First steps after the Higgs Boson

Buckeye

Well then, perhaps you can help all of us understand the differences between "substance", "matter" and "mass".

The phrase "observed mass" seems a stretch, but I'll let it pass for now. My question is: Does the mass of Hydrogen gas, claimed by many to account for 90+% of the universe, dominate our universe as suggested by 90+% or has dark matter take over as the dominant "substance"?

Buckeye

Yes, you can momentarily edit a wike article to change what it shows, but their are Wiki-Hawks who monitor various high profile pages and "fundamental" info pages that are very soon reverted to Status Quo beliefs and concepts.

1mmorta1

Substance: A word I use loosely because Dark Matter is a loose concept, not a specific thing. It is used to describe a discepancy in the observable universe.

Matter: Everything in this universe that is not energy, space, or time.

Mass: A property of matter theorized to be carried by the Higgs Boson, much like the relationship between electrons and the electromagnetic force.

What does this have to do with whether or not the Higgs Boson could be dark matter? Yes, the Higgs has mass. If you are curious about the prevalence of Hydrogen gas in the universe, that is something that can be researched(google?) and which I don't know off the top of my head.

Buckeye

OK. I understand the question. Bear with me.
Let me divert to the use of the word "observable".
What scientific instruments are used to "observe" matter, mass or substance?
What physical properties are being detected by those scientific instruments?
If dark matter has mass, and mass is detectable by our current day scientific instruments, then why can't we "detect" or "observe" dark matter?

1mmorta1

Unfortunately, we don't have a "mass detector." We can use radio telescopes, thermal imaging, and spectral analysis to find objects and determine their distance, size, and makeup. We can deduce mass by understanding the gravitational effects of what we see and knowing the intrinsic properties of what we observe.

Dark matter is a thought.

Put simply, when we look out into the universe, we see more "gravity" than there should be. What I mean by this is that the observed matter in the universe does not account for the activity we see: We assume that this means there is something out there that we are not detecting. We call this "Dark Matter," and some calculations reveal that up to 90% of the universes total mass could be "dark matter."

ZapperZ

The electric field and a charge are "related". But does that mean that electric field IS charge? Think!

Zz.

ZapperZ

But your standard, we don't have a charge detector, a particle detector, a wave detector, a immorta1 detector, etc.. etc. Show me where you think you have a "detector" of anything, and I'll show you a "thought".

Zz.

Buckeye

Your description is limited to measuring various wavelengths of light (dipole oscillations) at a distance. So what causes dipole oscillations? The answer to that is the explanation for how we observe (detect) objects and matter at a distance.

Nearly all astronomical physics is based on measuring light, but matter, in close proximity, can be measured by magnetic field strengths, and electric field strengths. Is it fair to say, that we have no clue as to whether or not dark matter or dark energy does or does not have either electrical or magnetic properties?

If you read my earlier posts, you should find that astrophysicists have claimed for many years that hydrogen accounts for more than 90% of the total universe mass. Isn't it strange how a new concept with no proof of existence can so quickly displace an older "fact".

I still take issue with the use of the word "mass".

Buckeye

Hi Z,
Please give me the name of the scientific instruments (detectors) that detect a particle or a wave.
Thanks.

ZapperZ

Who said there is?

And how did you see this? Did you "detect" my words?

Secondly, did you post a rebuttal to all those papers (such as the bullet galaxy collision) that show evidence consistent to the presence of dark matter, before you claim that they lack evidence?

Zz.

Buckeye

Hi Z,
Would electric field and charge be related to the existence of an electron that by definition for the past 80 years has been that of a point-particle whenever math and theory are applied?

ZapperZ

But you didn't answer my question. Are they the SAME thing?

Zz,.

1mmorta1

What are your intentions, ZapperZ? How does this serve to further Buckeye's understanding of what Dark Matter is?

If you feel you can more properly explain things, please do. On the other hand, I don't see any reason to discuss topics unrelated to the OP or questions following thereafter.

Buckeye

Your writing above can be read such that you believe or claim instruments can detect waves and particles. Did I read wrong?

Why do I need to or should I attempt to refute (rebut) such papers in this discussion? That would truly be taking us far from the topic at hand, yes?

The absence of something (no matter in space), a negative condition, usually does not support the presence of something else - correct?

Dark Matter is still an idea. There are no compelling facts - especially not the collision of 2 galaxies.

Until only very recently astrophysicists did not claim that the outer universe is expanding faster, and did not claim that the edges of galaxies rotate faster than their centers. The evidence is all based on long range RF, IR and visible detections - Yes. A bit skimpy for me.

ZapperZ

1. the issue of dark matter was brought up in this thread.

2. there is an attempt to undermine the credibility of the evidence on the existence of dark matter based on pure ignorance.

3. you made the claim that it is merely a "thought", and thus, I question you on what really isn't a thought as far as making a detection goes.

I can also seriously question your intentions on here. It appears that there is an underlying agenda to skirt around our rules on speculative posts.

There is a difference between : (i) Hi, what is dark matter and how do we know there are evidence for it? versus (ii) Hi, dark matter is a myth. It is only a thought. It doesn't exist.

(i) is a valid discussion point.

(ii) isn't, and it isn't trying to learn.

Zz.

Buckeye

Hi Z,
What is the purpose of that question?

ZapperZ

Yes, and now, they change their minds? Why is that? Because it came to them in a dream?! Or did they discover some evidence that is compelling enough to change their minds? Do you think physicists and cosmologists are flakey enough to change their minds this easily?

Zz.