Can matter be tranfered into dark matter and back?

[angushall19]

I was reading up on dark matter and it is just molecules of energy that made up space. I was wondering if anyone knew if matter could be transfered to dark matter and back.

[swansont]

We don't know what dark matter is yet, so the physics doesn't exist that could answer this question. But dark matter isn't molecules of energy, because energy isn't a substance, it's a property.

[angushall19]

We don't know what dark matter is yet, so the physics doesn't exist that could answer this question. But dark matter isn't molecules of energy, because energy isn't a substance, it's a property.

It is still theoretical, but it is thought to be a almost nonexistant energy mass from the big bangs energy wave.

Edited November 15, 2015 by angushall19

[swansont]

It is still theoretical, but it is thought to be a almost nonexistant energy mass from the big bangs energy wave.

That's probably not a description that came from a cosmologist.

[ajb]

I was wondering if anyone knew if matter could be transfered to dark matter and back.

 

As swansont says, without some understanding of dark matter and some decent models it is hard to say. Dark matter cannot interact very strongly with the particles of the standard model: this is for sure via gravity, or maybe even some other force we do not know about yet. Anyway, one would expect dark matter to be quite stable (or at least the final states after decays). For example the neutralino would be expected to be stable as it is the lightest particle in typical SUSY extensions of the standard model.

[TheGeckomancer]

As far as we can tell dark matter is a soupy fluidic matter that doesn't interact with anything except gravity. But if dark matter IS MATTER, than at some point it's composed of energy. All things can be broken down to their simplest state. So it is safe to say even without knowing what dark matter is that it can be broken down to energy. I DO NOT KNOW if this implies that it can be constructed though. That is a LOT more complex of a question ironically. Again, this is only assuming dark matter IS matter. There are some theories that state the gravitational effect we see that we assume is caused by dark matter may be gravity from other universes bleeding into ours. There are a ton of other possibilities too.

[swansont]

As far as we can tell dark matter is a soupy fluidic matter that doesn't interact with anything except gravity. But if dark matter IS MATTER, than at some point it's composed of energy. All things can be broken down to their simplest state. So it is safe to say even without knowing what dark matter is that it can be broken down to energy.

 

No, not really. Energy is a property of things, not a thing unto itself. Saying that things (matter) can be broken down into energy, or is composed of energy is, at best, an awkward representation. Dark matter will have energy (much like it will have momentum if it's moving), but is not composed of energy.

[TheGeckomancer]

 

No, not really. Energy is a property of things, not a thing unto itself. Saying that things (matter) can be broken down into energy, or is composed of energy is, at best, an awkward representation. Dark matter will have energy (much like it will have momentum if it's moving), but is not composed of energy.

 

 

If it is matter. It has an atomic structure. The atomic structure can be broken, releasing light, radiation and other things that have energy. Or am I misunderstanding? I know the way I said it was super simple but I don't feel it was inaccurate? Well it was inaccurate but I mean, I think we all understand what I mean?

Edited November 25, 2015 by TheGeckomancer

[ajb]

As far as we can tell dark matter is a soupy fluidic matter that doesn't interact with anything except gravity. But if dark matter IS MATTER, than at some point it's composed of energy.

As already stated, energy is a property of 'stuff' and so your statement is too loose. As dark matter interacts gravitationally it must posses the property of energy: or better stated it must posses energy-momentum in order to act as a source of gravity.

If it is matter. It has an atomic structure.

What do you mean by atomic structure in this context?

 

You mean something like stable or quasi-stable bound states of dark matter?

[TheGeckomancer]

No I mean it has atoms. Particles bound together into a structure. Particles in a free state don't clump like that. To be clear. I am not saying dark matter IS atoms. I am saying if dark matter IS matter than it's atoms. Because thats the definition of the word. And we know we can break atoms to release light, heat, and radiation. I am not making any crazy claims or anything outside of science.

Edited November 25, 2015 by TheGeckomancer

[ajb]

No I mean it has atoms. Particles bound together into a structure. Particles in a free state don't clump like that. To be clear. I am not saying dark matter IS atoms. I am saying if dark matter IS matter than it's atoms. Because thats the definition of the word. And we know we can break atoms to release light, heat, and radiation.

So you mean more-or-less what I said: stable or quasi-stable bound states of dark matter.

 

I have not come across anyone discussing this, not that dark matter is really my subject and you may find something in the literature.

 

Such bound states I think would be unlikely if dark matter only interacted gravitationally. The forces of the standard model must interact with dark matter very weakly: so electromagnetically bound dark atoms are unlikley . If there were some other force that only dark matter experienced (or at least does not course much of an interaction with the particles of the standard model), then this could be more likely. One cannot rule out atomic-like structures being formed by dark matter particles. But again, without some further indication of what dark matter is and how it couples with all the known forces and maybe new ones it is hard to say.

[TheGeckomancer]

Agreed. And I am not saying that they are. I am just saying IF THEY ARE they still follow all the rules we know. Just a bit exotic to us.

[ajb]

Agreed. And I am not saying that they are. I am just saying IF THEY ARE they still follow all the rules we know. Just a bit exotic to us.

That may depend on the rules you are talking about. I mean, if they do form 'atoms' via some other as of yet unknown force then details of the 'atomic structure' could be very different. I have no idea what kind of constraints one has here coming from astronomy and observational cosmology.

 

I suggest a literature search to see if anyone has proposed much.

[TheGeckomancer]

Regardless. If they form a structure, no matter how different, the structure can be broken down. What you would be implying there is a form of matter that resists entropy. Which would be awesome but impossible.

[Strange]

But if dark matter particles don't interact via anything other than gravity, as is generally thought, then they won't form structures to be broken down.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Strange

[TheGeckomancer]

That is an amazing point I never thought of.

[swansont]

 

 

If it is matter. It has an atomic structure. The atomic structure can be broken, releasing light, radiation and other things that have energy. Or am I misunderstanding? I know the way I said it was super simple but I don't feel it was inaccurate? Well it was inaccurate but I mean, I think we all understand what I mean?

 

An electron is matter, but can't be broken down.

 

For normal matter at the atomic level, you require energy input to break them down onto their constituents. The one way we know of to "erase" matter is pair annihilation (and from one perspective having a particle and antiparticle means you have no net matter), but then you get photons out, which have energy, rather than being energy.

 

As far as understanding what you mean, that's a tough one. It's not obvious from what you said. A lot of people think about energy as a substance, and that leads to trouble when you get into more complex discussions.

But if dark matter particles don't interact via anything other than gravity, as is generally thought, then they won't form structures to be broken down.

 

Which is tied in with some of its behavior. There is no way to dissipate energy except via gravitational radiation, meaning it should behave in a manner that's different than normal matter. Drastically reduce dissipation and it's almost frictionless; more elastic than inelastic.

[TheGeckomancer]

Maybe I am super outdated by encyclopedia britannica defines an atom smallest unit into which matter can be divided.

Edited November 25, 2015 by TheGeckomancer

[Strange]

Maybe I am super outdated by encyclopedia britannica defines an atom smallest unit into which matter can be divided.

 

The definition of "matter" becomes fairly ambiguous at this point. Atoms are made of electrons and protons and neutrons. So I think many people would consider them (constituents of) matter. But protons and neutrons are made of quarks? Are they "matter"? If so, are all hadrons?

[TheGeckomancer]

I have always favored the empirical definition of matter. Something I can interact with. Touch taste smell feel see or hear. I don't THINK I can pick up a handful of quarks. I don't know honestly but don't think so.

[swansont]

I have always favored the empirical definition of matter. Something I can interact with. Touch taste smell feel see or hear. I don't THINK I can pick up a handful of quarks. I don't know honestly but don't think so.

 

As it turns out, you must pick up a handful. You can never pick up one — quarks can't exist alone. They always must be bound to another quark or two (or possibly more)

[TheGeckomancer]

Yes but could you actually LOOK at and touch a handful of quarks? Can they exist in that state? What would that even do to touch them?

[swansont]

Yes but could you actually LOOK at and touch a handful of quarks? Can they exist in that state? What would that even do to touch them?

 

 

Depends on how many comprise a handful.

[TheGeckomancer]

A visible to the naked eye amount that I can grab with my fist. My point is i don't think you can stack them like sand on top of each other and ever have something you can SEE and touch. Correct me if I am wrong, but particles are strictly out of the empirical realm?

Edited November 25, 2015 by TheGeckomancer

[ajb]

You can 'see' some charged particles using a cloud chamber or bubble chamber. As for fundamental particles, you can detect electrons and positrons using such devices.