#11
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPS?
On 6/4/2013 1:20 AM, David Staup wrote:
[Mod. note: quoted text trimmed. Logically, it's quite simple: practically, it may be a little harder -- mjh] Your logic, it seems to me, is based on an assumption that as yet remains unproven: dark matter exists |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPS?
On 6/4/2013 6:35 PM, David Staup wrote:
On 6/4/2013 1:20 AM, David Staup wrote: [Mod. note: quoted text trimmed. Logically, it's quite simple: practically, it may be a little harder -- mjh] Your logic, it seems to me, is based on an assumption that as yet remains unproven: dark matter exists It could be just a naming convention. We use the name "dark matter" for the cause of the observed extra gravitational pull on the outer parts of galaxies. 1) The extra pull exists, the rotation curves would be different without it. 2) Some "cause" for this extra pull is supposed to exist, or else we should no longer maintain that physics can describe how our universe behaves. 3) Since in general we know that matter is responsible for gravity, we assume the cause must be some form of matter. 4) We do not see it, hence the adjective "dark". Where do you disagree? Personally I think step 3) might be a weak point.. -- Jos |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPS?
Op dinsdag 4 juni 2013 20:15:44 UTC+2 schreef Jos Bergervoet het volgende:
On 6/4/2013 6:35 PM, David Staup wrote: On 6/4/2013 1:20 AM, David Staup wrote: It could be just a naming convention. We use the name "dark matter" for the cause of the observed extra gravitational pull on the outer parts of galaxies. 1) The extra pull exists, the rotation curves would be different without it. 2) Some "cause" for this extra pull is supposed to exist, or else we should no longer maintain that physics can describe how our universe behaves. 3) Since in general we know that matter is responsible for gravity, we assume the cause must be some form of matter. I agree with all your points 1-4: A certain amount of mass is missing in the galaxy rotation curve. How to explain. The first Q to answer is: is this missing mass is baryonic or non-baryonic? IMO you can only go in the direcetion of non-baryonic if you are sure that it is not baryonic. The missing mass could be: large and small planets meteorites, asteroides, dust etc. A second point is that you have to be carefull to explain astronomical/physical phenomena based on human qualities. The fact that an objects emits visible light means that we can see it with our eyes. The fact that certain objects do not emit visible does not mean that they do not exist. A differnt point to consider that IMO darkmatter is also used in relation to all the matter in the Universe. That means there are two parameter used in relation to the friedmann equation: denstity of baryonic matter and density of nonbaryonic matter. IMO the second paramater can only(?) be considered if you know the first parameter. I would be interested to know how much nonbaryonic matter is there, in our solar system? Is this more or less than 1% ? Nicolaas Vroom http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/ |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPS?
On Tue, 04 Jun 13, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
3) Since in general we know that matter is responsible for gravity, we assume the cause must be some form of matter Personally I think step 3) might be a weak point.. Precisely, if A causes B, and we have B, it does not therefore follow that we have A. After all, something else may also cause B. Also, we have no idea how matter generates the gravity. Does matter create the gravity, or is it a conduit? If a conduit, then there can be other conduits. If gravity is a new kind of dimension, then matter is a mere convenience, and "dark matter" nothing more than brane tension of the gravity dimension. The concept of "dark matter" should be an aid, not an encumbrance. Too many astronomers chasing figments, IMO. Eric |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPS?
On 6/3/13 2:54 AM, jacob navia wrote:
That matter must be HERE. But where? Maybe chemistry an help. There are continuing studies regarding new phases of hydrogen. http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Den...light_999.html "the team found the new form to be stable from about 2.2 million times normal atmospheric pressure and about 80 degrees Fahrenheit to at least 3.4 million times atmospheric pressure and about -100 degrees Fahrenheit." While outside the suggested early universe nucleosynthetic condition, this work indicates the possibility of varied hydrogen phases at that time one of which may presently exist as dark matter. Richard D. Saam |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPS?
In article , "Richard D. Saam"
writes: Maybe chemistry an help. There are continuing studies regarding new phases of hydrogen. http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Den...light_999.html "the team found the new form to be stable from about 2.2 million times normal atmospheric pressure and about 80 degrees Fahrenheit to at least 3.4 million times atmospheric pressure and about -100 degrees Fahrenheit." While outside the suggested early universe nucleosynthetic condition, this work indicates the possibility of varied hydrogen phases at that time one of which may presently exist as dark matter. Hydrogen is baryonic, no matter what state it is in. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPS?
On 6/7/13 7:38 AM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
Hydrogen is baryonic, no matter what state it is in. Yes, all hydrogen phases are baryonic But let there be three phases A, B & C with A and B in equilibrium with C with incremental increase in A and B with that incremental increase reflecting in incremental increase in C. A and B along with their ratio remain constant. It is like pouring calcium hydroxide and sodium carbonate solutions together in a beaker. A = calcium soluble ion B = carbonate soluble ion C = calcium carbonate solid phase Addition of A and B will not increase their concentration or ratio A/B but only increase C. In a nucleosynthetic hydrogen context, A, B & C are all baryonic but, is C missing in Big Bang nucleosynthetic analysis and extant as dark matter? Richard D Saam |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPS?
On 6/4/2013 1:15 PM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
On 6/4/2013 6:35 PM, David Staup wrote: On 6/4/2013 1:20 AM, David Staup wrote: [Mod. note: quoted text trimmed. Logically, it's quite simple: practically, it may be a little harder -- mjh] Your logic, it seems to me, is based on an assumption that as yet remains unproven: dark matter exists It could be just a naming convention. We use the name "dark matter" for the cause of the observed extra gravitational pull on the outer parts of galaxies. 1) The extra pull exists, the rotation curves would be different without it. 2) Some "cause" for this extra pull is supposed to exist, or else we should no longer maintain that physics can describe how our universe behaves. 3) Since in general we know that matter is responsible for gravity, we assume the cause must be some form of matter. 4) We do not see it, hence the adjective "dark". Where do you disagree? Personally I think step 3) might be a weak point.. It is the word "assume" that I have learned has NO PLACE in science...period Lavoisier recognized this and wrote about it more than 200 years ago: "Hence it is by no means to be wondered, that, in the science of physics in general, men have often made suppositions, instead of forming conclusions. These suppositions, handed down from one age to another, acquire additional weight from the authorities by which they are supported, till at last they are received, even by men of genius, as fundamental truths." I am not saying that some form of matter is NOT involved, only that the acceptance of the assumption as fact is not good for science... This type of acceptance is exactly why "earth, wind, fire, and water" was the "accepted" atomic theory for 2,000 years... Accepting an assumption as fact puts the science in a box that may or may not contain the truth. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPS?
In article , "Richard D. Saam"
writes: is C missing in Big Bang nucleosynthetic analysis and extant as dark matter? No. The new phases involve MOLECULAR hydrogen. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
WIMPS?
On 6/9/13 5:55 AM, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:
No. The new phases involve MOLECULAR hydrogen. Yes, MOLECULAR hydrogen but possibly in a phase not presently electromagnetically observable a la 'dark matter' a portion of which continues to sublimate into presently electromagnetically observable gaseous MOLECULAR hydrogen. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DarkAttack2012 Conference: NO "WIMPs"! | Robert L. Oldershaw | Research | 1 | July 20th 12 07:04 AM |
Generic WIMPs Ruled Out | Robert L. Oldershaw | Research | 10 | November 27th 11 10:09 AM |
WIMPs AWOL Again? | Robert L. Oldershaw | Research | 91 | November 16th 11 10:28 AM |
Constraints on WIMPs as Dark Matter. | dlzc | Astronomy Misc | 4 | August 24th 11 03:21 PM |
Xenon100: No "WIMPs" | Robert L. Oldershaw | Research | 0 | April 14th 11 09:39 AM |