Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Serious blow to dark matter theories?


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 April 2012 - 11:32 AM

Quote

The most accurate study so far of the motions of stars in the Milky Way has found no evidence for dark matter in a large volume around the Sun. According to widely accepted theories, the solar neighbourhood was expected to be filled with dark matter, a mysterious invisible substance that can only be detected indirectly by the gravitational force it exerts. But a new study by a team of astronomers in Chile has found that these theories just do not fit the observational facts. This may mean that attempts to directly detect dark matter particles on Earth are unlikely to be successful.


Serious blow to dark matter theories? New study finds mysterious lack of dark matter in Sun's neighborhood

If dark matter doesn't exist you can say bye bye to enhanced greenhouse gas theory.

Edited by BFB, 20 April 2012 - 11:33 AM.

"Its not true, before my brain says so" - BFB

#2    Mentalcase

Mentalcase

    Space Cadet

  • Member
  • 5,346 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chi-Town

  • Most Thugish Member of the Six Worst Men of the Apfelschnaps

Posted 22 April 2012 - 04:16 AM

I would assume this dark matter would be outside of the sun's reach.

http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/  <~Ancient Aliens DEBUNKED!
I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence ~Richard Feynman http://www.myspace.com/7leafclover

#3    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,758 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 April 2012 - 04:50 AM

View PostBFB, on 20 April 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

If dark matter doesn't exist you can say bye bye to enhanced greenhouse gas theory.
What does ``enhanced greenhouse gas theory'' have to do with dark matter?


#4    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Unsafe at Any Speed

  • Member
  • 24,145 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Sea of Okhotsk

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 22 April 2012 - 12:27 PM

This is one of those concepts that most of what we assume to be true about physics rather depends on, doesn't it.

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


Posted Image


#5    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,758 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 April 2012 - 05:24 PM

View Post747400, on 22 April 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

This is one of those concepts that most of what we assume to be true about physics rather depends on, doesn't it.
It isn't that serious. Dark matter and dark energy have a major bearing only on cosmology and astrophysics. If dark matter doesn't exist then either:
  • General Relativity is wrong at large scales, or
  • General Relativity cannot be linearized at large scales, or
  • Our observations of distant galaxies are misinterpreted.



#6    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 23 April 2012 - 10:43 AM

View Postsepulchrave, on 22 April 2012 - 04:50 AM, said:

What does ``enhanced greenhouse gas theory'' have to do with dark matter?

It came out wrong. We just have to re-right the theory in respects of Earth's radiative heat transfer.

"Its not true, before my brain says so" - BFB

#7    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 8,985 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 23 April 2012 - 01:14 PM

View PostBFB, on 23 April 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

It came out wrong. We just have to re-right the theory in respects of Earth's radiative heat transfer.
Why? I've yet to come across an explanation of Earth's heat transfer using dark matter.


#8    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 23 April 2012 - 03:09 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 23 April 2012 - 01:14 PM, said:

Why? I've yet to come across an explanation of Earth's heat transfer using dark matter.

Because dark matter is an energy source?

First, its hypothesized that dark matter contributes about one megawatt of energy to Earth.

Second, if dark matter is an illusion, space isn't cold and there would be no "heat loss blanket effect" - which would be a major blow to the AGW theory hence a lot of rewriting needs to be done.

"Its not true, before my brain says so" - BFB

#9    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,758 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 23 April 2012 - 03:56 PM

View PostBFB, on 23 April 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

Because dark matter is an energy source?

First, its hypothesized that dark matter contributes about one megawatt of energy to Earth.

Second, if dark matter is an illusion, space isn't cold and there would be no "heat loss blanket effect" - which would be a major blow to the AGW theory hence a lot of rewriting needs to be done.
First, dark matter is not an energy source in any sense other than that it produces a gravitational field.

Second, 1 megawatt of energy? How is such a tiny amount even measurable?

Third, how does the existence of dark matter have any influence on whether or not space is cold? Are you confusing dark matter with dark energy?

Fourthly, space is cold. We've been up there. We've measured it. We know the average temperature of space. This is completely independent of whether or not dark matter or dark energy exists.

And finally, Venus has the highest average surface temperature of any planet in the solar system, but Mercury is the closest to the Sun. If there is no ``heat blanket effect'' how does this occur?


#10    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 8,985 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 23 April 2012 - 04:52 PM

View PostBFB, on 23 April 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

Because dark matter is an energy source?

First, its hypothesized that dark matter contributes about one megawatt of energy to Earth.

Second, if dark matter is an illusion, space isn't cold and there would be no "heat loss blanket effect" - which would be a major blow to the AGW theory hence a lot of rewriting needs to be done.
Sorry, but where are you getting this?

Dark matter or not, space is cold (around 3 Kelvin), this has been verified. Still not seeing the connection between dark matter and heat loss.


#11    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 23 April 2012 - 10:04 PM

View Postsepulchrave, on 23 April 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

First, dark matter is not an energy source in any sense other than that it produces a gravitational field.

Second, 1 megawatt of energy? How is such a tiny amount even measurable?

Third, how does the existence of dark matter have any influence on whether or not space is cold? Are you confusing dark matter with dark energy?

Fourthly, space is cold. We've been up there. We've measured it. We know the average temperature of space. This is completely independent of whether or not dark matter or dark energy exists.

And finally, Venus has the highest average surface temperature of any planet in the solar system, but Mercury is the closest to the Sun. If there is no ``heat blanket effect'' how does this occur?


First incorrect. Any moving* particle creates the energy form called heat.

Second, i understand what you are saying.

Third, I think so, my mistake*.

No particles, no temperature. So to keep space "cold" we need some slow moving particles, And after realizing my mistake with dark energy - dark matter, dark energy needs to exist if you want to valid the COBE measurements.

and finally did i say greenhouse gases didn't exist? I said if space didn't have a temperature, there would be nothing called blackbody radiation hence the reason why we needed to rewrite our theory.

But all this doesn't really matter as i confused dark matter with dark energy.

* - EDIT

Edited by BFB, 23 April 2012 - 10:10 PM.

"Its not true, before my brain says so" - BFB

#12    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 23 April 2012 - 10:07 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 23 April 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

Sorry, but where are you getting this?

Dark matter or not, space is cold (around 3 Kelvin), this has been verified. Still not seeing the connection between dark matter and heat loss.

See my post above was confusing dark matter and dark energy.

"Its not true, before my brain says so" - BFB

#13    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,758 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 23 April 2012 - 10:44 PM

I understand that you mistook dark matter for dark energy. That is an easy mistake to make.

However there are several mistakes in your post:

View PostBFB, on 23 April 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

First incorrect. Any moving* particle creates the energy form called heat.
Not really. ``Heat'' is random kinetic motion in a statistically significant ensemble of particles.

Individual particles have no heat.

I believe space is a sufficient vacuum, even in gas nebulae, to seriously stretch the thermodynamic definition of heat.

View PostBFB, on 23 April 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

No particles, no temperature. So to keep space "cold" we need some slow moving particles
Not really. At least, not if by ``particles'' you are referring only to fermions.

An electromagnetic spectrum can have disorder that is equivalent to heat. Such a spectrum exists in space.
The ``temperature'' of space is primarily the average energy of photons in space; namely the cosmic microwave background which, as Rlyeh pointed out, has an energy that is equivalent to a temperature of 3 K.

This has more to do with statistical mechanics than pure thermodynamics, and it does not mean that the temperature of a radiation bath is in all cases equivalent to the thermodynamic temperature of a physical object.

But they are in some sense equivalent.

View PostBFB, on 23 April 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

I said if space didn't have a temperature, there would be nothing called blackbody radiation hence the reason why we needed to rewrite our theory.
Blackbody radiation is a consequence of ``black bodies''. I don't see what this has to do with space. Space is not a physical object.

I guess I was sloppy by suggesting that ``space has a temperature'', I suppose a more correct statement would be that ``the electromagnetic radiation in space is sufficiently disordered to possess a temperature''

------

But I still don't see what AGW has to do with dark energy.


#14    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:19 AM

You got my attention sepulchrave, i like where this is going.

View Postsepulchrave, on 23 April 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

I understand that you mistook dark matter for dark energy. That is an easy mistake to make.

However there are several mistakes in your post:

Not really. ``Heat'' is random kinetic motion in a statistically significant ensemble of particles.

Individual particles have no heat.

I believe space is a sufficient vacuum, even in gas nebulae, to seriously stretch the thermodynamic definition of heat.


Every particle with a degree of freedom has a temperature. Dark matter needs to at least have one degree of freedom, if not how do you then explain its existence?  

View Postsepulchrave, on 23 April 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

Not really. At least, not if by ``particles'' you are referring only to fermions.

An electromagnetic spectrum can have disorder that is equivalent to heat. Such a spectrum exists in space.
The ``temperature'' of space is primarily the average energy of photons in space; namely the cosmic microwave background which, as Rlyeh pointed out, has an energy that is equivalent to a temperature of 3 K.

This has more to do with statistical mechanics than pure thermodynamics, and it does not mean that the temperature of a radiation bath is in all cases equivalent to the thermodynamic temperature of a physical object.

But they are in some sense equivalent.

I'm a student in the field of atmospheric science. When we covered thermodynamics we were taught that electromagnetic waves are a part of thermodynamics called radiation. Radiation is when heat is transferred through electromagnetic waves.

So are you are saying the background noise isn't electromagnetic waves?

View Postsepulchrave, on 23 April 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

Blackbody radiation is a consequence of ``black bodies''. I don't see what this has to do with space. Space is not a physical object.

I guess I was sloppy by suggesting that ``space has a temperature'', I suppose a more correct statement would be that ``the electromagnetic radiation in space is sufficiently disordered to possess a temperature''

------

But I still don't see what AGW has to do with dark energy.

Sorry sepulchrave, blackbody HAHA.  :rolleyes: This is what happens when you type to fast, i thinking of background radiation and not blackbody radiation.

Okay let me see if you get it now.

If dark matter and dark energy was just an illusion. Photons wouldn't have a good chance of escaping directly back into space since "space" itsself was just an illusion. It was my ignorance in the field of astronomy, which made me capable of making that statement. Sorry for that.

Edited by BFB, 24 April 2012 - 10:20 AM.

"Its not true, before my brain says so" - BFB

#15    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,758 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 April 2012 - 02:51 PM

View PostBFB, on 24 April 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

Every particle with a degree of freedom has a temperature. Dark matter needs to at least have one degree of freedom, if not how do you then explain its existence?  
I disagree with this statement. Abstractly, temperature is a measure of randomness in a degree of freedom - if you have only a single particle in free space there is no inherent randomness (in the particle's time-like evolution - not to be confused with probabilistic wavefunction collapse under measurement).

You need a collection of particles to have a sensible definition of temperature - especially thermodynamic temperature.

I would assume that dark matter would have some inherent randomness, and therefore a temperature, but most theories of dark matter that I am familiar with suggest that it is decoupled from the electromagnetic spectrum - and therefore could not radiate heat in the conventional sense.

View PostBFB, on 24 April 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

I'm a student in the field of atmospheric science. When we covered thermodynamics we were taught that electromagnetic waves are a part of thermodynamics called radiation. Radiation is when heat is transferred through electromagnetic waves.

So are you are saying the background noise isn't electromagnetic waves?
I agree that background noise is electromagnetic waves.

View PostBFB, on 24 April 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

If dark matter and dark energy was just an illusion. Photons wouldn't have a good chance of escaping directly back into space since "space" itsself was just an illusion.
I don't know about that - photons obviously escape from the Sun to reach Earth. I don't think dark matter or dark energy have any direct effect on electromagnetic fields.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users