Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Reinterpreting dark matter...

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 10 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Some of the latest findings on what has been called Dark matter. By illustrating dark matter as a form of Bose-Einstein condensate the models tend to agree with observations.

The theory of cold dark matter helps to explain how the universe evolved from its initial state to the current distribution of galaxies and clusters, the structure of the Universe on a large scale. In any case, the theory was unable to satisfactorily explain certain observations, but the new research by Broadhurst and his colleagues sheds new light in this respect.

As the Ikerbasque researcher explained, "guided by the initial simulations of the formation of galaxies in this context, we have reinterpreted cold dark matter as a Bose-Einstein condensate". So, "the ultra-light bosons forming the condensate share the same quantum wave function, so disturbance patterns are formed on astronomic scales in the form of large-scale waves".

This theory can be used to suggest that all the galaxies in this context should have at their centre large stationary waves of dark matter called solitons, which would explain the puzzling cores observed in common dwarf galaxies.

The research also makes it possible to predict that galaxies are formed relatively late in this context in comparison with the interpretation of standard particles of cold dark matter. The team is comparing these new predictions with observations by the Hubble space telescope.

The results are very promising as they open up the possibility that dark matter could be regarded as a very cold quantum fluid that governs the formation of the structure across the whole Universe.


www.spacedaily.com...




posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Very interesting. I think when we finally understand dark matter it will be a huge breakthrough.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 01:30 AM
link   
I believe dark matter is a form of water that we don't understand yet. This story speaks of waves and water in liquid form causes waves.
Just read the bible, water was separated above the vault (heavens our atmosphere where the birds fly) and below the vault, on earth, rivers,seas and such.
We know of water in different forms on earth, vapor,liquid, ice.
Anyhow , anxiously waiting for scientists to figure out what it is.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 04:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Texcin
I believe dark matter is a form of water that we don't understand yet.
We are standing on dark matter, the Earth is made of it, it's called "baryonic dark matter". There are some types we understand, and some types we don't.

Dark matter is likely composed of several different things; planets, dead stars too faint to observe, black holes, and things we aren't as familiar with, like the substances talked about in the OP which we can now add to the following list of dark matter candidates:

www.universetoday.com...

“Dark matter”, in astronomy, usually means “cold, non-baryonic dark matter”. This is a form of mass which reacts with other matter via only gravity – and, possibly, the weak force – and which comprises approximately 80% of all matter in the universe. There is also “baryonic dark matter”, which is just ordinary matter, like dust, gas, rocks, and even stars that does not emit radiation yet detected by our telescopes (or absorb it, from more distant sources). And there is also “hot, non-baryonic dark matter”, which is just neutrinos.



edit on 11-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 05:30 AM
link   
Why spoil it with ,read the bible bs !
Dark matter are just anti gravity bubbles



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Denoli

You do know that dark matter has to add mass, not remove it. Thus dark matter cannot have anti-"gravity", only normal "gravity".

edit on 11-7-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Nail on head there Arbitrageur, there are different forms of dark matter, and much close examination of space has been performed and lots of different theories with different shares of matter content. They point as you say to this unobserved fraction being about 75-80% of the matter content of the universe.

As for what it is, there are as many theories as you can think of, and an interesting interplay between what the theories are and how they behave. There is a great image that shows this...



That is not my picture, I grabbed it from a blog after I saw it presented by a theorist in a conference.... To say that dark matter theory is closed minded is to deny that theory didn't put all its eggs in one basket but actually many baskets hehe



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Finally they are getting closer. Has been quite a stumble in the dark since the 1930s...
Dark matter is hard to detect, yet I see it all the time. Are the scientist blind or what for the last 80 years or so?
They should still drop the solitons and other exotic particles that have been cooked up.

A small correction would be required still, dark matter is the cause of gravity. Dark matter exerts pressure on ordinary matter that causes the formation of planets etc. It is elementary physics, if there is a force, there must be a counter force. Think of formed ordinary matter as the cooling waste of the Bose-Einstein condensate that needs to be pushed aside and aggregated into matter to maintain the condensate at a constant temperature of a few Kelvins above absolute zero.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433
You mentioned that diagram in another thread, and I was looking forward to seeing it..thanks for posting it! Nice illustration!



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
We are standing on dark matter, the Earth is made of it, it's called "baryonic dark matter". There are some types we understand, and some types we don't.

actually there is NO, ZERO, NULL proove for dark matter.
its just an arbitrary value that has to be inserted to make the equations work.
free parameters=bad!
funny how you allways make it sound as if "holy sciences claims" would be all rock solid and totally prooven... -.-

so its ok for mainstream sciernce to wildly speculate without any physical proove?


originally posted by: MarsIsRed
I you close your eyes and I hit you with a [proverbial] baseball bat, would you not be able to detect it?
Now, it's true you'd be in the 'dark' about the exact nature of the object that struck you, but you'd certainly know it was there!

good example, so we assume it MUSTVE been a baseballbat, judging from the bleeding head injury.
now, couldnt it allso have been a lead pipe, a piece of stone, a golfclub, etc? NO!
we didnt find ANYTHING, the guy might as well just have slipped, but we INSIST it has to be the baseballbat, bc noone in the right mind wouldnt consider headinjuries not being caused by baseballbats...


Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with alternative theories, and certainly don't treat current understandings as any sort of dogma, but if everything is electric (which is what you are inferring) why can't we detect it?

because we'd first need to get some sort of measurment device there, wich wont happen bc its "heretic talk"!


You do know that dark matter has to add mass, not remove it. Thus dark matter cannot have anti-"gravity", only normal "gravity".

we just need to figure out what gravity really is, then this whole dark matter nonsense will come to an end...


"Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still very self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves.

Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible -However, even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for them and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion."

Nikola Tesla


edit on 11-7-2014 by Dolour because: moar typos



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
We are standing on dark matter, the Earth is made of it, it's called "baryonic dark matter". There are some types we understand, and some types we don't.



originally posted by: Dolour
actually there is NO, ZERO, NULL proove for dark matter.
So, I guess the Earth doesn't exist in your view?
In my view the Earth exists and we know it's made of dark matter.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So, I guess the Earth doesn't exist in your view?
In my view the Earth exists and we know it's made of dark matter.

and wheres your proove its made of dark matter?
the mere fact that it exists prooves nothing in regards of what its made of...
logical conclusions obviously arent yours.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dolour
and wheres your proove its made of dark matter?
the mere fact that it exists prooves nothing in regards of what its made of...
logical conclusions obviously arent yours.
Did you read the source I posted saying rocks are a type of dark matter? The Earth is essentially a giant rock, right?

Proof isn't really needed since rocks are a type of dark matter, by definition.
edit on 11-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Did you read the source I posted saying rocks are a type of dark matter? The Earth is essentially a giant rock, right?

Proof isn't really needed since rocks are a type of dark matter, by definition.

"Since Zwicky could find no evidence of mass in the Coma cluster, from the light detected by the telescopes he used, other than in the galaxies, he postulated that there is a lot of matter that is ‘dark’ – does not emit light."

up to this day its totally unprooven, but it figures...
elsewhere you scream the loudest bout mathematical solutions being worthless without experimental proove,
and now you bring up pure hyphotesis and treat is as if it were prooven long ago and were self-explanatory.
selfrighteousness at its finest, lawl.

what have experiments brought up to directly proove dark matter?
im not talking about indicies like lens effects, wheres your experimental proove?

in case you again didnt knew, theres more than one way to account for the "missing mass", or to be more precisely,
to explain the attraction of bodies observed ona cosmological scale.
it isnt nessesarily caused by gravity ONLY, but thats the only thing MSC considers viable.
edit on 12-7-2014 by Dolour because: moar typos



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 05:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dolour
"he postulated that there is a lot of matter that is ‘dark’ – does not emit light."
The amount is postulated, but the existence of the Earth and other planets which don't emit light is undisputed fact. If you're asking me to prove the existence of the Earth, or that the Earth doesn't emit light like the sun does, I'm sorry but the question is too ridiculous to answer. Dark matter is that which doesn't emit light, and the Earth doesn't emit light, hence it is dark matter, by definition.

OK man added some lights to it, but until very recently in astronomical terms, Earth didn't have manmade lights. They probably aren't bright enough to be seen from another galaxy, like our sun.
edit on 13-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Earth and other planets which don't emit light is undisputed fact

dude, ALL common matter emits light, so does earth.
even black bodies do, its called infrared LIGHT. *tard*
as usual your whole argument is totally pointless. -.-



Dark matter is that which doesn't emit light, and the Earth doesn't emit light, hence it is dark matter, by definition.
OK man added some lights to it, but until very recently in astronomical terms, Earth didn't have manmade lights. They probably aren't bright enough to be seen from another galaxy, like our sun.

theres this stuff we assume called fusion, wich basically means the sun does generate, along heavier elements, craploads of light.
its not really suprising the earth doesent shine like the sun, granted that we dont live on a several thousand to million degree hot ball of flaming plasma.
thats propably a sad new "highlight" in your arguing...

/edit: en.wikipedia.org... prolly you should have a look at a brief description of DM.
claiming earth would be dark matter bc it doesent emit light like the sun really made my day, lol.
edit on 13-7-2014 by Dolour because: couldnt resist...



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

"Stationary Wave"?? I thought a wave implied change in some sort of pattern. I can't wrap my head around what a stationary wave is or acts like.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: pavil
"Stationary Wave"?? I thought a wave implied change in some sort of pattern. I can't wrap my head around what a stationary wave is or acts like.

think of your medium floating upwards with the same velocity as your wave propagates downwards.
they basically cancel out the relative movements in 3d space, but the energy is still transported.
similar results can be caused by interference, when several waves from different directions particulary amplify and cancel each other out, in a manner that creates an interference pattern, not moving relative to the observer.
edit on 15-7-2014 by Dolour because: moar typos



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dolour
/edit: en.wikipedia.org... prolly you should have a look at a brief description of DM.
claiming earth would be dark matter bc it doesent emit light like the sun really made my day, lol.
I read wikipedia as you suggested and it lists planets as a type of baryonic dark matter:

Baryonic Dark Matter

In astronomy and cosmology, baryonic dark matter is dark matter (matter that is undetectable by its emitted radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter) composed of baryons, i.e. protons and neutrons and combinations of these, such as non-emitting ordinary atoms. Candidates for baryonic dark matter include non-luminous gas, Massive Astrophysical Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs: condensed objects such as black holes, neutron stars, white dwarfs, very faint stars, or non-luminous objects like planets)
"Non-luminous objects like planets" means planets not emitting light. You're right that planets do emit radiation, but it's not in the visible light spectrum. The light from the sun is in the visible spectrum though the sun also emits EM radiations at frequencies outside that of visible light.

The non-luminous radiation is so hard to detect that we have a hard time spotting non-luminous baryonic objects in the distant parts of our own solar system, which is astronomical terms is not that far away, so detecting it from distant planets and especially in other galaxies isn't something we can do with current technology.
edit on 15-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...
where the HELL did you get the ludicrous idea from earth wouldnt emit light?
ALL damn matter is shining like a lit sparkler!
a single hadron not interacting with light doesent mean makroscopic matter wouldnt do. *tard*
edit on 15-7-2014 by Dolour because: moar typos





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join