Hubble makes 3D dark matter map

Joseph Lazio wrote:


HA If there is any hydrogen dark matter, it might be rather quickly
HA sucked up in some clumping process, causing most of the space in
HA between to be rather empty.
[...]

This sounds like Mark Walker's idea of dense, AU-sized molecular
clouds. Yes, one can "hide" a substantial amount of hydrogen this
way. However, to do so requires a certain amount of fine-tuning,
getting all of the conditions just so in order to avoid detecting the
material.


[...]
HA So, why would the black holes need to be (...) "primordial", which
HA I gather would imply they were formed at a Big Bang event?

I think somebody (Ted, Phillip?) has already discussed this. Briefly,
we have estimates for the density of baryonic matter and the total
density of matter in the Universe. The density of matter is larger
than the density of baryonic matter.
Isn't it proper to say that
'mass of the universe'
not 'density of universe matter'
is larger than the
'mass of universe baryonic matter'
not 'density of universe baryonic matter'?
baryonic matter---whether it be from the collapse of stars or clouds
of hydrogen gas, both are baryonic matter---black holes cannot account
for all matter in the Universe. There needs to be some non-baryonic
dark matter.

Indeed, we already know of one kind of non-baryonic dark matter,
neutrinos. They are not baryons, they have mass, and they do not
interact via the electromagnetic force (i.e., with light). If we know
of one kind of non-baryonic dark matter, it is not too difficult to
think that there might be other kinds.

In the context of reported gravitational lensing evidence

There appear to be two assumptions:

1. dark matter is composed of discrete mass entities
2. dark matter is composed of a continuous medium.

For instance, lensing observations on Bullet Cluster E0657-56:
arXiv:astro-ph/0608408 v1 page 9

Bullet Cluster E0657-56 length 250 kpc (7.714E+23 cm)
Bullet Cluster E0657-56 mass 2.8E+14 solar mass (5.569E+47 g)

then a continuous medium density can be calculated with spherical lens:

Bullet Cluster E0657-56 density 1.213E-24 g/cm3
This value is about the same as Ted indicated
for Milky Way dark matter density at: 7 x 10^{-25} g/cm3.

This value compares to ~6E10^-30 g/cm^3
for universe critical density (rhoc)
which overall accounts for the universe mass.

The gravitational lensing Bullet Cluster E0657-56
average density (rhod) 1.213E-24 g/cm3
is not observable. How can this be?

Assume average density (rhod)
is composed of discrete particles of baryonic matter
with density (rhob) = 1 g/cm3.

As an exercise, calculate the size and related distance
between such discrete baryonic objects composed of these particles
using the cube as the Platonic solid that fills space.

Total Mass in space (M) = rhod(rd/a + a*rb)^3 = rhob(a*rb)^3

where a is the number of discrete particles
contained continuously in each object
with distance (rd) between these objects
and the size of particle (rb) where rb = 1 cm
and rd/a + a*rb ~ rd/a

then

rd = (1/rhod)^(1/3) a^2

rd = (1/1.213E-24)^(1/3) a^2
where a = 1,2,3 ......

- light particle solar
a rd (cm) year mass(g) masses
1E+01 9E+09 1E-17 1E+01 5E-33
1E+02 9E+11 1E-16 1E+02 5E-32
1E+04 9E+15 1E-14 1E+04 5E-30
1E+06 9E+19 1E-12 1E+06 5E-28
1E+08 9E+23 1E-10 1E+08 5E-26
1E+10 9E+27 1E-08 1E+10 5E-24
1E+12 9E+31 1E-06 1E+12 5E-22
1E+14 9E+35 1E-04 1E+14 5E-20
1E+16 9E+39 1E-02 1E+16 5E-18
1E+18 9E+43 1E+00 1E+18 5E-16
1E+20 9E+47 1E+02 1E+20 5E-14
1E+22 9E+51 1E+04 1E+22 5E-12
1E+24 9E+55 1E+06 1E+24 5E-10
1E+26 9E+59 1E+08 1E+26 5E-08
1E+28 9E+63 1E+10 1E+28 5E-06
1E+30 9E+67 1E+12 1E+30 5E-04
---------------------------------
1E+32 9E+71 1E+14 1E+32 5E-02
1E+34 9E+75 1E+16 1E+34 5E+00
1E+36 9E+79 1E+18 1E+36 5E+02

In the context of these approximate numbers
it would appear that it would be impossible
to build up solar mass objects from
or contain solar mass objects within
currently observed gravitational lensing density(rhod).
These masses would have to be 1E+12 light years apart
(approaching the age of the universe for 5E-04 solar mass object)

Question?
if particles contributing to
observed gravitational lensing density(rhod)
were as follows:

- light particle solar
a rd (cm) year mass(g) masses
1E+01 9E+09 1E-17 1E+01 5E-33

or some other relatively small size
(non luminous (asteroid like) particle),
would they be observable?

I would not think so.
Perhaps more calculation is necessary.

It is conceivable that these objects
would have discrete sizes due
to some type of partitioning mechanism,
(possibly due to universe critical density 6E-30 g/cm^3)
but sizes much less than the solar mass.

Richard

"RS" == Richard Saam writes:

RS Joseph Lazio wrote:

Briefly, we have estimates for the density of baryonic matter and
the total density of matter in the Universe. The density of matter
is larger than the density of baryonic matter.

RS Isn't it proper to say that 'mass of the universe' not 'density of
RS universe matter' is larger than the 'mass of universe baryonic
RS matter' not 'density of universe baryonic matter'?

No. In order to compute a total mass, one has to know the diameter.
While we can estimate the diameter of the *observable* Universe, it is
possible (and quite likely) that the diameter of the Universe is
larger than the diameter of the observable Universe.

[...]
RS In the context of reported gravitational lensing evidence

RS There appear to be two assumptions:

RS 1. dark matter is composed of discrete mass entities
RS 2. dark matter is composed of a continuous medium.

These are not as contradictory as they seem. It depends upon the size
scale on which one is looking. Air is composed of discrete mass
entities (molecules), but for many purposes it is appropriate to treat
it as a continuous medium.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

Joseph Lazio wrote:

"RS" == Richard Saam writes:


RS Joseph Lazio wrote:


Briefly, we have estimates for the density of baryonic matter and
the total density of matter in the Universe. The density of matter
is larger than the density of baryonic matter.


RS Isn't it proper to say that 'mass of the universe' not 'density of
RS universe matter' is larger than the 'mass of universe baryonic
RS matter' not 'density of universe baryonic matter'?

No. In order to compute a total mass, one has to know the diameter.
While we can estimate the diameter of the *observable* Universe, it is
possible (and quite likely) that the diameter of the Universe is
larger than the diameter of the observable Universe.
Yes, the diameter of the universe is not known
other than the diameter of the *observable* Universe
but we can still say
that the observed Mass (M) in any arbitrary multiple galactic scale volume
(1E21 cubic light years) in the *observable* Universe
is greater than the mass of baryonic matter in the same volume.

[...]
RS In the context of reported gravitational lensing evidence

RS There appear to be two assumptions:

RS 1. dark matter is composed of discrete mass entities
RS 2. dark matter is composed of a continuous medium.

These are not as contradictory as they seem. It depends upon the size
scale on which one is looking. Air is composed of discrete mass
entities (molecules), but for many purposes it is appropriate to treat
it as a continuous medium.

Agreed

Calculation of Discrete Object Size (Dark Matter?)
based on conservation of mass (M) within a space volume.

Total mass (M) in space volume (rb)^3
and
density rhod = 1.213E-24 g/cc
(~Bullet Cluster E0657-56 gravitational lensing Dark Matter)
(~Milky Way Dark Matter)

M = rhod*rd^3

If the mass (M) in space volume (rb)^3
is concentrated in an object
of density (rhob) = 1 g/cc
then:

M = rhob*rb^3

These correlations are reflected
in the following table:
(which corrects errors in my previous post)

space space object object object
rd rd rb mass solar
(cm) (lt yr) (cm) (g) masses
9E-01 1E-18 1E-08 1E-24 5E-58 ~hydrogen
9E+00 1E-17 1E-07 1E-21 5E-55
9E+01 1E-16 1E-06 1E-18 5E-52
9E+02 1E-15 1E-05 1E-15 5E-49
9E+03 1E-14 1E-04 1E-12 5E-46
9E+04 1E-13 1E-03 1E-09 5E-43
9E+05 1E-12 1E-02 1E-06 5E-40
9E+06 1E-11 1E-01 1E-03 5E-37 ~dust
9E+07 1E-10 1E+00 1E+00 5E-34 ~dust
9E+08 1E-09 1E+01 1E+03 5E-31 ~asteroid
9E+09 1E-08 1E+02 1E+06 5E-28 ~asteroid
9E+10 1E-07 1E+03 1E+09 5E-25 ~asteroid
9E+11 1E-06 1E+04 1E+12 5E-22 ~asteroid
9E+12 1E-05 1E+05 1E+15 5E-19
9E+13 1E-04 1E+06 1E+18 5E-16
9E+14 1E-03 1E+07 1E+21 5E-13
9E+15 1E-02 1E+08 1E+24 5E-10
9E+16 1E-01 1E+09 1E+27 5E-07 ~earth
9E+17 1E+00 1E+10 1E+30 5E-04
9E+18 1E+01 1E+11 1E+33 5E-01 ~sun
9E+19 1E+02 1E+12 1E+36 5E+02
9E+20 1E+03 1E+13 1E+39 5E+05
9E+21 1E+04 1E+14 1E+42 5E+08
9E+22 1E+05 1E+15 1E+45 5E+11 ~Milky Way
9E+23 1E+06 1E+16 1E+48 5E+14
9E+24 1E+07 1E+17 1E+51 5E+17

From the above correlations,
the distinct gravitational lensing matter
with density 1.213E-24 g/cc
in Bullet Cluster E0657-56
with no luminous or otherwise observable component
reported in arXiv:astro-ph/0608408 v1 page 9

could be made of asteroid-like objects
that are 9E+11 cm (9,000,000 m)
from each other.

or extending to another size range

could be made of 1 gram dust-like objects
that are 9E+7 cm (900 m)
from each other.

If such were the case,
these objects surely would not be observable from earth
yet provide observed gravitational lensing character.

These dust to asteroid sized objects
may be of discrete size ranges
as determined by their formation mechanism
which may be associated with a fluid-like medium
with the universe critical density (~6E-30 g/cc).

Richard

In article ,
wrote:

One reason is that we have various constraints on the density of
atomic matter (often called the "baryon density"), which show that
it's significantly less than the density of all matter. Some of these
constraints measure the baryon density now, but others measure the
baryon density at earlier times, specifically, the time of
recombination (z=1100, t=400,000 years) and the time of nucleosynthesis
(z ~ 10^9, t ~ 1 second).

So how do you measure the baryon density?

--
Hans Aberg

In article ,
Richard Saam wrote:
Joseph Lazio wrote:

"RS" == Richard Saam writes:

RS Isn't it proper to say that 'mass of the universe' not 'density of
RS universe matter' is larger than the 'mass of universe baryonic
RS matter' not 'density of universe baryonic matter'?

No. In order to compute a total mass, one has to know the diameter.
While we can estimate the diameter of the *observable* Universe, it is
possible (and quite likely) that the diameter of the Universe is
larger than the diameter of the observable Universe.
Yes, the diameter of the universe is not known
other than the diameter of the *observable* Universe
but we can still say
that the observed Mass (M) in any arbitrary multiple galactic scale volume
(1E21 cubic light years) in the *observable* Universe
is greater than the mass of baryonic matter in the same volume.

But that statement is precisely the same as the statement about the
densities!

Would you object to someone saying "the density of lead is greater
than the density of water," telling them instead that they should say
"the mass of lead within any arbitrary volume is greater than the
mass of water within the same volume"?

-Ted

--
[E-mail me at , as opposed to .]

Richard Saam wrote:

If such were the case, these objects surely would
not be observable from earth yet provide observed
gravitational lensing character.

Well, an interesting extension to your calculation
would be, how often would the disk of earth,
considered as a flyswatter, encounter an object at
each size scale, as earth sweeps through space both
in orbit around the sun and moving through the
galaxy with the solar system.

Now, is that in agreement with what is actually seen
impacting the earth or its atmosphere, in the "quiet
times" between major meteor showers with known
local-to-this-solar-system causes?

In other words, we can't see those objects in the
Bullet galaxy, but if they are "the dark matter in
general", should we be able to observe them if they
have that same needed density for lensing, close to
home, as would be expected? If so, do we?

FWIW

xanthian.

"Hans Aberg" wrote in message
...
In article , George Dishman
wrote:

The black holes would have to suck up heavy elements as well. When a
star
collapses, the black hole need not suck up heavy elements immediately,
but
it might do that later, when the local area has calmed down.

The first indications of non-baryonic matter are from
nucleosynthesis in the first seconds ...

By observation?

Yes, though they are indirect.

...and the spectrum
of the CMBR which was produced around 378000 years
later. Both these are long before stars could exist,
let alone turn into black holes and return anything
via Hawking radiation.

According to some current Big Bang theories you mean;

According to all the theories that are compatible
with observation I mean. There is no doubt a small
spread for various values of the constants but the
age won't vary much.

However, it is the sequence of events rather than
the exact age that matters. Stars could not form
earlier than the epoch of decoupling so black
holes resulting from stellar collapse cannot
explain the indications from the CMBR, the order
of events is the wrong way round.

the discussions here
are conducted in view of problems with those.

The idea is
that the heavy elements falling into the black hole are broken up
inside
it, and if matter can tunnel out, it will, via some nucleosynthesis at
the
black hole surface, be the infancy matter that small, nearby galaxies
are
formed of.

Perhaps you should explain what you mean by "infancy
matter".

This has been explained many times before in this other threads:

Sorry but I haven't seen any of your posts before.

nearby, young, small galaxies are found to have special
matter composition, of astronomic metals mainly; and "infancy matter"
would be what they are formed of.

If you mean Pop II stars and the like, the proportion
of metals is lower but the bulk is still hydrogen and
the material remains baryonic.

Again the order is wrong too, if you are suggesting
stellar black holes produce non-baryonic materials
through Hawking Radiation, there should be more in more
recent material and less in primordial material.

Primordial black holes are needed to explain the early
indications.

George

"KPD" == Kent Paul Dolan writes:

KPD Richard Saam wrote:
If such were the case, these objects surely would not be observable
from earth yet provide observed gravitational lensing character.

KPD Well, an interesting extension to your calculation would be, how
KPD often would the disk of earth, considered as a flyswatter,
KPD encounter an object at each size scale, as earth sweeps through
KPD space both in orbit around the sun and moving through the galaxy
KPD with the solar system.

KPD Now, is that in agreement with what is actually seen impacting
KPD the earth or its atmosphere, in the "quiet times" between major
KPD meteor showers with known local-to-this-solar-system causes?

KPD In other words, we can't see those objects in the Bullet galaxy,
KPD but if they are "the dark matter in general", should we be able
KPD to observe them if they have that same needed density for
KPD lensing, close to home, as would be expected? If so, do we?

The interested reader is referred to Schee (2006, URL:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...stro.ph.12565S ).

Other examples of such papers can easily be found by perusing the
Astronomical Data System or astro-ph.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

"HA" == Hans Aberg writes:

HA In article , Joseph
HA Lazio wrote:

Yes, one could imagine hiding hydrogen by making it even less
dense than these clouds, but then one has to answer how much
mass would result.* I suspect it is fairly easy to show that any
thin gruel of hydrogen that we've missed wouldn't have a
substantial mass.

Re-reading my answer, I should add the caveat that thinly ionized
hydrogen would of course not show any absorption lines.* However,
if there are any other elements mixed together (e.g., oxygen) with
the hydrogen, then one might be able to detect absorption from
them.

HA What about a blend of the "astronomic metals", that is lower
HA fundamentals, in the proportions found in nearby, very young
HA galaxies (...); would that be detectable if very thin?

Notably, the FUSE, Chandra, and XMM-Newton have all detected
absorption from highly ionized oxygen and neon.* Indeed, it is now
thought that many of the baryons in the Universe are in the form of
a warm-hot intergalactic medium (WHIM) that is at a temperature of
around 10^6 K.

The point of my second paragraph (FUSE, Chandra, and XMM-Newton) was
precisely to address the question you raised. Oxygen is the third
most abundant element in the Universe, after hydrogen and helium.
Oxygen is seen in absorption toward various quasars. The oxygen lines
seen are at low redshift (i.e., not associated with the quasars) and
are from highly ionized species (i.e., the medium is quite hot). This
is taken as evidence that there is a low density, hot, ionized medium
(WHIM) pervading the Local Universe. As I recall, the density of
matter in this WHIM is consistent with explaining most of the baryons,
but nowhere near enough to explain the total required density of
matter.

[...]
HA So, why would the black holes need to be (...) "primordial", which
HA I gather would imply they were formed*at a Big Bang event?

I think somebody (Ted, Phillip?) has already discussed this.*
Briefly, we have estimates for the density of baryonic matter and
the total density of matter in the Universe.*

HA What might be pitfalls of those estimates is if they build on some
HA untested theory about formation from the Big Bang.

I think the methods of estimating both the density of baryonic matter
and the total density of matter have been discussed at length in this
newsgroup, as well as in various review papers that one could find on
astro-ph (for example).


[...]
There needs to be some non-baryonic dark matter. *Indeed, we
already know of one kind of non-baryonic dark matter, neutrinos.*
They are not baryons, they have mass, and they do not interact via
the electromagnetic force (...).* If we know of one kind of
non-baryonic dark matter, it is not too difficult to think that
there might be other kinds.

HA I think that*explaining dark matter as mainly composed of
HA neutrinos has been ruled out.

My point was not to claim that neutrinos explain dark matter. My
point is that neutrinos are a form of dark matter.

I think the onus is actually more on those who claim that there is no
dark matter. We know of one example already (neutrinos). How can one
be so certain that there are no other kinds of dark matter particles?

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

On Feb 10, 2:02 pm, Joseph Lazio wrote:

The interested reader is referred to Schee (2006, URL:http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2006astro.ph....).

Other examples of such papers can easily be found by perusing the
Astronomical Data System or astro-ph.


Millions of dollars and countless man-hours of effort have been
expended in this effort to find hypothetical "WIMPS", CDM, sterile
neutrinos, axions, etc. A vast literature on the subject exists.

So far not one single shread of evidence for their existence has
appeared.

One of Einstein's definitions of insanity was reported to be: doing
the same thing over and over and over again, and expecting a different
answer.

Well, you have to admire their persistence, if not their intuition.

Robert L. Oldershaw