So if dark matter exists, what would it be made out of?

[Buych778]

This I KNOW cannot be officially proven today, as current technology is not advanced enough to detect this. I posted this so people can just post their hypotheses on this matter.

As scientific law states, all matter must be composed of something. So therefore, dark matter must be composed of something, but what?

My theory states that dark matter is composed of a Sterile Neutrino, which is similar to a quark, but has no electromagnetism, which means that there is no way to detect this. Sterile Neutrinos do have a gravitational force, however, and so they could be the building blocks to the mysterious phenomena. Sterile Neutrinos are hypothetical matter, and so this may not be correct, but it is very similar to dark matter. The Sterile Neutrinos also are uninteractable, meaning that they cannot collide with any other matter, so that would explain the theory that dark matter is currently passing through us. Another theory that I have made states that the dark matter is constructed in another dimensional form. This would allow them to pass through three-dimensional matter without colliding with it. This theory has no official evidence as the previous one was, but theoretically it would make sense that is is extra-dimensional.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Buych778

[mathematic]

Sterile neutrinos as dark matter is a possibility. See the following (neutrinos are mentioned).

 

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

[Enthalpy]

Dark matter candidates would better be heavy enough to stay trapped in galactic gravitation wells, since we need at least some dark matter concentrated there.

As scientific law states, all matter must be composed of something.

 

Ah?

Another theory that I have made states that the dark matter is constructed in another dimensional form. This would allow them to pass through three-dimensional matter without colliding with it.

 

Not necessary. Neutrinos are already difficult enough to catch and common models hosts them in three big spatial dimensions.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Enthalpy

[Buych778]

Not necessary. Neutrinos are already difficult enough to catch and common models hosts them in three big spatial dimensions.

 

Like I said, it is my theory, and is not necessarily proven.

Edited September 19, 2014 by Buych778

[ajb]

I like the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle as a candidate.

[pantheory]

This I KNOW cannot be officially proven today, as current technology is not advanced enough to detect this. I posted this so people can just post their hypotheses on this matter................................

 

Here's my hypothesis.

 

Deletia

[swansont]

 

Here's my hypothesis.

 

!

Moderator Note

No. You've been warned multiple times that responding to threads with your pet theory is considered hijacking. It's specifically called out in the rules, in black and light blue (or whatever your font and motif choices are)

 

Remainder of post deleted

[nullus]

how i remember dark is not exist.. or did I miss something ?

 

NOT EXIST EXIST

dark bright ( or not enough bright )

nothing everything

not vacuous vacuous

silence noise ( or not enough noise )

no etc etc

 

correct me if I'm wrong.

 

just try to name dark matter to clear positive antimatter, black hole to cluster of clear negative particles, and you will get levitation of mixed positives and negatives ( stars - galaxies - us ) in a middle, and answer why light is bent over massive object.

is it clear antimatter is Sterile Neutrino? I think it is to early answer at least for me.

[Enthalpy]

Is the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle a candidate as dark matter within the galaxies as well?

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

suggests a rest mass like 1eV, so if such light particles have an average energy of 3K=260µeV, their mean speed is 0.023*c or 6.8Mm/s, well beyond the galaxy's escape speed.

 

So, if I get it properly:

- Either they are colder than 3K

- Or they can make the dark matter at bigger scales only, not the dark matter needed in galaxies

- Or "something" holds them within galaxies, so they aren't very dark. Maybe they make heavy clumps among themselves but interact little with normal matter?

[nullus]

 

- Or "something" holds them within galaxies, so they aren't very dark. Maybe they make heavy clumps among themselves but interact little with normal matter?

 

I'm sure this is antimatter maybe not very clear. but is not supposed to named as dark matter,

we have to rename it - not because it is easy but because it is hard ( I like this context of the words )

[mathematic]

 

I'm sure this is antimatter maybe not very clear. but is not supposed to named as dark matter,

we have to rename it - not because it is easy but because it is hard ( I like this context of the words )

Anti-matter is extremely unlikely. Contact with ordinary matter leads to a big explosion.

[ajb]

Is the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle a candidate as dark matter within the galaxies as well?

I really don't know. You would have to hunt the literature for a better answer!

[nullus]

Anti-matter is extremely unlikely. Contact with ordinary matter leads to a big explosion.

 

o yes it is, you can marry them only this way ( + ) + ( - ) = ( +- )

 

I really don't know. You would have to hunt the literature for a better answer!

 

I think this literature we have to write we selves, I don't think we can find this somewhere else. I know you saw that video what I put in other topic.

[Buych778]

how i remember dark is not exist.. or did I miss something ?

 

NOT EXIST EXIST

dark bright ( or not enough bright )

nothing everything

not vacuous vacuous

silence noise ( or not enough noise )

no etc etc

 

correct me if I'm wrong.

 

just try to name dark matter to clear positive antimatter, black hole to cluster of clear negative particles, and you will get levitation of mixed positives and negatives ( stars - galaxies - us ) in a middle, and answer why light is bent over massive object.

is it clear antimatter is Sterile Neutrino? I think it is to early answer at least for me.

 

Ok, I have to correct you on many, many things here. First of all, there are areas in space that have absolutely nothing in them, they are called voids. We cannot detect the presence of them, but we can detect the absence of them, as they are areas that have no matter. Also, dark matter must exist, as there is an unknown form of matter adding mass to our space. You can call it whatever you want, but is still must exist. Silence can exist in a void, as there is nothing to carry the waves through, same with a vacuum and darkness. Antimatter is not made of Sterile Neutrinos, as they collide with regular matter to create energy. I think that you are thinking that dark matter is called antimatter, but antimatter is the opposite form of matter. There is no such thing as positive antimatter, as that would be matter, and would a complete waste of characters to rename it that. black holes are not just a cluster of clear negative particles, they are highly condensed matter or antimatter that has such a powerful gravitational force that it pulls in light with it. I don't understand what you mean by this "and you will get levitation of mixed positives and negatives (stars - galaxies - us) in a middle." The reason why light can bend over a massive object is because light is formed of energy, which energy must have mass, as energy plus energy yields matter. The mass of energy is very small, but it still has mass. All mass is affected by gravity, so therefore, if you have a massive object, the light is affected by gravity and bends around the object, almost beginning to orbit the object, but not quite. If I am incorrect on anything here, someone correct me, but I do know that most of this is true.

 

I'm sure this is antimatter maybe not very clear. but is not supposed to named as dark matter,

we have to rename it - not because it is easy but because it is hard ( I like this context of the words )

Antimatter is not to be confused with dark matter, they are two completely different forms of matter.

Antimatter is the opposite of matter, and it created from energy when matter is created, when combined with matter it creates a massive amount of energy.

Dark matter is an invisible form of matter that is uninteractable, meaning that it can't collide with normal matter. The theory of dark matter was created to explain the "missing" mass when measuring the mass of other galaxies. By measuring the mass through the amount of matter, the yield was less than that of measuring through gravitational forces. This sparked the idea that there is an invisible amount of mass that would account for this extra gravitational force that exists.

[nullus]

 

Ok, I have to correct you on many, many things here. First of all, there are areas in space that have absolutely nothing in them, they are called voids. We cannot detect the presence of them, but we can detect the absence of them, as they are areas that have no matter. Also, dark matter must exist, as there is an unknown form of matter adding mass to our space. You can call it whatever you want, but is still must exist. Silence can exist in a void, as there is nothing to carry the waves through, same with a vacuum and darkness. Antimatter is not made of Sterile Neutrinos, as they collide with regular matter to create energy. I think that you are thinking that dark matter is called antimatter, but antimatter is the opposite form of matter. There is no such thing as positive antimatter, as that would be matter, and would a complete waste of characters to rename it that. black holes are not just a cluster of clear negative particles, they are highly condensed matter or antimatter that has such a powerful gravitational force that it pulls in light with it. I don't understand what you mean by this "and you will get levitation of mixed positives and negatives (stars - galaxies - us) in a middle." The reason why light can bend over a massive object is because light is formed of energy, which energy must have mass, as energy plus energy yields matter. The mass of energy is very small, but it still has mass. All mass is affected by gravity, so therefore, if you have a massive object, the light is affected by gravity and bends around the object, almost beginning to orbit the object, but not quite. If I am incorrect on anything here, someone correct me, but I do know that most of this is true.

Antimatter is not to be confused with dark matter, they are two completely different forms of matter.

Antimatter is the opposite of matter, and it created from energy when matter is created, when combined with matter it creates a massive amount of energy.

Dark matter is an invisible form of matter that is uninteractable, meaning that it can't collide with normal matter. The theory of dark matter was created to explain the "missing" mass when measuring the mass of other galaxies. By measuring the mass through the amount of matter, the yield was less than that of measuring through gravitational forces. This sparked the idea that there is an invisible amount of mass that would account for this extra gravitational force that exists.

 

ask moderators, they know with way my logic is builded. I dont want to make them angry with throw in same link everywhere...

[Alkonis]

SUSY particles are a nice fit, but things aren't looking too good for SUSY at this point.

At this point, the name of the game in particle physics is just to pin down the location of dark matter particles in phasespace (mass, interaction strength). Each experiment blocks off a big section of phasespace and says "We're going to look here!" Eventually, we'll find it, and then comes the challenge of explaining it (SUSY would be nice...).

Also, why try arguing that it's antimatter? Antimatter has no exceptionally-different properties than normal matter. Saying "it's antimatter" is kind of like saying "it's matter," which is kind of the trivial solution--either way you're going to have an antiparticle for whatever it is you find.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Alkonis

[nullus]

SUSY particles are a nice fit, but things aren't looking too good for SUSY at this point.

 

At this point, the name of the game in particle physics is just to pin down the location of dark matter particles in phasespace (mass, interaction strength). Each experiment blocks off a big section of phasespace and says "We're going to look here!" Eventually, we'll find it, and then comes the challenge of explaining it (SUSY would be nice...).

 

Also, why try arguing that it's antimatter? Antimatter has no exceptionally-different properties than normal matter. Saying "it's antimatter" is kind of like saying "it's matter," which is kind of the trivial solution--either way you're going to have an antiparticle for whatever it is you find.

 

I think you're right, we can not call it antimatter and we cannot call it matter, if we follow Stephen Hawking hypothesis - clear antimatter must be produced by the "black hole" and dark matter what we are talking about ( if we talking about same ) it is still something what was left from BB, even if we want to keep a name as a dark matter after that supposed to go at least simple explanation, I dont know - at this moment I'm calling it just still mixed positives and negatives which ones can go to infinitely small scales, I agree we have to work on correct naming of everything like that and then we will have correct answers.

[Strange]

I think you're right, we can not call it antimatter and we cannot call it matter

 

We can call it matter because, so far, it definitely behaves like matter.

 

if we follow Stephen Hawking hypothesis - clear antimatter must be produced by the "black hole"

 

What is "clear antimatter"?

What hypothesis of Hawking are you referring to?

What evidence is there that antimatter is produced by black holes?

 

I agree we have to work on correct naming of everything like that and then we will have correct answers.

 

I think you have that backwards. We have to understand what we are dealing with, and then we can give it a better name. (Although, as is often the case, the old name will continue to be used even when it is no longer accurate.)

[imatfaal]

SUSY particles are a nice fit, but things aren't looking too good for SUSY at this point.

 

At this point, the name of the game in particle physics is just to pin down the location of dark matter particles in phasespace (mass, interaction strength). Each experiment blocks off a big section of phasespace and says "We're going to look here!" Eventually, we'll find it, and then comes the challenge of explaining it (SUSY would be nice...).

 

Also, why try arguing that it's antimatter? Antimatter has no exceptionally-different properties than normal matter. Saying "it's antimatter" is kind of like saying "it's matter," which is kind of the trivial solution--either way you're going to have an antiparticle for whatever it is you find.

 

 

I got the impression from some of the "anti-SUSY" group that in a restrictive view that there was almost no overlap in phase space between what we wanted and needed for a dark matter candidate and that area the extensions to the standard model allow for supersumetric partner particles. To be honest there is only a small area left for the susy partners without regard to the dm question

[Enthalpy]

At this point, the name of the game in particle physics is just to pin down the location of dark matter particles in phasespace (mass, interaction strength). Each experiment blocks off a big section of phasespace and says "We're going to look here!" Eventually, we'll find it, and then comes the challenge of explaining it (SUSY would be nice...).

 

Are all alternatives to new particles abandoned to explain dark matter? I haven't followed this recently. Two decades ago planet- and star-sized objects were ruled out by the low frequency of microgravitational lensing. But objects of different mass? All we need is that galactic dark matter can float where normal matter isn't after a galactic collision, and that it's little observable.

[nullus]

 

I think you have that backwards. We have to understand what we are dealing with, and then we can give it a better name. (Although, as is often the case, the old name will continue to be used even when it is no longer accurate.)

 

thank you for understanding that I have problems with explanation.

 

 

What hypothesis of Hawking are you referring to?

What evidence is there that antimatter is produced by black holes?

 

 

is it not him was lift up this hypothesis? I don't remember where I read this sorry..

please do not mix evidence with hypothesis and theories, they have to follow after.

 

this is an execution.. okay I'll try to help you execute me quickly... look we have two different types of energy and matter ( I think we have evidence that they are ), they have same powers but working in opposite directions.

 

we have evidence on this two energies -----> one is positive energy second negative energy

if we place it in space ( vacuum ) -----> dark energy is positive black hole is negative

then we have particles and antiparticles ( and evidence of them existing )

if u place it here -----> antiparticles particles

and then what I call at this moment clear matter and clear antimatter -----> clear antimatter clear matter

( clear anti gravity ) ( clear gravity )

what is plus energy? -----> + energy is = + matter what is minus energy? - energy = - matter

energy cannot exist without matter friction they are exchangeable.

connection of those two powers = BANG and then everything mix together again... -----> positives and negatives are mixed..

what I want to say - so that those damn mixed positives and negatives it is everything but not a -----> dark energy and black hole and etc..

 

first of all this scale request for help to be fixed and correct named.

 

second: dark mater it is still mixed those two + and - ( bastar... ) in very small scales do we have to call it Intergalactic "SUSHI" or somehow else I don't know.

 

hope you understand what I'm talking about now?

[Strange]

is it not him was lift up this hypothesis? I don't remember where I read this sorry..

 

Which hypothesis?

 

we have evidence on this two energies -----> one is positive energy second negative energy

 

There is no evidence of negative energy that I am aware of. Please provide a reference.

 

if we place it in space ( vacuum ) -----> dark energy is positive black hole is negative

 

In what sense is a black hole negative? It has positive mass and therefore positive energy.

 

and then what I call at this moment clear matter and clear antimatter -----> clear antimatter clear matter

 

I have no idea what "clear matter" or "clear antimatter" means. Why can't you just explain what it means?

 

( clear anti gravity ) ( clear gravity )

 

 

There is no evidence for antigravity (clear or otherwise).

 

hope you understand what I'm talking about now?

 

Complete gibberish as far as I can tell.

[nullus]

 

Which hypothesis?

 

 

There is no evidence of negative energy that I am aware of. Please provide a reference.

 

 

In what sense is a black hole negative? It has positive mass and therefore positive energy.

 

 

I have no idea what "clear matter" or "clear antimatter" means. Why can't you just explain what it means?

 

 

There is no evidence for antigravity (clear or otherwise).

 

 

Complete gibberish as far as I can tell.

 

if nobody here do not understand nothing here, see no reason to continue with this

( I do not think you are able to think and put attention on written words ) thank you anyway...

[Strange]

 

if nobody here do not understand nothing here, see no reason to continue with this

( I do not think you are able to think and put attention on written words ) thank you anyway...

 

You refer to a hypothesis but refuse say which one.

You write a series of statements including undefined terms and references to things that don't exist.

Then when I ask for clarification, it is my fault that what you write makes no sense?

 

Why not simply:

 

1. State which hypothesis (of Hawking or whoever) you are referring to, so we know what you are talking about

2. Define what you mean by "clear" matter

3. Explain why you think a black hole is "negative"

4. Provide references/evidence for negative energy and anti-gravity.

 

Then we might be able to have a discussion.

[nullus]

 

Why not simply:

 

1. State which hypothesis (of Hawking or whoever) you are referring to, so we know what you are talking about

2. Define what you mean by "clear" matter

3. Explain why you think a black hole is "negative"

4. Provide references/evidence for negative energy and anti-gravity.

 

Then we might be able to have a discussion.

 

ok I can take last 3 steps.

 

1. this is my garbage.

2. you throw on me positive black hole.

3. after first two I will decide if I want to take this discussion.

4. this is not my topic, we can't do it here.

 

 

continue yours discussion about dark matter, Upon your request I will go - have some jobs to do.

sorry if I waste yours time.