My theory on Dark Matter

Originally posted by Amagnon
What is the precedent or observational basis for assuming an electron and positron vanish?

Like, you don't see them anymore?

In every other observable collision between particles - a new particle is created.

You can either create nothing (in an elastic collision) or, for example, you can create one or a few photons. Why do you discount that.

The answer to me is simple - they do create a new particle - it is from those particles that vacuum consists. I think it is a super dense fluid, composed of these particles which are plank length particles.

And I think that flying spaghetti monsters simply swallow these little e+e- sandwiches because these are so yummi! You see, my hypothesis has as strong foundations as yours.

reply to post by -PLB-

The term vibration remains vague to me, it is
not clear to me what exactly is vibrating.

Don't feel bad. It's not really clear to anyone else either. We don't know what matter is any more than we know what gravity is. We can describe how it interacts with things, but we don't really know what the things it's interacting with are either.

It seems to me that we can interact with dark matter by gravity.

It appears that way, yes. But that would logically follow from our present assumptions. Dark matter is just vibrationally more or less dense than visible matter. It's still matter.

If space is not volume, then what is it?

I used the word space because couldn't think of any english words that means what I mean, but it's similar by metaphor. "Event" is also similar by metaphor. "Container" or "grouping" might have been a better choice. Even "denominator" might have worked.

"Density" in its most general sense is a ratio. Amount of atoms in a given area of volume, musical notes in a given amount of time, number of people in a country, whatever.

I'm proposing that in terms of mass, vibrational density per time is equally as much a relevant component as "stuff density" per volume.

Simple analogy: Think of a CRT computer monitor. How many pixels does it have? Well, let's say it's 800x600, so it has 480,000 total pixels. But, it also has a refresh rate. Those pixels are flashing at, for example, 60hz. So...instead of "how many pixels" let's ask "how many pixels flashes?" It would be 800 * 600 * 60 = 28,800,000 pixels flashes per second.

Working with that analogy, I'm proposing that mass is a measure of pixel flashes, not a measure of pixels. An object with a higher vibrational rate is more dense and has greater mass than that same object at a lower vibrational rate.

You can indeed look at frequency as the density of oscillation with respect to time, or "vibrational density", but its an odd way of describing it.

Only because you're unaccustomed to it.

Are you saying that the "stuff per space" density is equal to the "vibrational" density?

It's not that they're "equal" but that both are components of mass. They, together, are what "mass" is. "Amount of stuff per volume" and "vibrational rate of that stuff per time" together is what "density" is.

Or in other words, the number of vibration per time unit determine how much "stuff" there is in a certain "space"?

Combined with mass per volume, yes it does.

Think of space and time as one single entity. Not that space and time are "equal," not that they're the "same thing" but that space and time together are one single phenomenon.

If you think of matter as "balls of stuff." The more balls of stuff you have in any given volume, the greater the density of stuff. But, if matter is vibrating, if matter is occilating "in and out of existence," the more occilations in any given length of time, the more matter there is in it.

It's the same thing, and they only appear to be different when you think of space and time as being separate and distinct.

Visualize three spatial dimensions plus one temporal dimension as being four spatial dimensions. Higher frequency vibrations in that space are equivalent to "more balls of stuff" in the box. You just have a four dimensional box instead of a three dimensional one.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

You have zero understanding of scientific method.

Atomic nuclei were discovered when completely unexpected patter of scattering of alpha particles occurred. At first it was a hypothesis which was consistently found true, in due time, and it was not a "filler in the holes". Same occurred with fission, neutrinos and countless other phenomena that since have been explained.

Dark matter may or may not exist, but you looking down at scientists does seem a bit pathetic.

i'm no scientist but i have a very good understandin of scientific method. Don't compare the rutherford experiment with this, they are too far from each other.

Unfortunately science today is becoming more of an organized religion.
that's all i have to say even if it sounds pathetic.

But i suspect it is all done intentionally to keep us from understanding the real forces behind nature, so they just keep creating theories to confuse us even more. Just think of how they denied the existence of "Aether".
(well this is a conspiracy forum isn't it?)

reply to post by LordBucket


I tried to do a bit of research, the only thing I could find about "vibrational density" was about vibrational density of states. Not saying I exactly understand what that means, but it seems to be the number of vibrational states a particle can have at a certain frequency. Is vibrational density you use in this context the same as it being used in scientific papers?

To recoup, to determine the gravitational force of a certain volume in space, you determine the amount of stuff at rest that in that volume, then you determine how fast the stuff oscillates. And from this you can calculate the gravity. Is that a correct representation of your idea?

If so, why do you think that the oscillation frequency determines the mass? It seems to me that no matter what frequency the "stuff" is oscillating, the amount of "stuff" in existance over time remains constant.

So what exactly is dark matter and how does it relate to us?

I've read some of the standard definitions but still have trouble wrapping my head around it. Apparently some of you in this thread do not have that trouble.

Is it heavier than the "regular" matter that we can see?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2c9a812c3eaa.jpg[/atsimg]

Is it indestructible?

What affects does it have on the other matter around it?

From what I believe I understand dark matter is the space in between everything else we see. Like some sort of gap filler.

Is this accurate?

Thanks,

- Lee

reply to post by ProdigalSon


Aether was for a long time believed to be real. It was a non observable "something" used to explain certain observed phenomena (very similar to the position dark matter is in now). Over time, no evidence of its existence was ever found, and new theories (special relativity) replaced the aether theory.

Isn't that exactly how you want science to advance?

reply to post by lee anoma


As far as I know we just don't know what dark matter is. So people hypothesize about it a lot. On a forum like this the hypothesis you read will likely be amateurish and wrong but it is IMO still fun to talk about it as new idea's can broaden your own view of things. If you want to see more serious hypothesis you can start at Wikipedia, but even that page can be pretty hard to swallow for a layman.

reply to post by -PLB-

vibrational density of states.

Is vibrational density you use in this context the same as it being used in scientific papers?

Density of states? Never heard of it until now. Glancing through the wiki entry, no, I think they're talking about something different. But they are doing the same thing that I am: using the general concept of "density" to describe something other than specifically mass per volume. They appear to be using to to refer to states per possible states. Which is fine. But not really relevant to this discussion.

To recoup, to determine the gravitational force of a certain
volume in space, you determine the amount of stuff at rest that
in that volume, then you determine how fast the stuff oscillates.
And from this you can calculate the gravity. Is that a correct
representation of your idea?

I would expect that to work, yes. But it's more an application of the idea than the idea itself.

why do you think that the oscillation
frequency determines the mass?

It seems like an obvious possibility. Maybe it will help if I draw some pictures.

Scenario 1:
First, let's look at some long, wide boxes with some particles in them. Both Box A and Box B are of identical volume. The dots inside are particles. Using "density" in the sense you're familiar with, which box has a greater interior density?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a83dce88de2c.jpg[/atsimg]

If you answered "Box A" then we're in agreement. There's more stuff per space in box A, therefore, greater density.

Scenario 2:
Now let's look at two square boxes, but let's look at them over time. Once again, Box A and Box B both contain identical volume. But this time, each box contains only a single particle, and that particle is vibrating at a different rate in each box. The particle in Box A is vibrating at 50Hz, while the particle in Box B is vibrating at 25Hz. From left to right, each square in the picture shows what's inside the box in increments of one hundredth of a second.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/71e2b609718a.jpg[/atsimg]

Do you see that the position and quantity of the dots are the same in Scenario 1 vs Scenario 2? Only the depiction of the boxes has changed. If I were to ask you whether the top row of boxes or the bottom row of boxes contains more dots per volume, wouldn't you answer that the top row contains more, and therefore collectively respresent a greater density than the bottom row? But that top "row of boxes" is really just one box being depicted at different moments of time.

If the dots in those boxes represent mass that exerts a gravitational force upon the surrounding space, which box contains more mass, and will therefore exert a greater force? The box with more dots. In both scenario 1 and scenario 2, that would be Box A.

Vibrational density is basically the same thing as mass/volume density. It's simply density within a volume of time rather than a volume of space.


----------------

Now, the obvious next question is..."is this an accurate portrayal of what it really means for matter to vibrate?" It's exactly how a CRT monitor works, as described in a previous post, but it doesn't match our day to day experience in the macro world. If you hit a piece of metal, and cause it to vibrate, it doesn't appear to "vanish" in and out of existence.

The whole idea is contingent upon a more wave based perspective of matter rather than a particle based perspective. And I will acknowlegde that if the theory is to break down, this is the most likely place for it to happen.

But in any case, that's the theory. It should be fairly simple to think of some experiments that would confirm or reject it. But I'm not personally in a position to perform them.

I assume that Astronomers and Physicists have used every kind of filter in their arsenal in the attempt to "see" Dark Matter. Maybe it absorbs any and all spectrums of radiation. Wouldn't it be impossible to observe if that were the case? Could all the Dark Matter scattered about the Universe be the scaffolding that regular matter is hung upon? We keep looking for the Higgs Boson, but what if all the Higgs Bosons decayed into a Dark Matter Soup after imparting Mass (or whatever they do) into matter? Could something like this be what has been referred to as the "Higgs Field".

[edit on 8/6/2010 by deadred]

reply to post by LordBucket


I think I get what you mean. This would be analog to a Pulse-density modulated signal. This is not really the same as frequency though. You can also increase the density without changing the frequency, for example:

...:...:...:
..::..::..::

I am not sure if the term "vibrational density" really does justice to what you are trying to say, at least, it confused me. Is it a term you came up with yourself or did you get it from elsewhere? I can't find any reference of it using Google (other than the one I gave). Anyways, thanks for the efforts you put into explaining it, it does make sense to me now .

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ProdigalSon

 

Aether was for a long time believed to be real.

It was for a short time subsequent to the observation of electromagnetic waves, proposed as a potential theory, in analogy to the successful theory & experimental practice of fluid mechanics which was getting quite good by then

The issue of experimental verification and derviation of such properties was important in the late 19th century. It was never reached the point of being accepted as the mainstream physical theory---because there were theoretical difficulties and inconclusive experimental results.

The only conclusive and generally accepted understanding of E&M propagation came with Einstein. It didn't replace a firm theory, it replaced confusion.

Originally posted by deadred
I assume that Astronomers and Physicists have used every kind of filter in their arsenal in the attempt to "see" Dark Matter. Maybe it absorbs any and all spectrums of radiation. Wouldn't it be impossible to observe if that were the case?

Dark matter refers to any of a number of potential physical particles which share the property that interactions with normal matter & electromagnetism is very low but otherwise has normal gravitational properties.

zebu.uoregon.edu...

Originally posted by 19872012
It's just a guess, but what i think Dark Matter is, is the other planes of reality that we can't sense or see because they have a different vibration.

The theory is a bit general, can you elaborate. Give a bit more detail. Heck write a page worth if you have to.

Originally posted by ProdigalSon
i'm no scientist but i have a very good understandin of scientific method. Don't compare the rutherford experiment with this, they are too far from each other.

Explain what "too far" means in this context. There was an unexpected experimental result which was met with a fairly novel theory. And that's how scientific method works.

Unfortunately science today is becoming more of an organized religion.

Well, if scientists can't agree on many things (which they don't) this can hardly be true.

that's all i have to say even if it sounds pathetic.

I see.