New theory on the origin of dark matter

August 8, 2017, Universitaet Mainz
Calculations for the new dark matter model developed at Mainz University. Credit: Michael Baker, JGU

Only a small part of the universe consists of visible matter. By far the largest part is invisible and consists of dark matter and dark energy. Very little is known about dark energy, but there are many theories and experiments on the existence of dark matter designed to find these as yet unknown particles. Scientists at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) in Germany have now come up with a new theory on how dark matter may have been formed shortly after the origin of the universe. This new model proposes an alternative to the WIMP paradigm that is the subject of various experiments in current research.

Dark matter is present throughout the universe, forming galaxies and the largest known structures in the cosmos. It makes up around 23 percent of our universe, whereas the visible to us that make up the stars, planets, and even life on Earth represent only about four percent of it. The current assumption is that is a cosmological relic that has essentially remained stable since its creation. "We have called this assumption into question, showing that at the beginning of the universe dark matter may have been unstable," explained Dr. Michael Baker from the Theoretical High Energy Physics (THEP) group at the JGU Institute of Physics. This instability also indicates the existence of a new mechanism that explains the observed quantity of dark matter in the cosmos.

The stability of dark matter is usually explained by a symmetry principle. However, in their paper, Dr. Michael Baker and Prof. Joachim Kopp demonstrate that the universe may have gone through a phase during which this symmetry was broken. This would mean that it is possible for the hypothetical dark matter particle to decay. During the electroweak phase transition, the symmetry that stabilizes dark matter would have been re-established, enabling it to continue to exist in the to the present day.

In the new dark matter model, the Higgs particle has different properties to those in the standard model of particle physics. The figure shows the energy of the Higgs particle as a function of the model parameters. Credit: Michael Baker, JGU

With their new theory, Baker and Kopp have introduced a new principle into the debate about the nature of dark matter that offers an alternative to the widely accepted WIMP theory. Up to now, WIMPs, or weakly interacting massive particles, have been regarded as the most likely components of dark matter, and experiments involving heavily shielded underground detectors have been carried out to look for them. "The absence of any convincing signals caused us to start looking for alternatives to the WIMP paradigm," said Kopp.

The two physicists claim that the new mechanism they propose may be connected with the apparent imbalance between and antimatter in the cosmos and could leave an imprint which would be detected in future experiments on gravitational waves. In their paper published in the scientific journal Physical Review Letters, Baker and Kopp also indicate the prospects of finding proof of their new principle at CERN's LHC particle accelerator and other experimental facilities.

Explore further: Does dark matter annihilate quicker in the Milky Way?

More information: M. J. Baker, J. Kopp, Dark Matter Decay between Phase Transitions at the Weak Scale, Physical Review Letters 119, 07. August 2017,  DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.061801

Related Stories

Does dark matter annihilate quicker in the Milky Way?

June 23, 2017

Researchers at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai have proposed a theory that predicts how dark matter may be annihilating much more rapidly in the Milky Way, than in smaller or larger galaxies and the early ...

The case for co-decaying dark matter

December 5, 2016

(Phys.org)—There isn't as much dark matter around today as there used to be. According to one of the most popular models of dark matter, the universe contained much more dark matter early on when the temperature was hotter. ...

Dark matter may be hiding in a hidden sector

November 11, 2016

(Phys.org)—Currently, one of the strongest candidates for dark matter is weakly interacting massive particles, or WIMPS, although so far this hypothetical particle has not yet been directly detected. Now in a new study, ...

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.

Recommended for you

Electrogates offer stop-and-go control in microfluidics

April 24, 2018

Although microfluidics devices have a wide variety of uses, from point-of-care diagnostics to environmental analysis, one major limitation is that they cannot be modified for different uses on the fly, since their flow paths ...

Strained materials make cooler superconductors

April 24, 2018

University of Wisconsin-Madison engineers have added a new dimension to our understanding of why straining a particular group of materials, called Ruddlesden-Popper oxides, tampers with their superconducting properties.

62 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

fthompson495
Aug 08, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rderkis
not rated yet Aug 08, 2017
The definition of matter is: that which occupies space and possesses rest mass.
Now the only way we know, what we call "Dark Matter" is by gravity/space distortions.
So how do we know it is matter at all, and not some energy or something else we don't understand?
If you can't see, taste or feel it perhaps we don't or can't understand it with our present technology.
CubicAdjunct747
1 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2017
Another hypothetical of a hypothetical. What a waste of time to study dark matter, when the MOND theory describes galactic motions very well. Physics change based on the size and scope. NOw quit mucking around with dark matter and move on to something that will actually affect and help us on planet earth.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2017
The faerie tales about this faerie dust is unending. Continually adding ad hoc patches to these failed guesses is not science. It is time to rely on the real properties of plasma physics to describe observations.
Solon
1 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2017
Correlation between galaxy rotation and visible matter puzzles astronomers
http://physicswor...ronomers
antialias_physorg
3.6 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2017
NOw quit mucking around with dark matter and move on to something that will actually affect and help us on planet earth.

Why are you even here. Seriously. If you don't like/understand science then literally every page on the internet fits you more than this one.
vacuumforce
1 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2017
Has anyone considered that there may have been an initial push to the galactic merry-go-rounds that may account for their above expected rotation speed instead of invisible un-interacting 'dark' matter?
Mimath224
3 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2017
@antialias_physorg, yes quite. But sometimes I do feel that the scientific community does make a 'rod for its own back'. Statements like 'Very little is known about dark energy, but there are many theories and experiments on the existence of dark matter designed to find these as yet unknown particles.' are hardly conducive to a constructive debate. We really don't know what these 'phenomena' are so to say very little is KNOWN about DE is a bit ambiguous. I have nothing at all against theories and one day the correct one will emerge but for the moment we don't know...so why not just plainly say so! I also feel that embarking on the 'dark' label was also a mistake and people are bound to criticize, DM, DE and DF...how many more 'dark's are out there? I know these are markers until we learn more but even then these names might stick.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2017
The rotation speed so-called problem is due to the force of gravity outside galaxies being greater than inside. Because matter decreases the energy density (dark energy) of spacetime inside of galaxies and gradients in the dark energy is the force which drives gravity.
gunnqu
1 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2017
Dark energy and Dark matter are mirages
[ http://vixra.org/...70v5.pdf pp.45-54]
http://vixra.org/...51v9.pdf pp.159--167

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman
Seeker2
4 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2017
...If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman
Which is exactly why the ideas of dark matter and dark energy are proposed. Understanding cause and effect is what we do in science.
CubicAdjunct747
1 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2017
NOw quit mucking around with dark matter and move on to something that will actually affect and help us on planet earth.

Why are you even here. Seriously. If you don't like/understand science then literally every page on the internet fits you more than this one.

I'm hear to tell you "scientists" that you lack cohesion. You spend time on wasteful stuff that truly doesnt matter, except for "oh thats nice" data and will be stored in some white paper and totally forgotten in a year. You dont like this truth and that's why it makes you angry. You should divert efforts to engineering and make something useful for the human race, because now more than ever it needs help. I help engineers all day long in many fields and we get things done!
Zzzzzzzz
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2017
NOw quit mucking around with dark matter and move on to something that will actually affect and help us on planet earth.

Why are you even here. Seriously. If you don't like/understand science then literally every page on the internet fits you more than this one.

I'm hear to tell you "scientists" that you lack cohesion. You spend time on wasteful stuff that truly doesnt matter, except for "oh thats nice" data and will be stored in some white paper and totally forgotten in a year. You dont like this truth and that's why it makes you angry. You should divert efforts to engineering and make something useful for the human race, because now more than ever it needs help. I help engineers all day long in many fields and we get things done!

You reinforce AP's point better than anyone else could. Good job.
nikola_milovic_378
Aug 09, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TimLong2001
not rated yet Aug 09, 2017
Since radiation originally arises from balanced equal but opposite charges originating in the virtual particle field, unpaired charges, or even uncharged particles, would provide this "soup" that remains as a backdrop to the more organized particles that eventually form from pair-formation.
Nick Gotts
5 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2017
Why does this site attract so many know-all cranks?
bschott
2 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2017
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman

If the CMB is light emitted 400,000 years after the theorized "big bang"....how did we get "here" first, prior to the light, so that we could observe photons travelling at speed c that were supposedly generated after this event? IOW, how did we get here before light did?
Why does this site attract so many know-all cranks?

Why are mainstream theories unable to answer the simplest questions about fundamental discrepancies between what the math says and what reality shows us?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2017
If the CMB is light emitted 400,000 years after the theorized "big bang"....how did we get "here" first, prior to the light
so, first tell me this: if you view a galaxy that is 2.5 million light years from earth, like M31 (NGC 224 - see also : https://arxiv.org.../0511045 ), then how did the light from that galaxy get here after you did?
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2017
IOW, how did we get here before light did?
Actually we didn't have that far to travel.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2017
Why are mainstream theories unable to answer the simplest questions about fundamental discrepancies between what the math says and what reality shows us?
The problem is the nut behind the wheel.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 09, 2017
Since radiation originally arises from balanced equal but opposite charges originating in the virtual particle field,...
So virtual particles radiate?
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 09, 2017
Why does this site attract so many know-all cranks?
Perhaps they have an agenda.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 09, 2017
I help engineers all day long in many fields and we get things done!
And probably leave it to someone else to clean up the mess. I've been there.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2017
"Dark matter is present throughout the universe, forming galaxies and the largest known structures in the cosmos. It makes up around 23 percent of our universe, "

Read more at: https://phys.org/...html#jCp

OK, I'd like to buy some. Anybody got an Amazon link for it?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2017
OK, I'd like to buy some. Anybody got an Amazon link for it?
if you hit Amazon distribution center #1, it's on the Science isle, sub-section Astrophysics, right next to the Plank's length

most people also purchase Quarks, Bosuns, Neutrino's, Neutrons and Positrons
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2017
@bschott.
If the CMB is light emitted 400,000 years after the theorized "big bang"....how did we get "here" first,....?
Actually, that's the VERY SAME logical flaw in the now-falsified "BB HYPOTHESIS" that the now-also-falsified "INFLATION HYPOTHESIS" was originally mooted to "solve". All unsupported nonsense, of course; as Penrose/Steinhardt recently admitted to theoretical-physicist colleagues!

So, since no BB or Inflation etc, that question is not relevant/needed at all; since we were 'here' when light arrived from wherever it was emitted in the past and far away; in the usual NON-BB/Inflation/Expansion etc manner (in same 'normal' way that CS pointed out via his question to you, bschott).

And as Planck/Bicep results indicated, any CMB 'map' purporting to represent 'primordial' CMB emissions/patterns is bunkum; as deep space is NOW known to contain uncountable material/processes which CURRENTLY CREATE NEW MWs spectrum 'mimicking' any ALLEGED 'primordial' CMB MWs. :)
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 10, 2017
@RC
...the VERY SAME logical flaw in the now-falsified "BB HYPOTHESIS" that the now-also-falsified "INFLATION HYPOTHESIS" was originally mooted to "solve". All unsupported nonsense, of course; as Penrose/Steinhardt recently admitted to theoretical-physicist colleagues!
Interesting. So no concentric circular patterns in the CMB?
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 10, 2017
...in the now-falsified "BB HYPOTHESIS" that the now-also-falsified "INFLATION HYPOTHESIS" was originally mooted to "solve".
If you can have a little bang with matter/antimatter annihilation, why can't you have a big one? Namely, when matter/antimatter gravitates it either finds similar type of matter or goes poof in a process like inflation. Result is domains of matter/antimatter develop, and when such domains become large enough you're in for a bigger poof driving the domains farther apart as in inflation.
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 10, 2017
And as Planck/Bicep results indicated, any CMB 'map' purporting to represent 'primordial' CMB emissions/patterns is bunkum;
I didn't know that. Strange.
as deep space is NOW known to contain uncountable material/processes which CURRENTLY CREATE NEW MWs spectrum 'mimicking' any ALLEGED 'primordial' CMB MWs. :)
No problem here. Just adding to the mix of CMB radiation emitted by all the annihilation/inflation still going on. As matter/antimatter domains develop the radiation intensity may be decreasing, but the larger domains set up the possibility for other real BBs until you end up with everything separated into two black hole domains. And when they gravitate and eventually merge and annihilate you're going to get another really big BB. And maybe even the concentric circles Penrose talks about as the two black holes contact each other and do their ring down process at the contact points.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2017
so, first tell me this: if you view a galaxy that is 2.5 million light years from earth, like M31 (NGC 224 - see also : https://arxiv.org.../0511045 ), then how did the light from that galaxy get here after you did?

That galaxy has an age and lifecycle comparable to the milky way (according to mainstream science). It still exists today as near as we can tell, thus it has been emitting light for billions of years. The CMB is claimed to be light "leftover" from what the universe appeared like 400,000 years after the BB...can you not understand how it would be impossible for us to view light emitted by the entire universe 13 billion years ago? We (the matter that we are comprised of)would have to have arrived here 5 billion years prior to photons emitted by the structure we are "inside"...then again, a theory that claims FTL expansion occurred can't really be based on physics in the first place.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2017
Actually, that's the VERY SAME logical flaw in the now-falsified "BB HYPOTHESIS" that the now-also-falsified "INFLATION HYPOTHESIS" was originally mooted to "solve". All unsupported nonsense, of course; as Penrose/Steinhardt recently admitted to theoretical-physicist colleagues!

You had better make everyone writing papers that cite the BB as an actual event aware of this, and if you can show these guys that their idols have admitted falsification of it maybe we can move along to valid physics and start basing our theories upon it.
And as Planck/Bicep results indicated, any CMB 'map' purporting to represent 'primordial' CMB emissions/patterns is bunkum; as deep space is NOW known to contain uncountable material/processes which CURRENTLY CREATE NEW MWs spectrum 'mimicking' any ALLEGED 'primordial' CMB MWs. :)

Again, nice to see understanding prevail. The researchers here are a little behind those publishing the falsifications....

Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 10, 2017
@bschott
...can you not understand how it would be impossible for us to view light emitted by the entire universe 13 billion years ago?
No I cannot understand why it would be impossible for us to view light emitted 13 billion years ago even if we were just born yesterday. But maybe I'm parsing your sentence wrong.
Merrit
5 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2017
Based on our current model, the reason we can see light emitted so long ago is due to the expansion of space. The same reason we can't see anything outside the observable universe. If the distance between you and an object is increasing faster than the speed of light, then you will never be able to see. This is our explanation for why the cosmic background is so red shifted. Light is continually omitted so anything approaching the edge of the observable to us will appear increasingly red shifted and also appear to slow down as in time appears to be moving slower for it. Both approaching infinity.

The issue I have is we have no direct proof for the expansion of space. I will remain skeptical until we have direct proof from a lab experiment. Expansion of the universe could simply be an illusion and/or errors in our model.
Merrit
1 / 5 (1) Aug 10, 2017
The BB theory is loaded with speculation. Almost any model can be made to match reality especially when you through in non sense with no theoretical proof such as dark matter and energy.
A great example of this is the flat earthers. They have a counter argument for any proof you can come up with to prove the world is round. Their model is great at explaining how the world is actually flat. All this and they are still absolutely wrong. Likewise, our BB theory could easily be just as fantastical.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2017
@bschott
No I cannot understand why it would be impossible for us to view light emitted 13 billion years ago even if we were just born yesterday. But maybe I'm parsing your sentence wrong.

the next sentence:
We (the matter that we are comprised of)would have to have arrived here 5 billion years prior to photons emitted by the structure we are "inside"...

I can try to word it differently - light emitted 400,000 years after the universe was born would have arrived at this location in space billions of years before matter could possibly have. We are here at this "location" now viewing light and MS physics claims the light we are seeing was emitted 400,000 years after the theorized BB. If these photons were generated when the universe was only 400,000 years old and they are just arriving now, how did the matter we are composed of get here, and form us, before this light arrived? (given the rest of the MS timelines for astrophysical events)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Aug 10, 2017
@Merrit, the problem with this is red shift + supernova data. When both of these are taken into account multiple unlikely explanations are required, which makes any hypothesis more problematic than the current ΛCDM Standard Model of cosmology, which is more parsimonious. There is, in other words, more speculation with any other hypothesis that anyone has come up with.

If you think you have a rigorous conjecture that could become testable that is more parsimonious than ΛCDM I'd be interested in discussing it.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2017
We (the matter that we are comprised of)would have to have arrived here 5 billion years prior to photons emitted by the structure we are "inside"...
.....the point being that that the matter of which we are composed would have had to travel FTL so we could in position to see it coming to Earth.

Merrit
not rated yet Aug 10, 2017
@da Schneib I was curious why they threw out the possibly that the galaxies really are moving extremely fast away versus the universe expanding. The proof for expansion was using standard candles and red shift data plotted together and it was found their was a linear correlation between distance and red shift. Now, I will give you an example of another possible explanation.
Suppose you simulated thousands of particles in space that are initially close together and gave each a random vector. The particles would quickly scatter in all directions. If you would take the perspective from one you would see all other particles moving away from you. The ones furthest away would be moving away the fastest and closer ones would be moving away more slowly. Now pretend these are the galaxies of the universe and we are seeing pretty much identical results. I believe there was an explosion of sorts but not necessarily universal expansion.
Merrit
not rated yet Aug 10, 2017
I have pondered it some time and both explanations would have very similar observational data. The main difference I came up with is time dulation due to dustance. If the universe really is expanding, the galaxies approaching the edge of the observable galaxy would appear to be moving slower similar to how an object approaching a black hole would appear to slow down due to gravitational time dilation. The red shift time dilation would be an illusion only but detectable non the less. The reason for the time dulation is that the space between us is expanding rapidly at that extreme distance approaching the speed of light. So even a few seconds difference between one the light was given off at the source could equate to minutes by the time the light reaches earth.
Merrit
not rated yet Aug 10, 2017
If on the other hand, the galaxies really are just moving really fast. This effect would not occur. There would be no red shift time dilation noticeable. At least that is what I determined. It would just become really hard to see them is all.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2017
@da Schneib I was curious why they threw out the possibly that the galaxies really are moving extremely fast away versus the universe expanding.
Because the galaxies would have to all be moving away from the Milky Way at speeds coordinated across distances greater than light could traverse in the age of the universe. The farthest galaxies we can see in opposite directions are farther apart from one another than causality can propagate in the age of the universe; how then can they show coordinated behavior? And it's not just a few of them; it's *all* of them. This would require a coincidence of staggering proportions to happen by chance.

On the other hand, if space is uniformly expanding there is no paradox; it's the character of space itself, not some coordination of random motions against all probability.
Merrit
1 / 5 (1) Aug 10, 2017
@Da Schneib it is not a random chance at all. It is exactly what we would expect to see as I tried to explain with my example. My hypothesis for the explosion would be a massive black hole. A BH with the mass of the entire universe for example. When you get too much mass/energy in the same spot it becomes unstable. Gravity becomes overpowered by other forces and suddenly it explodes the big bang equivalent. After billions of years it would be hard to tell we all originated from the same source. What started off as just random vectors over billions of years gives you exactly what we see today. The furthest away galaxies moving the furthest away and the closer ones not so much with a very linear correlation. The galaxies interact to an extent so it isn't perfect as we Also observe, but it is very close.
Merrit
not rated yet Aug 10, 2017
@DA Schneib I would also like to point out we came up with the age of the universe based on the H constant which is based on the expansion of the universe. If the universe isn't actually expanding, it could be much older than we think.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2017
Suppose you simulated thousands of particles in space that are initially close together and gave each a random vector. The particles would quickly scatter in all directions.
You just described ENTROPY

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

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.
Mimath224
not rated yet Aug 10, 2017
@Da Schneib it is not a random chance at all. It is exactly what we would expect to see as I tried to explain with my example. My hypothesis for the explosion would be a massive black hole. A BH with the mass of the entire universe for example. When you get too much mass/energy in the same spot it become....

Hmmm, wouldn't this be the same as or similar to,the 'bounce' scenario? That is, if this massive BH 'exploded' then one would need a process for the MBH to have formed in the first place. Have we not already got theories for that? If that were the case then we should expect to see an expansion then a 'stationary point' and then a contraction. At what point do you think this will occur? Others here will correct my lay ideas but if contraction had taken place now would we not see less red and more blue shifted light? And what about Dark Flow?
Merrit
not rated yet Aug 10, 2017
@mimath22 yes it would be similar. But, the universe could be infinite and our BB event may have only been a local event. It is possible matter could be ejected far enough not to be sucked back in and without sufficient mass it would simply remain a bh. Or if there is excessive mass there could be bb events happening in quick succession. Anyways, this is all speculative.

@Da Schneib I was able to, after much searching, find references to papers on the type of time dilation I had theorized. Apparently, it is one of the hypothesis of relativity. Supposidly they determined there is a observational slowly of time at redshirt values matching predictions. Which favors expansion.
Merrit
not rated yet Aug 10, 2017
@mimath22 yes it would be similar. But, the universe could be infinite and our BB event may have only been a local event. It is possible matter could be ejected far enough not to be sucked back in and without sufficient mass it would simply remain a bh. Or if there is excessive mass there could be bb events happening in quick succession. Anyways, this is all speculative.

@Da Schneib I was able to, after much searching, find references to papers on the type of time dilation I had theorized. Apparently, it is one of the hypothesis of relativity. Supposidly they determined there is a observational slowly of time at redshirt values matching predictions. Which favors expansion.
Merrit
not rated yet Aug 10, 2017
But, I still not entirely sure how space even expands. While it is not as empty as it appears at the quantum level it still doesn't make much sense how it is possible for it to expand. String theory explains it by the unfurling of the demnsions as the string expands which may have some truth. Or maybe our universe is just a hemmrige of some higher demnsional universe. In any case I suppose I need to think about what it means for space to be expanding.
Seeker2
not rated yet Aug 11, 2017
...what it means for space to be expanding.
Well whatever it means it means it's expanding from the inside. So if you're where it's radiating 400000 years after the BB the radiating space expands around you and the radiation appears to be coming from all directions.You can view the space remaining after it expands all around you as the space where new galaxies form.
Mimath224
not rated yet Aug 11, 2017
@Merrit well SST (compactification) and 'higher [physical] dimensions' could be viewed as the two 'extremes' and I think currently the stance is somewhere in between. DE might be in 'influence' of a higher dimension while DM unlikely to be so, in my opinion. Like you I have my own ideas (Da Schneib and I have discussed these elsewhere) in that 'multidimensional time' might help to explain DE but if DM is 'particle based' then 'm.t.' would need to account for non-interacting mass which exerts a gravitational influence. The only way (at present) I could suggest that, is that gravity is some result of 'm.t.' but that might imply yet another step and I am not very comfortable with that step. But I am a layman and for the moment I'll just keep reading about current researches. Have a nice day.
Merrit
not rated yet Aug 11, 2017
@mimath22 I am also a layman. I been thinking about going back for a PhD in astrophysics though. I have a lot of ideas I would like to test.

@DA Schneib I have given the time dilation more thought and with no expansion there would still be time dilation due to the extreme speeds the the galaxies are moving away. In expansion the galaxies appear to me moving away due to the expansion of space which is much more complicated. But, one aspect is that the effective speed of light will be lower for light far away in the since if the light travels a light year, but 0.5 light years of space has grown between us in that time then it has effectively only traveled 0.5 light years toward us. This means that light omitted only 1 second apart from the same source will appear 2 seconds apart when it reaches earth which would make the galaxy appear to be moving at half the normal speed.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2017
@Merrit,
...it is not a random chance at all.
Can't be anything else; the galaxies are in opposite directions some 26 billion light years apart. Nothing can have traveled between them in the lifetime of the universe since it is only 13.5 billion years old. So how come they are moving away from us at the same speed? This is called the "causality problem."

The answer to "how does space expand" is, freely at any rate since it is not a substance and therefore not constrained by the speed of light limit. It is neither energy nor matter, so it is not constrained in this manner.

I'm rushed right now and I'd like to give your time dilation conjecture the attention it deserves so I will defer a response for the moment until I have more time. Probably this evening.
Merrit
not rated yet Aug 11, 2017
@da Schneib I think the most decisive test we be detecting changes in red shift. In a non expanding universe, the red shift values should remain constant. While in a expanding universe the red shift values should continue to increase over time with this effect being more profound the further away an object is located. We would likely need better telescopes to have enough precision, but by recording the red shift values of the most distant galaxies over time we should easily determine if the universe is expanding or not.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2017
In any case I suppose I need to think about what it means for space to be expanding.


It is not SPACE that is expanding, it is the stellar island we label UNIVERSE which is located within SPACE that appears to some to be expanding based on how redshift data is interpreted.

SPACE can probably be thought of as being INFINITE but not the Universe, this because the Universe is governed by the thermodynamic properties of ENTROPY, this is to say energy can only be distributed within the boundary of closed parameters. In short, the Universe has a wall through which energy cannot pass or the Universe would have been snuffed out seconds after the moment of the big bang.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2017
@Merrit, it's not a matter of just expanding. The red shift in fact does increase with distance; and we've verified this starting in the 1990s using supernova data. But there's more than just confirming what we thought we knew looking at galaxy brightness vs. galaxy redshift. What was discovered is that when the universe was about half its current age, it started undergoing accelerated expansion.

The first two teams of astrophysicists to develop this data were the High-Z Supernova Search Team, who started in 1994 and published the first results indicating that the universe started undergoing accelerated expansion when it was about half as old as it is now in 1998, and the Supernova Cosmology Project, still running, who also published in 1998. They were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for this discovery in 2011.

So it seems our telescopes got good enough precision starting about twenty years ago.
Merrit
not rated yet Aug 12, 2017
@DA Schneib you misunderstand I already know the connection between distance and redshift. That is how the hubble constant was formulated. I was talking about watching the same galaxy for a period of time. In the expanding universe model the galaxies will continue to move away at an ever increasing speed. Therefore, as time goes on their red shift value is increasing until some point I'm the distance future they will freeze and fade from sight. Eventually we will see nothing but our own galaxy and anything bound to it. So, if the universe truly is expanding we should be able to detect these increases in red shifts. But, we would need the precision to measure to several decimal points. I don't believe that is possible right now.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2017
@Merrit, you'd need to watch for a very, very, very long time; a million years might not be long enough with our current technology. Certainly the change in redshift in a thousand years is so far beyond anything we currently have that it's extremely unlikely we could develop such technology in that same thousand years. We're not even sure it's possible in the first place; the change might not be visible in a thousand years over the noise floor, which puts it beyond the reach of any technological improvement.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2017
@Merrit.

I was just about to point out DS missed your point re same-galaxies observation over time.

Anyhow, I'll now point out things which undermine old 'naive' expansion narrative(s):

- Penrose already blew the whistle on the Big Bang Hypothesis per se; so all the consequent/subsequent ad hoc 'inventions' to rescue that BB hypothesis are now made moot and redundant 'narratives'.

- Steinhardt has already blown the whistle on the "INFLATION" Hypothesis, as being totally UN-supported by any tenable scientific evidence; so that too is now moot and redundant 'narrative'.

- The Type Ia Supernove basis for claims of expansion/accelerated expansion has now ALSO been blown; by recent discoveries that such 'type' of supernova is actually a 'variety' of supernovas naively ASSUMED to be of all-one-type; moreover, LOCAL/SURROUNDING dynamics/content VARIES the 'light emission/signal' from said supernovas so 'distance' assumptions are UNRELIABLE!

Beware old/naive 'narratives'! :)
Merrit
not rated yet Aug 12, 2017
@da Schneib yes, it could take a long time to detect a change. That is why 1. We need better technology so that we can calculate it out to more decimal places allowing less time to be needed and 2. We observe a galaxy that is already very far away preferably close to the edge of the observable universe. With both of these, it would only take days to notice a change.
Merrit
not rated yet Aug 12, 2017
@da Schneib let's do a quick thought experiment. Suppose you were on a spaceship in deep space with thousands of flashlights and you were somehow able to eject them all simultaneously with one going 1m/s, the next 2m/s etc. All the way to the speed of light. They would extend into the distance similar to telephone poles on the side of the road. Every second the closest flashlight would be another meter away. The next flashlight would be moving 1m/s away from the first. In fact every flashlight would be moving apart from the closest ones at exactly 1m/s. The distance between each flashlight down the line would be identical at all times. Now imagine the perspective from one said flashlight. You would see two lines, one in each direction moving away from you with the closest moving exactly 1m/s. No matter which flashlight you choose, you would see the same thing, except near the ends of course.
As you might have quessed this shows how random vectors can mimic expansion
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2017
@Merrit, it's the noise floor that makes this impossible. I only said the change "might not" be visible in a thousand years because I haven't actually run the numbers or done the research myself; I'm virtually certain of it. Maybe @torbjorn or one of the other real astrophysicists on here will have more comment.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Aug 12, 2017
@Merrit, it's the noise floor that makes this impossible. I only said the change "might not" be visible in a thousand years because I haven't actually run the numbers or done the research myself; I'm virtually certain of it. Maybe @torbjorn or one of the other real astrophysicists on here will have more comment.


Schneibo copping out again, of course you haven't run the numbers because you understand so little about the thermodynamic properties that governs energy distribution everywhere inside this stellar island that is called the Universe.

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.