A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

WIMPS?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 4th 13, 05:35 PM posted to sci.astro.research
David Staup[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 347
Default 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  
Old June 4th 13, 07:15 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Jos Bergervoet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 126
Default 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  
Old June 5th 13, 02:48 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Nicolaas Vroom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 216
Default 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  
Old June 6th 13, 06:29 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Eric Flesch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 321
Default 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  
Old June 7th 13, 07:29 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Richard D. Saam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 240
Default 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  
Old June 7th 13, 01:38 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 629
Default 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  
Old June 8th 13, 10:01 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Richard D. Saam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 240
Default 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  
Old June 9th 13, 11:55 AM posted to sci.astro.research
David Staup[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 347
Default 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  
Old June 9th 13, 11:55 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 629
Default 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  
Old June 9th 13, 04:49 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Richard D. Saam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 240
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.