View Single Post
  #10  
Old December 7th 18, 07:13 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Martin Brown[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default dark matter hypothesis

On 01/12/2018 23:00, Richard D. Saam wrote:
On 11/30/18 4:16 PM, Nicolaas Vroom wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 November 2018 21:49:18 UTC+1, Richard D. Saam wrote:
On 11/27/18 1:03 PM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:

Also, big-bang nucleosynthesis tells us what fraction of the universe is
in baryons; there is no way that stars, being baryonic, could make up a
significant fraction of dark matter.

The Big-bang nucleosynthesis hypothesis does not warrant
such an absolute telling baryon fraction statement
in terms of on going BBN mechanistic derivation efforts
https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.05976v2
RDS


This interesting (up to date) article mentions the word baryonic,
however nothing about darkmatter and baryon fraction.

[Moderator's note: Since we have a pretty good idea of the total
density, the difference between that and the baryonic density is the
dark-matter density, more or less by definition. -P.H.]

[snip]

At the risk of opening up a new can of worms what do people think of the
new paper from Jamie Farnes at Oxford which seeks to unite dark energy
and dark matter as a negative mass fluid filling all of empty space (if
I have understood his paper correctly). It seems to work... title:

A Unifying Theory of Dark Energy and Dark Matter: Negative Masses and
Matter Creation within a Modified =CE=9B CDM Framework

https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.07962

Arxiv link but now also in A&A'. It makes some testable predictions.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown