Researcher advances a new model for a cosmological enigma—dark matter

September 4, 2014
The distribution of dark matter in the universe as computed within the two-component flavor-mixed dark matter paradigm. Credit: University of Kansas / KU News Service

Astrophysicists believe that about 80 percent of the substance of our universe is made up of mysterious "dark matter" that can't be perceived by human senses or scientific instruments.

"Dark matter has not yet been detected in a lab. We infer about it from astronomical observations," said Mikhail Medvedev, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Kansas, who has just published breakthrough research on that merited the cover of Physical Review Letters, the world's most prestigious journal of physics research.

Medvedev proposes a novel model of dark matter, dubbed "flavor-mixed multicomponent dark matter."

"Dark matter is some unknown matter, most likely a new elementary particle or particles beyond the Standard Model," Medvedev said. "It has never been observed directly, but it reveals itself via gravity it produces in the universe. There are numerous experiments around the world aimed at finding it directly."

Medvedev's theory rests on the behavior of elementary particles that have been observed or hypothesized. According to today's prevalent Standard Model theory of particle physics, elementary particles—categorized as varieties of quarks, leptons and gauge bosons—are the building blocks of an atom. The properties, or "flavors," of quarks and leptons are prone to change back and forth, because they can combine with each other in a phenomenon called flavor-mixing.

"In everyday life we've become used to the fact that each and every particle or an atom has a certain mass," Medvedev said. "A flavor-mixed particle is weird—it has several masses simultaneously—and this leads to fascinating and unusual effects."

Medvedev compared flavor-mixing to white light that contains several colors and can generate a rainbow.

Orange waves and blue rays represent the effect of quantum evaporation. Credit: University of Kansas / KU News Service

"If white was a particular flavor, then red, green and blue would be different masses—masses one, two and three—that mix up together to create white," he said. "By changing proportions of red, green and blue in the mix, one can make different colors, or flavors, other than white."

Medvedev said that are also theorized to be flavor-mixed—such as neutralinos, axions and sterile neutrinos.

"These are, in fact, the most preferred candidates people speak about all the time," Medvedev said.

"Previously we discovered that flavor-mixed particles can 'quantum evaporate' from a gravitational well if they are 'shaken'—meaning they collide with another particle," he said. "That's a remarkable result, as if a spacecraft made of flavor-mixed matter and hauled along a bumpy road puts itself into space without a rocket or any other means or effort by us."

Medvedev included the physics process of quantum evaporation in a "cosmological numerical code" and performed simulations using supercomputers.

"Each simulation utilized over a 1,000 cores and ran for a week or so," he said. "This yearlong project consumed about 2 million computer hours in total, which is equal to 230 years."

Medvedev said that dark matter may interact with normal matter extremely weakly, which is why it hasn't been revealed already in numerous ongoing direct detection experiments around the world. So physicists have devised a working model of completely collisionless (noninteracting), cold (that is, having very low thermal velocities) dark matter with a cosmological constant (the perplexing energy density found in the void of outer space), which they term the "Lambda-CDM model."

But the model has hasn't always agreed with observational data, until Medvedev's paper solved the theory's long-standing and troublesome puzzles.

"Our results demonstrated that the flavor-mixed, two-component dark matter model resolved all the most pressing Lambda-CDM problems simultaneously," said the KU researcher.

Medvedev performed the simulations using XSEDE high-performance computation facilities, primarily Trestles at the San Diego Supercomputer Center and Ranger at the Texas Advanced Computing Center.

Explore further: On the hunt for dark matter

Related Stories

On the hunt for dark matter

August 22, 2014

New University of Adelaide Future Fellow Dr Martin White is starting a research project that has the potential to redirect the experiments of thousands of physicists around the world who are trying to identify the nature ...

Glimmer of light in the search for dark matter

February 27, 2014

The Leiden astrophysicist Alexey Boyarsky and his fellow researchers may have identified a trace of dark matter that could signify a new particle: the sterile neutrino. A research group in Harvard reported a very similar ...

What's next for particle physicists, post-Higgs?

July 17, 2013

In March of last year, scientists working with the Large Hadron Collider at the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Geneva, Switzerland, identified the Higgs boson, the last elusive particle in the Standard Model ...

HADES searches for dark matter

May 12, 2014

Although Dark Energy and Dark Matter appear to constitute over 95 percent of the universe, nobody knows of which particles they are made up. Astrophysicists now crossed one potential Dark Matter candidate – the Dark Photon ...

Reinterpreting dark matter

July 2, 2014

Tom Broadhurst, an Ikerbasque researcher at the University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), has participated alongside scientists of the National Taiwan University in a piece of research that explores cold dark matter in ...

Recommended for you

Probe for nanofibers has atom-scale sensitivity

January 20, 2017

Optical fibers are the backbone of modern communications, shuttling information from A to B through thin glass filaments as pulses of light. They are used extensively in telecommunications, allowing information to travel ...

Magnetic recording with light and no heat on garnet

January 19, 2017

A strong, short light pulse can record data on a magnetic layer of yttrium iron garnet doped with Co-ions. This was discovered by researchers from Radboud University in the Netherlands and Bialystok University in Poland. ...

Studying the quantum vacuum: Traffic jam in empty space

January 18, 2017

An important step towards a completely new experimental access to quantum physics has been made at University of Konstanz. The team of scientists headed by Professor Alfred Leitenstorfer has now shown how to manipulate the ...

68 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Aligo
Sep 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Aligo
Sep 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
omatwankr
1.9 / 5 (17) Sep 04, 2014
If at first your model doesn't succeed, add more knobs (epicycles) to twiddle and try, try again

"Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve."
Karl Popper
theon
2.2 / 5 (13) Sep 04, 2014
This is beyond imagination. Read the title again. Still one more great step forward by a learned colleague. And may we have any clue on the mass of these particles? And may we know which the problems at the galactic scale of inside the Galaxy are solved? And which not (there are dozens). By "the flavor-mixed, two-component dark matter model resolved all the most pressing Lambda-CDM problems simultaneously" we are informed. I would say: we see that somebody thinks that these posts are only for idiots and trolls.

julianpenrod
1.4 / 5 (22) Sep 04, 2014
First we are told that dark matter cannot be "perceived by human senses or scientific instruments". Then, we are told that it exerts gravity and that there are experiments "aimed at finding it directly". So can it be sensed by humans and instruments or not? Even humans can feel gravity!
Also, consider that the paranormal speaks of entities just barely visible both by senses and instruments and is condemned for that very reason. An "astrophysicist" applies it to something whose existence has not even been demonstrated and they are acclaimed a "visionary"!
Among other things, along with "evolution" and "relativity", it can be a question how soon it will be before it's admitted that the "proofs" of all are nowhere near as firm and conclusive as claimed. They will have the appearance of massive frauds, but some shills will come forward bleating that it was all a matter of "errors" that were "inadvertent".
11791
Sep 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
NOM
4.6 / 5 (19) Sep 04, 2014
They will have the appearance of massive frauds, but some shills will come forward bleating ....

Curious julianpendick, that's exactly my opinion of you
mikep608
Sep 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (17) Sep 05, 2014
There are other researchers which are using real experimental research to answer the "dark matter problem". They have an explanation based upon in situ data and real laboratory research using already understood mechanisms and no "new physics". Problem is, the researcher don't publish their papers in journals with a "high impact in astrophysics". Astrophysicists prefer to limit their studies to retain a myopic POV, just as some posters in these threads choose to remain willfully ignorant.

http://arxiv.org/...1027.pdf

http://www.cosmol...hkin.pdf

nikola_milovic_378
1.2 / 5 (19) Sep 05, 2014
cience vainly trying to the principles and laws that apply to the matter, figure out a "dark" matter and energy. Now it is time for science to realize that there is a spiritual entity from which the universe was created, and the visible and perceptual entity, which I call the COSMOS (only matter and measurable energy, including all galaxies). That's what you call many "dark", and is dark and invisible to all existence and variations of material entities. This dark ether call because he fills the sphere of infinite diameter. For that matter ether is formed under high vibration that causes absolute consciousness of the universe, as infinite power to create everything in the Cosmos. Matter is created by strings, produced high vibrations of ether, and disappear through the black hole. These are cycles of alternating eons of years. It is necessary and essential orient oneself in spiritual exploration, which we have installed a system that leads the soul-God 'spark, and it has its links with the Absolute consciousness of the universe, through intuition and individual consciousness.
Science will have to come soon, at this time, knowledge, what is that what you call "dark". There is nothing dark in people who use awareness for finding out the true cause of the phenomena around us and within us.
Science Officer
1.4 / 5 (13) Sep 05, 2014
Dark Matter is composed of vast quantities of doesn't matter......
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (10) Sep 05, 2014
Aside from the success with the simulations, it makes an awful lot of sense: "Cosmological Simulations of Multi-Component Cold Dark Matter" http://arxiv.org/...1307.pdf
jalmy
1.3 / 5 (18) Sep 05, 2014
Dark matter is nothing more than a misunderstanding of gravity and the model of the universal forces. It takes huge balls to come up with a model that you have to invent a magical particle that comprises 80% of the mass and gravity of the universe but somehow doesn't condense enough to be opaque or interact with light whatsoever. And as far as we can tell does not exist on earth at all. YOUR F'ING STUPID MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE IS STUPID AND WRONG. STOP BEING STUPID. It seems common sense that Flying Fire-breathing dragons are more probable that dark matter. Instead of making up fairies why don't you just say "We don't know why the universe isn't flying apart yet". And leave it at that until someone with more brainpower than a gnat comes up with a model that makes sense.
Aligo
Sep 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Aligo
Sep 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Aligo
Sep 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Aligo
Sep 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
theon
2.1 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2014
OK, I looked into the paper and fished out that it considers DM particles with mass of 40 or so GeV. Highly incapable to explain the disc of dwarf satellites around the Galaxy, Andromeda, and possibly many other galaxies. It is a kind of LCDM and belongs with it in the drain.
Aligo
Sep 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
malapropism
4.5 / 5 (16) Sep 05, 2014
Also, consider that the paranormal speaks of entities just barely visible both by senses and instruments and is condemned for that very reason.

The major difference being, as every sensible-thinking person here realises, that something creates a physical effect (gravity) that can be measured and evaluated; what that causative something is, is currently unknown but is being searched for.

There are no measurable physical effects from any paranormal activity (nor from those attributed to your god) that have been reported or supposed. Of course, that's not to say that there may not be psychological effects from these activities but those are the domain of psychologists and psychiatrists to find causes and remedies.

(Yes, yes, I know - you shouldn't feed them. It's just that he's such an easy target...)
IMP-9
4.1 / 5 (16) Sep 05, 2014
They have an explanation based upon in situ data and real laboratory research using already understood mechanisms and no "new physics".


Hmm, let's look at this paper to see why it isn't published in a real journal.

A qualitative analysis of the probable radiative and mechanical properties of BCSU
suggests it to have no unavoidable conflicts with the ultrahigh isotropy of CMBR.


This is handwave. A claim with no substance or explanation.

Indeed, the well-known controversy between "apparent masses" and their gravitational dynamics may be resolved because the bright spots, which belong to skeletons, may move faster than predicted by their masses estimated from their luminosity.


No evidence that the dynamics can be explained. No discussion of lensing and it's implications. A big maybe.

Elasticity of BCSU may contribute to expansion of the Universe


Do you think his favourite month is "may"? This explanation has not been shown to explain anything.
bluehigh
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 05, 2014
Disappointingly there's not a malapropism in your comment.

Billions of people will pretend a place of worship regularly. Is that not a measurable physical effect of God?

Early morning, double shot black, two sugars please.

Protoplasmix
4.7 / 5 (20) Sep 05, 2014
It takes huge balls to come up with a model that you have to invent a magical particle ...

But not quite as big as the balls it takes to criticize science with ignorance and profanity in a public forum. Turns out quarks aren't magical. Positrons, as the maths suggested, are real too. Furthermore, had you checked the paper linked in the comment preceding yours, you might have noticed that the model is testable, both directly and indirectly. Your knuckles – stop dragging them.
Protoplasmix
4.6 / 5 (18) Sep 05, 2014
Billions of people will pretend a place of worship regularly. Is that not a measurable physical effect of God?

No, most assuredly not. At best it's a measurable effect of faith in one, and at worst it's a measure of mass delusion due to psychological propaganda and barbaric, tyrannically draconian social control along with all the hell of the many wars humanity fought, and is fighting, over one.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (11) Sep 05, 2014
At least 'pretend' ( s/be attend) was an attempted malapropism.

* congrats self on neuron activity pre-coffee *

Is gravity not just a Mass delusion?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (12) Sep 06, 2014
Is gravity not just a Mass delusion?
@blue
mass delusions cannot provide empirical evidence which is separately verifiable through outside means (hence the term "delusion")
test it: Try not believing in gravity and then walk off a large drop...a true believer would not fall, per your assumptions (ex. Gravity is a mass delusion)
Billions of people will pretend a place of worship regularly. Is that not a measurable physical effect of God?
participation in something that does not require proof (like religious org's, religions, etc) is not a measurable effect of anything other than a widespread story or myth, the gullibility of people and the impact of culture on humans... nothing more
Assuming that a BELIEF in something is somehow proof of that something is like claiming that Fairy flatulence is a primary driver of gravity: IOW- conjecture, broken logic without evidence

that is one reason that religion has no place in SCIENCE

bluehigh
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2014
Mass .. See the capital 'M'. So quick you are to press a point. Is it a prerequisite for science zealots to be narrow minded and have their sense of humour removed?

Besides, it's not 'gravity' per se that causes grief when walking off large drops. It's 'gravitational effects'. Then I suppose the difference is like 'God' vs 'belief in God'.

The 'Devil' is in the details!

Both my neurons are exhausted now.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 06, 2014
A major flaw of DM theories is the assumption that "DM" is actually "Matter" at all, and having made the assumptions that any excess "force" or "attraction" is in fact "gravity".

There are lots laughable of leaps of logic in DM theory.

Assumptions:
1, The Universe is composed of Matter, "Energy", space and time, which can exist as particles or waves depending on theory or context...

Are you SURE that's all there is? Of course not.

So...anything you don't understand is automatically a "new particle" with "missing mass", and viola, you've already made a faulty assumption.

Maybe it's neither particle nor wave, neither energy nor mass, neither space nor time.

2, A discrepancy in observation and theory means there is something "new"/else...

Maybe you just need to fix some variables, or add more terms to existing equations, or maybe the real Newtonian gravity calculation at the galactic scale is too hard for any computer to ever perform.

this contradicts point 1, yet both are valid.
Returners
1 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2014
Suppose there is an unknown entity causing the discrepancy, and suppose it is not "mass" at all, and not a "particle" at all...

Look at all the fools looking for a massive particle, when they have no evidence that the substance is either mass or a particle, never mind evidence that it is both mass and a particle.

If it is neither particle nor mass, then what might it be, you'd say?

That's an easy one:
1, Error.
In theory, or in calculation or interpretation of theory. We already know computers can't do the N-body for a 400 billion star galaxy.

2, "non-mass"
Not "negative mass" or "negative energy" etc, etc, but "something else". Maybe, just maybe, the universe is more than just particles, waves, energy, mass, space and time.

Maybe the next entities physicists discover will be "Rhyme" and "Reason". However, for physicists, "Reason" seems unlikely.

If they can accept Strings and Branes, and baby big bangs and momma big bangs, why not some "Contraception": Rubbers and Rings?
Uncle Ira
3.3 / 5 (14) Sep 06, 2014
Maybe it's neither particle nor wave, neither energy nor mass, neither space nor time.


If none of those things, what could it be Skippy? You maybe should have put that in the Nothing article comments.

A discrepancy in observation and theory means there is something "new"/else...


Well golly gee Skippy, did you come up with all that on your own?

Maybe you just need to fix some variables, or add more terms to existing equations,


Maybe you should fix them or add them in then surprise us for our birthday Skippy.

or maybe the real Newtonian gravity calculation at the galactic scale is too hard for any computer to ever perform.


Or maybe Returnering-Skippy should have taken his medicines before he returnered.

this contradicts point 1, yet both are valid.


See there, your first returnering postum and ol Ira has to correct you. In science stuffs you can have two things valid if the contradict each other. That's for philosopher-Skippys to play with.
Uncle Ira
3.6 / 5 (14) Sep 06, 2014
Look at all the fools looking for


Returnering-Skippy, you might not be wanting to invite peoples to look for fools. Just saying Cher.

when they have no evidence that the substance is either mass or a particle, never mind evidence that it is both mass and a particle.


Skippy you are embarrassing your self on your first day out of the institute, aren't you worried they might put you back in?
Returners
1 / 5 (10) Sep 06, 2014
Think about it, naysayer.

Is a shadow a "thing", materially speaking?

You may reason, that "A shadow is the absence of light, thus I decide that it isn't actually a thing."

Yet we can "see" the shadow. Can we not?

Have you ever been spooked by the sudden movement of a shadow?

But why? A shadow isn't even a "thing" in it's own right.

If a shadow isn't a thing, how did it spook you?!

Not an argument about the nature of shadows, but perhaps the nature of causes.

You say, "Occam's Razor, it's easier to propose a new type of matter than to propose an entirely new type of entity."

Not really. I propose a type of entity, or the possibility of a new entity without necessarily claiming what it might be, you propose a new type of matter with several curious new properties: invisibility, intangibility, and "magically" appearing only in some locations within and between galaxies and never others.

I proposed a new entity, which may or may not, have as few as 1 property. Yours has 3....
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (15) Sep 06, 2014
Think about it, naysayer.

Is a shadow a "thing", materially speaking?

You may reason, that "A shadow is the absence of light, thus I decide that it isn't actually a thing."

Yet we can "see" the shadow. Can we not?


Not. That's my answer. I don't see a "thing" when I see a shadow. I see a difference in what's getting shined on a lot and what's getting shined on not a lot.

Skippy, letting ol Ira point out your silliness is going to give you a bad reputation, especially on ones like this where I didn't have to use the google-Skippys to help me.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 06, 2014
Now notice, if you use the Occam's Razor argument, my "new type of entity" can basically have as many properties and still be equal to or better (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary) to the DM theory, since DM has at least 3 curious properties not known to matter...

DM's curious properties:
"Gravitational" therefore massive.
Uncharged.
intangible (even neutrons and neutrinos are tangible)
Invisible

I actually only have to propose 1 new property, a replacement for mass, hey anything could have the other three properties. There's an X-Men character with 2 of those other three properties...seriously...

Faith doesnt have a charge, is intangible, and is invisible, and faith can apparently move worlds (or universes) it's not more complex than DM, and can explain everything DM can explain, and can explain things DM can't explain.

So by Occam's Razor, the simplest thing that works, which you are also missing, is Faith...

It could be something else, but Faith seems most likely.
Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (13) Sep 06, 2014
It could be something else, but Faith seems most likely.


Skippy, you have really not gotten any better, I think they let you out to early.
Returners
1 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2014
Think about it, naysayer.

Is a shadow a "thing", materially speaking?

You may reason, that "A shadow is the absence of light, thus I decide that it isn't actually a thing."

Yet we can "see" the shadow. Can we not?


Not. That's my answer. I don't see a "thing" when I see a shadow. I see a difference in what's getting shined on a lot and what's getting shined on not a lot.

Skippy, letting ol Ira point out your silliness is going to give you a bad reputation, especially on ones like this where I didn't have to use the google-Skippys to help me.


Gilligan, your two prior posts demonstrate a deep lack of sincerity and effort on your part, seeing as how you are unable to identify a so-called "Rhetorical Argument".
Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (13) Sep 06, 2014
Gilligan, your two prior posts demonstrate a deep lack of sincerity and effort on your part, seeing as how you are unable to identify a so-called "Rhetorical Argument".


I never bragged about identifying a so-called "Rhetorical Argument".

My expertise is in spotting the peoples who say the stupid things thinking they are smart. But with you it's not because I am the expert, it's just because I am the one who ran into you first. Anybody would be able to tell you how silly all that mumbo jumbo gumbo stuffs is, even somebody not the expert like I am.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 06, 2014
Mass .. See the capital 'M'. So quick you are to press a point. Is it a prerequisite for science zealots to be narrow minded and have their sense of humour removed?
@blue
Apologies
I thought you were pulling a reg mundy

and I really haven't slept in a few days... didn't recognize the humor
Not trying to excuse it, just explaining why i posted
DeliriousNeuron
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 06, 2014
Ol Aunt Ira never contributes to explanations here. Just criticizing peoples thoughts.
Now Ira...grab your jumbo crayons and a juice box. We have better things to do than read your elementary comments.
DeliriousNeuron
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 06, 2014
Gilligan, your two prior posts demonstrate a deep lack of sincerity and effort on your part, seeing as how you are unable to identify a so-called "Rhetorical Argument".


I never bragged about identifying a so-called "Rhetorical Argument".

My expertise is in spotting the peoples who say the stupid things thinking they are smart. But with you it's not because I am the expert, it's just because I am the one who ran into you first. Anybody would be able to tell you how silly all that mumbo jumbo gumbo stuffs is, even somebody not the expert like I am.


Your expertise? ROFLMAO!!! That about sums your intelligence up. Geez!
IMP-9
4.7 / 5 (12) Sep 06, 2014
invisibility, intangibility, and "magically" appearing only in some locations within and between galaxies and never others.


Let's see, there are many particles which don't interact with light. There are particles we can't detect, like low energy neutrinos. Nobody claims dark matter is "intangible". There are many types of dark matter and energy regimes that cannot be detected by current techniques. And simulations have shown how dark matter forms halos and can be stripped out of galaxies.

On the point of Occams Razor ally his is silly. What Occam's Razor actually says is only increase complexity to increase explanatory power. Does your model for explain in detail rotation profiles, cluster dynamics, structure formation, BAO tests, lensing tests, cluster mergers and agree reasonably well with primordial nucleosynthesis? No. So Occam's Razor isn't even on the table, your model explains nothing, it's simplicity is irrelevant.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 06, 2014
On the point of Occams Razor ally his is silly. What Occam's Razor actually says is only increase complexity to increase explanatory power. Does your model for explain in detail rotation profiles, cluster dynamics, structure formation, BAO tests, lensing tests, cluster mergers and agree reasonably well with primordial nucleosynthesis? No. So Occam's Razor isn't even on the table, your model explains nothing, it's simplicity is irrelevant.


Hate to burst your bubble, but gravity is not the only known phenomena which can cause lensing, much less unknown phenomena.

I wonder....maybe you've heard of...lenses?

Glass lenses, plastic lenses, even water lenses. Whether the glass is half full, or half-empty, it can bend light just the same. A shockwave from an explosion in atmosphere can lens light. The EM force mediates all of those examples.

I don't know what mediates every particular type of lensing, and neither do you, but I'm pretty confident it is not "Dark Matter".

Cont...
Returners
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 06, 2014
If the EM force can mediate lensing in several known ways, and gravity from ordinary matter can lens light, then we need not necessarily invoke "invisible, intangible, uncharged matter" to mediate lensing in deep space.

Have you ever been in the tail wake of a boat, perhaps skiing or in another boat riding behind? If you're in the wrong spot, you can be pushed out of control, etc, but if you are in a sweet spot, the tail wake can actually help stabilize your own position. A tail wake could lens light too, provided the water were clean enough. Now imagine a gravitational wake, rather than the initial gravitational field.

As a rock or landslide falling into a pond can temporarily displace much more water than it's own volume, so too, perhaps, ordinary matter may displace more of space and time than it's own "gravimetric volume", so to speak, would at first entail.

Plug this into Youtube: (Science program):

"_RMprH-4QC4"

Imagine if the gravel is a galaxy, and the water is space-time.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 06, 2014
Additionally, a gravitational wake, much like the "landslide drive tsunami" could potentially move much more material than the ordinary gravitational attraction.

Where is this seen? Gravitational Wakes could be used to explain much of the ordering of spiral galaxies, as stars tend to follow the ones ahead of them in the bands.

With the exception of a few rogue stars ejected by black holes, galaxies are the fastest moving systems of which we know. Tail wakes are much more dramatic for fast moving objects particularly if they are not "hydroplaning", since space-time and not merely traveling in the surface like a boat. Most galaxies scientists see move tens or even hundreds of times faster through local space time than their component star systems move relative to that same galaxy's center of mass. It's akin to a baseball player being able to run ten times faster than the pitcher can throw the ball, rather than the other way around.

How much air does a 1000mph base runner displace?
crockeraz
4.5 / 5 (2) Sep 07, 2014
I have a sincere question. If the collider can track collisions and decay, wouldn't 80% of the matter disappear into untrackable dark matter, and the loss be noticed? Or is dark matter not interlaced with known matter and particles?
Aligo
Sep 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Aligo
Sep 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Aligo
Sep 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Aligo
Sep 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 07, 2014
I have a sincere question. If the collider can track collisions and decay, wouldn't 80% of the matter disappear into untrackable dark matter, and the loss be noticed? Or is dark matter not interlaced with known matter and particles?


ERROR is always interlaced with what one is studying.

It took over 50 years to find a "Higgs-like boson" when they knew almost everything about it ahead of time.

Currently, they don't know what they are looking for.

Even if it is "Matter" and a particle, they don't know it's mass.

If it is a "wave" it is not on the EM spectrum, in which case they will not find it, because they aren't even looking for it, though they think they are. The type of gravitational wave they are looking for (at LIGO*) would not explain DM, even if they found those, and they won't find those with LIGO because the background noise from a nearby MAJOR HIGHWAY and RAILROAD is larger than the signal they are looking for.

Aligo
Sep 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
saposjoint
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 07, 2014
Zephyr, you ignorant slut.
Returners
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 07, 2014
Anyway, the reason you can't observe Gravitational Waves on a "Local" scale, nevermind in your backyard at LIGO, is because LIGO is essentially nothing more than a giant, multi-million dollar Seismometer.

LIGO detects waves which move "through" space and time, namely the vibrations of cars and trains, etc.

Gravity Waves, if they exist, ARE space and time. The laser detectors will not detect a change because any warping is just going to make the laser go around the same curve. The laser wouldn't keep going as the shape fo the detector changes, or as the shape of the detector is warped by the wave, because the laser is traveling through the same space and time, and therefore being hit by the same wave at the same time, the laser curves at exactly the same rate the detector is deformed. Thus from the detector's point of view, the space-time is the exact same shape no matter what happened.

it's better as a seismometer, because seismic waves can move the structure apart from the photons
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2014
Anyway, a Gravity Wave, if they exist, would deflect both the structure and the photon by the same amount, and therefore the temporary change will not be noticed.

Why? Because we may consider the detector as a "reference frame", in this case, and when a non-local wave (space-time itself, not a coordinate within space-time) hits the reference frame, all activities inside said reference frame are equally effected. Adding more dimensions and lasers pointing in different directions or along longer paths will not help, unless they are very, very large paths indeed, but we don't have the technology to put something on Mars or Pluto and account for margin or error in their orbital position to within better than meters, and you'd need nano-meter precision knowledge of their orbits.

Maybe if you had lasers flying to detectors that far apart, you'd be able to see some change, but I doubt it.

We don't see evidence "Dark Matter" within 1000 light years in any direction within the MW....

Aligo
Sep 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 07, 2014
So if DM is a particle, there must not be any of it in the milky way.

If DM is a gravity wave, it's wavelength is too long to detect, or is something exotic that we can't yet even describe.

If DM is an EM wave, then if there was a proportional amount in the MW as there is supposedly everywhere else, we should have been FRIED by it eons ago.

So what is DM?

My three favorite candidates, in order of preference:

1, ERROR

2, Something totally new, neither space, nor time, nor EM, nor wave, nor matter, nor Energy.

3, Gravity Waves though we'll probably never know for a few more generations, which means "we" won't know, because "we" will be dead.
Aligo
Sep 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
3.2 / 5 (11) Sep 07, 2014
We have better things to do than read your elementary comments.


Well you should get to doing them if they are better Skippy. Nobody is making you read them. That means when you see my name you can just Skippy-skip over them and go right to the Returnering-Skippy and the Zephir-Skippy to get to the good stuff.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 07, 2014
Every few months Lrrkrrr runs out of Thorazine and risperdal and we all have to suffer for it.
My three favorite candidates, in order of preference:

1, ERROR
Your meds. TAKE your MEDS. The right ones, in the proper dosages, at the right times. Don't play doctor like you like to play cosmologist.
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2014
Sub: Confusion over Mix-up ? Where is Science heading ?
A state of anarchy should not prevail for long.
Information here: "flavor-mixed multicomponent dark matter."
"Dark matter is some unknown matter, most likely a new elementary particle or particles beyond the Standard Model,"
The question arises- Are we honest to discover new modes by Nature and learn through
scientific edge on Philosophy-The origins -Space Cosmology Vedas interlinks answer this Cosmos Quest.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 07, 2014
Every few months Lrrkrrr runs out of Thorazine and risperdal and we all have to suffer for it.
My three favorite candidates, in order of preference:

1, ERROR
Your meds. TAKE your MEDS. The right ones, in the proper dosages, at the right times. Don't play doctor like you like to play cosmologist.


I am on neither of those, and my psychologist swears I am perfectly normal.
Uncle Ira
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 07, 2014
my psychologist swears I am perfectly normal.


You should ask for your money back Skippy.
saposjoint
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2014
Maybe he's buying bootlegs that aren't the right dosage, or even the right drug? ;)
Uncle Ira
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 07, 2014
Maybe he's buying bootlegs that aren't the right dosage, or even the right drug? ;)


Well the drugs obviously aren't working right. Or maybe they are doing what they are supposed to do and he should try to "just say no".

He still needs to fire that lying psycho-ologist and see if he can get the refund.
Bob Osaka
not rated yet Sep 08, 2014
No one has mentioned Fritz Zwicky and the idea of tired light as a dark matter culprit. Interesting though, Voyager's 122au pass through the heliopause where energetic particles slow to the speed of sound as they interact with the sun's electromagnetic field, the heliosheath. Our star has one, perhaps all the other do as well.
Stable magnetic fields also exist around ordinary black holes, their existence could also be assumed around SMBH. Wouldn't there be a galactic pause caused by interaction with the current sheet?
One more tiny thought: What percentage of the solar system's mass is contained in the Oort cloud? Whatever your guess, that stuff is literally (baryonic) dark matter.
Jixo
Sep 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jalmy
1 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2014
Furthermore, had you checked the paper linked in the comment preceding yours, you might have noticed that the model is testable, both directly and indirectly.


Oh, I must have missed the part that explains why this magic material quark soup that makes up 80% of the universe somehow doesn't effect light whatsoever. How it exists in such a perfect symmetry that not one single time have we seen a clump of it pass in front of any light sources on any wavelength? Please point me to the part that explains this? Please enlighten me with your genius IQ as to how the well studied, documented, experimented, proven gravitational lensing is somehow also only being affected by this so called light matter 20%? So again I say what is more likely. That the universe is made up of 80% pixie-dust, or that you don't understand gravity and any other forces that may be acting on the universal scale?
jalmy
1 / 5 (2) Sep 08, 2014
Now I'm not saying there isn't any dark matter. Sure there is some quark soup. And sure the article you pointed out with the fuzzy halos is compelling. My point is that it sure as hell doesn't make up 80% of the matter in the universe. This isn't even hard. It is OBVIOUS.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.