Dark Matter As A Weakly Interacting Clump Of Stuff That Travels With The Matter Is Incorrect

[miketempleton]

Moderation note: the first 3 posts of this thread were split from the thread True Vacuum because they are about a different topic

 

Dark matter as a weakly interacting clump of stuff that travels with the matter is incorrect. Dark matter fills 'empty' space and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. Dark matter strongly interacts with matter. Dark matter is displaced by matter.[/size]

 

[0903.3802] The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided

 

the emerging picture of the dark matter halo of the Milky Way is dominantly lopsided in nature.

 

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the dark matter, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.

 

What physicists mistake for the density of the dark matter is actually the state of displacement of the dark matter. Physicists think they are determining the density of the dark matter by how much it and the matter curve spacetime. What they fail to realize is the state of displacement of the dark matter is curved spacetime.

 

There is evidence of the mass which fills 'empty' space every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves. In a double slit experiment the particle is always detected traveling through a single slit because it always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the strongly interacting dark matter that passes through both.

[sanctus]

Mike, can you support any of your claims? remember this is a science forum and claims have to be supported. Just stating that dark matter is displaced by matter is not acceptable.
It is true, that we do not know what dark matter really is, but the current models for it to be massive and weakly interacting make predictions verified so far.

[miketempleton]

'[0903.3802] The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided'

 

the emerging picture of the dark matter halo of the Milky Way is dominantly lopsided in nature.

 

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the dark matter, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.

 

'[1004.1475] Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'

 

Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely.

 

The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the dark matter. The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what is occurring physically in nature as the galaxy clusters move through and displace the dark matter. 

 

After 30 years and over a billion dollars spent and there being zero evidence of a weakly interacting dark matter I would think physicists would be capable of considering the possibility that the notion of WIMPs is incorrect. When should we expect physicists to consider the possibility that the notion of WIMPs is incorrect? After 100 years and over a trillion dollars spent? Are we expecting physicists to look for WIMPs forever?

 

There is evidence of the strongly interacting dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves.

Edited March 31, 2016 by miketempleton

[LaurieAG]

The standard Compton wavelength [math] {\lambda} = \frac{h}{m c}[/math] and the reduced Compton wavelength [math]\bar \lambda = \frac {\lambda}{2 \pi} = \frac{\hbar}{m c}[/math] while the reduced Planck constant [math]\hbar = \frac {h}{2 \pi}[/math].

 

In terms of matter [math]m = \frac{h}{\lambda c}[/math] or [math]m 2 \pi = \frac {\hbar}{\lambda c}[/math]

 

It's interesting that our current calculated universal matter = (Dark matter + Ordinary matter) = Ordinary matter * [math]2 \pi[/math].

[miketempleton]

In terms of [math]E=mc^2[/math] what we are discussing are the physical effects caused by matter evaporating into dark matter. When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into dark matter. The matter expands as it evaporates. The physical effects caused by the expansion is energy.

[CraigD]

A belated welcome to Hypography, Mike! We all appear to have missed your first post, about dark energy. Please feel free to start a topic in the introductions forum to tell us something about yourself.

 

Before talking about dark matter, I think it’s important to understand that DM is theorized to exist to explain 2 distinct problems: the large scale position and velocity of galaxies due to their mutual gravitational attraction; and the smaller scale position and velocity of stars within galaxies due to their mutual gravitational attraction. In both cases, these motions can’t be explained using only the observed baryonic matter, so theorist propose, ad-hoc, a kind of matter that interacts gravitationally by not in other way that can be observed – “dark matter”.

 

Dark matter as a weakly interacting clump of stuff that travels with the matter is incorrect. Dark matter fills 'empty' space and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

Dark matter strongly interacts with matter. Dark matter is displaced by matter

Mike, can you support any of your claims? remember this is a science forum and claims have to be supported. Just stating that dark matter is displaced by matter is not acceptable.

It is true, that we do not know what dark matter really is, but the current models for it to be massive and weakly interacting make predictions verified so far.

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the dark matter, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.

What sanctus is asking you for, mike, is a link or reference to a credible scientific text supporting your claim that dark matter interacts strongly with matter (by which I assume you mean baryonic matter).

 

The links you’ve posted don’t support this claim. Saha, Levine, Jog and Blitz's "The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided" uses models informed by measurements of hydrogen density and the velocity of stars to concluded that the distribution of mass outside the Milky Way galaxy is not uniform. Shan, Qin, Fort, Tao, Wu and Zhao's "Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter" uses observations of gravitational lensing and x-rays to concluded that the center of gravity of distant galaxies (which assumed to be due to both dark and baryonic matter) differs significantly from what it would be if dark matter wasn’t present. Both papers assume the usual, that dark matter interacts with baryonic matter mostly via gravity, the weakest of the fundamental forces.

 

If you can’t find any support for you claim, you need to make your own. I gather from your claim that the MW is “moving through” a dark matter background medium that you believe the MW has a velocity relative to this DMB. What do you calculate it to be – that is, what is its direction and magnitude? If you can make a prediction, it can be tested with observation. Ideas that don’t make testable predictions aren’t of much worth in science.

 

Hypothesizing that DM is displaced by baryonic matter, wouldn’t this mean that the great voids would have a lot of DM in them? But this disagrees with the observed motion of the galaxies, which appear to essentially orbit one another.

 

If your hypothesis that DM is displaced by baryonic matter is correct, I think it must still be “clumped” around it, not distributed evenly through the voids between galaxies and galaxy clusters. Even the simple gravitational simulations I’m able to run fail to give realistic results if I assume otherwise.

 

After 30 years and over a billion dollars spent and there being zero evidence of a weakly interacting dark matter I would think physicists would be capable of considering the possibility that the notion of WIMPs is incorrect.

Physicist have considered many alternative to the most popular cold dark matter theory to explain the anomalous motion of stars and galaxies. This Wikipedia article section has a summary of them.

 

It’s important to understand that the CDM hypothesis doesn’t require the matter to be weakly interacting massive particles. However, decades of searching for CDM consisting of hard-to-observe Baryonic matter (such as dwarf stars or diskless black holes) have nearly ruled them out. That doesn’t mean it’s not there, but as we make better telescopes, especially space-based infrared ones, that seems increasingly so.

 

There is evidence of the strongly interacting dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves.

You appear to be claiming that dark matter is a luminiferous aether. There are huge theoretical problems with this, IMO the most obvious and important explaining the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment. Unless you can explain this – a feat more than a century of the best minds in physics have been unable to do – I recommend you abandon this line of thinking.

[miketempleton]

If you can’t find any support for you claim, you need to make your own. I gather from your claim that the MW is “moving through” a dark matter background medium that you believe the MW has a velocity relative to this DMB. What do you calculate it to be – that is, what is its direction and magnitude? If you can make a prediction, it can be tested with observation. Ideas that don’t make testable predictions aren’t of much worth in science.

 

Black holes banish matter into cosmic voids

 

But Haider's team also found that a surprising fraction of normal matter - 20% - is likely to be have been transported into the voids. The culprit appears to be the supermassive black holes found in the centres of galaxies. Some of the matter falling towards the holes is converted into energy.

 

This energy is delivered to the surrounding gas, and leads to large outflows of matter, which stretch for hundreds of thousands of light years from the black holes, reaching far beyond the extent of their host galaxies.

 

As the matter falls toward the supermassive black hole it evaporates into dark matter. The dark matter is then emitted into the galactic lobe. It is the dark matter which causes the particles of matter, the gas, to be pushed far beyond the extent of the host galaxy. This continuous process is energy.

 

At the scale of our Universe the energy described above is dark energy.  A Universal black hole is powering the Universal lobe we exist in. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow

 

Dark flow is an astrophysical term describing a possible non-random component of the peculiar velocity of galaxy clusters. The actual measured velocity is the sum of the velocity predicted by Hubble's Law plus a possible small and unexplained (or dark) velocity flowing in a common direction.

 

The Universal black hole powering the Universal lobe we exist in causes the directionality of the matter associated with the dark flow.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor

 

The survey also confirmed earlier theories that the Milky Way galaxy is in fact being pulled towards a much more massive cluster of galaxies near the Shapley Supercluster, which lies beyond the Great Attractor.

 

The Milky Way is not being pulled, it's being pushed.

 

Hypothesizing that DM is displaced by baryonic matter, wouldn’t this mean that the great voids would have a lot of DM in them? But this disagrees with the observed motion of the galaxies, which appear to essentially orbit one another.

 

What physicists mistake for the density of the dark matter is actually the state of displacement of the dark matter. Physicists think they are determining the density of the dark matter by how much it and the matter curve spacetime. What they fail to realize is the state of displacement of the dark matter is curved spacetime. The galaxies orbit one another because they displace the dark matter. The state of displacement of the dark matter causes the galaxies to orbit one another. The voids do have dark matter in them. However, the dark matter is far enough away from the matter that it isn't being displaced by the matter.

 

If your hypothesis that DM is displaced by baryonic matter is correct, I think it must still be “clumped” around it, not distributed evenly through the voids between galaxies and galaxy clusters. Even the simple gravitational simulations I’m able to run fail to give realistic results if I assume otherwise.

 

What you mistake for the dark matter having to be "clumped" is the state of displacement of the dark matter. The "missing mass" is the mass of the dark matter connected to and neighboring the matter which is displaced by the matter. The Milky Way's halo is not a "clump" of dark matter. The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the dark matter, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.

 

Physicist have considered many alternative to the most popular cold dark matter theory to explain the anomalous motion of stars and galaxies. This Wikipedia article section has a summary of them.

 

Every dark matter proposal consists of the dark matter as a clump of stuff that travels with the matter. There isn't a single alternative explanation proposed by physicists where the matter moves through and displaces the dark matter.

 

It’s important to understand that the CDM hypothesis doesn’t require the matter to be weakly interacting massive particles. However, decades of searching for CDM consisting of hard-to-observe Baryonic matter (such as dwarf stars or diskless black holes) have nearly ruled them out. That doesn’t mean it’s not there, but as we make better telescopes, especially space-based infrared ones, that seems increasingly so.

 

It doesn't matter how good the telescopes are as long as physicists insist on not understanding 'empty' space has mass which is displaced by matter.

 

You appear to be claiming that dark matter is a luminiferous aether. There are huge theoretical problems with this, IMO the most obvious and important explaining the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment. Unless you can explain this – a feat more than a century of the best minds in physics have been unable to do – I recommend you abandon this line of thinking.

 

The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space that the Earth moved through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Quantum_vacuum

 

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ether in contemporary theoretical physics

 

It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.

 

Matter, quantum solids and fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass and so does the dark matter.

 

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' 

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

 

"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

 

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the dark matter as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that dark matter consists of particles which can be individually tracked through time. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

 

 

'NASA's Gravity Probe B Confirms Two Einstein Space-Time Theories'

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html]http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html

 

"Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time," said Francis Everitt, GP-B principal investigator at Stanford University.

 

Honey has mass and so does dark matter. The 'swirl' is the state of displacement of the dark matter.

Edited April 1, 2016 by miketempleton

[CraigD]

What sanctus is asking you for, mike, is a link or reference to a credible scientific text supporting your claim that dark matter interacts strongly with matter (by which I assume you mean baryonic matter).

...

If you can’t find any support for you claim, you need to make your own. I gather from your claim that the MW is “moving through” a dark matter background medium that you believe the MW has a velocity relative to this DMB. What do you calculate it to be – that is, what is its direction and magnitude? If you can make a prediction, it can be tested with observation. Ideas that don’t make testable predictions aren’t of much worth in science.

Black holes banish matter into cosmic voids

Again, the article you link to doesn’t address or support your claim that dark matter interacts strongly with baryonic matter.

 

The article summarizes the current scientific consensus that the universe consists of 4.9% baryonic matter, 26.8% dark matter, and 68.3% dark energy, and recent results from the Illustris collaboration in which a computer simulation suggest that more – 20% vs 6% - of the baryonic matter may be found between galaxies than previously thought.

 

Please don’t post links to articles that don’t support your claims as support for them :Exclamati:

 

Again, as you are claiming that the Milky Way galaxy has a velocity relative to a dark matter background that it displaces, what do you calculate that velocity to be? Such an effect – the “bow wake” and similar - should be easy to detect from anomalies in the displaced DMs gravitational interaction with stars and interstellar gas like those described in Saha, Levine, Jog and Blitz's paper. As the paper presents a lot of galactic north-south differences, can you at least suggest that the Milky Way is moving through the DM background in a galactic northerly or southerly direction? Can you outline observations that could be made to falsify you hypothesis? If you can’t, you’re doing bad science!

 

The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space that the Earth moved through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

You are equating dark matter with a luminiferous aether, and claiming that the galaxies, and thus planets in them like Earth moves through it. The MM experiment is designed to detect the velocity of the Earth relative to the aether. So if the aether exists, and doesn’t exactly match the Earth’s velocity as it orbits the Sun, the MM experiment should detect it.

 

You seem to be claiming that the aether is displaced by matter such as the Earth, but if it displaced all of it, and EM radiation requires a aether, then EM radiation would be impossible on Earth. If the Earth only partially displaces the aether, a sufficiently sensitive version of the MM experiment should be able to detect a velocity of the Earth relative to the part of the aether that isn’t displaced.

 

Do you disagree? Do you think no MM-like experiment has been sufficiently sensitive to detect the Earth’s velocity relative to it? How sensitive (in m/s) do you believe a MM experiement would have to be?

[miketempleton]

Do you disagree? Do you think no MM-like experiment has been sufficiently sensitive to detect the Earth’s velocity relative to it? How sensitive (in m/s) do you believe a MM experiement would have to be?

 

The Gravity Probe B experiment detected the state of displacement of the aether.

 

 

'NASA's Gravity Probe B Confirms Two Einstein Space-Time Theories'

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html]http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html

 

"Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time," said Francis Everitt, GP-B principal investigator at Stanford University.

 

Honey has mass and so does the aether. The 'swirl' is the state of displacement of the aether.

 

You need an experiment with the sensitivity of the Gravity Probe B experiment in order to detect the state of the aether as determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the aether in neighboring places.

 

The state of displacement of the aether is curved spacetime.

 

How sensitive does an experiment need to be to detect the Earth moving through and curving spacetime? The Gravity Probe B detected the state of the spacetime connected to and neighboring the Earth as determined by the Earth. How much more sensitive would it have to be to detect the Earth's motion through it? The experiment which would detect Earth's motion through spacetime would also be detecting the Earth's motion through the aether because the state of displacement of the aether is curved spacetime.

Edited April 1, 2016 by miketempleton