Dear Yousuf Kahn:

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 7:21:26 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 14/11/2012 9:21 AM, dlzc wrote:

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 12:14:44 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan

wrote: ...

After calculating the amount of Dark Energy there was in the past
vs. Dark Matter, that galaxies in the early universe had not only
had less Dark Energy (as expected), but they also had more Dark
Matter (not expected).

I don't see how they can conclude that. If they expect to see
Dark-Matter-as-WIMPs, then interactions will reduce the number of
WIMPs in forward time, and they'd see exactly this. If Dark Matter
is really just heavily ionized normal matter, as the Universe heats
(in reverse time), less ground state matter should be visible, so it
would look like an increase in Dark Matter.

We have no idea whether Dark Matter is WIMPs, and since we've
never seen WIMPs, then chances are likely that they aren't. Not
having seen WIMPs, we have no idea if they interact and
annihilate each other.

I don't expect there are either, but they would agree with this observation..

I can't see highly ionized normal matter being enough to
explain Dark Matter either. There simply can't be enough
to make up the shortfall,

There was, even before we saw all the ionized gas between stars and between galaxies, and the fields of individual stars in intergalactic space... not allocated to galaxies. This does stagnate the mass in planet-mass-and-larger black holes, however, as they would tend to increase Dark Matter in forward time...

although it might be able to make up some small
percentage of it.

I understand you are not convinced.

So if DM is not either of these things,

Just because you are not convinced, does not mean you can throw them out.

then it's got to be an effect of vacuum energy, just
like DE is supposed to be.

That tool is blunted, as previously discussed. The "energy", and the nature of that "energy" was unchanged.

Scientists thought that Dark Matter should remain more or less the
same in magnitude, since it's supposedly a type of matter, while
the Dark Energy component grows. But they're finding that the Dark
Matter component might have been higher in the past than it is
now.

If that is the case, then Dark Matter cannot be a type of stable
particle, it is just another form of fleeting energy like Dark
Energy is.

Doesn't follow.

Dark Matter shouldn't go up and down in magnitude,

Sure can, as discussed above. WIMPs interact to become normal, and ionized (therefore dark) becomes less so.

only forms of energy can do that by transforming between
one type and another.

Doesn't matter what type, both are attractive in GR, as both must act like mass "in the large".

Matter is mostly stuck in its own form most of the time.

Nope. Interacting, forming stars and planets, reaching ground state, heck even micro black holes evaporating... plenty easy to become less Dark.

In fact, it would mean that theories such as Dark Fluid would be
right, i.e. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are just two sides of the
same coin,

Additionally, Dark Energy is uniformly distributed in any epoch (so
far), so it is no sort of "stuff".

Yup.

and when one goes down, the other goes up, and vice-versa.
It also puts a kibosh on particle physics theories like
Supersymmetry, as we'll never see superpartner particles like
neutralinos or photinos, as the Standard Model is all that is
necessary to explain the universe as it is now.

Was flavor oscillation predicted for neutrinos, or was the
observation that they change mass as they change "state"
observed and then described later?

Neutrino mass is still not firmly established except
indirectly. Basically they believe that neutrinos must
have mass because they change flavour. But they still
don't have any specific idea what the actual mass of any
neutrino would be.

With the Standard Model, the vacuum energy is all that
is necessary to create the pushing effect of Dark Energy,

Dark Energy is not energy, in the Standard Model. And
somehow *less* Dark Energy, produced the initial inflation?

Well, we're not talking about Big Bang conditions, at
that time, it's likely the energy at that time was all
converted to a push-type energy before settling down to
become pull-type again.

I am unconvinced. I see no mechanism. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are tied down at the time of CMBR emissions, really not much wiggle room.

and similarly the same vacuum energy would be all that's necessary
to create the pulling together effect of Dark Energy.

Dark Energy repulses. Dark Energy drives inflation, expansion,
acceleration of expansion.

Yes, that was a typo, I meant Dark Matter in that case.

Okie dokie.

David A. Smith