Physicists Propose Mechanism that Explains the Origins of Both Dark Matter and 'Normal' Matter

Have we unlocked the key to where it all began? Possibly! The following article is a magnificent find and only edges us closer to an understanding of the Universe.

Through precise cosmological measurements, scientists know that about 4.6% of the energy of the Universe is made of baryonic matter (normal atoms), about 23% is made of dark matter, and the remaining 72% or so is dark energy. Scientists also know that almost all the baryonic matter in the observable Universe is matter (with a positive baryon charge) rather than antimatter (with a negative baryon charge). But exactly why this matter and energy came to be this way is still an open question. In a recent study, physicists have proposed a new mechanism that can generate both the baryon asymmetry and the dark matter density of the Universe simultaneously.

The scientists, Hooman Davoudiasl from Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York; David Morrissey and Sean Tulin from TRIUMF in Vancouver, British Columbia; and Kris Sigurdson from the University of British Columbia, also in Vancouver, have published their new proposal in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters. They’ve dubbed the new mechanism "hylogenesis" from the Greek words "hyle," meaning "primordial matter," and "genesis," meaning "origin."

"There are two problems in theoretical physics we are trying to address at once," Sigurdson said. "The baryon asymmetry (why do we have atoms but not antiatoms in the Universe?) has really been a problem since Paul Dirac proposed antimatter in 1928 and it was discovered in 1932. And what is the dark matter? Hints of dark matter have been around since Fritz Zwicky discovered missing mass in the Coma Cluster in 1933, but its identity is still unknown. This mechanism links the formation of atoms and dark matter and helps resolve the baryon asymmetry mystery, as the total dark plus visible baryon balance of the Universe is restored."

Physorg.com


Now this is truly over my head, but ATS is full of very bright, Science minded people that have great understanding of physics. Could someone please break this down, and explain the significance of this discovery?

In the bigger picture what does this mean?

If proven, where could this lead?

Your thoughts and comments would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks kindly,
Pax

reply to post by paxnatus


One thing this would be good for if found true, would be detecting dark matter. I think as of now, identifying dark matter is more of a guess than anything. If this is true, then it would be easier to identify what is dark matter, and finally put to rest the question of if dark matter even exists. If we can identify dark matter then we can study how dark matter comes to be and how it interacts with everything we do see.

I'm sure there's more implications but I'm no physics person so that's about as deep as I can delve here. I mean some people really don't believe in dark matter, which is a bit ridiculous in the same way as people who don't believe in black holes. Just because you can't literally see it doesn't mean that you can't observe all the evidence that it is there. But then I suppose people compare it to trying to convict someone of a crime only on circumstantial evidence.

We know dark matter is there but we can't fully explain the nature of its behavior. We observe the gravitational effects of dark matter's presence, but that's about as far as our understanding goes. We know that some invisible matter is holding things together, because the mass of the matter that we can see doesn't account for the total mass of the systems (like if observing a star cluster, the mass just doesn't add up right without the inclusion of dark matter). Dark matter still remains a great mystery, for the most part, so any news on the subject is pretty good news.

Thank you so much for your reply! You certainly have a much better understanding of dark matter than I do. It is true our human nature moves us to believe that "seeing is believing" If it is not observed with the naked eye, then it must not exist. This statement is utterly ridiculous!

isn't it a well known fact, that something is pulling on the earth's gravity, and we don't know what that something is. Many have speculated that this is an unknown celestial body, perhaps a large planet, a black hole, or dark matter. If they could prove this hypothesis it would answer so many unknowns or at least be a start.

I have a question though, is dark matter the same as anti matter? Like I said I do not have a vast understanding of physics as it would apply here.

Thank you again for your input.

Pax

Originally posted by SpaceJ
reply to post by paxnatus

 

We know dark matter is there but we can't fully explain the nature of its behavior. We observe the gravitational effects of dark matter's presence, but that's about as far as our understanding goes. We know that some invisible matter is holding things together, because the mass of the matter that we can see doesn't account for the total mass of the systems (like if observing a star cluster, the mass just doesn't add up right without the inclusion of dark matter). Dark matter still remains a great mystery, for the most part, so any news on the subject is pretty good news

I think this post sums up the dark matter quite nicely. I had a bit of trouble understanding the idea when I first got introduced to dark matter, but the following metaphor made it easier for me to grasp:

Think of the planets and visible matter being people on a carousel (or a merry-go-round, depending on where in the word you are )
The solar system is spinning and the planets are orbiting the center, much like people gong round and round on a carousel. In truth, the carousel is actually spinning too fast for the people to stay on without gripping the rails. This 'gripping the rails' is equivalent to extra gravity from matter which we cannot see. Without the added stability from this source of gravity, we would fly off the carousel.

I hope this maybe assists in someone's understanding. And if I am flat-out wrong, let me know so that i can try and wrap my head around understanding the real truth.

Dark matter and dark energy are not the same. Dark energy increases the rate of the universe's expansion. They say 73% of the mass-energy of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter is not detectable ,but is inferred to exist from gravitational effects on matter and is 23% of mass-energy of observable universe.
So....dark energy and dark matter make up the vast majority of our universe even though we can't really feel, see or test them. Scientists think they are there because without them their models or proofs of the universe don't work??
When I think of dark energy or matter, the first thing that pops into my mind is the concept of nothing. To most of us nothing is the absence of anything. Wikipedia says nothing can't be used as a noun, because there is no object to which it refers. However, if you look at the philosophies of Aristotle , Parmides, Leucippus or Descartes you find all have a slightly different take on the essence of nothing. To me nothing is that force we can't see or touch,yet is very important in our ability to perceive objects. Kind of like how scientists describe dark energy and matter; not tangible yet has a function, has an effect.
I'll stop here....making any sense ???

reply to post by paxnatus


Some people think that dark matter, or at least some dark matter is actually antimatter/matter that is less detectable (because it doesn't emit radiation that we can see) than some antimatter, BUT the majority of "proof" in more recent times I think points to this being wrong. If this were right then it would mean that dark matter is baryonic, which would make a lot of things not make sense, though that's no reason not to pursue the idea.

It is more likely that dark matter and antimatter are two totally different things, because antimatter, like "regular" matter, is baryonic and dark matter is supposedly non-baryonic. Baryonic means something is made up of atomic matter or "regular" particles/subatomic particles/heavy particles with strong interactions, such as protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, or hadrons, etc.

What the scientists from the article are proposing is that even thought matter and dark matter work in different ways, they may have originally formed together or simultaneously from whatever incident. They think this might lead them to being able to actually say that they have detected dark matter, possibly by watching experiments using regular matter particles. If a regular matter particle during one of these experiments spontaneously seems to disappear (or as they say, becomes annihilated) then that might lead them to finding a way of identifying dark matter by possibly identifying that the annihilation was caused by dark matter (or an antiparticle of dark matter) touching the regular matter.

It's confusing to me though, like I said I don't know much about physics just basic stuff. It seems to me that antimatter and dark matter are pretty similar in many ways, so I can see why some think they are the same thing. But one being baryonic and the other not, is obviously a huge difference. I guess maybe this finding could help determine whether or not antimatter and dark matter are two separate things, and maybe identify that dark matter is for sure non-baryonic? And then maybe if they find a way to detect dark matter they would be able to tell when regular matter is annihilated by dark matter as opposed to antimatter? There must be some difference in why dark matter would annihilate matter versus why antimatter would annihilate matter. Also we have detected antimatter which makes me think that dark matter must not be the same thing at all.

It is more likely that dark matter is not baryonic like antimatter is, and that dark matter is made up of particles like hypothetical axions and WIMPS (weakly interacting massive particles) that we are still newly discovering. Anyway, hope this makes sense. I think this mention of WIMPS must lead into weak and strong force interaction conversation, which is where my little brain gets off the physics train!

But yes as the other poster said, dark matter and dark energy are two different things, dark energy is what makes up most of the empty "space" we see (or rather, that we don't see). 70% of everything is probably non-baryonic dark energy, and 25% is non-baryonic dark matter, leaving 5% to be normal baryonic matter. Which makes you think, maybe dark matter and dark energy should be called "normal" and the baryonic matter that we can see and that we are made up of, should be the "abnormal". Just semantics I guess, kind of like whether or not we should call the universe the universe still, if certain theories prove true and our universe is found not to be the only one.

Dark matter is the putty/gravity like substance that is not visible but holds the galaxies together and dark energy is this negative charge or pressure that expands the universe in a sentence. Now really in the equations it’s just a couple of constants they cannot account for if the scientists are right with their model of the universe. Really those equations should be in question for not adding up, not just adding a couple constants and they call it fixed. I like the idea of anti matter and can get this being a negatively charged ZPE substance if but really I am sure since we are just now finding remnants of “it” that we know nothing about "it" publically.

These will give you a better feeling about the math behind the ideas.
www.astrostatistics.psu.edu...
www.icrepq.com...

dont forget wiki if you dont want the math:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

I would like to have it peered reviewed and then it is nice to see some formulas work with all matter is important. I might have to change my mind with something I thought was wrong if the math is right, gotta love science, the ability to change and accept new ideas......