DailyDirt: Where Has All The Matter Gone?
from the urls-we-dig-up dept
There are vast amounts of stuff that no one knows anything about. Everything in the universe that we can see -- that reflects light or glows on it own because it's hot -- only amounts to about 5% of the known mass of the universe. So... what's going on with the other 95% of "stuff" that's out there? Maybe there are exotic particles we haven't discovered yet that are everywhere, but we just don't know it. Physicists call this stuff "dark matter" and "dark energy" -- and there could be a whole "dark sector" of dark matter doing things that we just can't see. But we're getting some hints for some of the stuff we can't see by observing and measuring the outcomes of rare astronomical events -- and by creating simulations of what possible undiscovered particles might do to the formation of galaxies and other distant space objects. Here are just a few projects that might explain how the universe works someday.- Astronomers detected a fast radio burst (FRB) last year (of which only 16 had been observed before), and this time, they were prepared to try to pinpoint the origin. Studying this phenomenon can help more accurately measure how much "ordinary matter" there is in the universe, and this signal points to where the "missing half" of all ordinary matter might be. (It still doesn't account for the 95% of "non-ordinary matter" that makes up the rest of the universe.) [url]
- The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) is a particle detector on the outside of the International Space Station that's looking at cosmic rays from all over the galaxy. It has detected a curious excess of positrons that might originate from dark matter collisions, but the evidence so far doesn't quite point to a specific dark matter particle. [url]
- Dark matter doesn't behave like ordinary matter -- and we can't see it (hence its name). Dark matter has mass, and it might interact with itself in ways we currently don't understand. A bunch of proposed particles could account for the vast majority of mass in the universe -- such as Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (aka WIMPs), but no one knows yet how about 95% of the universe's mass behaves. [url]
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: alpha magnetic spectrometer, astronomy, cosmic rays, dark energy, dark matter, dark sector, fast radio burst, frb, iss, mysteries, physics, science, weakly interacting massive particles, wimps
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Religionists Seeking Vindication From Science
The trouble is, the theory is having real trouble producing just one Big Bang. The cosmic background radiation is too smooth, given the time available for temperature differences to propagate across space. To fix this, theoreticians have come up with “cosmic inflation”, which kicked in and massively expanded the size of the Universe, thereby smoothing it out.
But having turned on the inflation field, you then need to invent another mechanism to turn it off. Otherwise, if it continues to act, you get, not one Big Bang, but an infinite series of Bangs, continually spawning off an infinite number of Universes. Trouble is, there is no experimental evidence for the existence of such a mechanism.
Another possibility is that the Universe looks smooth because the Bangs are cyclic: after some period of time, the expansion reverses, everything comes together in a Big Crunch, after which the Universe is reborn in a new Big Bang.
If you want to be religious about it, obvious parallels can be drawn with Hindu/Buddhist ideas of reincarnation. Because it isn’t just Christians who get to have the fun...
*That’s “accounts”, as in two different accounts, that don’t actually agree with one another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Religionists Seeking Vindication From Science
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_fate.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This question is giving me flash backs to my preliminary exam when this question was asked and we had to calculate a bunch of distances based on the age of the universe. Don't remember if I did too well on that question...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theory and Practice
Cosmic background radiation levels are actually not very smooth at all. From the expected calculated amount (for which there have been a number of different values since the various theories have been promulgated), there is a large percentage variation as measured across the sky. Even though these variations are actually quite small absolutely, they vary significantly from the various smoothness predictions from theory.
The base assumption that the universe is a charge neutral environment and hence gravity is the overriding base control force is physically not testable in any area of the universe other than in close proximity to our planet.
Even the measurement of solar winds indicates that charge variation occurs within our own solar system. How these charge flows outwork in the larger galactic and intergalactic environment is a question that won't be answered as long as the basic assumption above is unquestioned.
Science is not about being politically correct but about actually investigating the environment and doing/developing repeatable tests and experiments. Waiting on extremely rare events to test a hypothesis, leaves open the position that, if those events do not occur often enough for repeatability, the model being developed is more than likely unsupportable.
The current Big Bang models being used leave more questions unanswered than answered. From an engineering perspective, the development of the results that are from Einstein's General and Special Relativity models are also obtainable from classical models. Even the effect of electron tunnelling is explainable without recourse to quantum mechanics, it is explainable using classical electromagnetic models.
There is so much to learn about our universe, that closing our minds to alternate viable models just because they may oppose our strongly held beliefs of how the universe is, is an indictment of our abilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What cracks me up
Second group - there's not enough matter, because universe expansion is accelerating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: there's not enough matter, because universe expansion is accelerating
Gravity is always attractive, remember.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: there's not enough matter, because universe expansion is accelerating
I have seen one somewhat reasonable answer to this specific question and it involves gravity being an effect of the dipole nature found within atoms. The model even gives a resultant magnitude of about the same magnitude. Yet, when asked about this model, the only response from a theoretical physicist was that it was a load of rubbish. No attendant explanation as to why, just out of hand dismissal. Go figure. The paper itself was, as far as I know, peer reviewed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: there's not enough matter, because universe expansion is accelerating
I have seen one somewhat reasonable answer to this specific question and it involves gravity being an effect of the dipole nature found within atoms. The model even gives a resultant magnitude of about the same magnitude. Yet, when asked about this model, the only response from a theoretical physicist was that it was a load of rubbish. No attendant explanation as to why, just out of hand dismissal. Go figure. The paper itself was, as far as I know, peer reviewed. I find such actions amongst those who are supposed to be logical, systematic investigators as being incompatible with their field of endeavour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: there's not enough matter, because universe expansion is accelerating
Does gravity continue to "obey" the inverse square law no matter what the distance between objects?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: there's not enough matter, because universe expansion is accelerating
(Although debate continues over whether there is a particle associated with gravity, like there is with electromagnetism, our current observations seem to support the Einsteinian view of gravity.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: there's not enough matter, because universe expansion is accelerating
Does not matter what word you use to label it, the gravitational effect over limited distances is well understood and modeled. Evidence of this is our ability to navigate the solar system. Recent observations have added to speculation about the existence of gravity waves, very interesting stuff and many implications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: there's not enough matter, because universe expansion is accelerating
Being "an effect of geometry" is no more an explanation than any other mathematical formulation. That is simply a model that is proposed to describe its working.
Too often, people use mathematics as the sine qua non for what is, instead of mathematics being a tool for investigation. I know of a number of "geometrical" models for some physical attributes of the universe that "work" but are not the reason for the attribute. It is a simplifying methodology to get some workable results.
The Einstein view of gravity is a non-classical view and for what it is worth, has been used with some success. However, there are views that are based on classical mechanics that give the same general results. All this means is that the various models are approximately in agreement with experimental results. This approximate agreement does not in any way confirm the "truth" of any of these models. These models are, in effect, methods for trying to understand and for trying to "get things done".
When science diverts into "truth", it becomes metaphysical and religious in form. It becomes the very thing that many find objectionable about metaphysics and religion.
Science is a very useful tool when looking at the "how", the "when" and the "where". It is not so useful when looking for the "why".
The "why" looks into the "cause" of causes, the beginnings are always problematic because they are non-repeatable events.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When science diverts into "truth", it becomes metaphysical and religious in form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When science diverts into "truth", it becomes metaphysical and religious in form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When science diverts into "truth", it becomes metaphysical and religious in form.
Let me ask you a quite simple question that you should be able to answer with complete certainty. What "truths" has science proven?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sarcasm aside
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sarcasm aside
See my response to your other comment below.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sarcasm aside
Science does not attempt to declare truth, it attempts to understand and model the world around us - thus providing a way to predict what will happen under given conditions.
If you are in pursuit of "the truth" then possibly science is not your best choice for a career.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pompous ass approach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: pompous ass approach
btw, the other guy was a pompous ass ... you - I'm not sure about yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: pompous ass approach
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sarcasm aside
This is the very point that L d'O disagrees with. He has communicated that science is about finding the "truth". He does not seem to understand the point above.One of the points I have attempted (and up to this point obviously failed at) to help him understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no crunch and why
think of a dimension as a bag around a bag. around another bag and in the outer bag s all the oil/water....pink prick it and gravity will at first look to fill the void and then pull to the edges....
have fun im sure someone can get more techy on it but ts now looking more and more like prolly im right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark matter is displaced by matter
[0903.3802] The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided
"the emerging picture of the dark matter halo of the Milky Way is dominantly lopsided in nature."
The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the dark matter, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.
What physicists mistake for the density of the dark matter is actually the state of displacement of the dark matter. Physicists think they are determining the density of the dark matter by how much it and the matter curve spacetime. What they fail to realize is the state of displacement of the dark matter is curved spacetime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dark matter is displaced by matter
Assumption 2. Model is reality. Since all models are simplifications to explain reality, there is no requirement for the universe to fulfil the wishes of those proposing the model.
Engineering teaches you the limits of models and not to take any model beyond those limits. Theoretical physicists don't seem to have learned that lesson and often appear to take their mathematical models into the realms of fancy without stopping to think that maybe their mathematical models are no longer applicable. See the bun fights between the various groups of string and non-string theorists as a modern example.
They have gotten so caught up in their mathematical theory and the correctness of their mathematics that they have forgotten why they came up with their mathematical models in the first place.
They need to have some chill pills, slow down, have a beer, eats some pretzels and play on the swing with their children, nephews and nieces. They need to smell the roses and cow dung that fertilises them. They need to take time out and see reality for what it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Engineering teaches you the limits of models and not to take any model beyond those limits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Engineering teaches you the limits of models and not to take any model beyond those limits.
A potential problem with this can occur when one becomes so convinced of the theory's efficacy that contradictory data is ignored or written off as inconsequential. Huge arguments can even erupt.
Confirmation bias is alive and well, even scientists trained to be impartial fall victim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Engineering teaches you the limits of models and not to take any model beyond those limits.
Science is nothing of the sort. Science is about developing testable models (of which theories are one kind of model) that give insight into the universe about us. The models so developed can and should give additional predictions for which we can test. It deals with experimental facts (repeatability is one requirement). A model is not proven "true", at most, it can be proven "false".
If a model fails to give any testable predictions then we must ask the question, is it a valid science model? If the model gives predictions that are found to not quite match the experimental evidence, do we tweak the model or do we look for another model that gives better predictions. Or do we do both and make the appropriate comparisons between them.
If we take a model to or beyond it limits, we are now using in in a situation where it no longer gives valid answers or predictions. This is stupidity. The sensible behaviour is to develop a new model appropriate for the situation at hand.
I don't use DC models for AC circuits. Nor do I use low frequency models for high frequency circuits. I don't use dam construction models to construct aircraft.
The models applicable for a situation may use similar mathematical methodologies, but the models are different.
Let me ask you a question about "truth". Does "eternity" exist? Why does the universe exist? Where does "evil" come from? Does "evil" even exist? What is "evil"?
These are not questions that science has a hope of answering. These are metaphysical/religious questions.
The problem that has arisen is the "belief" that science can answer all questions. By the very definition of science, there are questions outside of its domain. Questions it cannot answer because they are not about things that can be tested.
Keep in mind that famous insult, "he is not even wrong", and recognise that science has its limits.
Science is fun, it is interesting and can be exciting and insightful into understanding the physical universe about us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A model is not proven "true", at most, it can be proven "false".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A model is not proven "true", at most, it can be proven "false".
You, on the gripping hand, believe that your models are "true", it behooves you to therefore demonstrate that "truth", if you think you arguments are of any merit. The ball is actually in your court. Nothing you have said has demonstrated any hint of being worthwhile considering.
You are one of those who want others to prove their views true so that you don't have to prove your views true. Instead of actually demonstrating that their views are false, you take the feeble-minded way of politicians. By this, you think you have one-upmanship. All it demonstrates is your lack of coherent, logical cogitation.
You regularly demonstrate a lack of awareness of the difference between metaphysics and science. You also regularly demonstrate a lack of understanding of what science is.
Do you understand the concept of piecewise linearisation? What is the function of this process? Under what circumstances can it be used? Under what circumstances can it not be used? Why have I asked these questions? Well, you may ask. I'll let you try and think your way past that. If you can actually work out a reasonable reason why, you might well be on your way to understanding what science is.
One last note: no matter how much evidence you have for a particular model in science, there are no guarantees that the specific model is "true". All you can say is that we have no negative evidence as yet. If you want "truth", go study religion and metaphysics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't have to prove it "true".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't have to prove it "true".
And until you understand this, you will be tormented to your wits end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't have to prove it "true".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't have to prove it "true".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ummm - nothing is "true".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ummm - nothing is "true".
The question to be answered is - Do you understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course not ...
So why did you say it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course not ...
Therefore it is assumed you do not understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Therefore it is assumed you do not understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dark matter is displaced by matter
Dark matter is displaced by matter.
Dark matter displaced by matter pushing back and exerting pressure toward matter is gravity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]