Dark Matter - Dark energy

I've been reading lately about how black holes can evaporate and that got me thinking, could Dark Matter be a product of this evaporation?

I can't see anywhere that this has been put forward as an explanation so I may be missing something obvious, but wouldn't it make sense for that to be the case? Or am i indeed missing something obvious?

I just read an article on Dark matter in the last couple of days, one of the science sites I read every day had it on there. Some well known scientist mentioned that evidence shows that Dark matter is not possible but dark energy is possible. Could be the other way around though, I just scanned the article and it is not one of my interests, so I kind of don't pay attention and memorize the content if it does not interest me at the time. I think it was on Scitech daily or physics.org

a reply to: rickymouse

In terms of the evaporation of a black hole I think either could be up for discussion as a result of that effect, dark Matter and dark energy

a reply to: stu119

Dark matter was theorized to exist because the equations do not work beyond our solar system. The missing mass that would allow the equations to work has therefore been deemed "dark matter", because it has not been detected but is theoretically necessary if we wish to continue to hold on to an apparently out-dated theory.

I believe this missing force or interaction that is holding the universe together is hiding in plain sight. You refer to it being a scattered black hole, but I would think the answer would be more along the lines of the missing force/interaction being involved with the shape of spacetime itself. Although it could be possible that undetectable mass (dark matter) is responsible for keeping the universe together, my wager is that it is some other phenomenon that is perpetuating the universe. This may also lead us to a more comprehensive theory of everything.

a reply to: cooperton

Does spacetime have a shape? In an expansive possibly infinite universe it's more likely to be misshapen and expansive in certain areas dependant on gravitational pull?

a reply to: stu119

When a black hole evaporates, it is by a process that produces radiation (called Hawking Radiation).

This can be conceived of as occurring because quantum fluctuation produces virtual particle and virtual anti-particle pairs (according to supersymmetry). Each particle at the quantum scale can really be thought of as just a packet of energy.

Normally, in free space, those pairs re-merge, annihilating them and giving a net energy difference of zero (from where they came).

However, due to the massive gravitational gradient near to a singularity, one virtual particle falls into the gravity well a bit faster than another, and so the particle that falls first past the event horizon is lost to to the rest of the universe (it is trapped forever), granting it's energy/mass to the black hole, while the other particle which can no longer annihilate, grants its energy to the rest of the universe.

While in this process, the total final energy is still zero, the case is that the energies are permanently separated from each other and so each particle becomes 'real' and non-virtual.

The process steals a tiny bit of gravitational energy, and therefore mass, from the black hole, converting it into a packet of radiation (a photon) and this depletes the black hole by tiny amounts, evaporating the black hole.

Dark matter is something different again to this radiation. Dark matter is conceived of as consisting of massive particles (massive in gravitational terms, not massive in size) that interact weakly with the universe (WIMPs, or weakly interacting massive particles). One example of these WIMPs is the neutrino particle which the Sun produces large numbers, but they interact so weakly that most of them pass entirely through the Earth completely unnoticed.

If you watch the first episode of the Netflix series "The 3 Body Problem" one of the scientists enters a large space with detectors like circular mirrored reflectors all around it, and with water at the bottom of the space. This is a neutrino detector (that they call a 'Cherenkov chamber' in the show). It works by picking up the very faint Cherenkov radiation produced when a neutrino sometimes reacts with the water in the tank. The blue glow you see inside nuclear reactors that use water as a shield/coolant is this same Cherenkov radiation.

originally posted by: stu119
a reply to: cooperton

Does spacetime have a shape? In an expansive possibly infinite universe it's more likely to be misshapen and expansive in certain areas dependant on gravitational pull?

Spacetime is currently believed to be almost 'flat' and fairly linear in all possible dimensions, but that is an 'almost' description.

Spacetime is locally curved and its density is changed by masses (or acceleration), and we see that curvature primarily as gravitation.

In the case of a space probe going past a planet, we see the probe as being attracted towards the planet by gravity, however what is really happening is that the mass of the planet is crunching up spacetime near the planet. This means that the path of the space probe while still travelling in a straight line according to the structure of spacetime, is actually being deflected towards the mass because of the changing density of spacetime closer to the planet.

A black hole is a majorly steep gradient in the curvature of spacetime.

I like the Dr Who description that spacetime is "all spacey-wacey and timey-wimy".

It’s kind of weird that the equations do not work beyond our solar system, so we have to make stuff up so that they do. Currently dark matter and dark energy are a belief system - quite ironic really considering.

However that got me thinking. Didn’t NASA say that Voyager found something very strange beyond the bounds of our heliosphere? Maybe it found that there is nothing beyond it, literally nada, meaning everything we see in the night sky beyond our local system is just a projection.

Or it could just be that the equations are wrong and scientific dogma means they’re just clinging on to fallacies.

originally posted by: ARM19688
It’s kind of weird that the equations do not work beyond our solar system, so we have to make stuff up so that they do. Currently dark matter and dark energy are a belief system - quite ironic really considering.

However that got me thinking. Didn’t NASA say that Voyager found something very strange beyond the bounds of our heliosphere? Maybe it found that there is nothing beyond it, literally nada, meaning everything we see in the night sky beyond our local system is just a projection.

Or it could just be that the equations are wrong and scientific dogma means they’re just clinging on to fallacies.

The equations that don't work are those that suggest that the stellar systems should be slinging off the galaxy as it rotates, but instead, they continue to orbit the galactic core.

This suggests that there must be a lot of stuff that we cannot see that is the source of all the extra gravitation required to keep those stellar systems in orbit.

Because we can't see it, it was called 'dark' matter.

Originally it meant only normal stuff that somehow eluded our observation, but it was soon realized that massive objects should be 'bright' and so the idea of a special type of dark or unseeable matter was more likely.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ARM19688
It’s kind of weird that the equations do not work beyond our solar system, so we have to make stuff up so that they do. Currently dark matter and dark energy are a belief system - quite ironic really considering.

However that got me thinking. Didn’t NASA say that Voyager found something very strange beyond the bounds of our heliosphere? Maybe it found that there is nothing beyond it, literally nada, meaning everything we see in the night sky beyond our local system is just a projection.

Or it could just be that the equations are wrong and scientific dogma means they’re just clinging on to fallacies.

The equations that don't work are those that suggest that the stellar systems should be slinging off the galaxy as it rotates, but instead, they continue to orbit the galactic core.

This suggests that there must be a lot of stuff that we cannot see that is the source of all the extra gravitation required to keep those stellar systems in orbit.

Because we can't see it, it was called 'dark' matter.

Originally it meant only normal stuff that somehow eluded our observation, but it was soon realized that massive objects should be 'bright' and so the idea of a special type of dark or unseeable matter was more likely.

Yes. I know, but the equations don’t work. So you’re saying there is something missing because the my should work. I’m saying they are wrong.

originally posted by: ARM19688

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ARM19688
It’s kind of weird that the equations do not work beyond our solar system, so we have to make stuff up so that they do. Currently dark matter and dark energy are a belief system - quite ironic really considering.

However that got me thinking. Didn’t NASA say that Voyager found something very strange beyond the bounds of our heliosphere? Maybe it found that there is nothing beyond it, literally nada, meaning everything we see in the night sky beyond our local system is just a projection.

Or it could just be that the equations are wrong and scientific dogma means they’re just clinging on to fallacies.

The equations that don't work are those that suggest that the stellar systems should be slinging off the galaxy as it rotates, but instead, they continue to orbit the galactic core.

This suggests that there must be a lot of stuff that we cannot see that is the source of all the extra gravitation required to keep those stellar systems in orbit.

Because we can't see it, it was called 'dark' matter.

Originally it meant only normal stuff that somehow eluded our observation, but it was soon realized that massive objects should be 'bright' and so the idea of a special type of dark or unseeable matter was more likely.

Yes. I know, but the equations don’t work. So you’re saying there is something missing because the my should work. I’m saying they are wrong.

All we have to go on are the equations that we use for conventional physics and that do work here.

The extra mass of dark matter is the fudge factor that makes the equations work.

By Ockhams Razor, the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is usually correct.

But that does not preclude the possibility that the equations themselves are wrong, but how might we determine where the equations are wrong and how might we re-write them if we were to throw out what we do know?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ARM19688

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ARM19688
It’s kind of weird that the equations do not work beyond our solar system, so we have to make stuff up so that they do. Currently dark matter and dark energy are a belief system - quite ironic really considering.

However that got me thinking. Didn’t NASA say that Voyager found something very strange beyond the bounds of our heliosphere? Maybe it found that there is nothing beyond it, literally nada, meaning everything we see in the night sky beyond our local system is just a projection.

Or it could just be that the equations are wrong and scientific dogma means they’re just clinging on to fallacies.

The equations that don't work are those that suggest that the stellar systems should be slinging off the galaxy as it rotates, but instead, they continue to orbit the galactic core.

This suggests that there must be a lot of stuff that we cannot see that is the source of all the extra gravitation required to keep those stellar systems in orbit.

Because we can't see it, it was called 'dark' matter.

Originally it meant only normal stuff that somehow eluded our observation, but it was soon realized that massive objects should be 'bright' and so the idea of a special type of dark or unseeable matter was more likely.

Yes. I know, but the equations don’t work. So you’re saying there is something missing because the my should work. I’m saying they are wrong.

All we have to go on are the equations that we use for conventional physics and that do work here.

The extra mass of dark matter is the fudge factor that makes the equations work.

By Ockhams Razor, the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is usually correct.

But that does not preclude the possibility that the equations themselves are wrong, but how might we determine where the equations are wrong and how might we re-write them if we were to throw out what we do know?

First thoughts are to throwaway the possibility of a theory of everything. We know of gravities impact in the universe to an almost 90%? Why should everything fit a mathematical equation? If it did then you would definitely round off life after death and likely other life in the universe when using that theory as it would close off supposition.

We know nothing inside a black hole beyond theory and nothing of dark matter/energy as the focus is on other things in science.

Perhaps people don't want to face facts - we are alone, we are a self destructive race that is destroying our own evolution and will eventually kill off our planet.

Maybe the geocentric model is correct.

Einstein said that there is no observable experiment that can be done on earth to prove it is in motion. This is still true.

If all the stars are travelling at different vectors then it is impossible for them to track around polarus in uniform pattern for known existence.

Dark matter is theory because it needs to exist for their model to work.

It may be that their dark matter is the orgone or ether that has been widely dismissed as myth.

originally posted by: stu119
a reply to: cooperton

Does spacetime have a shape? In an expansive possibly infinite universe it's more likely to be misshapen and expansive in certain areas dependant on gravitational pull?

Take the shape of a wormhole for example. If we were to be observing a wormhole from the outside, it would be in the shape of a sphere. Do you know of any spheres in the universe? The solution may have been in front of our eyes this whole time

originally posted by: chr0naut
All we have to go on are the equations that we use for conventional physics and that do work here.

It could be argued they don't work for our solar system either. The extent of the empirical data is the equations work for orbital dynamics around earth as well as experiments like the Cavendish experiment which shows a small attraction of bodies with mass.

The gravitational equation can work with a 2 body system. This is how they guess the mass and distance of everything in our solar system, they assume a 2-body system and input whatever data would match the orbital period of a planet around the sun.

But the main problem comes from the fact that a 3-body system (such as the earth sun and moon) has no realistic solution for a stable triune orbit. If you take the mass and distance of all 3 objects and simulate it with gravitational equations and time then the moon will sway out of orbit very quickly... showing that the gravitational equations are missing something even when it applies to this solar system. This is known as "the 3 body problem" in physics. Here is a generic example:



So if these equations don't even work for orbiting bodies in our own solar system then it is clear we need a more thorough answer, which I believe involves a special kind of spacetime geometry

originally posted by: UnderAether
Maybe the geocentric model is correct.

Einstein said that there is no observable experiment that can be done on earth to prove it is in motion. This is still true.

Einstein's thought experiment was that someone in a reference frame could not know if the entire reference frame was in motion. However by reference to the relative motions of objects within the reference frame, motion relative to those objects is easy to infer. That is why the set of theories are referred to as 'relativity', we can only know about motions relative to reference points.

Since we can see other objects within our reference frame (such as stellar objects - stars and galaxies), we do know of our movement relative to them.

If all the stars are travelling at different vectors then it is impossible for them to track around polarus in uniform pattern for known existence.

But stars aren't travelling in random directions.

Many of them have been observed to be following orbits around their galactic centers. We can tell about their position and direction of motion by astrometry (high accuracy positional and angular measurements) data and by the doppler effect shifting of their spectra.

Dark matter is theory because it needs to exist for their model to work.

It may be that their dark matter is the orgone or ether that has been widely dismissed as myth.

Definitely not Orgone Energy, Odic force, Animal Magnetism, Morphic Resonance, Midichlorian associated 'Force', or similar. I don't think that these have any real credence, empirical evidence, or experimental test on their side.

The Higgs field and permittivity of spacetime are close to, and more useful analogues of 'the aether'.

Those old theories were discarded because they were disproven by experiment, such as with Michelson-Morley Interferometry, and by evidences of entropy.

However, WIMPs definitely exist, and perfectly fit the bill as candidates for dark matter. The only issue is that there must be more of the stuff than we have actually observed to date.

The other option is that there are possible gravitation-like forces that act at cosmic and interstellar scales than we are locally able to measure. Or perhaps forces mediated through higher dimensions than we can observe. There are many hypothetical options...

a reply to: cooperton

Forgive my ignorance on this but for the 3 body problem, Is the moons orbit not controlled by the "lock" it has to earth's gravity and why we only see one side of the moon? Is that not why it's orbit doesn't spiral out of control?

originally posted by: stu119
a reply to: cooperton

Forgive my ignorance on this but for the 3 body problem, Is the moons orbit not controlled by the "lock" it has to earth's gravity and why we only see one side of the moon? Is that not why it's orbit doesn't spiral out of control?

There are a bunch of attempted explanations but none that involve known physical forces / interactions. To me, this shows that the current gravitational equation can only accurately explain orbital mechanics around the earth, and the attraction of masses on earth. I believe these properties are the side-effect of a deeper, more universal force / interaction that could also allow a proper theoretical connection between the macro and the micro scale and begin to originate a theory of everything.

As of now, "gravity" is wayyy too weak to be relevant on the atomic scale. But if the gravitational force we feel on earth is due to something besides mere mass then there may be a way to reconcile this with the atomic scale. Especially when we have to make-up approximately 20x more dark mass/energy to accommodate the theory beyond our solar system, it is very clear something is dramatically wrong with the equations and perhaps our outlook on the universe as a whole. The 'Theory of Everything" is like the holy grail of physics. Einstein was working on it up until his last day but could not figure it out.

The closest thing that resembles how those orbits work has to be atoms.

If that's the case then would it not be down to magnetism and charge rather than just gravitational pull?

originally posted by: stu119
The closest thing that resembles how those orbits work has to be atoms.

If that's the case then would it not be down to magnetism and charge rather than just gravitational pull?

Yeah atoms are even messier in my opinion. There's a supposed "strong force" that holds protons together even though their like-charges should repel each other. It's called the strong force because it in theory has to be stronger than the repulsion that protons should have on each other. The electron should be collapsing into the nucleus since positive attracts negative but for some reason the electron remains away from its beloved. The leading idea is that electron "spin" is responsible for it not collapsing into the nucleus.

The more you question them, the atomic and astronomic models sound like a pathological liar trying to evade admitting they are wrong.

With that being said, there are many good nuggets of empirical truth and I do believe one day, hopefully soon, we will be able to realize the underlying mechanism behind it all. To do this I believe you need to really stick to the basic empirical facts of the matter and go from there, while also maintaining creativity and raising new potential hypotheses.

To throw another thought in here - is it accepted or even proposed that perhaps the Universe is in rotation and it's those forces that are affecting the orbits?