B Are Dark Matter Concentrations on Earth Seasonal?

Click For Summary
The discussion explores whether dark matter concentrations on Earth vary seasonally, noting that dark matter has never been directly detected and is present in low density within the solar system. It is suggested that dark matter does not accumulate in the Sun, as it passes through without being captured due to its high speeds. The conversation also touches on the nature of dark matter, confirming that it is massive and interacts with gravity, primarily through weak forces. Participants discuss the implications of dark matter's movement relative to the Sun and Earth, suggesting that variations in detection rates could occur based on Earth's orbit. Ultimately, the consensus is that dark matter's properties and behaviors remain largely theoretical and unobserved.
  • #61
ohwilleke said:
A massless particle moves at the speed of light which is inconsistent with dark matter which has sub-relativistic speeds (i.e. it is 'warm" or "cold" dark matter, not "hot" dark matter) if it exists in the form of a particle, although massless particles could, in principle be confined in a massive composite particle (e.g. a "glueball"). For the same reason, ordinary neutrinos cannot be dark matter because they are too "hot" which is to say that their average velocity is too large.

what dark matter candidates are like glueball where the massless dark matter particles could be confined in the massive composite particle as you described?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #62
bluecap said:
Hmm... don't they make weighing scale in the labs that can measure the dark matter flux by coupling using the fifth force with dark matter moving all around.. it should register different readings.. shouldn't it?
I have no idea what you are talking about, but the answer is no. Nothing that would fit to your description is done.
 
  • Like
Likes Stavros Kiri
  • #63
phinds said:
Hard to say since no dark matter has ever been detected directly and the density in our solar system is very low even by the standards of dark matter. As I recall, the general estimate is that in the entire solar system there is enough dark matter to make up the mass equivalent of a modest sized asteroid.

That are the constraints data on the general estimate of dark enough volume in the entire solar system besides that it has mass equivalent of a modest sized asteroid.. like could it have 10 times the volume of a modest size asteroid and still consistent with the data?

What is the maximum volume or threshold (compared to this reference modest size asteroid) when they can already affect the orbits of the planets?
 
  • #64
bluecap said:
That are the constraints data on the general estimate of dark enough volume in the entire solar system besides that it has mass equivalent of a modest sized asteroid
Can you rephrase this question?
bluecap said:
like could it have 10 times the volume of a modest size asteroid and still consistent with the data?
Dark matter doesn't have a volume. If you multiply the volume of the solar system (defined by the outermost planet, the Kuiper belt, the transition to the interstellar medium or whatever you like) and multiply it by the local dark matter density you get this asteroid-scale mass value.

To calculate the influence of dark matter on an orbit, only dark matter closer to the Sun is relevant, so the volume is fixed by the object you consider.
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke
  • #65
mfb said:
Can you rephrase this question?

typo, the "t" should be "w" or "what".

I meant, local dark matter density can vary between between regions in the cosmos, correct? So how many multiples increase in the local dark matter density of our solar system before it can change the gravitational properties of our solar system?

And if dark matter in our solar system is only asteroid-scale mass value.. how come it is said there are more dark matter than matter in the universe.. maybe you mean there are more dark matter in the outer region of galaxies and they are all crowding there?

ohwilleke mentioned about fifth force that predominantly governed DM-ordinary matter interactions (and possibly also DM to DM interactions)? So why is this not accepted as solution?
Dark matter doesn't have a volume. If you multiply the volume of the solar system (defined by the outermost planet, the Kuiper belt, the transition to the interstellar medium or whatever you like) and multiply it by the local dark matter density you get this asteroid-scale mass value.

To calculate the influence of dark matter on an orbit, only dark matter closer to the Sun is relevant, so the volume is fixed by the object you consider.
 
  • #66
bluecap said:
And if dark matter in our solar system is only asteroid-scale mass value.. how come it is said there are more dark matter than matter in the universe
Uh ... because there IS?
maybe you mean there are more dark matter in the outer region of galaxies and they are all crowding there?
Yes, the distribution of dark matter is not based on solar systems, it is spread somewhat evenly throughout the galaxy and the total volume of the galaxy makes the volume of our solar system approximately zero, thus the low absolute amount of DM in our solar system.

What's also true is that apparently the density of DM in our solar system IS anomalously low compared to the galaxy as a whole but I don't recall by what factor.

ohwilleke mentioned about fifth force that predominantly governed DM-ordinary matter interactions (and possibly also DM to DM interactions)? So why is this not accepted as solution?
What "5th force"?
 
  • Like
Likes bluecap
  • #67
phinds said:
Uh ... because there IS? Yes, the distribution of dark matter is not based on solar systems, it is spread somewhat evenly throughout the galaxy and the total volume of the galaxy makes the volume of our solar system approximately zero, thus the low absolute amount of DM in our solar system.

What's also true is that apparently the density of DM in our solar system IS anomalously low compared to the galaxy as a whole but I don't recall by what factor.

How do we know that the density of DM in our solar system is anomalously low? If there is an increased of 100 times or say the dark matter from other part of the galaxy travels to ours because they can become dynamic due to some 5th force complexities or interactions.. can we measure it?

What "5th force"?

you missed ohwilleke post #52 where he shared:

"This leaves you looking for a fifth force that predominantly governs DM-ordinary matter interactions (and possibly also DM to DM interactions), such as the paper described below, in a dark matter particle theory.

Andres Olivares-Del Campo, et al., "Dark matter-neutrino interactions through the lens of their cosmological implications" (November 14 2017)."
 
  • #68
bluecap said:
How do we know that the density of DM in our solar system is anomalously low?
Good question. I don't recall. I just recall reading somewhere here on PF that that is the case.
If there is an increased of 100 times or say the dark matter from other part of the galaxy travels to ours because they can become dynamic due to some 5th force complexities or interactions.. can we measure it?
As far as I am aware that kind of change in the DM density just doesn't happen.

you missed ohwilleke post #52
Oh, yeah. I forgot about that because I considered it speculative (I could be wrong)
 
  • #69
bluecap said:
I meant, local dark matter density can vary between between regions in the cosmos, correct?
It does.
bluecap said:
So how many multiples increase in the local dark matter density of our solar system before it can change the gravitational properties of our solar system?
Many orders of magnitude. Sure, people searched for it, but without expecting and without finding any effect.
bluecap said:
how come it is said there are more dark matter than matter in the universe
Our solar system is not a typical place in our galaxy - it is a lot of mass in a small volume. Take a cubic light year containing our solar system and you get 1/4 Jupiter mass as dark matter. Take 5000 cubic light years and you get the mass of the solar system.
bluecap said:
How do we know that the density of DM in our solar system is anomalously low?
It is not.
bluecap said:
ohwilleke mentioned about fifth force that predominantly governed DM-ordinary matter interactions (and possibly also DM to DM interactions)? So why is this not accepted as solution?
There is absolutely no indication of any fifth interaction, why do you keep bringing this up?
 
  • #70
mfb said:
It is not.
Hm ... I was SURE that I had read here on PF that it is, and that that was backed up by published information (although I have no recollection of the provenance of same). I'll poke around and see if I can find something. Perhaps I misunderstood.

EDIT: well, I'm coming up w/ nothing. Senior moment maybe.

2nd EDIT: I did find a pop-sci article that does at least support my recollection of having read about lower than expected DM in the solar system:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkn...detect-dark-matter-near-the-sun/#1920ca287e0e

a quote from it:

Because of the high confidence level of these findings, this should clear up a recent controversy over the amount of dark matter in the solar system after a paper last year seemed to indicate that there was far less dark matter in the solar system than expected.
 
Last edited:
  • #71
bluecap said:
So how many multiples increase in the local dark matter density of our solar system before it can change the gravitational properties of our solar system?
I do not consider this source to be authoritative, however you might be interested in the article:
https://darkmatterdarkenergy.com/2013/08/30/dark-matter-in-the-solar-system-does-it-matter/

A quote from it:
Thus one can conclude that even if the dark matter density in the Solar neighborhood were 10 or even 100 times larger than expected from stellar dynamics observations, that its gravitational effects on the precisely measured orbits of the major planets and major moons in the Solar system would be of no consequence.
 
  • #72
bluecap said:
How do we know that the density of DM in our solar system is anomalously low?

The density of DM in the solar system hasn't been measured directly and is not assumed to be anomalously low. The density of DM in the galaxy is low everywhere. But, most of the galaxy is empty space. The lion's share of the volume of the galaxy isn't in any star system and the inferred dimensions of the DM halo extend far above and far below the galactic plane where there is also almost nothing. But, because gravity is cumulative, all of the very thin DM density in places where there aren't star systems adds up to a lot of gravitational effect.

And, even if DM were far more than the inferred amount of DM in the solar system based upon the solar system density (which is about the mass of an asteroid all together), for example, even if the actual amount DM in the solar system had the mass of the planet Neptune in the aggregate, we probably still couldn't detect it, because DM, by definition, is distributed more or less uniformly and doesn't clump. So, a 0.1% increase or so in the total mass of the solar system evenly spread throughout the solar system would be very hard to distinguish from a no DM scenario based upon dynamics.
 
  • #73
mfb said:
There is absolutely no indication of any fifth interaction, why do you keep bringing this up?

Not true. The evidence is that completely collisionless DM is inconsistent with the observed distribution of DM. Therefore, there has to be either self-interaction in DM or a baryonic-DM interaction or modified gravity. See, e.g.:

* Paolo Salucci and Nicola Turini, "Evidences for Collisional Dark Matter In Galaxies?" (July 4, 2017). Abstract:
The more we go deep into the knowledge of the dark component which embeds the stellar component of galaxies, the more we realize the profound interconnection between them. We show that the scaling laws among the structural properties of the dark and luminous matter in galaxies are too complex to derive from two inert components that just share the same gravitational field. In this paper we review the 30 years old paradigm of collisionless dark matter in galaxies. We found that their dynamical properties show strong indications that the dark and luminous components have interacted in a more direct way over a Hubble Time. The proofs for this are the presence of central cored regions with constant DM density in which their size is related with the disk length scales. Moreover we find that the quantity ρDM(r,L,RD)ρ⋆(r,L,RD) shows, in all objects, peculiarities very hardly explained in a collisionless DM scenario.

* Dark matter distributions have to closely track baryon distributions, even though there is no viable mechanism to do so: Edo van Uitert, et al., "Halo ellipticity of GAMA galaxy groups from KiDS weak lensing" (October 13, 2016).
 
  • #74
ohwilleke said:
The density of DM in the solar system hasn't been measured directly and is not assumed to be anomalously low. The density of DM in the galaxy is low everywhere. But, most of the galaxy is empty space. The lion's share of the volume of the galaxy isn't in any star system and the inferred dimensions of the DM halo extend far above and far below the galactic plane where there is also almost nothing. But, because gravity is cumulative, all of the very thin DM density in places where there aren't star systems adds up to a lot of gravitational effect.

And, even if DM were far more than the inferred amount of DM in the solar system based upon the solar system density (which is about the mass of an asteroid all together), for example, even if the actual amount DM in the solar system had the mass of the planet Neptune in the aggregate, we probably still couldn't detect it, because DM, by definition, is distributed more or less uniformly and doesn't clump. So, a 0.1% increase or so in the total mass of the solar system evenly spread throughout the solar system would be very hard to distinguish from a no DM scenario based upon dynamics.

Is it possible the dark matter are neither WIMPS, Axions, heavy sterile neutrinos, low-mass black holes nor particles that interact via new fundamental forces and dark matter “atoms” that include dark correlates of protons, neutrons and electrons but is composed of altogether new field or dark matter field consisting of information field that guides, maintain, supervises, etc. the visible baryonic matter and evolution of the cosmos? This makes a lot of sense than the former group of candidates. Would you happen to have papers that explored what I just described?
 
  • #75
bluecap said:
Is it possible the dark matter are neither WIMPS, Axions, heavy sterile neutrinos, low-mass black holes nor particles that interact via new fundamental forces and dark matter “atoms” that include dark correlates of protons, neutrons and electrons

So far so good..

bluecap said:
but is composed of altogether new field or dark matter field

So far so good...

bluecap said:
consisting of information field that guides, maintain, supervises, etc. the visible baryonic matter and evolution of the cosmos?

No. This is just woo.
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke and jim mcnamara
  • #76
ohwilleke said:
Not true. The evidence is that completely collisionless DM is inconsistent with the observed distribution of DM. Therefore, there has to be either self-interaction in DM or a baryonic-DM interaction or modified gravity. See, e.g.:

* Paolo Salucci and Nicola Turini, "Evidences for Collisional Dark Matter In Galaxies?" (July 4, 2017). Abstract:* Dark matter distributions have to closely track baryon distributions, even though there is no viable mechanism to do so: Edo van Uitert, et al., "Halo ellipticity of GAMA galaxy groups from KiDS weak lensing" (October 13, 2016).

Are all models of self-interacting dark matter proposed just to solve this problem of dark matter-baryon distribution you mentioned above? If it's not only that.. then what other observed distributions needs the self-interacting dark matter model.. And why is there a second baryonic-DM interaction model. Can't we decide based on the observations whether it is best modeled using purely self-interacting DM or baryonic-DM interaction?

Absolute no paper that explores the fifth force whether it is based on gauge field, abelian/non-abelian and viable/plausible symmetry breaking mechanism and whether it is connected at all to the electroweak mechanism?
 
  • #77
bluecap said:
Are all models of self-interacting dark matter proposed just to solve this problem of dark matter-baryon distribution you mentioned above? If it's not only that.. then what other observed distributions needs the self-interacting dark matter model.. And why is there a second baryonic-DM interaction model. Can't we decide based on the observations whether it is best modeled using purely self-interacting DM or baryonic-DM interaction?

Lots of effort is going into improving simulations and into data gathering, but the simulations still have to have a pretty gross resolution to be computationally feasible and involve lots and lots of somewhat ad hoc assumptions. The paper cited makes an analytical argument rather than a simulation.

Absolute no paper that explores the fifth force whether it is based on gauge field, abelian/non-abelian and viable/plausible symmetry breaking mechanism and whether it is connected at all to the electroweak mechanism?

Many papers take one to five models of the same or similar type and examine them individually, to see what they imply and consider isolated bit of evidence ruling them out or allowing them in some parameter space. Few compare models of different types. And, usually they are explicitly studying "toy models" that are a general as possible.
 
  • #78
bluecap said:
Absolute no paper that explores the fifth force whether it is based on gauge field, abelian/non-abelian and viable/plausible symmetry breaking mechanism and whether it is connected at all to the electroweak mechanism?

Sure, there are papers exploring the idea of self-interacting dark matter. Here's one from 1999: https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9909386
 
  • #79
ohwilleke said:
Lots of effort is going into improving simulations and into data gathering, but the simulations still have to have a pretty gross resolution to be computationally feasible and involve lots and lots of somewhat ad hoc assumptions. The paper cited makes an analytical argument rather than a simulation.
Many papers take one to five models of the same or similar type and examine them individually, to see what they imply and consider isolated bit of evidence ruling them out or allowing them in some parameter space. Few compare models of different types. And, usually they are explicitly studying "toy models" that are a general as possible.

Thanks for the thoughts... I have 3 important questions:

1. Do you agree with Neil deGrasse that it should be called dark gravity instead of dark matter.. in the video..



I put his words into text in the following where Neil said "It's a not a matter whether dark matter exist or not... its a measurement, period. Now.. dark matter is not even what should we be calling it.. because it implies that it is matter. It implies we know something about it which we actually does.. a more precise labelling for it.. would be dark gravity... now if we call it dark gravity, you are going to say does dark gravity truly exist.. i'd say yeah.. if 85% of the gravity has no known origin.. there it is. Let's figure out what's causing it, the fact that the matter got into that word is. #^%^@#$.. not matter.. it could be something else... we are overreacting to a label that overstates our actual insight or knowledge of what it is we are describing.. then i just joke we could just call it fred or wilma.. something where there is no reference to what we think it is.. because in fact we have no idea what it is"

what is the #^%^@#$? I can't understand his English.

my question is.. if it's not matter... do you know of any exotic field that CAN'T be quantized into particle? meaning not matter but pure energy? Or could it be some form of spacetime manifold that produce energy and not matter at all (how?)

2. If let's say 0.5% of dark matter has self-interaction with our baryonic matter yet they are not enough to produce any gravitational changes.. should it still be be called dark matter? or more like part of baryonic matter only invisible?

3. Are all star system or galaxies or any object in the sky connected by cosmic filaments of big and small sizes or ambient dark matter in deep space... I mean.. in the midst of deep space.. are there ambient dark matter even if there is no matter? Are say the constellations of Sagittarius or Pieces or Gemini connected to our system by some kind of small sized cosmic filaments or ambient dark matter?

Thank you!
 
  • #80
bluecap said:
what is the #^%^@#$? I can't understand his English.
Instead of using those symbols, I'd type <unintelligible> or something similar. Usually when people put symbols like this into a sentence it means that the words are curse words. To answer your question, he started to say something and then switched. I believe it was, "the fact that the matter got into that word is forcing people to-well I have another idea, I bet it's not matter it's something else."

bluecap said:
2. If let's say 0.5% of dark matter has self-interaction with our baryonic matter yet they are not enough to produce any gravitational changes.. should it still be be called dark matter? or more like part of baryonic matter only invisible?

Self-interaction means that dark matter is interacting with itself. That's why the "self" is placed before "interaction". An interaction between dark matter and baryonic matter is just called an interaction. Also, trying to quantify this as "0.5% of dark matter interacts with baryonic matter" is meaningless without further context. Is 0.5% of dark matter composed of particles that interact with bayonic matter, while the other 99.5% don't? Is this 0.5% talking about the strength of the interaction? is it some sort of cross section? I realize you probably don't have an answer for this and are just trying to ask a question, but my point is that it would greatly benefit you to try to think of these things before asking. Otherwise you'll just get frustrated when people consistently can't answer your question or keep correcting you.

bluecap said:
3. Are all star system or galaxies or any object in the sky connected by cosmic filaments of big and small sizes or ambient dark matter in deep space... I mean.. in the midst of deep space.. are there ambient dark matter even if there is no matter? Are say the constellations of Sagittarius or Pieces or Gemini connected to our system by some kind of small sized cosmic filaments or ambient dark matter?

Galaxies and galaxy clusters are distributed in such a way as to roughly mirror the distribution of dark matter, so you'll often see long filaments of dark matter "connecting" galaxies together over cosmological distances. However, nothing is connecting individual star systems to others.
 
  • #81
Drakkith said:
Instead of using those symbols, I'd type <unintelligible> or something similar. Usually when people put symbols like this into a sentence it means that the words are curse words. To answer your question, he started to say something and then switched. I believe it was, "the fact that the matter got into that word is forcing people to-well I have another idea, I bet it's not matter it's something else."
Self-interaction means that dark matter is interacting with itself. That's why the "self" is placed before "interaction". An interaction between dark matter and baryonic matter is just called an interaction. Also, trying to quantify this as "0.5% of dark matter interacts with baryonic matter" is meaningless without further context. Is 0.5% of dark matter composed of particles that interact with bayonic matter, while the other 99.5% don't? Is this 0.5% talking about the strength of the interaction? is it some sort of cross section? I realize you probably don't have an answer for this and are just trying to ask a question, but my point is that it would greatly benefit you to try to think of these things before asking. Otherwise you'll just get frustrated when people consistently can't answer your question or keep correcting you.

I mean "interaction".. I didn't read it again or i'll catch it. I'm familiar with the distinctions. Yesterday I was watching about dark matter at youtube. And I came across this 1 hour Lisa Randall video:



When I saw her book "Dark matter and the Dinosaurs" before.. I thought she was just talking about them as part of universe and didn't know she was describing a mechanism whereby they could be connected (i'll read her book sometime next week)... this is the best illustration I found on the net:
iTj0dJ.jpg
The gist of the idea is simply there is a thin dark matter disk at plane of galaxy that can disrupt comets, etc. or as Lisa put it in https://www.scientificamerican.com/...the-dinosaurs-a-q-a-with-author-lisa-randall/

"People have debated whether dark matter has any nongravitational interactions at all. But [my colleagues and I] thought, maybe just a fraction of dark matter does. Just the way ordinary matter is only 15 percent of all the matter in the universe, maybe there’s a fraction of dark matter—even 5 percent of the matter in the universe—that has its own interactions. It’s not the usual dark matter that forms this spherical halo [around the galaxy], it’s a new type of dark matter. So you still have the ordinary halo but in addition you have this dark matter disk."

or more details at http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2016/05/-the-milky-ways-dark-disk-did-it-seed-the-existence-of-the-central-supermassive-black-hole-weekend-m.html

"The extinction of the dinosaurs, however, is just one theory that will have to be re-examined if Randall and Reece’s theory proves true.”

Our Sun orbits around the Galactic center, taking approximately 250 million years to make a complete revolution. However, this trajectory is not a perfect circle. The Solar System weaves up and down, crossing the plane of the Milky Way approximately every 32 million years, which coincides with the presumed periodicity of the impact variations. This bobbing motion, which extends about 250 light years above and below the plane, is determined by the concentration of gas and stars in the disk of our Galaxy.

This ordinary “baryonic” matter is concentrated within about 1000 light years of the plane. Because the density drops off in the vertical direction, there is a gravitational gradient, or tide, that may perturb the orbits of comets in the Oort cloud, causing some comets to fly into the inner Solar System and periodically raise the chances of collision with Earth. However, the problem with this idea is that the estimated galactic tide is too weak to cause many waves in the Oort cloud.

In their study, Randall and Reece focus on this second hypothesis and suggest that the galactic tide could be made stronger with a thin disk of dark matter. Dark disks are a possible outcome of dark matter physics, as the authors and their colleagues recently showed. Here, the researchers consider a specific model, in which our Galaxy hosts a dark disk with a thickness of 30 light years and a surface density of around 1 solar mass per square light year (the surface density of ordinary baryonic matter is roughly 5 times that, but it’s less concentrated near the plane).

Although one has to stretch the observational constraints to make room, their thin disk of dark matter is consistent with astronomical data on our Galaxy. Focusing their analysis on large (>20km) craters created in the last 250 million years, Randall and Reece argue that their dark disk scenario can produce the observed pattern in crater frequency with a fair amount of statistical uncertainty."

For those already familiar with Lisa proposal. It's nothing new.. but I just learned about this last night... now to get in the mood. Lisa commented in the same url "“If you were to look at our world and assume there was only one type of particle, you’d be pretty wrong,” said Randall. “I think it’s definitely a worthwhile theory to explore, because even if this is only a small fraction of dark matter, there is six times more dark matter in the universe than ordinary matter. We care a lot about ordinary matter, and that’s precisely because it has interactions. So if there is a small portion of dark matter that has those interactions, that may be what we should pay attention to, perhaps even more so than other dark matter.”

Now my question.

What if 0.5% of dark matter has interactions with matter yet doesn't affect the cosmos gravitationally. For example.. supposed, just for sake of discussion (note this is just for sake of discussion, ok?)... life has evolved in the dark matter sector and these produced the jinns of myth and legends (said to be made of "smokeless fire" and different from matter)...

YSei57.jpg


And let's say these jinns don't affect the gravitational behavior of the galaxy or solar system or even planets.. can these beings still be referred as dark matter? If not.. then these can be referred to as normal baryonic matter but only invisible? Supposed one needs to address this to the world physicists as intel briefing.. must dark matter be used or invisible normal baryonic matter to describe them? Again this is just an example because I can't think of one right now although i'll watch more dark matter videos in the youtube to give more accurate descriptions or examples.

Galaxies and galaxy clusters are distributed in such a way as to roughly mirror the distribution of dark matter, so you'll often see long filaments of dark matter "connecting" galaxies together over cosmological distances. However, nothing is connecting individual star systems to others.
 

Attachments

  • iTj0dJ.jpg
    iTj0dJ.jpg
    6.5 KB · Views: 556
  • YSei57.jpg
    YSei57.jpg
    7.3 KB · Views: 552
  • #82
bluecap said:
I mean "interaction".. I didn't read it again or i'll catch it. I'm familiar with the distinctions.

My apologies then. I thought there might have been a translation issue, hence my explanation.

bluecap said:
The gist of the idea is simply there is a thin dark matter disk at plane of galaxy that can disrupt comets, etc. or as Lisa put it in https://www.scientificamerican.com/...the-dinosaurs-a-q-a-with-author-lisa-randall/

"People have debated whether dark matter has any nongravitational interactions at all. But [my colleagues and I] thought, maybe just a fraction of dark matter does. Just the way ordinary matter is only 15 percent of all the matter in the universe, maybe there’s a fraction of dark matter—even 5 percent of the matter in the universe—that has its own interactions. It’s not the usual dark matter that forms this spherical halo [around the galaxy], it’s a new type of dark matter. So you still have the ordinary halo but in addition you have this dark matter disk."

Okay, so your question involves 0.5% of dark matter being composed of particles which do interact with regular matter. Got it.

bluecap said:
Now my question.

What if 0.5% of dark matter has interactions with matter yet doesn't affect the cosmos gravitationally.

That would be something unseen before, unless you mean that it still interacts through gravity, it just doesn't create enough of a disturbance to be readily observable.

bluecap said:
. For example.. supposed, just for sake of discussion (note this is just for sake of discussion, ok?)... life has evolved in the dark matter sector and these produced the jinns of myth and legends (said to be made of "smokeless fire" and different from matter)...

And let's say these jinns don't affect the gravitational behavior of the galaxy or solar system or even planets.. can these beings still be referred as dark matter? If not.. then these can be referred to as normal baryonic matter but only invisible? Supposed one needs to address this to the world physicists as intel briefing.. must dark matter be used or invisible normal baryonic matter to describe them? Again this is just an example because I can't think of one right now although i'll watch more dark matter videos in the youtube to give more accurate descriptions or examples.

What's the importance behind the name? Whether we call it "dark matter" or "nearly dark matter" doesn't change anything. It's just a way to classify it for our own convenience. Non-baryonic matter is another perfectly good name you could give it. Scientists working in the relevant field are (usually) not confused by a name.
 
  • #83
Drakkith said:
My apologies then. I thought there might have been a translation issue, hence my explanation.
Okay, so your question involves 0.5% of dark matter being composed of particles which do interact with regular matter. Got it.
That would be something unseen before, unless you mean that it still interacts through gravity, it just doesn't create enough of a disturbance to be readily observable.
What's the importance behind the name? Whether we call it "dark matter" or "nearly dark matter" doesn't change anything. It's just a way to classify it for our own convenience. Non-baryonic matter is another perfectly good name you could give it. Scientists working in the relevant field are (usually) not confused by a name.

I know all that has mass or energy interacts gravitationally.. some may just not be enough to affect on cosmos scale gravitational dynamics. This was what i meant. .

Now I want to focus on dark matter that can interact with matter. Are there models where dark matter is part of normal matter. I'll explain. Let's say we define baryonic matter as those that has interaction with the higgs field.. then let's say we hadn't discovered relativity yet where the self energy of the strong force could give rise to mass.. then we could refer to the strong force and gluons as dark matter.. . could there be a similar scenario happening? that dark matter is part of normal matter whose extra dynamics is not yet discovered.. this is the thing I want to explore now.. any papers about this.. ping ohwilleke for his tons of more known papers & references which I may not be aware even after arxiv search. Thanks.
 
  • #84
What is your thought about mirror matter or shadow matter or alice matter.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_matter

"If mirror matter is present in the universe with sufficient abundance then its gravitational effects can be detected. Because mirror matter is analogous to ordinary matter, it is then to be expected that a fraction of the mirror matter exists in the form of mirror galaxies, mirror stars, mirror planets etc. These objects can be detected using gravitational microlensing.[31] One would also expect that some fraction of stars have mirror objects as their companion. In such cases one should be able to detect periodic Doppler shifts in the spectrum of the star.[14][dead link] There are some hints that such effects may already have been observed.[32][33]"

This paper was written in 1991 when superstring was still a craze.

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES

Not much come out in arxiv search for entry "mirror matter" maybe they use other words now...

Questions.

1. Is mirror matter a concept that only comes about in superstring theory? Without superstring theory.. would there still be a concept of mirror matter?

2. What are the experimental constrains for the detection of these? Note these are even more radical than simple dark matter because they propose ordinary objects have mirror matter.. but this seems simple to refute owing to if supposed Earth had mirror Earth (or all stars have mirror stars).. we could easily refute it by gravitational null effect.. so why the heck so they still propose mirror matter.. Perhaps they are saying mirror matter is only presence in some matter and not all matter?

3. If there is a 10 mile wide mirror matter satellite orbiting the earth.. can they detect this?

4. To make this not off topic.. how come no one mentioned DAMA or the detection of dark matter variations on earth.. there is not yet a full null results.. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/418687/first-evidence-that-mirror-matter-may-fill-the-universe/
 
  • #85
bluecap said:
Not much come out in arxiv search for entry "mirror matter" maybe they use other words now...

Here's a thesis on mirror matter and how it relates to cosmology: https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312607

bluecap said:
2. What are the experimental constrains for the detection of these? Note these are even more radical than simple dark matter because they propose ordinary objects have mirror matter.. but this seems simple to refute owing to if supposed Earth had mirror Earth (or all stars have mirror stars).. we could easily refute it by gravitational null effect.. so why the heck so they still propose mirror matter.. Perhaps they are saying mirror matter is only presence in some matter and not all matter?

It doesn't mean that there would be a mirror copy of every single particle in existence, it means that every type of particle has a corresponding mirror type that all interact via right-handed interactions. These mirror particles would be free to interact with themselves and form structures just like normal matter does.

bluecap said:
4. To make this not off topic.. how come no one mentioned DAMA or the detection of dark matter variations on earth.. there is not yet a full null results.. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/418687/first-evidence-that-mirror-matter-may-fill-the-universe/
I didn't because I didn't know about it.
 
  • #86
Drakkith said:
Here's a thesis on mirror matter and how it relates to cosmology: https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312607
It doesn't mean that there would be a mirror copy of every single particle in existence, it means that every type of particle has a corresponding mirror type that all interact via right-handed interactions. These mirror particles would be free to interact with themselves and form structures just like normal matter does.

I didn't because I didn't know about it.

I'm reading it and these passages catch me (in page 103):

"Finally, in the interesting case where mirror baryons constitute all the dark matter, they drive the evolution of perturbations. In fact, in figure 5.21b we clearly see that the density fluctuations start growing in the mirror matter and the visible baryons are involved later, after being recombined, when they rewrite the spectrum of already developed mirror structures. This is another effect of a mirror decoupling occurring earlier than the ordinary one: the mirror matter can drive the growth of perturbations in ordinary matter and provide the rapid growth soon after recombination necessary to take into account of the evolved structures that we see today."

The paper was written in 2004.
6jsd4k.jpg


What year was the above image taken showing the dark matter separating from the gases... and shouldn't the dark matter be not self interacting with itself to form this pattern? Or can self-interacting dark matter (with itself) still produce the diffuse mass at either sides?

Or let's use definitions and note the difference between mirror baryonic matter.. and non-baryonic cold dark matter... how can mirror baryonic matter imitate non-baryonic dark matter? Let's say it's the reverse situation where the mirror baryonic world would see their galaxies with more mass as the arms.. what kind of normal baryonic matter can produce the mass in the arms? what particles.. maybe hydrogen that doesn't interact?

Also what must be the nature of normal and mirror matter so there is possibility to initiate handedness transformation so we can shift from this world to the mirror matter universe.. I mean.. if normal and mirror matter were emergence and not fundamental, could some symmetry mechanism initiate this handedness reversal? This is what would make it interesting.. plain mirror dark only accessible by gravity would make a very boring universe.
 

Attachments

  • 6jsd4k.jpg
    6jsd4k.jpg
    17.5 KB · Views: 450
  • #87
bluecap said:
What year was the above image taken showing the dark matter separating from the gases...
No idea, sorry.
bluecap said:
and shouldn't the dark matter be not self interacting with itself to form this pattern?
I believe so, yes. Or at least self-interacting in only a weak manner.
bluecap said:
Or let's use definitions and note the difference between mirror baryonic matter.. and non-baryonic cold dark matter... how can mirror baryonic matter imitate non-baryonic dark matter?
I don't know. I only just heard about mirror matter from you, so I haven't read much about it.
bluecap said:
Also what must be the nature of normal and mirror matter so there is possibility to initiate handedness transformation so we can shift from this world to the mirror matter universe..
Let's leave sci-fi out of this please. :wink:
 
  • #88
Gordon Kane said axions could be emitted from the sun.. how would the pattern look like? He mentioned in "String Theory and the Real World":

"Their properties lead to fascinating ways to detect them. The theory says the axions have an interaction that allows them to decay to two photons, a -> y y, denoting photons with y. Axions will be emitted by the sun, for example, since it has lots of particles moving around energetically. Set up a large magnet, which has a large region with a magnetic field, carried by photons. Also put up a wall that would stop any photons from the Sun or other sources. Then axions from the Sun can encounter photons of the magnetic field and generate the other photon of the ayy vertex, so suddenly photons appear on the far side of the wall where there should not be any. Innovative new axion detectors are being proposed as well, so axion detection is becoming increasingly likely".

Say, could axions from the sun also be self-interacting on way to Earth (if they exist)?
 
  • #89
bluecap said:
Say, could axions from the sun also be self-interacting on way to Earth (if they exist)?
I'm not aware of any model that predicts any relevant self-interaction for a source like the Sun where everything just streams outward at nearly the speed of light.

What you cited before is studied by helioscopes like CAST.
 
  • #90

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
8K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K