be fundamental particles, then it was found they were actually composed of smaller, more fundamental particles called quarks.

 

The other evidence is exactly what they use to accelerate particles at CERN, they just include it in atomic theory and exclude it in galactic theory, and never the two shall meet. Just maybe that's why they can't unite the two theories.

[alpha2cen]

The Higg's is highly suspect to begin with. Two protons, accelerated to fractions of c are smashed together and lo and behold, a larger massed particle that instantly decays back into it's constituent parts. Every fundamental particle is smaller, not larger. Neutrons were once believed to be fundamental particles, then it was found they were actually composed of smaller, more fundamental particles called quarks.

 

The other evidence is exactly what they use to accelerate particles at CERN, they just include it in atomic theory and exclude it in galactic theory, and never the two shall meet. Just maybe that's why they can't unite the two theories.

 

Without having a step to be a neutron , quarks become nuclei composed of neutrons and protons?

[EMField]

Want to see an atom, look at the universe, same thing, just different scales.

[alpha2cen]

Want to see an atom, look at the universe, same thing, just different scales.

 

 

After inflation, many atoms are created.

Based on current knowledge, which step is correct?

 

A) quark, gluon -----> proton, neutron, electron -----> H, D, He, Li

 

B) quark, gluon -----> nucleus + electron -----------> H, D, He, Li

 

C) quark, gluon -----> pion ---> --> -->H, D, He, Li

 

D) other reaction path

Edited August 13, 2012 by alpha2cen

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Please can we keep speculative ideas to the correct forum. This is the mainstream cosmology forum and answers/comments should stick to acknowledged and tested physics - please post new ideas and notions that contradict mainstream physics in the Speculations Forum.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

EMField's idea of there being no evidence for Dark Matter or Dark Energy and that this is all tied up with plasma has been moved to Speculations. AGAIN - please post new ideas and notions that contradict mainstream physics in the correct forum.

[StringJunky]

As the OP, my intention was to ask only about the word Dark associated with a certain type of matter and energy...nothing else. To reiterate: why are they called Dark?

[imatfaal]

As the OP, my intention was to ask only about the word Dark associated with a certain type of matter and energy...nothing else. To reiterate: why are they called Dark?

 

http://www.sciencefo...post__p__689802

 

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.

 

 

Dark matter is called dark - because it is matter and it is dark (it doesn't emit light and does interact with light and scatter it). Dark Energy - is a bit more of a conceit, something is happening and we don't really know what is causing it. Dark Energy is a placeholder name until we have a better idea of what is going on, I believe it was chosen to mirror the name Dark Matter and to sound funky.

[StringJunky]

http://www.sciencefo...post__p__689802

 

 

 

 

Dark matter is called dark - because it is matter and it is dark (it doesn't emit light and does interact with light and scatter it). Dark Energy - is a bit more of a conceit, something is happening and we don't really know what is causing it. Dark Energy is a placeholder name until we have a better idea of what is going on, I believe it was chosen to mirror the name Dark Matter and to sound funky.

 

Thanks. You can close this thread if people keep veering it off-topic...I'm satisfied with your summary.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

EMField

This thread is about the naming of dark matter and dark energy. Do not post here regarding the validity of the science behind those theories. You have a thread in speculations for that purpose. We have many threads on the validity or not of Dark matter and Dark energy - these ideas are not suppressed. Do not reply to this moderation within the thread. You can report this post if you feel the moderation is unjustified.

[EMField]

If Dark Matter was called Plasma and Dark energy was called electricity, then observations would match the data. Change your names to existing forces and you wouldn't have to grope for explanations.

 

imatfaal, on 16 August 2012 - 03:53 AM, said:

 

"Dark matter is called dark - because it is matter and it is dark (it doesn't emit light and does interact with light and scatter it). Dark Energy - is a bit more of a conceit, something is happening and we don't really know what is causing it. Dark Energy is a placeholder name until we have a better idea of what is going on, I believe it was chosen to mirror the name Dark Matter and to sound funky."

 

They are both placeholder names even though the forces already have names and explanations.

 

Dark Matter was called dark because it is not detectable by sight, or by any known process, same for Dark Energy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

 

In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level.^[1] Instead, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large scale structure of the universe. Dark matter is estimated to constitute 84% of the matter in the universe and 23% of the mass-energy.

 

Yet supposedly it is the x-rays that enable us to detect it, even though it emits no radiation at any significant level, i.e. undetectable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable, i.e. not a valid theory.

[David Levy]

Why there is no need for dark energy or dark matter???

 

Spiral arm is the ultimate answer for the high velocity of a star which is located far away from the galactic nucleus.

The Spiral arm acts as a chain of star which is connected to each other by the gravitational power. This maintains the flat & high velocity. In fact, the galactic nucleus of an active galaxy like the Milky Way contains a mass of millions of suns. This core rotates on its axis and createsa circular motion for all the stars which are relatively close to it. Thus, rotation of a star near the galactic nucleus causes a higher speed to another star which is a little farther from the nucleus, but is related to his faculties of gravity.

It can be simulated as series of balls which are connected by elastic cord to each other. In one side the cord is connected to a spinning axis. Hence, the velocity of the other end of the cord will be directly affected by the rotation of the axis.

The balls in this example are the stars and the elastic cord is the gravitational power.

Note that all the stars in the milky way galaxy orbit in a uniform direction. what is the chance that 400 billion stars will move in one direction??? How come???

This is totaly different from the solar system as some of the stars rotate in the opposite to others.

 

Therefore, unlike our solar system where the velocity of each star is affected by only by the distance from the sun, here the velocity is determined by the velocity of the spiral arm.

 

A brief calculation:

 

Most of the 400 Billion stars are located at the spiral arms. Let's say about 70 Billion stars per arm. The length of each arm is about 50,000 years light and its diameter is 1000 light year. So, by average, there are more than 10 million stars is a 1000 x 1000 light year. That should be good enough to hold the gravitational chain power!!!

 

There must be thousands of stars which are closer to the sun. We just need to find them... It's quite clear that not all the stars are similar to the sun. Some of them might be dark stars. Therefore, it is difficult to find them. But they are there.

 

I have already proved that the stars are moving outwards in the milky way galaxy. Please see: Steady state theory

 

Therefore, It's quite clear that as the star moves away from the spiral arm, its velocity drops dramatically.

Conclusion - there might be some dark stars which are needed to keep the chain gravitational power. But, there is no real need for dark material outside the galaxy or dark energy to maintain this velocity!

Edited August 17, 2012 by David Levy

[ACG52]

This thread now belongs in Speculation.

[StringJunky]

This thread now belongs in Speculation.

 

I'll be annoyed if they do that...it wants closing to further replies.

[EMField]

Some more speculative data I guess. From NASA this time no less. I suppose you'll be moving their data to speculative too?

http://www.space.com/15957-moon-sun-surprising-interaction.html

 

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Cathode_ray

Edited August 18, 2012 by EMField

[StringJunky]

Some more speculative data I guess. From NASA this time no less. I suppose you'll be moving their data to speculative too?

http://www.space.com/15957-moon-sun-surprising-interaction.html

 

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Cathode_ray

 

Which part of this didn't you understand?:

 

 

Moderator Note

 

EMField

 

This thread is about the naming of dark matter and dark energy. Do not post here regarding the validity of the science behind those theories. You have a thread in speculations for that purpose. We have many threads on the validity or not of Dark matter and Dark energy - these ideas are not suppressed. Do not reply to this moderation within the thread. You can report this post if you feel the moderation is unjustified.

[EMField]

Ok, then my suggestion is we name Dark Matter: "Plasma" and Dark Energy "Electricity."

[pantheory]

I suspect that if either dark matter or dark energy really exists then upon the realization of their true nature, their names will be changed. For dark energy there are a number of possible names out there right now: cosmological constant, quintessence, lambda, etc. For dark matter possible names like Higgs field, graviton fields, etc,

 

I expect that both will eventually be discredited and that the failed hypotheses will keep their present "dark" names for historical reference.

[imatfaal]

Pan - Dark Energy, completely agree. Dark Matter - not so sure. I think the leading theories are for some, as yet unknown, particle rather than a quantum field; and for convenience if it is a new particle it will be given a shorter name

[pantheory]

Pan - Dark Energy, completely agree. Dark Matter - not so sure. I think the leading theories are for some, as yet unknown, particle rather than a quantum field; and for convenience if it is a new particle it will be given a shorter name

Hi imatfaal -- Yes, I think they were premature in giving the Nobel Prize for the discovery of dark energy. And for dark matter I have my bets on an aetherial kind of "dark matter" with particulates down to Planck lengths or smaller. Rather than its mass being the influence of dark matter, maybe the influence/energy of its pushing momentum would be what we can perceive. I agree with your idea that the name for dark matter would be better if shorter and more specific, whether as a particle or "field." For the complete name maybe one represented by an abbreviation or acronym? Maybe something like if the full name were "Planck Point Field" and they called it the 'PPF' An individual particle could be called a Planck, for instance. I believe the word "field" may eventually be realized to be a good word for the volume of particles along with the mathematical construct used to represent a volume of particulates in space like a Higgs particle/field, etc.

 

I think the word 'field' used in QM and GR, and the related theoretical physics, may eventually be best described as the ZPF and that both the largest and smallest scales will eventually tie into particulate field concepts.

 

//

Edited September 6, 2012 by pantheory