Much has been said about sterile neutrinos, is someone else possible?
To be a good candidate for Dark matter a particle has to be:
Massive (as it interacts gravitationally),
Electrically neutral (does not interact electromagnetically),
weakly interacting (little interacting and through weak force) ,
Stable (because they exist since the beginning of the Universe until today),
Non-baryonic (not Massive astrophysical compact halo object)
and Non-relativistic (cold, to explain the formation of structures).
besides the sterile neutrino, there are other candidates that have been studied in recent years, some examples are the axions or those that come from supersymmetry models. In particular the WIMPs (neutralino).
It is simply the gravitational "constant" which is not constant.
G is always measured for a spherical mass, around a non spherical source, G can be very different.
JES
Interesting situation, since physics is simplified enough within a perfect spherical symmetry, therefore assuming a non-spherical shape to the rotating universe, would greatly complicate its mathematical formulation and consequently its respective conservation laws.
Dark matter has been deduced from astronomical observations, specifically through the velocities of galaxy clusters, the first to observe it was Fritz Zwicky.
Perhaps that could be true assuming that our universe does not possess perfect spherical symmetry, i.e., that the curvature of the universe is negative for example, or that it is open and not closed. Now, since it does not emit any type of radiation, we cannot deny that it is some type of particle, and if it were, the Heisenberg's principle prevents us from seeing them. Be that as it may, I don't think Einstein missed anything.
Dear Stefan,
You mean to say that 'Dark matter' and Dark energy' are same. How can you define them differently.
“…Dark matter has been deduced from astronomical observations, specifically through the velocities of galaxy clusters, the first to observe it was Fritz Zwicky.…..”
- that isn’t completely so; the necessity to introduce the dark matter was caused at description of stars motion in galaxies, including in Milky Way, first of all, from the observation that stars have too large speeds for to be on their orbits.
“…Now, since it does not emit any type of radiation, we cannot deny that it is some type of particle, and if it were, the Heisenberg's principle prevents us from seeing them.…..”
- and that isn’t so, Heisenberg's principle has no relation to is or not some physical object/event/process observable; the fact that the dark matter particles weren’t detected till now follows from that these particles interact with other particles in Matter only gravitationally,
- and, since Gravity is extremely weak fundamental Nature force, the cross-section of the interaction is extremely small. So for the dark matter particles matter in a number of orders by magnitude is more transparent than, say, for neutrinos.
Besides, if these particles, as that quite rationally suggested in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s the informational physical model [see Sec. “Cosmology” in the paper
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/2], have rest masses that in ~1019 larger than baryons masses,
- then, even though the total dark energy mass in few times is larger than the observable baryon mass, their density in the space is extremely small – a few particles in a cube with size 1000 km, and so even the probability for a dark matter particle to cross a detector is very small as well.
“……You mean to say that 'Dark matter' and Dark energy' are same. How can you define them differently?
- .… you are right. Both phenomena arise from the cosmological constant. By considering the whole universe one utilizes the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric…..”
- and that is, in this case twice fundamentally incorrect, allegation. Firstly – nothing in Matter can follow from any human’s theory, and only some theory can be derived as some interpretation of experimental observations data about what really happens in Matter; the interpretations can be objective and so adequate to the reality, or illusory,
- and secondary – in this case we have the last case above, when some non-adequate theory, in this case the GR, where really the fundamentally illusory interactions in the system “mass-spacetime-mass” are postulated, is applied.
Correspondingly really dark matter for sure consists of some particles – as everything in Matter, including the fields that are created by all 4 fundamental Nature forces, consists from corresponding particles obligatorily as well.
More see the link above
Cheers
There isn't any dark matter, it's only the gravitational "constant" G that varies with the geometry of the source.
"https://daontheory.com"
JES
Research Gate needs to have a better selection criteria for weeding out crackpots. Claiming that there is no such thing as dark matter is equivalent to claiming that the Earth is flat. It is a proven known fact that dark matter exists.
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/five-reasons-we-think-dark-matter-exists-a122bd606ba8
https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2016/09/19/the-dark-history-of-dark-matter/#c83fa6218946
Crackpots never admit that they are wrong. You have to ignore everything this guy says.
Today we have overwhelming proof of dark matter from many sources, from gravitational lensing to baryonic acoustic oscillations. All of this begs the question, well what actually is the dark matter? The two leading contenders are supersymmetric particles and axions, but neither of these types of particles has ever been detected, and there are lots of other suggestions.
I totally agree with you, one tends to try to convince this type of criteria, and it is really tiring, the only positive thing that I see in this is that, we learn and deepen our own knowledge every time we try to demonstrate our approaches, therefore it is not a total waste of time. We are obliged to listen to everyone, it is the only way to refine the models and theories.
Dear Stefan,
As per your work How much is the dark energy percentage out of total mass energy?
How can you calculate it?
What is dark matter percentage? How will you calculate it?
Will you calculate with the same equation? What is that equation?
(I am asking you this because, in your paper quantitative conclusion was not provided)
Regards
The crackpot answer; I will even go further, super symmetric particles, axions, quarks, gluons.... How have ever detected these particles.
You ask what is dark matter? So, you don't know. How can you permit your self to say crackpot to somebody without showing some evidence for your opinion!
Theories is just theories until you have found some experimental or measured fact opposed to a given theory.
Do you have such evidence?
I wounder who is the crackpot!
JES
I add; I believe that to insist on the physics of the establishment is counter productive, it is the "crackpots" that eventually bring some small grain of new physics that will make the difference and produce a completely new physics.
Which is strongly needed!
JES
Did this guy just say that he does not believe that quarks and gluons exist????
I rest my case.
In the universe approximately the 5% corresponds to baryonic matter, 27% to dark matter, and the 68% is dark energy. Cold matter fits the Big Bang model and the formation of mega-structures, this is non-relativistic dark matter. Relativistic dark matter exists too, but it has its problems.
Quarks and gluons are just mathematical parameters to justify symmetries in the experimental data. Nobody has ever detected them as particles. Have you ever thought of the building blocks of such particles? How do you explain the non integer charge or the missing spin et c. The theory of confinement is just a laughable way of hiding the ignorance.
JES
Dear all,
Let's go back to science; To advance we have to understand gravity. So let my give a short description, as proposed by the daon theory.
1) All masses are surrounded by a neutral potential, which is the basis for the phenomena of gravitation ( you can find the demonstration in my profile or at "https://daontheory.com".
2) This neutral potential is produced by the charges particles; a charge is a radial equilibrium around a particle, necessary to maintain its stability.
3) The radial equilibrium is normally equilibrated by the surrounding charges , but when the EM-fields goes to zero, the radial equilibrium must be maintain by other means. This produce an increase of the "density of the surrounding media". This is the reason for the neutral potential and also of the phenomenon of gravitation.
4) The gravitation is proportional to the surface curvature of the neutral equi-potential, in the point examined
5) If you now applies this, to a spiral Galaxy, you will find that the curvature is strongest at border, while it should be weaker at the flat sides.
Has anybody seen measurements for the gravitational force, on the flat side of spiral galaxies?
How do you find the absolute mass of a galaxy, without the "dark matter" addition?
JES
“…In the universe approximately the 5% corresponds to baryonic matter, 27% to dark matter, and the 68% is dark energy…”
- so called “dark energy” has no relation to the “ordinary”, i.e. observable by photons’ detection, indeed mostly baryonic, matter; and, also, to
- non-observable by this way “dark matter”, particles of which don’t have the electric charge and so aren’t observable; however the dark matter particles interact with observable matter by fundamentally universal gravity, and from the observations seems as for sure follows that the dark matter really exist, and indeed the mass of dark matter is few times larger than the observable mass;
- however the “dark energy” is purely ad hoc term in physics, which is introduced in the standard cosmological model through Λ-term in the GR equations aimed at “to explain” the observed “space expansion” of Matter.
The last is incorrect for at least two reasons:
- first of all the GR equations principally aren’t adequate to the reality, since describe fundamentally non-existent interactions in the systems “mass-spacetime-mass”,
- whereas, again in this thread – Matter’s spacetime is the absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime, i.e. logical “empty container”, with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct); [ more about what are space/time/spacetime and why Matter’s spacetime is as it is see, again, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/2
- and neither space, nor time, nor spacetime, fundamentally cannot be impacted/transformed, including expanded, by anything in Matter.
So really, if the observations of Matter’s expansion are correct, that are nothing else than expanding of the base of Matter – the [5]4D dense lattice of the binary reversive [5]4D fundamental logical elements [FLE] ,
- where all/every material objects are some constantly moving in/disturbances of the lattice.
At that what causes this expansion, and for what reason that happens, remains now completely non-understandable in official physics,
though in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s the informational physical model [see the link above] it would be nothing surprising that the expansion is caused by the Matter’s Creator – as that was the exponential expansion [inflation epoch] of the FLE lattice at Beginning as the second step in Creation [more see the link above].
So in the model there is no some for sure true explanation what causes the Matter’s expansion after Beginning – as that is, again, in official physics, however the model limits possible versions of the explanation,
- when, because of in official physics eventually “Matter”, “Space”, “Time” “Energy”, etc., are transcendent phenomena,
- till physics will exist outside the model that will result only in what we have now – endless “developing” and publications of innumerous fantastic, and principally non-testable experimentally, “solutions of Einstein equations”, with “discovering” in Matter of next and next senseless marvelous fundamental, first of all cosmological, phenomena.
“…Research Gate needs to have a better selection criteria for weeding out crackpots. …”
- that essentially isn’t correct – any filter in this case will be subjective; practically for sure criteria will be mostly political; and in many cases simply non-scientific. However this comment to the last quote above
“…We are obliged to listen to everyone, it is the only way to refine the models and theories.…”
- though is essentially correct, seems is too short, and really should be supplemented:
- at scientific discussion on the RG the members posts should be clear and substantiated enough, what requires some time, and the indeed substantiated posts that relate to non-trivial enough scientific points require from readers to spend some time to apprehend the posts’ content, so really a poster can write 1-2 indeed scientific post/day.
In any number of posts/day it is possible to write only some trash; and, besides, every post in a thread shifts the posts of other posters from the visible page; so ethical RG members don’t write more 1-2 posts/day including for this reason.
So when in a thread some poster appears, who writes more 1-2 posts/day, that is rather objective criteria that the posts contain nothing scientific; or that is a banal spammer; and rather possibly it would be useful even by some RG program to block such posting.
Cheers
The really important thing in scientific discussions is not to generate censorship of any kind. This is necessary so as not to leave out any contribution that could be the real solution to a given physical problem. Obviously everything must be done in an atmosphere of respect. Theoretical physics at this time is at a fairly high mathematical level, but it is not yet capable of giving a complete solution to the most important unknowns that the vast majority of us already know. Just as life makes its way, so does the truth in its own way.
Dark matter apparently accompanies baryonic matter, as this baryonic matter is in a lesser proportion it is likely that it is only a visible residue, i.e., dark matter is the primordial substance in the universe and not baryonic as we believe. Could there be entire galaxies made only of dark matter?.
It makes absolutely perfect sense. The fact that this guy is profoundly ignorant of science does not imply that it doesn't make sense. This guy named Stephen sounds like a flat earther.
Of course, a galaxy is going to be a small percentage baryonic matter surrounded by a large spherical halo of dark matter. That is exactly what you should expect. Dark matter is the vast majority of matter in the Universe, so there is absolutely no reason to be surprised by the fact that a galaxy is large sphere of dark matter surrounded by a small amount of baryonic matter in the center. As far as we know, dark matter particles only interact gravitationally with Standard Model particles, and any additional interaction is extremely weak. So if these two types of matter are not interacting with each other, except gravitationally, then the dark matter halo is not going to be the same shape as the visible galaxy. Of course, there is dark matter in the bulge. Dark matter is everywhere. The room that you are in right now is filled with dark matter.
“…Dark matter apparently accompanies baryonic matter, as this baryonic matter is in a lesser proportion it is likely that it is only a visible residue, i.e., dark matter is the primordial substance in the universe and not baryonic as we believe…..”
- that is indeed essentially so – see the SS posts above and the paper
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/2, at least Sec. “Cosmology”, though to understand more completely what is written in this section is necessary to read whole paper:
- including from the fact that Matter doesn’t contain antimatter practically for sure follows that the primary particles, which were the first be made at Creation, were completely symmetrical close-loop algorithms, which interacted by only completely symmetric fundamental Nature force “Gravity”.
If the primary particles would be , say, the existent now observable particles, which are principally non-symmetrical algorithms, particles and antiparticles would be created equally, and further, after their mutual annihilation, Matter would consist of only photons.
Because of the Gravity force is extremely weak, the probability of the interactions was rater far from 1, and so,
- since the primary interactions were accidental, it is quite natural to suggest that not all primary particles have interacted with creation of the ordinary particles, but some part – and from recent observation about 70%, of the relict remains till now, forming the observed gravitationally dark matter;
- which for the reason above, and because of these particles have extremely large rest masses, and so the density of these particles is extremely small, practically don’t interact with ordinary particles now.
When that
.
“…in my opinion dark matter particles do not exist…”
- again, is incorrect. Practically everything in Matter consists of some particles, besides
- Matter’s ether – the [5]4D dense lattice of [5]4D fundamental logical elements [FLE], where particles are always moving with 4D velocities disturbances in the lattice, whereas the velocities have identical absolute values be equal to the speed of light, c, [bold means 4D vector],
- and, in certain sense, besides the fields of the all fundamental Nature forces – Gravity, Weak, EM, and Strong forces. However fields practically don’t interact with creation of ordinary particles.
And that
“….In order to understand this, just make a thought experiment.They claim, that dark matter is located in the halo. This makes no sense.…”
- is incorrect.
Ordinary particles compose cosmological objects – planets, stars, galaxies, etc., which practically all have the specific form – central large gravitating mass, and some disk of lesser masses of ordinary particles, because of that the ordinary particles interact by extremely more strong Forces, first of all by EM force,
- and are formed as the result of some shock impacts on some previously rather uniformly distributed mediums, say, molecular clouds. At these impacts to the medium some angular momentums practically always are transmitted, and further, at EM interactions of the molecules, the molecules that have angular momentums that differ from the impact’s one, lose their momentums and are gathered in the disk .
Because of the primary impact essentially in lesser extent affects on the dark matter particles, and of practically absent interactions inside the medium, the primary impact practically doesn’t impact on the dark matter particles, and they mostly remain to be as essentially non-formed clouds,
- besides that move around the centers of large masses, propagating without problems through these masses, which are practically completely transparent for these particles, forming some haloes – around galaxies’ centers, rather possibly around stars’ centers, etc.
As to
“….Could there be entire galaxies made only of dark matter?…..”
Nonetheless, in principle the dark matter particles possibly can form some compact “swarms” having sizes and masses as galaxies – that possibly correctly was observed recently, though till now that is unique observation of the unique team.
Cheers
I think that, in this case Stefan is correct, his answer is logic. While the others last comments are nonsense.
JES
There is a simple answere to Dark matter: Neutrinos. In a book from 2015 (in my profile) I show how the fundamental particles can be created through a quantum mechanical process. Their properties come out just right. A neutrino gets a mass of .13Ev and a radius of .3fm.
Shortly, according to Heisenberg, if 1kg of protons are produced we expect 1kg of electrons as well as 1kg of neutrinos. Particles will interact during the evolution of the universe, neutrinos less than others. They should be the dominating specie today.
Exactly how they will be distributed over the universe is not quite clear, but we could imaging to find lumps of them as well giving rise to lensing.
Lastly, dark energy is an illusion as I discussed in my book. Later (2016) observations of super novae does not support an accelerating universe.
Juan Echaurren,
Just ordinary neutrinos. The simplest natural choice. Why invent new particles that we have never seen a trace of?
I just want to add a fresh report from 8 years of running of the IceCube: No sterile neutrinos.
“…There is a simple answere to Dark matter: Neutrinos… A neutrino gets a mass of .13Ev and a radius of .3fm.…..”
Neutrinos cannot be some dark matter particles since there are no physical processes, where total mass of neutrinos could be a few time more than the total baryons mass in Matter, and, besides,
- neutrinos, since have extremely small masses, move practically all with speeds near the speed of light, and so cannot to form some haloes in galaxies; etc.
What are the dark matter particles, and why that is so, again, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342600304_The_informational_physical_model_some_fundamental_problems_in_physics DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12325.73445/2, at least Sec. “Cosmology”.
And, besides, radius of a particle in first, but good, approximation is its Compton length, λ=ћ/mc; for λ=0.3 fm mass is equal to ≈600 MeV,
Cheers
If spacetime functions as an elastic membrane, i.e., with memory, then huge masses like star clusters or galaxies deform this membrane, making it more concave. This deformation accumulates information in the form of elastic energy, as the energy is equivalent to mass according to Einstein, so this is the dark mass that does not emit light but is latent and trapped in the curvature of massive stars. Space-time stores energy in the form of curvature, and therefore the total mass is greater than that observed.
Not necessarily, it is assumed that this accumulated energy is local and would follow the Earth or accompany the Earth throughout its trajectory, it is what I would call a shadow mass inherent to each celestial body.
The same would be true for the Sun, remember that everything moves and expands, and these "shadow mass" only follows the baryonic matter.
The mathematical formulation of this is even more difficult, so I understand your comment.
Dear Stefan,
When I speak of memory I am referring to the property of space-time to recover its initial state without the presence of mass, i.e., the alteration of the initial information by the presence of mass involves a stored latent energy. So memory is related to space-time.
"What are the best candidates for the composition of dark matter?"
...a far too vivid imagination !
Dear Stefan,
The cosmological constant has to do only with dark energy, since it has a negative sign, it converts it into a repulsive energy that separates the galaxies faster and faster, i.e., the scale factor a(t) increases with time. Dark matter is something else and I don't think they are particles.
Juan Echaurren
Dear Juan,
The Dark Matter Effect is manifested in the strengthening of gravity at the edges of galaxies and galaxy clusters. This effect can be explained only by understanding the nature of gravity.
THE PROBLEM OF DARK MATTER IS A PROBLEM OF THE NATURE OF GRAVITY
We are looking under the lantern - where it is light, by the inertia of thinking. But let's take a step into the dark. We are looking for Substance. Let's look for the Field, because the field environment is responsible for all interactions.
We live in an invisible dispersed world environment that fills all space. Earlier media was called ether. Today we call a medium an Electromagnetic Field, because electric and magnetic fields are translational and rotational flows of this medium. We are convinced of the existence of an electromagnetic field every time we bring a mobile phone to our ear. The smallest particles of this medium - gravitons - continuously move at the speed of light. This movement provides pressure to the medium.
THE PRESSURE GRADIENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD NEAR MATERIAL BODIES CREATES A GRAVITATIONAL FORCE.
The Earth does not attract the Moon. The pressure of the external environment of the electromagnetic field pushes the Moon towards the Earth.
Look at the river from the bridge! You will see that the entire surface of the water is covered with vortices. The form of existence of the medium of the field is vortices too. There are large-scale field vortices in space. The pressure is lower in the center than at the edges. Matter (material) flows into such gravitational funnels and forms galaxies. There is a large pressure gradient at the edges of the funnel. This gradient creates a gravitational force toward the center. This is the effect of Dark Matter.
In the photo: the galaxy consists of two parts. The interior is formed by the mass of stars. The outer part is formed by the Halo - a galactic vortex of the electromagnetic field environment.
Dear Valeriy,
In general relativity (GR), gravity is shown not as a force, but as a curved space field generated by the presence of mass. Am I correct? Or the interpretation is different. His argument is quite interesting, since he had not approached the problem that way. I believe that dark matter is not made of particles, it must be some other effect of the GR that we do not know.
Dear Stefan Rüster
I am taking a look at your paper. It sounds interesting. I'll need to give it thorough thought before I can get back to you! I will probably direct message you with the review.
Juan Echaurren
Dear Juan,
You are not correct. Space is phylosophycal, not material, consept. It can not to be curved. Mathematics has nothing to do with nature.
You say: "it must be some other effect of the GR that we do not know". Alas!.. Ptolemey, Aristotel, Maxwell, Newton, Einstein - all they could not indicate the cause of gravitation. Newton's mass has an innate property to attract. Einstein's mass has the innate property of curving space (= attracting). It is all the same! The difference is in the transition from vectors to tensors.
Dear Juan, we need the physical model of gravity, the nature of gravity. Without this, we will only have empty words. If You will have some free time, please come to see my profile.
Yours
Valeriy Pakulin
So, why Einstein said that space is curved? Let us remember that space is not a perfect vacuum, it is a composition of fields in minimum energy and therefore has mass, the graviton when interacting with this quantum vacuum should deform it, therefore the graviton has to be some kind of boson that transmits this deformation to the quantum field of the vacuum.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication