Why Dark Matter is Even Weirder Than You Thought

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I personally don't feel the membrane concept is that far away from my own beliefs in terms of another dimension pushing into our own. I imagine the primordial soup effervescing the tiniest particles into our dimension as opposed to nothing existing on either branes until they come together.

As I pointed out in a previous thread. If we where to imagine the smallest particles of matter, manifesting into our physical universe, originally in a very high state of matter as aether but slowly coalescing into a variety of gases. All the rest can be easily explained by physics, with stars bursting into life under the pressure of their own mass. Every other element we know are created by the stars.

The mind boggling part is the level of intelligence that life could create given the time scale the universe has been active. The hurdle science needs to get over, is to accept that there could well be an intelligence born from the stars that is intangible and which occupies a place that does not exist in our physical neighbourhood.

We are quite willing to accept electromagnetic radiation as real but intangible. Why is it so hard to imagine that intelligent consciousness could exist in the same way.

Consciousness is the elephant in the room that absolutely needs to be understood, before we can come close the true nature of reality. For some inexplicable reason, science doesn't want to go there.

Fascinating thread... thanks for it... but I wanted to say I found the title offensive in that you have no idea how weird I found dark matter to be in the first place.... and I am joking, to be clear.

But DM does remind me of a prop to support a failing theory. I know it's a bit more than that, or is at least more well thought out than that flip remark indicates, but still... it lacks a certain elegance. It seems ad hoc.

Although, to go a tad mystical, as I'm convinced things termed ghosts and spirits exist, this invisible matter and energy is attractive as a hint of an explanation as to what those mostly invisible things might be made of... if mind stuff is even made of anything, ultimately... or at least indicates there are things that exist we cannot measure easily.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: ChaoticOrder



As I pointed out in a previous thread. If we where to imagine the smallest particles of matter, manifesting into our physical universe, originally in a very high state of matter as aether but slowly coalescing into a variety of gases. All the rest can be easily explained by physics, with stars bursting into life under the pressure of their own mass. Every other element we know are created by the stars.

The mind boggling part is the level of intelligence that life could create given the time scale the universe has been active. The hurdle science needs to get over, is to accept that there could well be an intelligence born from the stars that is intangible and which occupies a place that does not exist in our physical neighbourhood.

We are quite willing to accept electromagnetic radiation as real but intangible. Why is it so hard to imagine that intelligent consciousness could exist in the same way.

Consciousness is the elephant in the room that absolutely needs to be understood, before we can come close the true nature of reality. For some inexplicable reason, science doesn't want to go there.

To me it is interesting to look at thermodynamics, how hot the Singularity was said to be, just before bang, how cold the void. The heat expanded out into the void. Anyhow to me, even though the void, has no measurement, if somehow you could measure the temperature, it would be 0 degree kelvin. I realize that it is possible to have lower than 0 (K), but for the most part that's it. 1,000,000 (K) how high can it go?
What I'm saying is that heat or (energy), seems to be the main ingredient. But it's not how cold something is, it's how hot it is, down to absolute 0. At 0 (K) the electron stops spinning around atom. "Absolute zero corresponds to the theoretical state in which particles have no energy at all, and higher temperatures correspond to higher average energies".
"According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today".

This is something I keep bringing up, but no one seems to care. Intelligence, if life goes on in the universe, what kind of great things, will be built in the universe in a trillion years, 10 trillion years. The universe will of been perfected, what does this mean, exactly that, Perfected.
Michio Kaku, talks of a dismal end to the universe, but gives no credit to what he is suppose to possess so much of, Intelligence.
"Knowledge has not always been known in the universe, but Knowledge has always been present in the universe".

a reply to: Baddogma

There is no reason we should find mathematical elegance in any of this. A beautiful theory is not correct or more right because it is elegant. Furthermore your history is a little wrong Dark matter is not a theory to prop up anything it is more of an admission that what we observe doesn't make coherent sense should baryonic matter be the explanation for it. There are several ways we can theorize a solution for this mismatch of theory and observation, DM is just one of them.

There is no prop up, only a proposal that fits the observations best. A prop is more like MOND that appears just to add gravitational fudge factors to make things fit data mathematically, rather than re-producable theory that you can apply in the same way to nearly all observations.

Still, we don't even know if it exists or not in the way we have theorized, and i hope to be one of the people involved in finding that out

In the Gita.

Is stated "If you travel at the speed of mind for a Billion years, you would still know nothing of the Creator"

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: OOOOOO

You made an interesting point there.
I had to think about magnets(again), no matter how many time you brake, slice, divide a magnet,
it will always have a 'N and S pole'. It's basic configuration and behavior stays the same.
So in the end you will find a tiny charged particle who's discharge is the production of a magnetic field.

Or

With numbers, does infinity exists? Off course, i can always add +1 to a number.
Is it really? Or is it just a loop which repeats itself at 9?

I don't know if that would work with sub-atomic particles?

Yes, as I said you could make a none realistic number like 4 googolpexs & 6, but it would be a number with no purpose in this universe. There are less than 10 to 100, (a googol) of atoms in the universe, a googolplex is 10 to a googol.
This universe is finite, it will end. 010010010111010000100111011100110010000001100010011010010110111001100001011100100111100100101110

Oh, the equation has been solved, the answer was, One. Kind of Quantum_entanglement, a bit there.

a reply to: OOOOOO

Thermodynamics is physical world physics and phenomena. How are we to know how the physics would work out in another dimension, if matter exists in another dimension, It would likely be subject to an entirely different set of rules.

If there are multiple dimensions, it could be supposed that ever finer manifestation of matter could give cause to multiple laws of physics.

“But it's not how cold something is, it's how hot it is, down to absolute 0. At 0 (K) the electron stops spinning around atom.”

Temperature, the same as time, stripped of it's physical world origins, is a purely relative thing, a 1000 C could be ambient living temperature in another dimension. We are limited to what we can imagine because we can only see things from a physical world perspective.

The point you bring up about electrons ceasing to spin at 0 (K), again a physical world phenomena, would lend itself to the concept that matter is tangible to science because it’s energy has cooled to the state that it is no longer subtle enough to be anything other. I personally find its grossness very limiting.

If you consider the possibility that matter oozes into our physical dimension from higher dimensions, then there is no need for a singularity, and that the universe would warm up with all manners of radiation due to the physical phenomena of stars birthing from gasses.

The laws of physic where expounded from observation through our objective senses. If we could witness reality without focusing through the limits of those senses, what would we see? To argue that we can view it no other way, demonstrates how little science can know, given our current physicalist approach to our search for knowledge.

This is something I keep bringing up, but no one seems to care. Intelligence, if life goes on in the universe, what kind of great things, will be built in the universe in a trillion years, 10 trillion years. The universe will of been perfected, what does this mean, exactly that, Perfected.
Michio Kaku, talks of a dismal end to the universe, but gives no credit to what he is suppose to possess so much of, Intelligence.
"Knowledge has not always been known in the universe, but Knowledge has always been present in the universe".

I had decided not to 'go there', but I absolutely agree with you.

a reply to: ErosA433

Why arent you responding to me? I am just curious

originally posted by: OOOOOO

From what I have been told, there seems to be a problem with both, the infinite small or the infinite large. It's like if you have some thing and say I can slice this a infinite number of times. At some point it becomes pointless as it will not cause you to gain any further information.

from your point of view !
I'm not talking about what you rather like to have or not.

division by 2 is infinite, so is addition...

from your point of view all you will only see is a realm / area... our Universe
...both ways infinite, with growing complexity from infinite small to infinite big.

The same in the perspective of this universe, it would be pointless to say I have a infinite amount of numbers, as once a certain number was reached, any attempted use of number would be useless. Say 4 googolplexs and 6, you would need to go outside of this universe, to apply this number, and still?

As I said before this universe is not infinite, it's finite.

All possibilities have already occurred, regardless.

finite for you, like I've said before, this is your threshold but not the whole range.
Your capability
The thing is, what always seems to be ignored, there is no nothing and something like distance, that is a basis in physical world and can not stop to exist at somewhere.
Look, even if Big Bang theory was something worth to talk about, it tells us you can never reach the edge of the Universe because it expands with C. It also suggests BB comes from infinite small point.... so what now ??

I'm just saying you don't need Big BullsBang to have two infinities

what BB is doing wrong, it tries to combine them, making one out of another into nothing.
This is wrong, those two is the opposite of each other

a reply to: ErosA433

You are very correct in that observation... one assuming any correct theory in physics should be simple and elegant is anthropomorphizing and using magical thinking.

And I would've liked to join in your quest for reality... if the math wasn't so hard... good luck!

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: ErosA433

Why arent you responding to me? I am just curious

Sorry Imafungi, I actually dont have enough time to think about an adequate response, as there are multiple statements and questions that id have to think quite carefully about in your posts. Not outright ignoring anything, simply not enough hours in the day for me

a reply to: KrzYma

Yea, so could be like a fractal.

The question will never be answered.


I see multiple bangs, many, many bangs.

In the Gita it says, "Rama exhales, Rama inhales.

originally posted by: ErosA433

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: ErosA433

Why arent you responding to me? I am just curious

Sorry Imafungi, I actually dont have enough time to think about an adequate response, as there are multiple statements and questions that id have to think quite carefully about in your posts. Not outright ignoring anything, simply not enough hours in the day for me

But you claim to be a black matter physicist?!?!? The only reason I am talking to you now and prior is because I believe I may conceptually have the solution to black matter. You reply to other people, but when there is the potential for the most important concept related to the essence of your lifes work, you dont have the 5 minutes...what...

Crikey, ok lets have a go at this Sir

originally posted by: ImaFungi
When we look at the earth as a mass, and want to know how much gravity is accountable for, are we not doing so in regards to how far away from the earth until other masses are no longer effected by the existence of the earth in the common gravity field?

I am wondering; if yes, the square of the distance; if this concept is only one half of the essence of mass interaction with gravity field.

Well this is not what we observe, nor is it true of local scale, or of galactic or inter galactic scales. The Earth's or any other objects gravitational influence becomes unimportant when it becomes second or third order, but it doesn't mean that it is simply blinked out of reality. To do so would allow for a statement such as to say, the Earth has no influence on the gravitational pull of say, Proxima Centauri. A brilliant estimate would be to ignore all the planets and say, ok only the sun matters. But the reality is that, all things experience the attraction, no matter how far the distance. At least this rule/law appears to hold from all observation.

And besides, the standard thinking is basically that Mass causes gravity, sure simplistically put.

If perhaps at a certain distance away from a mass, other masses are no longer attracted towards the mass; because; the nature of this attraction, (3 dimensional field curvature; energy density re alterer) is due to masses presence in a field of particles, vacating the particles from its local vicinity ( initially this is why i was urged to posit that the movement of bodies may be very important or even key to the nature of mass to mass attraction, but alas that is digression), so now all those particles that have been vacated at least the square of the distance, are now, located at least the square of the distance away from the mass; these being, real particles, with real mass, and potentially given even more real relativistic mass.

The thought model here appears to be built upon the first argument, which i believe to be disproven by our observations of galaxy clusters. Our simulations of galaxies and galaxy clusters appear to match observations almost exactly, with our old boring model of gravitation, with the exception of.... yes you guessed it, rotation curves and calculations of total mass.

Remember one thing when invoking the world relativistic... for anything to be relativistic in the sense you are using it, it must be moving extremely fast, even observationally fast moving stars, are not THAT fast.

I was using the earth as example, but utilize the galaxy for example, loads of gravity field particles flung to the outskirts of the galaxy, the edge, perhaps still momentously caught in multi directional spinning (extra relativistic mass, plus a spinning as the galaxy), perhaps even more mass/gravity is created if gravity particles can interact with themselves.

While the SM of particle physics proposes a gauge boson, the graviton to mediate gravitation similar to that perhaps as the higgs boson of the higgs field. EVERYTHING would be interacting with the gravity field in proportion to mass, you don't need to invoke a particle, similarly to the higgs field. The higgs particle is an exciton of that field, you do not have to create it in order for the field to exist. The same should be true for the graviton. (?) i think, tho my memory of field theory is a bit dodge.

In essence, this theory expresses the creation of a 'shield' of sorts around a galaxy, with even further theoretical help from the potential nature of dark energy, interacting with all these gravity particles at the edge (which have been displaced, excavated from inside the galaxy to the outside) creating even more mass and more gravity, and potentially just an interaction which instead of the pooled particles continuously drifting off into space, are urged back towards the galaxy, potentially with the angular momentum as well.

So you propose that mass creates gravitons that are projected to the edge of the galaxy where they gather, or at least collect up and do not escape the galaxy. In turn this creates more gravity to fix the rotation curves.

While i know it sounds pretty solid a theory, there would be no reason for these particles to be flung outwards, they would fling in all directions. Not only that but they would cause an ever increasing gravitational field on the galaxy itself, causing an acceleration of the rotation with time, and an increasing lensing effect with time.

There two effects have not been observed best i can tell. They would also cause large scale structure formation in the outer regions of galaxies where the gravitation pulse would cause matter to condense into more stars. From your model, you expect that the regions with more 'gravity particles' to be regions of intense star formation... once again this is not observed, star formation proceeds at all parts of a disk galaxy, and appears to be driven by stellar explosions causing local density waves.

Last question; Are you an honorable enough man that if you do consider what I am saying and work on this and share with your colleagues, that you will share with me the nobel prize?

I am, though sorry to say, if we did see Dark Matter, I would not get the prize. It would likely go to 3 people, one theory person, probably the professor who came with the principle design of the detector and someone else.... Also, if we did, we would not see a prize for a very long time.

originally posted by: ErosA433

Well this is not what we observe, nor is it true of local scale, or of galactic or inter galactic scales. The Earth's or any other objects gravitational influence becomes unimportant when it becomes second or third order, but it doesn't mean that it is simply blinked out of reality. To do so would allow for a statement such as to say, the Earth has no influence on the gravitational pull of say, Proxima Centauri. A brilliant estimate would be to ignore all the planets and say, ok only the sun matters. But the reality is that, all things experience the attraction, no matter how far the distance. At least this rule/law appears to hold from all observation.

You are ignoring what I said. Remove the earth from the equation right now, and there still exists a massive/energy dense medium responsible for, when the earth is in existence, gravity.

Comparing the average energy density of the gravity field without the earth existing in reality; to the energy density of the gravity field that earths mass 'takes up'/displaces.

What is measured as gravity of object falling towards earth, is not experiencing the true energy of the gravity field, it is experiencing the relative absent of the average energy density of the gravity field.

So all the energy in gravity field material that exists on average, but where there is mass, planet, all that energy must be pushed away/displaced from the square of the distance in incremental proximity, that is still energy/material, and is now existing in larger than average spatial densities quantities.

And besides, the standard thinking is basically that Mass causes gravity, sure simplistically put.

Mass causes gravity, but the field that allows gravity to exist, exists without mass. Mass needs that field to exist, in order to create what is known of as gravity

The thought model here appears to be built upon the first argument, which i believe to be disproven by our observations of galaxy clusters. Our simulations of galaxies and galaxy clusters appear to match observations almost exactly, with our old boring model of gravitation, with the exception of.... yes you guessed it, rotation curves and calculations of total mass.

I am suggesting the gravity of gravity is potentially a candidate for solving those problems. In dark matter models, how much mass is given in total for the mass of the gravity field of a galaxy? Relative mass would be when the gravity field is put in relative motion, via a mass. In equations that do have mass values or values incorporating the total mass of the gravity field, or how much it is thought the mass of a galaxy should produce in gravity (the squared or cubed spatial distances surrounding all spherical masses in the galaxy?)

Remember one thing when invoking the world relativistic... for anything to be relativistic in the sense you are using it, it must be moving extremely fast, even observationally fast moving stars, are not THAT fast.

No. Relativistic in the sense I am invoking is the fact that when any object is given momentum, it is also given technically calculable increase in mass.

While the SM of particle physics proposes a gauge boson, the graviton to mediate gravitation similar to that perhaps as the higgs boson of the higgs field. EVERYTHING would be interacting with the gravity field in proportion to mass, you don't need to invoke a particle, similarly to the higgs field. The higgs particle is an exciton of that field, you do not have to create it in order for the field to exist. The same should be true for the graviton. (?) i think, tho my memory of field theory is a bit dodge.

Graviton would be separate from higgs concept. Graviton would be the particle that composes the gravity field which is 'warpable'.

originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: ErosA433

You are very correct in that observation... one assuming any correct theory in physics should be simple and elegant is anthropomorphizing and using magical thinking.

Well from a philosophical pov you would expect a GUT (the "correct" theory of everything) to be able to predict all those parameters we just "measure" and stick to the model. It's a hint that we are modelling a bigger system where an underlying mechanism is the explaination. I don't know if it would result elegant (in fact I am not even sure what elegant means in mathematical therms, probably nothing), but simpler surely.

originally posted by: ErosA433

Well this is not what we observe, nor is it true of local scale, or of galactic or inter galactic scales. The Earth's or any other objects gravitational influence becomes unimportant when it becomes second or third order, but it doesn't mean that it is simply blinked out of reality. To do so would allow for a statement such as to say, the Earth has no influence on the gravitational pull of say, Proxima Centauri. A brilliant estimate would be to ignore all the planets and say, ok only the sun matters. But the reality is that, all things experience the attraction, no matter how far the distance. At least this rule/law appears to hold from all observation.

And besides, the standard thinking is basically that Mass causes gravity, sure simplistically put.

It seems a circular argument, gravity on local scales isn't the same as for galactic+ scales from observations, that's why we have mass and rotational curves issues. I wonder why nobody ever dare to go one step before this and rethink about the assumptions/postulates. Maybe cause specializations deprive scientist of the ability to speculate about the "bigger picture".
For example, what is "distance"? And what is "space-time"? Do they exist or are virtual?

We take these things for granted and use the assumptions of previous theories to justify further researches. You will never be able to falsify relativity with our current tech, unless you find a competing explaination that does rely on less assumptions at some larger scale.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Graviton would be separate from higgs concept. Graviton would be the particle that composes the gravity field which is 'warpable'.

Fields aren't composed of anything afaik, bosons are couplings between fields and particles. What you are saying is basically that gravitons are the space-time component, not exactly the gravity one.

well not always, you see, there are ways we can measure distance fairly accurately. These methods are constantly researched and examined. The best is a type 1a supernova, which occur as a result of contact binary stars. It is a run away process that produces a fairly narrow range of energy, along with some reproduced time dependant afterglow etc

science continues to hone these measurements and update there accuracy or certainty so the level of 'assumption' is not as high as often people want to suggest.

On 'what is distance' 'what is space-time' These questions are valid but also gives an assumption perhaps that the truth is not what we already have. I mean distance and time come into many aspects of our day to day existence, experience, and in the objects we have constructed etc...

It mainly sounds like the normal argument of "How do you know, where you there to see it?" it tries to play down the advances of science and technology as invalid or worthless without actually understanding the details of the theory or what the state of scientific art is. So yes there is quite a few assumptions, we are the first to agree. Though these assumptions are not plucked from vacuum. They are taken on good scientific basis, with evidence. Many alternatives or people who postulate alternatives, mount assumptions ontop of assumptions without any basis or evidence other than, my point really is that more alternatives are based on big straw buildings, the state of science is a little more firm from my own experience.

The bigger picture here for many seems to be based on the assumptions that the foundations are wrong, but their own pet theory will fix everything without anything being scientifically different.

I'm sure I'll have some resident physicists smack me around for saying this but am I the only one who thinks dark matter is stupid? TO me it never made sense. Even as a kid I dismissed it outright as being stupid. Like it was a bad grasping at straws attempt to explain why the math didn't play out exactly right in the early theories of how the universe worked. And now they have too much pride to admit that it's a silly notion. I dunno I'm not a physicist and I'm sure one will come along and tell me to get in where I fit in which is not on some dark matter board. but to me when I first heard of dark matter it sounded like a child had come up with the idea.