Dark Matter? Where?

A theory is knocking around saying that 20% of the universe is made up of an exotic substance called 'Dark Matter', whilst a whopping 70% is Dark Energy and only 10% visible (these figures are no doubt being scrutinised and will be corrected shortly by a helpful member).

Could this theory be true?

A fifth of the universe is made of something we cant see and dont know where it is?
To me, this does not sound plausible, and suggests a problem not with the theory of Dark Matter itself, but with the calculations that gave birth to it.

Basically, as is my understanding, Dark Matter, is what happens when you add theory a with theory b, sprinkle with some other theories and serve with a side salad of theory x. Sorry for sounding disbelieving in all this, but its only when you see how many theories actually go into its existence that you start to realise, they're still theories, some partially proven, some not, some still being researched.

Theories are constantly being altered, adjusted, trimmed, revised, added to, and before they are proven sound, they're being used to substantiate other theories, backing them up. Then another theory is being built on the last, whilst the first are being tweaked and fiddled with.

With such mind numbing mathematics and figures being used, how certain are we of the house of cards we've built of having a firm base?

If one theory is proved wrong or 'inaccurate' does someone go around and re-write all other theories that are linked to that? I don't think they do.

reply to post by Daisy-Lola


You cannot see dark matter, but its location is absolutely knowable. Observations can be made of a phenomena called 'gravitational lensing'. Basically, something is bending light where nothing apparently is, causing the stars 'behind' this something to appear to shift in brightness. This happens because dark matter has mass, and thus produces gravity. Here's a link.

Linky

Though I am no scientist, I believe, based on what I have studied, that Dark Matter is likely the cumulative result of the virtual particles that arise in the seething energy of the plenum. ("Plenum" is the opposite of vacuum and denotes a space not empty at all.)

I could be wholely wrong, of course.

What causes this to manifest more in some places and less in others is unclear, but perhaps the same or similar effect is in play as has aggrigated and lumped visible matter.

Anyway, without additional mass - and a lot of it - the galaxies would fly apart based on their movements, or rather the energy exhibited by their movements

reply to post by Daisy-Lola

A fifth of the universe is made of something we cant see and dont know where it is?

I'm not sure that would be too much of a surprise really, if you look at the spectrum of light that the human eye can see. I think as technology keeps progressing, more and more of these questions will be answered.

I wish I knew more about astronomy, there is definitely tons of interesting stuff happening out there.

Before there was something, there was nothing which...ironically was something.

Something has to have come together to form perceivable matter, call them quarks, anti quarks, gonads, dark matter. It just makes sense.

Take lemonade for example, you've got lemons, water, some sugar all in a glass container, but is that what they truly are or only what we define them based on our observation of them? Are they not upon closer inspection points of intense concentrations of energy which as our suns have varying degrees of swirling energy around them? What we see is only a part of an infinitely much larger world. Platos analogy to the cave is a good way of explaining what I'm saying.

Originally posted by Daisy-Lola

With such mind numbing mathematics and figures being used, how certain are we of the house of cards we've built of having a firm base?

If one theory is proved wrong or 'inaccurate' does someone go around and re-write all other theories that are linked to that? I don't think they do.

The point Im making is not whether the existance of Dark Matter is actual, but the theory relating to it being there.
There is no physical trace of it, and I understand that what we see is a very limited area of the spectrum, that is not the key point. Its there in theory only. We know if its existanence, not by its presence, but by mathematics. What I'm pointing out is that theories built on theory built on theory is/can be a dangerous thing. We know what we're supposed to be looking for, but what if we're looking for is a pot of fairy gold at the end of the rainbow?

If you change one theory, just slightly, realise that one part of the equations is wrong, or should include an additional factor (or not), that would react all the way up the rest of the chain of theories in some way.

Is it possible that the maths is wrong? Perhaps not in the Dark Matter theory, but in one of its earlier links.

It would be wrong to claim that the maths are perfect, we are all fallable creatures. The best that can be stated is that the maths are as close to perfection as can be assessed at this point

Dark matter is theoretical. As is the vast majority of Physics. Mathematically, the theory can be made but not proven 100%.

What I have heard, is that the dark matter exists either between the "membrane" of dimensional space, or in constant flux with it. Which is why we cannot see it. A "membrane" which contains another universe is supposedly only a few nanometers away from us, but due to the constrictions of our own universe is neither observable or attainable.
The lensing effect that is often associated with dark matter can be caused by a bending of the membrane that our universe exists in.
It has also been speculated that energy can travel in and out of these membranes on the subatomic level. Which brings up the following. As is above, so it is below. This means that the universe is fractal in nature, and not only can be calculated into the massive infinities of the known and unknown universe, but into the infinities of the sub atomic. Which is also another thing to consider when thinking of the origins of Dark mater. The rules seem to be non applicable when you get past a certain point sub atomically both theoretically and mathematically.
Which is the possible answer to where and or when or how the multidimensional membranes can be accounted for.
Whew!

these kinds of questions are why I've starting studying sciences again (at the ripe old age of 44 - good number, 44, if you're into numerology at all, but that's a WHOLE other topic, and I sideline here)

I remember hearing that

1. there are mathematically either 10 or 11 dimensions (we live in 4 - 3 spatial, 1 is time) - the jury is still out on that one

2. atoms are mostly "empty space", and we can only deal with electrons in probabilities - they are dual in nature, having both particle-like (mass, for e.g.) and wave-like (constructive/destructive interference, for e.g.) properties

in other words, as my last term chemistry prof. said, "we really don't know what electrons are" ... everything is just theories, in fact, what I would call hypotheses, as they are not (and so far cannot be) proven

this kind of makes me feel like and also like

so I wonder if this dark matter is all these other dimensions, the ones we can't see. if you've ever seen Carl Sagan's flatland analogy, it's about viewing 3 physical dimensions from a 4th, higher, dimension. a being in that 4th physical dimension could easily see all of our 3rd physical dimension, but we, being "stuck" in the dimensions we can experience, can't actually see or experience that 4th physical dimension. was quite the awakening for me.

so these higher dimensions... they must be "somewhere" right? and it seems that everything proven mathematically, if it is actually proven and not fuddled with, turns out to be true - the laws we know have all been derived mathematically. (God I love math)

so I don't find the idea of dark matter to be a fantastical idea, and if the math doesn't work, then they just haven't found the real, elegant, solution yet. and yes, if one of the components of the formula fails, then the rest has to be reworked. it doesn't mean the basic precept doesn't have some merit.

for anyone who wants to watch it.. here's that Carl Sagan flatland analogy