The dark matter candidate that I have been working on is the di-neutron and the reasons are explained here:
Conference Paper The Explanation for Dark Matter and Dark Energy
Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on Dark Matter and Dark Energy
It occurs to me that, given the abundance of dark matter in the universe at least 5 times greater than hydrogen and helium combed then we would expect the star forming gas clouds of hydrogen and helium to contain an abundance of di-neutrons.
We have to consider the di-neutrons present at the time that nuclear fusion starts and also the di-neutrons that subsequently accrete onto the star. Would the di-neutrons (which are at least a thousand times smaller than the hydrogen atoms) tend to fall intact into the core of the star? Would the temperature inside the star be sufficient to cause the di-neutron bond to break so that we have a source of free neutrons? Would there be a tendency for the di-neutrons to be involved directly in nucleosynthesis adding two neutrons to a chemical element? This is a lot of questions rolled into one so apologies for that.
I would be interested to know if there is anything in the observation of stars or the nucleosynthesis models that supports the hypothesis that the di-neutron is the correct choice of dark matter candidate.
Richard
Dear Stefan Bernhard Rüster Thank you for your response to my question. When you say that dark matter is not made of any particles this seems to exclude everything (WIMPs MACHOs neutrinos etc). I know that there is a prevailing view that dark matter is not a particle in the standard model and I agree that no single particle meets the requirement. However, I am proposing a composite particle of two neutrons which would be stable and have all of the required properties of dark matter.
Best regards
Richard
Stefan Bernhard Rüster Dear Stefan. If you take a look at the Wikipedia page for dark matter it starts: "Dark matter is a form of matter thought to account for 85% of the matter in the universe." The ratio 85 to 15 is actually around 5.66.. In a way you are right to say that dark matter is not observed because it has no interaction with light. The only way it is detected is by its gravitational effect. But it is there.
Best regards
Richard
Stefan Bernhard Rüster Dear Stefan. Here is what I think happens. When galaxies form you get a halo of dark matter and an amount of hydrogen and helium gas. This is what we observe gravitationally in other galaxies. Then when star formation takes place the hydrogen, helium and dark matter (di-neutrons) all are accreted as part of the new star. So the reason we don't see dark matter local to the solar system is that it has all combined as part of the formation of the solar system.
This is the thrust of my original question.
If you think that dark matter is not made of any substance then I guess you are thinking that it must be some kind of modified gravity?
Richard
Stefan Bernhard Rüster Dear Stephan. I see you have a completely different world view to me so we are probably not going to agree - just argue from our own personal understanding without resolving anything. Best to stop now don't you think?
All the best
Richard
No theory of dark matter can be proven at the moment (and if it IS "strange" dark matter, as most cosmologists want to believe, odds are that it will NEVER be possible to prove any such theory), so any speculation about its effects on solar nucleosynthesis is almost certainly unprovable, and in general, when things cannot be proven by direct experimentation they are almost certainly wrong (and even if they're right, if they can't be proven they're useless). Ask the same question in 50 years and the answer might be different, but I doubt it.
Courtney Seligman My thought was that my hypothesis that dark matter is di-neutrons means that it represents a source of neutrons for nucleosynthesis in stars. Then of the theory of nucleosynthesis requires the presence of a considerable quantity of neutrons to explain stellar evolution then that would be an additional factor in support of the hypothesis.
Data Prerecording of Conference Presentation on Dark Matter and Dark Energy
Richard
I understand your proposal. What I suppose I should have said is that no answer you receive is likely to help you get your theory generally accepted unless and until someone can prove that dark matter IS di-neutrons. So what you need is suggestions on how to prove that, not on how well the theory might help explain solar fusion. Almost all astrophysicists working on solar fusion are perfectly satisfied with current theories, so convincing them to accept di-neutrons as an addition to those theories requires proving that di-neutrons exist, in the first place; and that's a question for the guys who run particle physics accelerators that cost billions (and sooner or later, trillions) of dollars.
Courtney Seligman Di-neutrons have been observed in the decay of Beryllium 16Be (see Wikipedia entry on the neutron). It is also a good likely explanation for the difference in the decay measurement of the neutron between the bottle and beam methods. The hypothesis is that in the bottle method around 1% of the neutrons bond to form di-neutrons which do not decay. Here then is a method for producing dark matter in the lab. This experiment is much cheaper than a particle physics accelerator.
Richard
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Waves