It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# What is Dark Matter?

page: 5
4
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 07:37 PM

originally posted by: Astyanax

I think a Flying V with a Bigsby on it is an abomination. Bring torches! Bring torches!

Lonnie Mack is a deity of Blues. How dare you question his vibrato bar!

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 08:16 PM

Suppose gravitons have mass.

Suppose gravitons are relatively moving, along with having mass (that would be extra energy/mass, relatively)

Suppose dark energy exists between galaxies.

The difference between inside a galaxy, and outside it, in relation to gravity/graviton is the difference in geometry/energy density of gravity field/gravitons.

The galaxy is moving, or just standing relatively still rotating, and the space between galaxies is growing?

So either, for analogy, take a bed sheet, and place 10 marbles on it, and have 5 people put each hand on a marble, and at the same time, they move the marbles so that there is increasing distance between them;

Or; Take an elastic sheet; 5 feet by 5 feet. Take a marker and draw a grid from end to end so the boxes are 1 inch by 1 inch.

Take a marker and draw 10 spirals at random distances from one another.

This is assuming the sheet is stapled down, and stapled down only, along the perimeter.

Take your fingers and place them in the middle of a spiral, or imagine 5 people doing this covering each spiral at the same time.

Twist the elastic sheet. The inch by inch boxes would now be 'stretched', so without the galaxies actually moving in relation to one another and in relation to an ultimate reference frame, the 'space in between them expanded'. Accelerating expansion would just mean that the twisting of the galaxy increased (like a figure skater tucking their arms in).

The problem is trying to relate such a concept, though it is a concept birthed from the discussion of trying to comprehend the meaning of 'accelerated, or even, expanding universe'; it seems impossible to make sense of the notion, in comparing to actual reality.

Because what would the meaning of a physical correlate be, to actual physical space/substance, which cannot be avoided in getting to any point a to any point b; and in which this space can be stretched, and its new length after having been stretched, is now the unavoidable length that must be traversed to get to any point a to any point b.

Anyway...well I hardly even know why I am playing along, but;

if dark energy is real, a constant potentially increasing amount of 'energy/matter' 'pushing' the gravity well walls of the galaxy;

Could this relative mass of gravity relative mass of dark energy create new relative mass trajectories, also creating new amounts of gravity warping, and this is partly the 'dark matter' that holds the galaxy together?

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 09:19 PM
My theory on it:

Quantum gravitational theory

If we take what we know about gravity, that it increases in strength as mass/energy increases, that mass bends space time, and that objects moving through a gravitational field experience "slower time" relative to that field, can this be a safe assumption then:

That we can define time as how long it takes energy to propagate along a given distance of space. And that altering the variables of that space alters how long it takes the energy to propagate thus affecting relative time when you affect space?

Gravity diminishes as you get farther from mass, thus the effect on energy propagation through space diminishes as you get farther from the mass.

You can see time as a unit that measures energy propagation through a known distance of space relative to you. Since time slows in a gravitational field, then it almost appears that something is slowing down the energy propagation through the space in a gravitational field relative to the proximity and density of the mass.

Since density affects how fast energy propagates in a medium, it is almost like the "density" of space somehow increases near mass and slows energy propagation through it in relation to the distance from the mass. Energy nearer the mass would be propagating slower than the energy farther from it, thus bending the trajectory of energy/matter around the mass depending on the distance and size of both masses.

If we see observable mass as energy at a high stable quantum state, wouldn't quantum physics dictate that energy could also have lower stable states that are not observable to us, but can still affect the space around it? To me it would seem observable mass would exist at a higher stable energy level, but would also have lower stable quantum states of energy that we can not directly observe. These decreasing energy states extending beyond observable mass would affect the "density" of the space around them without being traditional observable mass. This decreasing density of the quantum states in space surrounding observable mass would affect how long it takes energy to propagate relative to distance. In essence if there were lower states of stable energy below traditional mass, they would act like a gravitational field, bending energy and matter while slowing time (energy propagation) relative to the mass.

In essence then spacetime doesn't really bend, as much as stable lower quantum energy levels extending beyond observable mass slow the propagation of energy through that space in relation to its distance from the mass. Thus bending the trajectory of matter/energy through that space by slightly altering how fast different parts of the mass are traveling along that space.

As you increase the energy of observable mass in its traditional state you also should be increasing the energy in all the lower unobservable quantum states that coexist with it as well. As you increase energy, the lower states transition to a higher states. As you approach c you would be inputting so much energy into the system that all of the quantum states of that mass would all be approaching higher and higher stable levels, increasing the mass of the object to near infinity at speeds approaching c. This increase in density would also slow energy propagation through the accelerated mass and account for relativistic time dilation of that mass at higher energy levels (speeds). This may explain the increase in mass as you add more energy to a system, relativistic time dilation, and why traditional mass is limited to speeds of c.

Since energy in an observable quantum stable state is limited to how fast it can propagate through normal space to c because anything with observable mass will have limitations imposed on it by the lower quantum states. But lower stable quantum states might be able to collapse and propagate faster with no such limitations, since they do not have traditional mass. Changing a quantum state of a higher energy level, might immediately influence all the lower energy levels emanating from it faster than c. This can also account for spooky action at a distance where entangled particles seem to interact at speeds faster than c.

The dual nature of light and other mass as a wave and particle is also explained by mass being able to have multiple quantum states at different energy levels simultaneously. It is possible that it does exist as both at the same time. On an observable stable quantum level as a particle, and at a stable quantum state lower where we can not directly observe it , but we can see the wave like properties it has. In this theory it probably exists in almost infinite quantum states simultaneously, we just can not observe them, but we can detect the effects as gravity on observable mass.

This can also explain why gravity is very weak on the quantum level. On the quantum level you are staying within the confines of a single stable quantum energy level. Not the area “around” mass where the quantum energy level starts to drop to lower stable states, and creates the transition needed to bend energy and create the gravitational effect.

It then also would be fair to assume that a large amount of energy might exist in a stable quantum state that is not traditional mass, but still high enough to create this gravitational effect. You would assume there would be more of it as the energy levels go down. And energy in this state is not detectable like traditional mass but still has measurable gravitational effects on the space around it. This also account for all the dark matter we can not detect.

Is it possible that energy can exist on other stable levels besides traditional mass/matter? That we can not detect that mass because it is in a different stable quantum state than us and our instruments? That that undetectable mass still has an affect on the space around it and can affect how observable mass behaves?That having multiple stable energy levels simultaneously explains most of the mysteries of quantum physics? Is the end of what we can measure and observe really the end, or just the tip of the quantum iceberg.

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 09:57 PM
Some of those ideas are interesting, but it's not a "theory" in the scientific sense as explained by wikipedia:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
It's more like an idea, but if that's supposed to be an idea about dark matter, the first problem is one we have been discussing in this thread, that the distribution of dark matter doesn't seem to be correlated with the matter we can see in our local stellar neighborhood. The explanation often given for this lack of correlation is the hypothesis that much of the Milky Way's dark matter is in a "halo" outside the main visible part of the galaxy

If it's got nothing to do with dark matter then it's off-topic in a "what is dark matter?" thread, but either way if you want to make it more than an idea you'd need to formulate how it could tested or compared to observation to see if it's correct or not. When you get 20 posts you can start your own thread about your quantum gravity ideas where it would be on-topic.

A modified gravity theory such as MOND, or such as your idea if I understand what you're trying to say can't explain dark matter by itself, as explained in this paper:

Dark Matter separate from visible matter

The new research is the first to detect luminous matter and dark matter independent of one another, with the luminous matter clumped together in one region and the dark matter clumped together in another. These observations demonstrate that there are two types of matter: one visible and one invisible.

In this image, dark matter (blue) has become separated from luminous matter (red) in the bullet cluster.

That in a nutshell why your proposed idea if I understand it can't explain dark matter observations. Your idea is sort of a variation on MOND and that evidence suggests all MOND-type ideas, even those which may have some merit on their own, can't account for all dark matter observations. It doesn't prove any MOND idea is completely wrong, but it does seem to show that something else is needed to explain observations, even if some MOND ideas are true.

edit on 5-6-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 12:15 AM

Those old blues guys sometimes had to play what they could get.

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 08:08 AM
Going out on a limb here and saying dark matter could be counsiousness FTW!

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 03:50 PM

I would have never noticed his guitar was ugly if you hadnt mentioned it .
edit on 6-6-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 07:03 PM

it might not be a quark. But do you think my sentiment might be valid?
2nd.

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 09:18 PM

originally posted by: ErosA433

sure, because... you know... storing nearly a 4 tonne target at cryogenic temperatures is easy right... so why not
wow.... that'll certainly have to be one mother of an instrument.....

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 09:35 PM

It is... it is...

posted on Jun, 8 2015 @ 11:52 PM

originally posted by: ErosA433

It is... it is...
Lol you didn't catch the sarcasm there mate.
Or bring your instruments to me and I will detect you not only the dark matter but dark energy as well. Guaranteed. Trust me

edit on 8-6-2015 by Nochzwei because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 01:22 AM

originally posted by: ErosA433

sure, because... you know... storing nearly a 4 tonne target at cryogenic temperatures is easy right... so why not
That facility is pretty deep, right? What's the ambient temperature down there? If the cryogenics have to work against extra ambient heat at depth then they have to work pretty hard I suppose?

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol you didn't catch the sarcasm there mate.
At first I thought you were being sarcastic when you said the laboratory at NIST had their results backwards, when they determined that lowering their atomic clock by 1 meter resulted in the slower passage of time at the lower altitude, exactly as relativity predicts.

As evidence that NIST was wrong, you posted a video of two candles burning where the breeze was blowing a little more on one than the other and the brightness difference supposedly inferred this somehow measured the passage of time and proved NIST and all the other experiments confirming relativity wrong. I laughed at the sarcasm and knew you had to be joking, but then I found out you were serious, and laughed even harder.

In my experience it's completely impossible to tell when you're being sarcastic, as a result of Poe's Law.
edit on 9-6-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 01:20 PM
What is Dark Matter?

Personally, I think it's BS. Something required to make the math work.

Meanwhile, others posit a much more plausible idea (that gravity has variances based on how far away you get from the mass) that also makes the math work.

I have a feeling, that eventually we'll look back on Dark Matter the same way we now look back at the idea of an Ether.

Hey, I could be wrong. We'll probably know in a few years, once the LHC fails to identify something that doesn't exist.

Seems it isn't just me.....

www.foxnews.com...
science.time.com...
www.wired.com...

posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 02:08 PM

originally posted by: Gazrok
Meanwhile, others posit a much more plausible idea (that gravity has variances based on how far away you get from the mass) that also makes the math work.
How could that explain the picture I posted above?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It can't. I'm not saying that idea is completely implausible, just that it doesn't explain observations.

posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 04:14 AM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ErosA433

sure, because... you know... storing nearly a 4 tonne target at cryogenic temperatures is easy right... so why not
That facility is pretty deep, right? What's the ambient temperature down there? If the cryogenics have to work against extra ambient heat at depth then they have to work pretty hard I suppose?

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol you didn't catch the sarcasm there mate.
At first I thought you were being sarcastic when you said the laboratory at NIST had their results backwards, when they determined that lowering their atomic clock by 1 meter resulted in the slower passage of time at the lower altitude, exactly as relativity predicts.

As evidence that NIST was wrong, you posted a video of two candles burning where the breeze was blowing a little more on one than the other and the brightness difference supposedly inferred this somehow measured the passage of time and proved NIST and all the other experiments confirming relativity wrong. I laughed at the sarcasm and knew you had to be joking, but then I found out you were serious, and laughed even harder.

In my experience it's completely impossible to tell when you're being sarcastic, as a result of Poe's Law.
Ambient time and not man's chronometer time is what I was talking about.
The universe and everything in it, obeys ambient time.

Lol how far are the candles apart for wind to be different?::eyeroll::

posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 04:38 AM

Not even scientists know what dark matter is

posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 04:44 AM

originally posted by: Parthin
According to the estimated gravity due to the observed matter of our galaxy, it should fly apart as it rotates.

Ok, so the galaxy rotates in something, that prevents it from flying apart !

posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 12:20 PM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ErosA433

sure, because... you know... storing nearly a 4 tonne target at cryogenic temperatures is easy right... so why not
That facility is pretty deep, right? What's the ambient temperature down there? If the cryogenics have to work against extra ambient heat at depth then they have to work pretty hard I suppose?

The problem is actually three fold. It is very deep as you say, we have limitations on the maximum size of a single piece of equipment because it has to be tram through a drift, (Hard Rock mine, the size of the tunnels cannot be easily changed for us, and in fact have never been changed for the labs shipping). Out in the drift the average temperature is about 30-35C, inside the lab the air conditioning and filtration keeps it a cool 20-22 C, however due to the head height of the mine, the air pressure is about 20-25% higher, so rather than a normal 14.5 PSIA, it is around 18. The cryogenics work more or less fine because everything is vacuum jacketed, but the main issue is other equipment such as vacuum pumps, don't like the extra pressure.

Also, the Radon levels in the air are extremely high in comparison to the surface, we are in a hard rock mine after all, and rocks tend to be fairly Uranium and Thorium rich in general.

So mostly the challenges are things like... equipment working perfectly fine on surface but not underground.... and often its not clear why haha

posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 12:22 PM
Here is an interesting thought:

Dark matter may be the BIG BANG unfolding from within itself, growing into new universes and new BIG BANGS infinately.

new topics

4