Is the universe ringing like a crystal glass?

Is the universe ringing like a crystal glass?
The standard view of the expanding universe.

Many know the phrase "the big bang theory." There's even a top television comedy series with that as its title. According to scientists, the universe began with the "big bang" and expanded to the size it is today. Yet, the gravity of all of this matter, stars, gas, galaxies, and mysterious dark matter, tries to pull the universe back together, slowing down the expansion.

Now, two physicists at The University of Southern Mississippi, Lawrence Mead and Harry Ringermacher, have discovered that the universe might not only be expanding, but also oscillating or "ringing" at the same time. Their paper on the topic has been published in the April 2015 issue of the Astronomical Journal.

In 1978 Arno Allan Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson received the Nobel prize for their 1964 discovery of the key signature of this theory, the primal radiation from the early universe known as the "cosmic microwave background" (CMB).

"Then in 1998 the finding that the universe was not only expanding, but was speeding up, or accelerating in its expansion was a shock when it was discovered simultaneously by east coast and west coast teams of astronomers and physicists," said Mead. "A new form of matter, dark energy, repulsive in nature, was responsible for the speed-up. The teams led by Saul Perlmutter, Adam Riess, and Brian Schmidt won the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics for that discovery."

According to Mead and Ringermacher, this change from slowing down to speeding up (the transition time) took place approximately 6 to 7 billion years ago. Since then, Mead and Ringermacher say a vast accumulation of high-tech data has verified the theory to extraordinary accuracy.

Figure 1 is a NASA diagram representing the events of the Big Bang from the beginning of time to the present day as described by the current, accepted model known as "Lambda CDM" or Lambda Cold Dark Matter, where the Greek Lambda stands for Einstein's "cosmological constant". This cosmological constant is responsible for the acceleration of the universe. The outline of the "bell-shaped" universe represents its expanding size. The transition time is the point in time at which the bell shape shifts from going inward to outward from left to right.

Is the universe ringing like a crystal glass?
The universe ringing while expanding.
"The new finding suggests that the universe has slowed down and speeded up, not just once, but 7 times in the last 13.8 billion years, on average emulating dark matter in the process," said Mead. "The ringing has been decaying and is now very small – much like striking a crystal glass and hearing it ring down."

Figure 2 shows the new finding superposed on the Lambda CDM model of Figure 1. The oscillation amplitude is highly exaggerated, but the frequency is roughly correct. Ringermacher and Mead have determined that this oscillation is not a wave moving through the universe, such as a gravitational wave, but rather it is a "wave of the universe".

Ringermacher says the discovery was made accidentally when, through their collaboration on modeling of galaxies, they found a new way of plotting a classic textbook graph describing the scale of the universe against its age (lookback time) that did not depend on one's prior choice of models of the universe – as was traditional.

"The standard graph, the Hubble diagram, is constructed by astronomers observing the distances of Type 1A Supernovae that serve as "standard candles" for measuring the expansion of the universe," said Ringermacher. "Analyzing this new plot to locate the transition time of the universe, we found there was more than one such time – in fact multiple oscillations with a frequency of about 7 cycles over the lifetime of the universe. It is space itself that has been speeding up its expansion followed by slowing down 7 times since creation."

Mead and Ringermacher say this finding must ultimately be verified by independent analyses, preferably of new supernovae data, to confirm its reality. In the meantime, their work into the "ringing" of the continues.


Explore further

The mysterious dark energy that speeds the universe's rate of expansion

More information: "Observation of Discrete Oscillations in a Model-Independent Plot of Cosmological Scale Factor versus Lookback Time and Scalar Field Model," H. I. Ringermacher & L. R. Mead, 2015 April, Astronomical Journal, Vol. 149, No. 4, 137 dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-6256/149/4/137, Arxiv: arxiv.org/abs/1502.06140

"Model-independent Plotting of the Cosmological Scale Factor as a Function of Lookback Time," H. I. Ringermacher & L. R. Mead, 2014 November, Astronomical Journal, Vol. 148, No. 5, 94 dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-6256/148/5/94, Arxiv: arxiv.org/abs/1407.6300

To learn more about Ringermacher and Mead's research, visit Ringermacher's website at ringermacher.com/. For more information about the Department of Physics and Astronomy, visit www.usm.edu/physics.

Journal information: Astronomical Journal , arXiv

Provided by University of Southern Mississippi
Citation: Is the universe ringing like a crystal glass? (2015, June 26) retrieved 20 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-06-universe-crystal-glass.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
10695 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 26, 2015
Don't ya gotta love that geometric configuration that looks ike the Universe was shot from the bottom of a cannon?

Guess these guys still haven't read this part of Einstein's General Relativity:

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Albert Einstein 97

If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection 1) between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.

Jun 26, 2015
"Analyzing this new plot to locate the transition time of the universe, we found there was more than one such time – in fact multiple oscillations with a frequency of about 7 cycles over the lifetime of the universe. It is space itself that has been speeding up its expansion followed by slowing down 7 times since creation."


If their analysis is correct and space time is oscillating, does that mean that the mysterious dark energy we have postulated driving an accelerating expansion is just the rising edge of an oscillation and the expansion will slow again on the back side of the wave?

Jun 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 27, 2015
Ding dongs, one and all...

BB creationists belief system is a religious experience.

Jun 27, 2015
Ding dongs, one and all...

BB creationists belief system is a religious experience.
From catching and recording light curves of fleeting gamma ray bursts, to telescopes with lenses made of galaxy clusters, to mapping and measuring the anisotropy of microwaves across the entire sky, pretty sophisticated instruments and methods for ding dongs. What ails you?

Jun 27, 2015
Ringing huh. Maybe it's making the OM sound. But if it is ringing or even making the OM sound, and if there's no one to hear it, then ...

Jun 27, 2015
Ringermacher discovers ringing. :)

Jun 27, 2015
@dogbert

If their analysis is correct and space time is oscillating, does that mean that the mysterious dark energy we have postulated driving an accelerating expansion is just the rising edge of an oscillation and the expansion will slow again on the back side of the wave?


Yes, that's exactly what it means. The expansion is a constant, the rate of expansion is a wave function of momentum and wavelength first postulated by Einstein in 1905 and expounded on by De Broglie, Schrodinger and others.
Further it is consistent with Inflation theory and observation.
There are still some very big questions to answer but it seems like a step in the correct direction.

Jun 27, 2015
By resorting to mathematical models scientists have failed to heed the warnings of Godel. You will never know truth through math alone, it does not exist nor can it be constrained by such language. If we want to further understand the universe we must go beyond math. It's well is dry and the understanding possibly derived incomplete.

Jun 27, 2015
meh,

looks like an impedance mismatch between science and reality!

Jun 27, 2015
'Mead and Ringermacher say this finding must ultimately be verified by independent analyses, preferably of new supernovae data, to confirm its reality.'

Merger maniacs defending a lifetime of working on a nonsense fantasy. They certainly don't want to look like fools. And the recent observations are running afoul of their lifetime dreams.

Jun 27, 2015
Defining a non-causal science to define the causal, i.e. definable, is a science defined with a mystery. The mystery is the lack of logic! If I stand in front of you and disappeared, do I exist or do I not exist is a ridiculous question, Schrodinger's cat. It is not physics, its an aberration! So light ...

Jun 27, 2015
Damn, I was sure I'd see some "dense aether" "ripples on surface of water" quakery in here. I would not have bet on the "modern physics is a religion" community being the dominant form. I must be slipping.

Jun 27, 2015
@jeantate

Do you deny the truths of incompleteness theorems? What you assert as facts are mere approximations. Math is just another language, it is not the dining characteristic of the universe.

Jun 27, 2015
@Benni, did you actually *read* the two papers the PO article cites?


.....anything proposing that the Universe was ejected from the bottom of a cannon is hardly worth the time for further reading.

Question for you JT? Do you believe it? YES or NO? Let's see how well you take that "fork".

Jun 27, 2015
Damn, I was sure I'd see some dense aether ripples on surface of water quakery in here I would not have bet on the "modern physics is a religion" community being the dominant form


So how about the below quote from Einstein's GR:

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Albert Einstein 97

If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.

Jun 27, 2015
I don't know why everybody is so skeptic about this ringing. I found the article made me slap my forehead and say "now why didn't I think of this".

Even if it turns out not to be the case, it's interesting that this hasn't already occurred to dozens of cosmologists.

Actually, if the universe is not ringing like this, then there should be some reason why it isn't.

Jun 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 27, 2015
@Benni:
So how about the below quote from Einstein's GR


You have a source?
.......great comeback, I quote it directly from the pages of Einstein's GR & you ask me if I "have a source". Obviously you've never delved very far into GR & the more you post the more cogent that becomes.

Do you consider Einstein to be infallable?
....... I think you mean QUANTIFIABLE don't you?

I can now understand why you are so infatuated the Philosophy of Quantum Theory, it's your escape route for your lack of knowledge in fields of scientific endeavor. You won't even answer YES or NO when I ask if you believe in the existence of Dark Matter, you equivocate that all over the place, I guess you do this because you imagine that 6th grade science students marvel at your use of the vocabulary of professional Scientists/Engineers, but strung together so incoherently as to be nothing less than ad hoc meaningless gibberish.


Jun 27, 2015
Who created the creator?


Who created bosons, fermions and natural laws? If they can appear spontaneously, why can't a creator appear spontaneously?

Jun 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 27, 2015
I was sure I'd see some "dense aether" "ripples on surface of water" quakery in here
The above study did actually introduce a new form of "aether" - so called "scalar field" and it derived, that in the presence of this field the frequency of dark matter ripples fits the dark matter parameter in Friedmann model of expanding Universe. Therefore the sparse aether model essentially fits the expanding Universe - just under another name.


......put equivocation aside, Dark Matter is the "old aether" that has been reinvented.

Odd isn't it? How it's postulated to be 90% of the mass of the Universe but we can't measure a scintilla of evidence for it in the form of gravity.

It's further odd that Astrophysicists are discovering halos often stretching from one galactic structure to another is composed solely of normal matter with no imposing influences exerted to distort them that would be suggestive of mysterious gravity holding Spiral galaxies together.


Jun 27, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 27, 2015
Sadly, for whatever reason, LCDM cosmological models suffer badly at the hands of popsci writers, and even some astrophysicists too


......you've got it just about backwards. It suffers because the LCDM model postulates outcomes resulting in 90% of Universe composed of contrived models claiming more gravity exists in the Universe than can be accounted for by visible matter. Then PopSci jumps on some Quantum Theorist's bandwagon of contrived gravity & we get La La Lamda Land, a perfect eclectic blending of opportunistically inclined PopSci writers & QT Theorists.

Next to jump aboard the bandwagon are the Funny Farm Science crowd now having adopted elements of PopSci & QT but who have never seen a Differential Equation they could solve & we get the ensuing chaos on sites like this promulagted by no less than yourself who has never seen a YES or NO question you're willing to answer.

JT, I'm curious, does YES or NO exist in the realm of Quantum Theory?


Jun 27, 2015
If you don't like the Physorg articles you could simply go elsewhere. Relief then for some of us from your bigotry.


Jun 28, 2015
@Benni:
the LCDM model postulates outcomes resulting in 90% of Universe composed of contrived models claiming more gravity exists in the Universe than can be accounted for by visible matter
Fixed that for you ... most of the ordinary (a.k.a. baryonic) matter in the universe is not visible
So how much of the sun is missing? 99%?
does YES or NO exist in the realm of Quantum Theory
Just so that I don't misunderstand you, are you claiming - albeit not directly - that the Standard Model (of particle physics), say, and QED are not consistent with the results of a very wide range of experiments?
All of the Sun's gravity is accounted accounted for by it's visible mass, that's an observation

It's suddenly just rung through crystal clear to me, you are a PopSci Fiction writer, someone with just enough of a high school level comprehension of science trying to become the next Arthur C Clarke who probably made more money than Albert Einstein ever did.

Jun 28, 2015
I realize this is not the most scientifically important of questions to ask now, but I'm really curious as to the frequency at which the universe would oscillate according to the findings of these scientists, i.e. what is the tonic note of the universe?

Jun 28, 2015
Tom it's about 1.6x10^-18 Hz. I'm pretty sure there is no sound system on Earth capable of playing base that phat.

Gorgeous theory by the way, still needs work and of course, more SNs but they will come with time.

Jun 28, 2015
Tom it's about 1.6x10^-18 Hz. I'm pretty sure there is no sound system on Earth capable of playing base that phat.

Gorgeous theory by the way, still needs work and of course, more SNs but they will come with time.


Thanks! Well, no, by definition there is no system that could play it, but shifting it several (ok, a *LOT* of) octaves yields the same note in a different register. After a little calculation, it would seem that it's a rather sharp B flat.

Jun 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 28, 2015
About that other part. The part the universe is expanding in.

Jun 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 28, 2015
All of the Sun's gravity is accounted accounted for by it's visible mass, that's an observation


And all of the gravity of a rich cluster such Coma is NOT accounted for by the visible mass of stars in its galaxies, not even if all the invisible stars are counted


Oh, you've been out there poking in behind all the unknown dust lanes & nonvisible stars & figured out the observed lensing cannot be caused by the estimated mass viewed in somebody's telescope?

How much does it fall short? The estimated mass of galaxies in a rich cluster - including or excluding the estimated CDM component - is less than 20% of the estimated total mass of such a cluster


How do you know it's < 20% of the mass needed and how do you know this cluster is not occluding another cluster right behind it & what you're looking at is a case of serial lensing & not missing mass? And why does your vaunted observational measuring technique not also apply to the gravity/mass of our Sun?


Jun 28, 2015
And why does your vaunted observational measuring technique not also apply to the gravity/mass of our Sun?
It does also apply to the Sun
Then why isn't 90-99% of it missing as you claim is the deficit for mass versus presumed gravity fields observed everywhere else in the Universe? I'm surprised you can't figure out that simple math. Trust me, I know Astronomy 101 won't help anyone trying to figure out why your funny farm science math will never answer the so-called deficit conundrum.


Jun 28, 2015
Then why isn't 90-99% of it missing as you claim is the deficit for mass versus presumed gravity fields observed everywhere else in the Universe?


The orbit of the Moon, around the Earth, would be the same (short-term, to a high degree of approximation) if the Earth's mass were squashed down to a ball of radius 1 mm (say), or blown up to a low-density cloud of radius ~200k km (say). The Moon's orbit constrains the 'contained' mass, not its distribution; this result is due to Newton, and is a consequence of (Newtonian) gravity's distance-inverse-square relationship
That's quite a word salad....Just how does it relate to 99% of the Universe being missing?

Trust me, I don't trust what you say, and increasingly you simply continue making stuff up as you go along. I know this to be true because mass/gravity calculations of our Sun & everything else in the solar system add up exactly to the visible masses we observe for the gravity fields they exert.

Jun 28, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 28, 2015
Benni,
...mass/gravity calculations of our Sun & everything else in the solar system add up exactly to the visible masses we observe for the gravity fields they exert.


There are many reasons to doubt the existence of DM, but your observation is perhaps the single most important one. The movements of bodies in our solar system can be computed with great accuracy without the addition of DM. If DM existed in our solar system to any appreciable extent, we would have to make our calculations with DM.

How do we suppose that DM is ubiquitous throughout the universe and necessary for the distribution and movements of mass in the universe when not a single microgram of the stuff can be found in our solar system?


Jun 28, 2015
@ Benni
"Trust me, I don't trust what you say, and increasingly you simply continue making stuff up as you go along."
Use your own words, use your own brains. That is what science is about.

Jun 28, 2015
Then why isn't 90-99% of it missing as you claim is the deficit for mass versus presumed gravity fields observed everywhere else in the Universe?


That's quite a word salad.... [\q]
That is in fact high school physics. Too complex ?

Jun 28, 2015
This "music of the spheres" concept is as old as time itself. Even the Bible records the heavens declaring the glory of God and Creation sings His praises. Science is getting back to the foundations of the universe the Creator set in motion. We who have faith in the unseen do not need proof, but it is great to see the Creation revealed through observations in science.

Jun 28, 2015
Who created the creator?


Why would a being who could conceive the entire universe and all the laws that govern it need to be created? Time is not an eternal concept. Only beings who have a birth and death use it to keep track of sequential events. A Creator is eternal and timeless. Energy and matter are equivalent, as Einstein showed in E=Mc2. An omnipotent Creator is omnipresent outside our time concept and therefore also omniscient. We see "through a glass darkly" until we see God in all things.

Jun 28, 2015
Then why isn't 90-99% of it missing as you claim is the deficit for mass versus presumed gravity fields observed everywhere else in the Universe?


That's quite a word salad....

That is in fact high school physics. Too complex ?


......and you like JT are in the same camp of Funny Farm Science that 99% of our Sun is missing even though you can't come up with the excess gravity as evidence for it. Instead you peer off into farflung corners of the Universe, where there's no hope for man to ever visit, you declare yourselves self appointed experts in anything & everything you can't prove while invoking "high school physics" as your sources. I had nuclear physics during my six years in Engineering School, I'm very sure that's far beyond what you & JT had in high school.

You two need to collaborate, write a paper, get it published & out for peer review as you try to convince the public they cannot see 99% of everything they are looking at

Jun 28, 2015
More seriously, the estimated CDM in our solar system is far too small to be detected using the technique Benni likes; it becomes the dominant form of mass only on very large scales, because it is so diffuse.


If DM constitutes 76% of the mass in the Universe, by extension it should constitute 76% of the mass in our solar system. And now we have returned full circle to the conversation on scalabilty, how can it be so "diffuse" on any scale (being that it constitutes such a large percentage of the mass of the Universe) that it not be detectable? Seems rather convenient that it be just where the "models" need it to be.

Jun 28, 2015
Many know the phrase "the big bang theory...
Created by atheists to try to replace God.

Verkle, it's been pointed out numerous times here that the BB was NOT created by athiests. The "father" of the BB was the Catholic priest Georges Lemaître, and has also been pointed out he had religious motivations. As Hannes Alfven remarked;
"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing." He continued;
"There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only myth (or math) that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago."
Whether 5,000 or 13.7 billion years ago, it is still a creation story.

Jun 29, 2015
"Who created bosons, fermions and natural laws? If they can appear spontaneously, why can't a creator appear spontaneously?"

If bosons, fermions and natural laws can appear spontaneously, who needs a creator?


Yeah, but the point is "can something appear spontaneously?" And it if can, so can a creator. Simple logic!

Just because Occam's razor doesn't allow you to "need" something that is not "needed" doesn't make it a law.

Stop me when this gets too complicated for you.

Jun 29, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 29, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 29, 2015
Many know the phrase "the big bang theory....


I would think that everyone on this forum knows this phrase. It is just a theory. And a very poor one at that. Created by atheists to try to replace God.



Ah. I didn't know Belgian priests who work at the Catholic University of Louvain were atheists.

Seems you've become entirely self-sufficient: you don't even need others to demonstrate how ignorant you are anymore.

Jun 29, 2015
@Jean_Tate:
Seeing that you have such firm answers to everything, I thought you might be able to help out with a few questions about this theory that still bugs me:

1. After all the extrapolation has been done and scientists arrived at the singularity, what is the explanation for how all matter and energy was concentrated in there or came into existence from that singularity. in fact what exactly is the mathematical and physical definition of a singularity?
2. What started off this inflation? And what brought it to an end?
3. Whilst the universe and its constituent matter was expanding away from each other, just how did the first star(s) form? What provided the density and most importantly the trigger for fusion to start before any other stars existed?
4. How do planets form from dust and rocks when we know that colliding rocks to not stick together, much less in the vacuum of space?
5. Why do really early galaxies look so much like all other ones?
Many more bugs.....


Jun 29, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 29, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 29, 2015
@cd:
If DM constitutes 76% of the mass in the Universe, by extension it should constitute 76% of the mass in our solar system

Let's see now ... if the universe is 99% plasma, by extension it should constitute 99% of my breakfast cereal ...

Quite the moronic statement, and a pathetic dodge of the question.
Why no DM in the Sol's cereal bowl? DM repellent perhaps? I know, the solar wind is the repellent.

Jun 29, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)

Just a note to let you know I haven't forgotten about that links list we discussed. Been very busy with more pressing matters. I'll try to get to it in a few days. :)

PS: I just saw your standard model BB-&-Dark-Matter explanation re DM density distributions/fluctuations etc. I would be interested to see your explanation for why in early BB stages (when first 'stars' were huge and allegedly close together) DM was not 'hoovered up' into the stellar-strong gravity wells all around whichever way the DM moved/fluctuated? If your explanation as to how DM behaves due to gravity (including self-gravity when fluctuations form clumps) is true, then any first ordinary matter stellar clumps would automatically start feedback loops which would be even stronger in huge stellar clumps. So those first ordinary matter clumps would set the pattern for where all DM matter would 'go' into stellar gravity wells (because DM is NOT repulsed by E-M 'Radiation Pressure')? Cheers.

Jun 29, 2015
Hi mytwocts. :) Thanks for your response.
DM only interacts gravitationally, so if it falls into a stellar gravity well, it will just emerge on the other side with minimal loss of kinetic energy. It is rather that ordinary matter falls into DM gravitational wells.
But how did DM originally form lumped structures over a relatively short period of time?
I already considered that angle. The problem arises when the DM density/ubiquity was so cheek-by-jowl with itself and ordinary matter. A huge stellar gravity well would draw in DM from all radials and any instantaneous concentration at its central location would increase manyfold the stellar matters own gravity well, which the DM already within the stronger well would not climb out of as easily as it would a gravity well which remains the same strength. That's what I meant by 'feedback loop', not only in DM concentration process but also in ordinary matter concentration process involving strengthening gravity wells. Cheers.

Jun 29, 2015
Au contraire ... you know very well why very little CDM is expected in the solar system, yet you (deliberately?) chose to create a strawman


Au contraire mon frère (or sœur), I don't know. Recall I'm "willfully ignorant" of pseudoscience BS, as such DM nonsense. The DM to baryonic ratio is 3 to 1, and the Universe is isotropic. If it doesn't clump, then "by extension" the expectation should be 3 to 1 everywhere including in the solar system (although the ratio seems higher between your ears).
Also, you seem to have contradictory POV's, you say it doesn't clump. But in a different thread you claimed (via claims by "primary sources") that DM is responsible for the filamentary nature of the Universe, because it collapses upon itself. Which is it? Or does it do it all, just as is needed to explain gravity is all that is needed for your cosmology? That's some magical stuff you believe in...

Jun 29, 2015
DM only interacts gravitationally, so if it falls into a stellar gravity well, it will just emerge on the other side with minimal loss of kinetic energy. It is rather that ordinary matter falls into DM gravitational wells.
But how did DM originally form lumped structures over a relatively short period of time?

Where exactly is the "other side" of the Sol's "gravity well"? Where does all this stuff appear when it falls out the "other side"? Where is the "other side" of a DM "gravitational well"? And if DM cannot clump, how does it form a "gravitational well"? Shouldn't the DM "gravity well" be like a kiddie pool and be of an equal ankle depth everywhere? Do we need to name classify DM "gravitational wells" as "gravitational kiddie pool...wells"? And do the unicorns that wade through the "gravitational kiddie pool...wells" pee in them too?

Jun 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 30, 2015
If gravity is all you need, there'd be no huge overdensities like the solar system or Sun (or Earth); however, baryons can 'cool' when they clump (CDM can't), which leads to 'gravitational collapse' (can't happen to CDM, at least not in a mere ~10 billion years)

I'm gonna go seriously sci-fi here - just for the heck of it:
If the interaction of CDM with itself is not nil (just very very tiny), then might we not see an evolution of matter in the universe similar to that of 'ordinary' matter for CDM on a much vaster timescale? Including CDM 'galactic discs' - and possibly even CDM black holes (probably nothing as shiny as CDM stars, though).

Could CDM black holes already have formed by mere chance (and if they can - would this be observable as a skew of BH size-frequency towards smaller BHs (as a CDM BH should not be distinguishable from a 'regular' one)?

OK...I'll lay off the meds, now. Back to your usual program.

Jun 30, 2015
why would CDM BHs have any particular mass distribution?

I was thinking (well: knee-jerking) in terms of formation process.

Where 'normal matter' BHs grow via accretion discs any CDM BHs that have currently already formed would not grow via such an accretion disc (as CDM does not interact that much and thus we do not get the friction dynamic). It would merely grow by 'chance encounters' with more CDM or ordinary mass. So the average CDM BH should be smaller than the average normal CDM...which in turn would skew the currently expected BH distribution towards the small end.

Perhaps not 'by mere chance'

One could (probably) calculate the probability of clouds passing through each other to get a 'lucky' critical density in one place. With there beind such a lot more CDM than ordinary matter that probability should be higher. But yeah. Earl universe seems the most likely place/time for such CDM BH formation.

Jun 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 30, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 30, 2015
You should seriously improve your knowledge of phenomenology: no knowledge of data means no ideas about their possible connections and the well minded tendency to deny every proposal of such a connection. Even the best scientists of medieval times like Newton would deny most of insights presented here, simply because they couldn't know what we already know today. Lack of knowledge leads into pathological skepticism automatically.

Did you just really try to make a case for: lack of knowledge equaks wisdom - and should therfore be accepted unconditionally?

Wow, man...what are you smoking today?

Jun 30, 2015
Hi antialias_physorg. :)
From docile: You should seriously improve your knowledge of phenomenology: no knowledge of data means no ideas about their possible connections and the well minded tendency to deny every proposal of such a connection. Even the best scientists of medieval times like Newton would deny most of insights presented here, simply because they couldn't know what we already know today. Lack of knowledge leads into pathological skepticism automatically.

Did you just really try to make a case for: lack of knowledge equaks wisdom - and should therfore be accepted unconditionally?

Wow, man...what are you smoking today?
That's strange, antialias, I read that as saying the exact opposite of what you just implied. :)

That is, more knowledge of the whole phenomenology spectrum of possibilities which data then constrain/inform further....and voila'....you have a wider perspective on what may be happening, than one phenomenologically 'naive'.

docile?

Jun 30, 2015
Could these universal contractions have something to do with the formation of super massive black holes?
Should we find particularly powerful quasars during that first crunch?

Jul 01, 2015
This hypothesis would be true if it was consistent with the physical reality in which we live. The visible universe is changing but it depends on the human spirit and faith.

Contradicting yourself within the space of two sentences? Not bad. Can you make it in one?

The deterioration of physical reality has a strong link with the moral decline of today's world. The spirit of love and truth gives life to the matter

...aaaand we're back in fairyland.

Seriously Ren: what are you even doing here? If your aim is to make yourself a laughingstock in the shortest possible time then I guess you have achieved your aim. Congratulations. Now go play outside - and leave the grownups to talk science, why don'tcha?

Jul 01, 2015
Even the best scientists of medieval times like Newton


Really docile? Isaac Newton: 1642 - 1726/27. Middle Ages: approximately 405 or 476 - 1485/92/99. Let's call the year 1500 AD the end of 'medieval times'. Newton's first published work dates from 1671. That's roughly 170 years after the latest reasonable date for the end of the Middle Ages.

docile, you are a complete f**king imbecile, and the best part is, you don't even need help to demonstrate that.

Jul 01, 2015
@cantdrive85
What is a "creator" ?


Haven't watched the Lego movie, have you?

Jul 01, 2015
@AA,

OK...I'll lay off the meds, now. Back to your usual program.

> maybe take them more often. Your comment was almost open minded and imaginative.Then you went back to dribbling dogma in later comments. Good to know that on occasions you are not a total loss.

Jul 02, 2015
Even the best scientists of medieval times like Newton


Let's call the year 1500 AD the end of 'medieval times'.

I would side with the other guy. Medieval times are still here ! ;-)


You do realize that most clichés about "medieval times" are actually more applicable to the 16th century, right?

Jul 04, 2015
It seems pretty weird to try and turn my remark into an attempted straw man fallacy. But hey, you said "medieval times are still here", so weirdness levels are pretty high to begin with.

Jul 04, 2015
It is not clear why different opinion worry you match after asking such questions?
renTROLL
it is not about differing opinion: it is about unsubstantiated conjectures and claims by trolls like you who suppose there is some infallibility to your religious beliefs which are based upon a FAITH which, by definition, is the belief in something without evidence...

this is a science site, not a religious forum where you can pontificate about the meaning of the 5 loaves of bread or the reason why everyone thinks there were only pairs of animals on Noah's boat when it obviously states otherwise in your bible

religious people can't even agree on their religion (which is why there are so many factions of christianity)

science is not the same: it is evidence based

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