Researchers provide new insight into dark matter halos

April 17, 2017 by Ali Sundermier
An image of a simulated galaxy cluster showing evidence for a boundary, or "edge" from a 2015 paper in the Astrophysical Journal by Surhud More, Benedikt Diemer and Andre Kravtsov.

Research from the University of Pennsylvania could shed light on the distribution of one of the most mysterious substances in the universe.

In the 1970s, scientists noticed something strange about the motion of galaxies. All the at the edge of spiral galaxies was rotating just as fast as material in the inner part of the galaxy. But according to the laws of gravity, objects on the outskirts should be moving slower.

The explanation: A form of matter called dark matter that does not directly interact with light.

Many scientists now believe that more than 80 percent of the matter of the universe is locked away in mysterious, as yet undetected, particles of dark matter, which affect everything from how objects move within a galaxy to how galaxies and galaxy clusters clump together in the first place.

This dark matter extends far beyond the reach of the furthest stars in the galaxy, forming what scientists call a dark matter halo. While stars within the galaxy all rotate in a neat, organized disk, these are like a swarm of bees, moving chaotically in random directions, which keeps them puffed up to balance the inward pull of gravity.

Bhuvnesh Jain, a physics professor in Penn's School of Arts & Sciences, and postdoc Eric Baxter are conducting research that could give new insights into the structure of these halos.

The researchers wanted to investigate whether these have an edge or boundary.

"People have generally imagined a pretty smooth transition from the matter bound to the galaxy to the matter between galaxies, which is also gravitationally attracted to the galaxies and clusters," Jain said. "But theoretically, using computer simulations a few years ago, researchers at the University of Chicago showed that for galaxy clusters a sharp boundary is expected, providing a distinct transition that we should be able to see through a careful analysis of the data."

Scientists believe that this region, or "edge" is due to the "splashback effect."

"You have this big dark matter halo sitting there," Baxter said, "and it's been accreting matter gravitationally over its entire history. As that matter gets pulled in, it gets faster and faster. When it finally falls into the halo, it turns around and starts to orbit. That turnaround is what people have started calling splashback, because stuff is splashing back in some sense."

As the matter "splashes back," it slows down. Because this effect is happening in many different directions, it leads to a buildup of matter right at the edge of the halo and a steep fall-off in the amount of matter right outside of that position. This is what the Penn researchers explored in the data.

Using a galaxy survey called the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, or SDSS, Baxter and Jain looked at the distribution of galaxies around clusters. They formed a team of experts at the University of Chicago and other institutions around the world to examine thousands of . Using statistical tools to do a joint analysis of several million galaxies around them, they found a drop at the edge of the cluster. Baxter and collaborator Chihway Chang at the University of Chicago led a paper reporting the findings, accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal.

In addition to seeing this edge when they looked at galaxy distribution, the researchers also saw evidence of it in the form of galaxy colors.

When a galaxy is full of gas and forming many big, hot stars, the heat causes it to appear blue when scientists takes images of it.

"But those big stars live very short lives," Baxter said. "They blow up. What you're left with are these smaller, older stars that live for long periods of time, and those are red."

A two-dimensional comparison of two models for the density profile of a halo. Both of these models come from fitting to data in SDSS. Models with a splashback feature (an "edge") fit the data better than models that don't have an edge.  New measurements provide evidence that this "edge" exists. Credit: University of Pennsylvania

When scientists look at galaxies within clusters, they appear red because they aren't forming stars.

"Previous studies have shown that there are interactions inside of the cluster that can cause galaxies to stop forming stars," Baxter said. "You could imagine for instance that a galaxy falls into a cluster, and the gas from the galaxy gets stripped off by gas within the cluster. After losing its gas, the galaxy will be unable to form many stars."

Because of this, scientists expect that galaxies that have spent more time orbiting through a cluster will appear red, while galaxies that are just starting to fall in will appear blue.

The researchers noticed a sudden shift in the colors of galaxies right at the boundary, providing them with more evidence that dark matter halos have an edge.

"It was really interesting and surprising to see this sharp change in colors," Jain said, "because the change of galaxy colors is a very slow and complex process."

The researchers are working on another paper using a deeper survey of over a hundred million galaxies called the Dark Energy Survey, or DES.

Both the SDSS and the DES make massive maps of the sky using a huge camera that Jain said isn't very fundamentally different from the cameras in smartphones but bigger and more precise and costing millions of dollars to build.

In the DES, when the camera opens, it takes an exposure of a couple minutes, and then moves to a different part of the sky. This process is repeated during the course of several years using different filters to allow scientists to get a survey in multiple colors.

The DES allows the researchers to do expanded measurements, pushing to higher distances.

Instead of measuring the distribution of galaxies, the researchers are using an astrophysical phenomenon called gravitational lensing to probe the dark matter halos. In gravitational lensing, light coming to an observer bends as matter exerts gravitational force on it.

The researchers can analyze images of the sky to see how clusters stretch images of the galaxies behind them.

"Light is going to bend if there's mass," Baxter said. "By measuring these deflections we can measure the mass directly which is cool because most of the mass is dark matter which we can't see so it's kind of a unique way to probe the dark matter."

In terms of fundamental understanding of the universe, Baxter said, dark matter is one of the biggest mysteries there is right now.

"You look in the sky, even with the biggest optical telescopes, and you see nothing beyond the light of the galaxies," Jain said. "There's just this dark matter."

The researchers hope that their research will contribute to a better understanding of the mysterious substance that makes up about 80 percent of matter in the universe. If they can mark the edge of a dark matter halo, it would allow them to test things like Einstein's theory of gravity and the nature of dark matter.

"It's just a new way of looking at clusters," Jain said. "Once you find the boundary you can study both the standard physics of how interact with the and the possible unknown physics of what the nature of and gravity is."

Explore further: Researchers capture first 'image' of a dark matter web that connects galaxies

More information: Surhud More et al. THE SPLASHBACK RADIUS AS A PHYSICAL HALO BOUNDARY AND THE GROWTH OF HALO MASS, The Astrophysical Journal (2015). DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/36

Related Stories

Team puts dark matter on the map

March 1, 2017

A Yale-led team has produced one of the highest-resolution maps of dark matter ever created, offering a detailed case for the existence of cold dark matter—sluggish particles that comprise the bulk of matter in the universe.

Dark matter guides growth of supermassive black holes

February 18, 2015

Every massive galaxy has a black hole at its center, and the heftier the galaxy, the bigger its black hole. But why are the two related? After all, the black hole is millions of times smaller and less massive than its home ...

Recommended for you

Webcam on Mars Express surveys high-altitude clouds

October 17, 2017

An unprecedented catalogue of more than 21 000 images taken by a webcam on ESA's Mars Express is proving its worth as a science instrument, providing a global survey of unusual high-altitude cloud features on the Red Planet.

Microbes leave 'fingerprints' on Martian rocks

October 17, 2017

Scientists around Tetyana Milojevic from the Faculty of Chemistry at the University of Vienna are in search of unique biosignatures, which are left on synthetic extraterrestrial minerals by microbial activity. The biochemist ...

Astronomers identify new asynchronous short period polar

October 16, 2017

(Phys.org)—An international team of astronomers led by Gagik H. Tovmassian of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) has uncovered new details into the nature of a cataclysmic variable known as IGR J19552+0044. ...

The remarkable jet of the quasar 4C+19.44

October 16, 2017

Quasars are galaxies with massive black holes at their cores. So much energy is being radiated from near the nucleus of a quasar that it is much brighter than the rest of the entire galaxy. Much of that radiation is at radio ...

42 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gculpex
Apr 17, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dogbert
2.1 / 5 (14) Apr 17, 2017
Yes, gculpex. Despite all our efforts for many years, we have not found a single atom of dark matter anywhere in our solar system. We have not produced a single atom in our largest particle accelerators. Dark matter is not a part of our Standard Model. Yet, astrophysicists claim to see dark matter everywhere they look in the universe.

After you create imaginary matter and spend decades and massive budgets looking for it, at some point it would be reasonable to find other reasons for the observations.

Move along. There will be another discovery of dark matter tomorrow.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 17, 2017
Move along. There will be another discovery of dark matter tomorrow.


Yeah, Schneibo & RNP should be here by then, maybe Jonesy too.
richk
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2017
"these dark matter particles are like a swarm of bees, moving chaotically in random directions, which keeps them puffed up to balance the inward pull of gravity."

is/this/really/a/consensus/position?it/seems/premature/to/assert/this/with/much/conviction.
zxmax21
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2017
dogbert, no physicist claims the existence of dark matter "atoms", you're the one assuming this. They're just investigating the cause of these mysterious observations we see throughout the universe, or the reason gravity models don't work correctly there despite working in scales of our solar system and more very well. They just chose to name it "dark matter" because right now the best explanation possible is that it's a form of matter we can't see, that matter's mass would explain reasonably well those mysterious observations.

Now, it could not even be matter, and physicists are aware of that, that's why it's one of the biggest cosmological mysteries right now, but they're not going to just start calling it "the-cause-of-the-big-gravitational-anomalies-observed-in-the-movement-of-matter-in-galaxies", so they give it that name and it's certainly a very reasonable subject of research. There's always gotta be that one fool who thinks he outsmarts the physicist's community...
dogbert
2.2 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2017
zxmax21,
Physicists have begun to distance themselves from dark matter creation by disclaiming that they really don't mean dark matter, it is just a place holder for whatever is causing the anomaly. But the lie is given to that by the daily proclamations that another group of astrophysicists has found another batch of dark matter.

No, they would not be expected to say "the-cause-of-the-big-gravitational-anomalies-observed-in-the-movement-of-matter-in-galaxies". That would be odd indeed. They could say gravitational anomaly (not hard to say, not hard to understand). But they don't. They say dark matter. They speak of dark matter halos and dark matter filaments. When they are creating halos and filaments, they are not talking about place holders, they are talking about imaginary matter -- dark matter.

Don't apologize for the astrophysicists who are true to their beliefs even when their beliefs are simply made up.
zxmax21
4 / 5 (12) Apr 18, 2017
It's also utterly ridiculous to assume the standard model is the perfect and last exhaustive model of all matter we will ever have and we shouldn't ever assume anything else than what it predicts to exist could be there. This is wrong on so many level... For starters, the standard model is not a complete theory.

And since when is there "massive" budget spent on this?! The LHC cost over a billion per year to operate, it cost 13 billion dollars to confirm the Higgs boson, which in the end was just a confirmation it didn't bring any new breakthrough in physics. Now we're talking about a project costing just a few millions to try to understand something we don't have any fucking idea about and that's a "massive" budget? You think physicists just make up these observations not matching current models just so they can spend their lives working on something they all made up in some sort of scientific conspiracy? Just what the heck...
zxmax21
4 / 5 (12) Apr 18, 2017
dogbert
So in the end, all your criticism comes back to the name they gave it which somehow jeopardizes the whole field because you don't like it, a name... Which btw you're totally wrong, they're not distancing themselves, a form of matter we can't see is STILL the best explanation we have right now. You're obviously complaining about something you don't understand much yourself.

Even if they end up being 100% wrong about its nature, it was a name given as the best guess at the time, none of them pretend it's meant to be taken as a name totally valid to its nature. When they thought about "aether" to explain light propagation properties, they ended up being 100% wrong about it. So what? Investigating it is what lead to the Michelson-Morley experiment which itself eventually lead to the theories of Einstein of special and general relativity. Physicists follow their best guess, and when proven wrong redirect their research, that's a perfectly valid and reasonable process.
dogbert
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2017
zxmax21,
So in the end, all your criticism comes back to the name they gave it...


That is not at all what I have said. I certainly don't care to argue about nomenclature. What bothers me and many others is that when we noted the anomalies of stars moving about their galaxies which did not match our models of gravity, we simply made up more mass so we could say our models of gravity are correct. The galaxies are obviously hiding mass.

That is not in itself a bad thing. Hypothesis is a part of science. But we have long moved from hypothesis to theory and most if not all of our models of the universe are now full of the matter we have simply made up.

A hypothesis fails when you can not find the substance. Theory fails when you cannot test the theory which we cannot when we cannot find a single particle of dark matter.

It has been over 80 years since dark matter was created. How long do we go before we decide we are wrong?
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2017
dogbert, no physicist claims the existence of dark matter "atoms",


They just chose to name it "dark matter"
..........hey there Mr. Smarter by half than those of us who have taken Nuclear Physics courses in college, gotten a final grade & passed the courses..............if the "matter" in Dark Matter isn't referring to "atoms", then where is all the INFERRED GRAVITY coming from they claim exists? And why can't we find this stuff right in our own solar system if it is so COMMON everywhere else? I know, we were just unlucky enough to be situated in that one corner of this huge Universe that is devoid of Cosmic Fairy Dust.

cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2017
DM is nothing more than a bit of ad hoc buffoonery from the plasma ignoramuses. The "Dark Ages" of astronomy continues....
Dingbone
Apr 18, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2017
@Benni
And why can't we find this stuff right in our own solar system if it is so COMMON everywhere else? I know, we were just unlucky enough to be situated in that one corner of this huge Universe that is devoid of Cosmic Fairy Dust.


Glad to see you you are still asking for mathematical explanations for your confusion.
So here we go again with a simple analysis.

The density of dark matter is extremely low - estimated to be on average 0.01 solar masses per cubic parsec in the Milky Way.

Considering the Milky Way and the solar system in turn:

For the Milky Way (with halo radius ~20 000 pc, and therefore a volume ~32 000 BILLION cubic parsec), we would expect 320 BILLION solar masses of DM.

For the solar system (radius ~100 AU, i.e. 0.005 pc, and therefore a volume of 5 billionths of a cubic arcsec), the DM content is only 0.000000000005 solar masses. I.e. the mass of an asteroid, distributed evenly throughout the solar system.

Does that answer your question?
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2017
Glad to see you you are still asking for mathematical explanations for your confusion.
So here we go again with a simple analysis.


Things that don't exist CAN'T have mathematical analyses. If you'd actually take a physics course, take a final exam & get a passing grade you'd know this.

For the Milky Way (with halo radius ~20 000 pc, and therefore a volume ~32 000 BILLION cubic parsec), we would expect 320 BILLION solar masses of DM. Does that answer your question?


The usual fantasy math brought to you by the resident Journalist demonstrating Copy & Paste skills every housewife in America is also capable of.
Dingbone
Apr 18, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MarsBars
5 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2017
Apologies, RNP - meant to give you a 5 but it came out as a 1.
bschott
1 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2017
Apologies, RNP - meant to give you a 5 but it came out as a 1.

Fan of fiction eh?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2017
Glad to see you you are still asking for mathematical explanations for your confusion.
So here we go again with a simple analysis.


Things that don't exist CAN'T have mathematical analyses. If you'd actually take a physics course, take a final exam & get a passing grade you'd know this.

For the Milky Way (with halo radius ~20 000 pc, and therefore a volume ~32 000 BILLION cubic parsec), we would expect 320 BILLION solar masses of DM. Does that answer your question?


The usual fantasy math brought to you by the resident Journalist demonstrating Copy & Paste skills every housewife in America is also capable of.

Geez, Benni, maybe you need to take a refresher course - in Geometry....
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2017
Geez, Benni, maybe you need to take a refresher course - in Geometry....

I don't think it is the math derived from the stated variables Whyd, it is the stated variables themselves....
RNP's equation needs to prefaced with the words "If our theory of gravity is correct as the driver of all galactic structure, then the required DM content is...."
They (advocates of the various DM theories) don't do this. They state the equation as though it is describing reality, not a theory.
Replace the words "dark matter" with the words "invisible fruit loops" and the theory is equally valid because nobody can prove that it is NOT invisible fruit loops causing the REQUIRED gravity ...IF the theory is correct.

The only thing our repeated and ever increasingly detailed observations tell us is that it is not. (OR, if you want to keep the faith, that DM is just really really really hard to observe, other than the things people imagine it is responsible for).
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2017
RNP.
@Benni.

For Milky Way (with halo radius ~20 000 pc, and therefore a volume ~32 000 BILLION cubic parsec),.
You forget the recent discovery that galactic motions correlate closely with ordinary, visible, matter distribution. So your above 'simple analysis' is logically flawed; ie: 'exotic' DM can NOT be as evenly dispersed as your maths assumptions imply.

For solar system (radius ~100 AU, i.e. 0.005 pc, and therefore a volume of 5 billionths of a cubic arcsec), the DM content is only 0.000000000005 solar masses. I.e. the mass of an asteroid, distributed evenly throughout the solar system.
Again, above mentioned recent discovery would mean...

...IF 'exotic' DM was in Solar System...

...THEN it must be in dense clump 4 TIMES visible matter...

...AND SS/Interstellar GRAVITATIONAL strengths/dynamics SHOULD be commensurately MORE EXTREME.

RNP, you just perfectly demonstrated the dangers of 'abdicating' intelligence/logic to 'simplistic' assumptions/maths.
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2017
"...IF 'exotic' DM was in Solar System...

...THEN it must be in dense clump 4 TIMES visible matter...

...AND SS/Interstellar GRAVITATIONAL strengths/dynamics SHOULD be commensurately MORE EXTREME.

RNP, you just perfectly demonstrated the dangers of 'abdicating' intelligence/logic to 'simplistic' assumptions/maths."

And you just illustrated your ignorance of math. Well, geometry and statistics at least.
Oh, and "intelligence/logic" are two very different beasts, as are "assumptions/maths"
That you continue to be so cavalier with your communications is a cause for concern.
Try reading a thesaurus, hopefully it'll help :)
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2017
"...Replace the words "dark matter" with the words "invisible fruit loops"..."
Fine, from now on, the phenomena referred to as DM will be known as IFL. Happy?
Makes no difference to the observations. The map is not the territory, words do not have physical existence.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 18, 2017
@Zerg.
"..IF 'exotic' DM was in Solar System...

...THEN it must be in dense clump 4 TIMES visible matter...

...AND SS/Interstellar GRAVITATIONAL strengths/dynamics SHOULD be commensurately MORE EXTREME.

RNP, you just perfectly demonstrated the dangers of 'abdicating' intelligence/logic to 'simplistic' assumptions/maths."

And you just illustrated your ignorance of math. Well, geometry and statistics at least.
Oh, and "intelligence/logic" are two very different beasts, as are "assumptions/maths"
That you continue to be so cavalier with your communications is a cause for concern.
Try reading a thesaurus, hopefully it'll help :)
So, out-of-context bald assertions/semantics is all you got? Did you even understand the problems for RNP's 'simplistic analysis' based on assumptions/maths which bore no relation to actual mainstream discovery I again reminded him of re that matter?

Indications, from your posts: you don't even bother to understand objectively, Zerg. Why?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2017
(OR, if you want to keep the faith, that DM is just really really really hard to observe,) ...

I'll take THAT door, Alex.
It's "dark" because it is poorly lit...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2017
For Milky Way (with halo radius ~20 000 pc, and therefore a volume ~32 000 BILLION cubic parsec),.
You forget the recent discovery that galactic motions correlate closely with ordinary, visible, matter distribution. So your above 'simple analysis' is logically flawed; ie: 'exotic' DM can NOT be as evenly dispersed as your maths assumptions imply.

And you forget that dark matter becomes lit when in the galactic reference frame.
...IF 'exotic' DM was in Solar System...
...THEN it must be in dense clump 4 TIMES visible matter...

Why?
...AND SS/Interstellar GRAVITATIONAL strengths/dynamics SHOULD be commensurately MORE EXTREME.

Why?
RNP, you just perfectly demonstrated the dangers of 'abdicating' intelligence/logic to 'simplistic' assumptions/maths.

And you just demonstrated (with your subtle insult) why you get "1"s...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2017
@Whyde.
And you forget that dark matter becomes lit when in the galactic reference frame.
Please explain exactly what you mean by that. Or perhaps RNP/DS can explain what you are trying to say.
..IF 'exotic' DM was in Solar System...THEN it must be in dense clump 4 TIMES visible matter
Why?
Because of ALLEGED 'exotic DM' properties/quantities. It is supposed to be 4 TIMES quantities (of gravitating mass) of ordinary visible mass. ALSO, MW's stellar etc MOTIONS now found to correlate (TRACK CLOSELY) with densities/distributions of MW's VISIBLE matter; which latter is NOT evenly dispersed, but in 'big lumps' (solar systems/stellar clusters, clouds/streams/filaments.
..AND SS/Interstellar GRAVITATIONAL strengths/dynamics SHOULD be commensurately MORE EXTREME.

Why?
Add 4 TIMES the visible gravitating matter to gravitational dynamics/equations and see what results.
(subtle insult)
Pointing out science/logic errors is an
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2017
PS @Whyde: Restating complete form of last part of my previous post....

And you just demonstrated (with your subtle insult) why you get "1"s...
Pointing out science/logic errors is a "subtle insult" now, Whyde? Why? :)

bschott
3 / 5 (2) Apr 19, 2017
" DM will be known as IFL. Happy?

Yes.
Makes no difference to the observations.

Of course not.
The map is not the territory

The "map" (gravity based physics, or just math as it is more aptly described) is useless in this territory (the universe). Physics is mired in this search for non existent matter due to an assumption that cannot be tested or proven....while all the relevant physics is relegated to attempting to explain isolated phenomenon. IOW there is no direct proof gravity does what it is claimed to do on ANY scale other than local to a celestial body, it is the math of motion based on Keplers work and an assumption based on Newtons observations.
words do not have physical existence.

Only when you are thinking them, writing or speaking words gives them form, which IS physical existence....a status as yet not achieved by DM.

bschott
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2017
(OR, if you want to keep the faith, that DM is just really really really hard to observe,) ...

I'll take THAT door, Alex.
It's "dark" because it is poorly lit...


(OR, if you want to keep the faith, that DM is just really really really hard to observe,) ...

I'll take THAT door, Alex.
It's "dark" because it is poorly lit...

Hey Whyd.....stepping outside the mainstream DM box for a second please consider these questions: What is the only thing in the entire physics world of stable matter that cannot be illuminated by or emit any type of radiation, but is the basis for all motion we generate and observe locally (on earth)?

And why the hell is this completely ignored when we attempt to quantify any motion we observe in the sky?
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Apr 19, 2017
Hey Whyd.....stepping outside the mainstream DM box for a second please consider these questions: What is the only thing in the entire physics world of stable matter that cannot be illuminated by or emit any type of radiation, but is the basis for all motion we generate and observe locally (on earth)?

I dunno... Gravity? Magnetism? Curvature?
And why the hell is this completely ignored when we attempt to quantify any motion we observe in the sky?

not so sure it is...
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Apr 19, 2017
@Whyde.
... dark matter becomes lit when in the galactic reference frame.
Please explain exactly what you mean by that.


Outside any direct gravitational effect of a galaxy, DM (free floating protons with VERY little charge - ions. Call them hydrinos if you want, I don't care) mostly sits in free fall because density (and charge) is too low. But the sheer aggregate number of them in all that space STILL have gravitational effect of their own.
You might almost think they're fixed in place as part of "spacetime".
bschott
5 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2017
Gravity? Magnetism? Curvature?

Door number 2 Alex.
not so sure it is...

Considering this whole DM particle fiasco....I am.
DM (free floating protons with VERY little charge - ions. Call them hydrinos if you want, I don't care)

Ahhhh, the brilliant white light guys theory....a hitherto unexplored energy regime hiding within a hydrogen atom. It's 30 years old...never gained traction...but he is looking for a few suckers to invest.
mostly sits in free fall

Towards?
the sheer aggregate number of them in all that space STILL have gravitational effect of their own.

Except they are free falling out of that space right? Or is it a stationary free fall?
You might almost think they're fixed in place as part of "spacetime".

Stationary free fall....mainstream physics infection detected. Patient seems to be able to provide completely contradictory ideas as though they are plausible....like a "halo" of gravity.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2017
DM (free floating protons with VERY little charge - ions. Call them hydrinos if you want, I don't care)

Ahhhh, the brilliant white light guys theory....a hitherto unexplored energy regime hiding within a hydrogen atom. It's 30 years old...never gained traction...but he is looking for a few suckers to invest.

doesn't matter what you call 'em. They STILL have mass.
mostly sits in free fall

Towards?

Notice the word "sits"...
... STILL have gravitational effect of their own.

Except they are free falling out of that space right? Or is it a stationary free fall?

Ok, I misapplied the term free-fall. Nothing is "falling". However , it CAN gravitate towards a high enough potential. Or "magnetate", if you prefer... It's just a word for attraction.
All depends on the density of those "free floating" protons.
Notice how matter MOVES through space? The higher the aggregate mass the faster it moves?

bschott
5 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2017
doesn't matter what you call 'em. They STILL have mass.

They do...but unlike DM any form of Hydrogen atom will both absorb and transmit radiation.
However , it CAN gravitate towards a high enough potential

As a particle which only "moves" because of gravity...it HAS to...hence my problem with it sustaining itself in a diffuse halo. IN SN theory, the gravitational collapse occurs due to the removal of outward thermal pressure...DM experiences NO thermal pressure, but the theory somehow states that the halo is maintained despite the most gravitationally attractive object supposedly residing at the center of it.
Notice how matter MOVES through space? The higher the aggregate mass the faster it moves?

Hmmmm....the fastest moving matter in space are Ion's and electrons, which are the two least massive forms of stable matter. Are you talking about the relative velocity of galaxies?

Also, I think it is Monte who offered up the choice of doors... :P
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2017
It's all relative to volume, and density of matter within that volume. The higher the relative aggregate density, the higher the "charge" (gravity, magnetism, electricity, color, spin, whatever)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2017
doesn't matter what you call 'em. They STILL have mass.

They do...but unlike DM any form of Hydrogen atom will both absorb and transmit radiation.

has to have an electron 1st. And has to be a direct hit to absorb/transmit. Protons are pretty small...
As a particle which only "moves" because of gravity...it HAS to... problem with it sustaining itself in a diffuse halo. ... theory somehow states that the halo is maintained despite the most gravitationally attractive object supposedly residing at the center of it.

insufficient charge difference between all the dispersed protons to "collapse". And, everything is moving (and spinning) at different speeds. The more diffuse an aggregation of matter, the higher the reaction "lag time" to a singular gravitational entity.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2017
Notice how matter MOVES through space? The higher the aggregate mass the faster it moves?

Hmmmm....the fastest moving matter in space are Ion's and electrons, which are the two least massive forms of stable matter. Are you talking about the relative velocity of galaxies?

Ions are "electron" less and move as fast as their immediate surrounding environment. Electrons are fields, not matter.
And, I'm talking about relative velocity of EVERYTHING within a given volume...
Also, I think it is Monte who offered up the choice of doors... :P

Does it really matter?
(Ba dmp bmp, mic drop)
bschott
5 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2017
Does it really matter?
(Ba dmp bmp, mic drop)

It's the only thing we can verify that we are talking about...but no. (Picks mike up and hands it back, "sir, you dropped this")
Electrons are fields, not matter

I would almost agree...but if it is true then they "tow" a small amount of matter/energy with them as they do have a measurable frequency we associate to them. Even the mainstream files them under "particle".
Ions are "electron" less

Only Hydrogen...the rest are just "minus" electrons.
insufficient charge difference between all the dispersed protons to "collapse"

Lack of charge...no means of remaining separated with gravity being the only intrinsic force...again...can't stay apart...never repulsed by anything.
And, everything is moving (and spinning) at different speeds.

DM particles have spin? How/why? Spin is an attribute associated with charge....
Dingbone
Apr 20, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Apr 20, 2017
"sir, you dropped this")

Keep it, kid. I'll even sign it if ya want...
Electrons are fields, not matter

... but if true, then they "tow" a small amount of matter/energy with them as they do have a measurable frequency...

Right. 1/1836th of a proton - it's ASSOCIATED with. I think they are just larger photons.
lack of charge...no means of remaining separated with gravity being the only intrinsic force...again...can't stay apart

Not ENOUGH gravity in the deep void of space.
...never repulsed by anything.

Just mildy attracted. Also, nothing to push against to gain a momentum.
DM particles have spin? How/why? ...

Just my left handed "Opposite Man" way of analyzing.
I start with the vacuum. Planck sized(?) space spins at 1 femtosecond (or more or less) faster than speed of light. (Maybe even C2). And, they're ALL doing it. Oh -and in 2 vectors minimum...
bschott
not rated yet Apr 21, 2017
Right. 1/1836th of a proton - it's ASSOCIATED with. I think they are just larger photons.

Electrons are fields, not matter.

Combining these two, can I paraphrase to say that you believe an electron is a negative point of charge that only has an energy associated with it when moving or when it is confined atomically?
Keep it, kid. I'll even sign it if ya want...

Coooool.....
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Apr 21, 2017
Electrons are fields, not matter.

Combining these two, can I paraphrase to say that you believe an electron is a negative point of charge that only has an energy associated with it when moving or when it is confined atomically?

Negative, yes. Pointy, no.
It ALWAYS has energy. Just can't always see it...
Only when it 's interacting with something. Like maybe, protons.

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.