Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Reinterpreting dark matter...

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dolour
the ORDINARY brown dwarfs you keep refering to are NOT made of dark matter.
they are just large gas giants, on the treshold to ignite its nuclear fire.
This is the point of definition that you don't get. The brown dwarfs are ordinary matter, which if we can't see it when it's too far away, is considered a type of dark matter. I've given you sources for this but you're still in denial of this accepted definition.

Brown Dwarf Detectives

White dwarfs, brown dwarfs, black holes and gas account for some of the dark matter. The rest is presumably a new form of matter."
So, you can debate about the existence of the new form of matter, but you really have no valid argument against brown dwarfs being another type of dark matter, which is ordinary matter that we can't see. How much more clear can a statement be than "White dwarfs, brown dwarfs, black holes and gas account for some of the dark matter."?

Some dark matter is ordinary matter. That much really isn't in dispute by anybody, except perhaps you may be the only person on the planet with other ideas about that accepted definition.

Regarding what the other dark matter is that's not ordinary matter, you're not the only person with other ideas about what's going on there, and the topic of this thread is in fact about a new idea.




posted on Aug, 4 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


White dwarfs, brown dwarfs, black holes and gas account for some of the dark matter. The rest is presumably a new form of matter."
So, you can debate about the existence of the new form of matter, but you really have no valid argument against brown dwarfs being another type of dark matter, which is ordinary matter that we can't see. How much more clear can a statement be than "White dwarfs, brown dwarfs, black holes and gas account for some of the dark matter."?

Some dark matter is ordinary matter. That much really isn't in dispute by anybody, except perhaps you may be the only person on the planet with other ideas about that accepted definition.

Regarding what the other dark matter is that's not ordinary matter, you're not the only person with other ideas about what's going on there, and the topic of this thread is in fact about a new idea.


WOW !

so... atoms, is what we know as matter
but if we look into space and those atoms don't radiate enough to detect them, they become dark matter ??

edit on 4-8-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Hey guys, I saw a documentary and they mentioned that they didn't know where dark matter was, they didn't know whether or not it existed in our universe. So could dark matter actually exist not somewhere else, but rather sometime else? I'm learning physics in school so I looked at some rather high-level of physics so I'm just curious.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dolour

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Dolour
Yes ordinary matter is considered "dark matter" when it's too far away for us to detect the infrared radiation it emits with current technology. I'm not sure why you don't understand this, but NASA's website explained this pretty well.

mwhahahaha, brilliant! ill keep that for quotes.
thats the second most distrubring and seemingly illogical claim youve made(only the sun vs earth garbage was more amusing).

an object IS either radiating or it is NOT.
what part of that radiation is reaching earth and to what degree, doesent change anything about that bodies radiation.
its like claiming that stuff beyong the range of our visible usiverse would be another kind of weired matter, bc light from it doesent reach our area of space.

as usual you havbe brought rock solid evidence of your "understanding" of physical laws.
...or in your case "lawls".



Wow you have a hard time with concepts dont you. The term dark matter is simple dark matter is any matter we canot detect doesnt matter in the least if it radiates anything if we cant detect it. Dark matter is a place holder nothing more we know somethings out there we just cant see it. But one thing we do know there is stuff out there we cant detect we see the interactions if you are against the term dark matter call it something else who cares. I find it funny how people quibble over definitions in the attempt to disprove science.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


White dwarfs, brown dwarfs, black holes and gas account for some of the dark matter. The rest is presumably a new form of matter."
So, you can debate about the existence of the new form of matter, but you really have no valid argument against brown dwarfs being another type of dark matter, which is ordinary matter that we can't see. How much more clear can a statement be than "White dwarfs, brown dwarfs, black holes and gas account for some of the dark matter."?

Some dark matter is ordinary matter. That much really isn't in dispute by anybody, except perhaps you may be the only person on the planet with other ideas about that accepted definition.

Regarding what the other dark matter is that's not ordinary matter, you're not the only person with other ideas about what's going on there, and the topic of this thread is in fact about a new idea.


WOW !

so... atoms, is what we know as matter
but if we look into space and those atoms don't radiate enough to detect them, they become dark matter ??



Exactly again dark matter is just a placeholder for we dont know what the heck is causing the gravity but from what we can see there isnt enough stuff. Mostly because we are confined to visible spectrum at great distances this is why we are trying to look into other bands to detect the stuff. When we find it it will no longer be dark matter. Why is this concept hard for people?



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Virg099
Hey guys, I saw a documentary and they mentioned that they didn't know where dark matter was, they didn't know whether or not it existed in our universe. So could dark matter actually exist not somewhere else, but rather sometime else? I'm learning physics in school so I looked at some rather high-level of physics so I'm just curious.


Well if we see its effects it definitely exists in our universe. As for time its a dimension of our universe its not going to effect if matter is detectable other than it takes time for em radiation to reach us.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

originally posted by: Virg099
Hey guys, I saw a documentary and they mentioned that they didn't know where dark matter was, they didn't know whether or not it existed in our universe. So could dark matter actually exist not somewhere else, but rather sometime else? I'm learning physics in school so I looked at some rather high-level of physics so I'm just curious.

Dragonridr is right it must be in our universe. Regarding "sometime else", look at an example. This photo is galaxy cluster Abell 2218 which is about 2.3 billion light years away, which means this image is what it looked like 2.3 billion years ago.

www.astro.ubc.ca...


See the elongated distorted shapes? Those are more distant galaxies, that have been gravitationally distorted by Abell 2218, but there's a problem with that. We don't see enough light or other radiation coming from this galaxy cluster to account for that much gravitational distortion, so therefore we presume, there is more matter there, aka "dark matter".

In order for that "dark matter" to have the observed lensing effect it would also need to be at a similar "lookback time" of 2.3 billion years ago, putting it in the same vicinity of Abell 2218. So yes all the visible matter and implied dark matter in this image is sometime else, specifically about 2.3 billion years ago (except the more distant gravitationally lensed/distorted galaxies, which are even further back in time).

As for a temporal displacement, we have found a physical displacement of the center of mass of visible and dark matter in observations of the bullet cluster, and therefore this implies from a certain viewing angle there would also be a temporal displacement (in the "lookback time") of these centers of mass. The fact that this might make it appear "sometime else" isn't really the point though, since the time discrepancy wouldn't be that large, but the point is, the displacement seems to rule out modified gravity theory as an explanation for dark matter since a modified gravity theory could not account for this displacement in center of mass, thus it's considered one of the best direct proofs of the existence of dark matter.

As an aside, yes, you could have minor spatial and thus temporal displacements of center of mass of baryonic matter and presumably mostly non-baryonic dark matter, but that's not really the main point to consider in those observations. However this displacement is atypical and is observed in the bullet cluster because of its unique history (a previous collison). There are other cases where this has happened such as MACS J0025.4-1222, but typically the centers of mass of the baryonic and implied non-baryonic matter are better aligned so there wouldn't be much position or "lookback time" displacement of the dark matter.

edit on 20-9-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Ok thanks guys! So dark matter is like something that has a strong gravitational force that can hold galaxies together right?



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Virg099
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Ok thanks guys! So dark matter is like something that has a strong gravitational force that can hold galaxies together right?


Exactly and since your just starting out in Physics when you graduate maybe you can figure out what.


Here you might find this interesting i did.

www.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


Wow you have a hard time with concepts dont you. The term dark matter is simple dark matter is any matter we canot detect doesnt matter in the least if it radiates anything if we cant detect it. Dark matter is a place holder nothing more we know somethings out there we just cant see it. But one thing we do know there is stuff out there we cant detect we see the interactions if you are against the term dark matter call it something else who cares.

I care. The term dark matter has always been used to describe an exotic form of matter which is weakly interacting. If anything we need a new name for normal matter we can't see, calling it dark matter is stupid. It makes the topic much more complicated than it needs to be when you start using the same term for two completely different things.

EDIT: also this theory of dark matter is getting close to my own theory on dark matter. It's about time the scientific community realized that describing dark matter as individual weakly interacting particles will not fit observational data. By interpreting dark matter as a Bose-Einstein condensate they're essentially unifying all dark matter into a single quantum mechanical dark matter "fluid". The theory I propose is a very similar concept, dark matter halos can be unified into a single entity described as a gravitational illusion, which would have properties very similar to that of an isotropic fluid.
edit on 21/9/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 02:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: dragonridr


Wow you have a hard time with concepts dont you. The term dark matter is simple dark matter is any matter we canot detect doesnt matter in the least if it radiates anything if we cant detect it. Dark matter is a place holder nothing more we know somethings out there we just cant see it. But one thing we do know there is stuff out there we cant detect we see the interactions if you are against the term dark matter call it something else who cares.

I care. The term dark matter has always been used to describe an exotic form of matter which is weakly interacting. If anything we need a new name for normal matter we can't see, calling it dark matter is stupid. It makes the topic much more complicated than it needs to be when you start using the same term for two completely different things.


You got it wrong the same term covers two completely different things. i could say i need to get a bottle of coke or a bottle of shampoo there both bottles but whats inside is different. See when people play games with definitions this is the result arguments over the irrelevant. Dark matter is nothing more than a better way than saying we dont know what it is, But if you like we can refer to as something that has a gravitational effect that we are unable to detect through observation. But me i think ill stick with dark matter its shorter.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


Dark matter is nothing more than a better way than saying we dont know what it is, But if you like we can refer to as something that has a gravitational effect that we are unable to detect through observation.

We know a lot about dark matter actually. We know how it interacts with other matter, we know how it is distributed throughout the galaxy, and we know that non-visible normal matter cannot possibly account for it. Therefore we predict there must be some type of weakly interacting particle, some type of new exotic matter which is very different from normal matter. It is dark because it doesn't even interact with photons, we look straight through it like glass. This has already been explained numerous times in this thread.
edit on 21/9/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 02:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
I care. The term dark matter has always been used to describe an exotic form of matter which is weakly interacting. If anything we need a new name for normal matter we can't see, calling it dark matter is stupid.
We don't need a new name, these things have names already. People interested in the topic can learn them. They are called baryonic dark matter and non-baryonic dark matter.

BARYONIC VS NONBARYONIC DARK MATTER

Candidates for the dark matter may be grouped into nonbaryonic and baryonic types. These will be referred to these as "Inos" and "Population III", respectively, and the candidates are listed explicitly in Table 1 in order of increasing mass. Some of the ino candidates are elementary particles and - depending on their mass - these are usefully classified as "hot" or "cold" since this affects their clustering properties. The term Weakly Interacting Massive Particle or WIMP is often used to describe these particles, though some people restrict this term to particles that are massive enough to be cold. The other inos are more exotic relics from the Big Bang and, for present purposes, primordial black holes are included in this category. [For a comprehensive review of the ino candidates, see Turner (1991).] Table 1 illustrates that there are many forms of nonluminous matter, so it is naive to assume that all the dark matter problems will have a single explanation. Even though some of the candidates in Table 1 can probably be rejected, many viable ones remain.
Note the comment: "is naive to assume that all the dark matter problems will have a single explanation".


It makes the topic much more complicated than it needs to be when you start using the same term for two completely different things.
It's much more complicated than two things, these are the ideas for the sources of non-baryonic dark matter, and similarly there are multiple possible sources for the baryonic dark matter listed in the source above along with sources for non-baryonic dark matter but not as many as shown below. We are trying to consider all possible sources.


originally posted by: ErosA433
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 Sep, 21 2014 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


Candidates for the dark matter may be grouped into nonbaryonic and baryonic types.

Ok now I understand what you are saying. But the thing you need to realize is that baryonic types of dark matter (eg MACHOs and other non-luminous forms of normal matter) have all but been ruled out. The most generally accepted theory for dark matter in the scientific community is WIMPs because the baryonic types simply don't cut the mustard, that is why we had to introduce an exotic form of dark matter in the first place. Most scientists are very convinced that some type of weakly interacting particle must exist, or something analogous to it.

EDIT: I do understand the point you're making, but my point is that baryonic matter shouldn't be considered as dark matter just because we can't see it. In my mind all the baryonic matter is just a normal part of the galaxy, it interacts normally with other matter and clumps together. But the real dark matter is the exotic stuff which doesn't even interact with photons, it's the stuff which forms a large isotropic halo around our galaxy, so it's possible to draw a clear distinction between the galaxy and the cloud of dark matter surrounding it.
edit on 21/9/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Ok now I understand what you are saying. But the thing you need to realize is that baryonic types of dark matter (eg MACHOs and other non-luminous forms of normal matter) have all but been ruled out.
I wouldn't say they've been ruled out, the opposite is true, we are nearly 100% certain that they account for some of the dark matter. Not the majority of it however.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Ok now I understand what you are saying. But the thing you need to realize is that baryonic types of dark matter (eg MACHOs and other non-luminous forms of normal matter) have all but been ruled out.
I wouldn't say they've been ruled out, the opposite is true, we are nearly 100% certain that they account for some of the dark matter. Not the majority of it however.

That is a fair point, my response wasn't worded very well. What I meant is that we have ruled out baryonic matter as a complete explanation for where all the extra mass comes from. The idea used to be that baryonic matter could explain all dark matter, but that is clearly not true. You are correct though, the baryonic matter which doesn't shine contributes a bit of invisible mass to any given galaxy. But there's nothing really mysterious about that type of matter, we basically know what it is and we know why we can't see it, and it's fairly insignificant compared to the total amount of dark matter.



posted on Sep, 22 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
it's fairly insignificant compared to the total amount of dark matter.
That depends on how accurate our estimates are and how you define "fairly insignificant". If baryonic dark matter is 20% of total dark matter, that's significant, even if it's not the majority. One group has claimed this figure just for MACHOs, but it's not confirmed and other estimates have a fairly broad range:

MACHOs

One group, the MACHO collaboration, claims to have found enough microlensing to predict the existence of many MACHOs with mass of about 0.5 solar masses, enough to make up perhaps 20% of the dark matter in the galaxy.
That's just MACHOs, and wouldn't include other forms of baryonic dark matter which would make the total percentage of baryonic dark matter even higher. However even the most optimistic estimates wouldn't bring it to 50% so you're right there's definitely something else to account for the majority of the gravitational observations, but the data aren't conclusive enough yet to proclaim baryonic dark matter is "fairly insignificant" the way I define that term.






top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join