Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Cold dark matter

  1. Mar 18, 2010 #1
    Dark matter: The invisible force
    The temperature of space may hold the key to solve problem of missing matter
    Dark matter, the "invisible" mass that scientists believe makes up a large part of the universe, can be explained as being mass that is at one end of a cooling process that all matter goes through.
    Before getting into this theory, it must be noted that due to the undetectable nature of dark matter, applied science is not an option in reaching an explanation. That leaves logical reasoning, using well known facts, as a best bet in pursuing a conclusion.
    That being said, take the following three statements as givens:
    1. Dark matter exists, but we do not know what it is.
    2. Subatomic particles of an atom -- the protons, neutrons and electrons -- all have mass and energy.
    3. All matter in motion uses energy and follows the laws of thermodynamics.

    On to the theory. It is a cooling theory, based on the idea that mass is a permanent entity, and the energy associated with mass is necessary only for matter that can be detected. Mass without such energy is the invisible dark matter.
    The mass is all there -- but what kind of matter it becomes depends on temperature. Once matter reaches zero degrees Kelvin, it ceases to be detectable – and becomes part of the missing mass that scientists cannot account for.
    Imagine that the universe is composed of matter that is always in the process of moving from an invisible, dark-matter state into an energized – and detectable -- state and then back again.
    Through the natural process of cooling, the process where active matter radiates thermal energy till all energy charge is spent. The subatomic particles of an atom – the protons, neutrons and electrons -- will use up the available energy and eventually reach 0K. When the matter reaches 0K, the mass of subatomic particles enter a neutral, undetectable state, having no particles in motion and therefore no thermal radiation.
    In that environment, the mass of an atom remains. And while it would lack any thermal energy, it would maintain a gravitational force, and thus a potential source of Kinetic energy.
    Instead of the term "dark matter," consider this to be a "neutral mass." It is mass in a stable state, that requires an occurrence involving extremely high energy acting upon the mass to set the subatomic particles in motion and recreate the atomic structure.
    The neutral mass has a gravitational force and ability to attract other masses, producing kinetic energy with a cumulative effect that could be quite substantial.
    A large concentration of this neutral mass would manifest as a black hole. Two black holes colliding -- bodies of dense, compacted neutral mass, each with enormous gravitational force and kinetic energy -- could yield an explosive action that would re-energize the atomic structure. That could take the form of new galaxies, which in turn are
    the elementary building blocks of the universe.
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 18, 2010 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    There is strong evidence that dark matter is not made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. It it were, the total density of the universe would have been high enough that the big bang would have created much more of the elements heavier than hydrogen than is actually observed (ref. BBN - Big Bang Nucleosynthesis). Thus, it appears that dark matter is made of "something else", hence the search for an undiscovered, weakly interacting particle (ref - WIMP's).
  4. Mar 18, 2010 #3
    In this cooling theory, eventually the particle energy is used up and protons, neutrons and electrons penetrate into zero Kelvin environment. Existing as mass only, as a result protons, neutrons and electrons no longer exist.
  5. Apr 11, 2010 #4
    I'm still hoping to hear some opinions on my idea regarding the existence of dark matter, and why it can't be detected. I've noticed that a lot of people have read it, but I have not received much feedback at all. Does it sound plausible? Or is there a flaw in this theory that I'm overlooking?
    Please take a look at it and let me know what you think. Any questions or comments are welcome.
  6. Apr 13, 2010 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I'll take a crack at this.

    This is not acceptable. Why do you say that dark matter is undetectable? True, no convincing direct detections of dark matter have yet occurred, but there is no reason to suspect that dark matter cannot in principle be detected. The presence and properties of dark matter, however, can be inferred from cosmological phenomena: dark matter influences the cosmos gravitationally, and this interaction and can be modeled and measured.

    It seems you are advocating a non-standard view of the matter-energy relationship here. Just to be clear...are you suggesting that [tex]E \neq mc^2[/tex] for dark matter?

    By temperature do you mean energy? Is this a corollary of your previous statement? Are you suggesting that the properties of the particles: spin, charge, etc depend only on its temperature? I hope not.

    Matter can not reach 0 K on account of quantum zero-point energy. This is well understood theoretically and has been convincingly verified experimentally. Probably not essential for your point though.

    You are postulating that a 0K particle is undetectable. This seems to be at the heart of your proposal, but you offer no reason for why this should be the case. Our ability to detect a particle rests on how strongly it interacts with a detection device. Particles interact via forces. An electron, for example, has an electric charge which enables it to participate in electromagnetic interactions. All electrons -- even super-cooled electrons -- interact with the same strength electromagnetically. So you can't 'turn off' an interaction by cooling the particles. Unless your theory has some mechanism for doing so, in which case you need to explain this.

    This doesn't happen, at least not in any developed theory of gravity.

    To recap your proposal: Matter that loses energy eventually becomes 0 K and non-interacting. You offer no mechanism for how this matter radiates all its energy away. Surely initially interacting matter absorbs energy as well. Does your theory offer an explanation as to why all matter doesn't just radiate away energy and collapse into your conjectured black holes? In any case, once the matter reaches 0 K (an impossibility as previously pointed out above), it becomes non-interacting. However, if the particle interacts through non-gravitational forces it will continue to do so independent of its thermal kinetic energy. If your theory accounts for this in some way, it should be developed.

    Those are the main points of difficulty I see with your proposal as is. Continue to ponder the universe, but think carefully about your claims before you suggest that they are related in any way to reality.
  7. Apr 13, 2010 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I should mention that the contemporary view of why dark matter is difficult to detect does not require one to dream up elaborate new physics. In many models the dark matter is made up of weakly interacting particles, in which the particles interact via the weak nuclear force. This interaction is, well, weak. The universe is ruled by gravitational phenomena, which is why the dark matter's presence is inferred only gravitationally in the cosmos. Humans detect particles through fundamental interactions, which is why the dark matter is absent in our detectors.
  8. Apr 13, 2010 #7
    Thank you for taking your time for my imaginary theory.
    I am surprised that my writing doesn’t make clear the basic concept of this matter in the cooling process.

    My experience regarding to universe is mostly based to information presented in the internet and there is lot of it. Here are some related topics:

    The quest for identifying DM is far from conclusion, there are several theories science is working on, the current standing is wait and see.

    An absolute 0K has not been reached, science is close but not there. Until 0K environment is observed, what it’s alike?, theories and postulation should be welcome.

    I am suggesting that the protons that having mass and nuclear energy charge, will use up that energy as particles in motion (quarks and gluons) radiates thermal energy.
    All Einstein’s calculations involves matter above 0K.

    You are correct, matter can not reach 0K, but when the stored nuclear energy is exhausted the remaining mass can. That is the core point this theory is based on.

    Please, indicate how the nuclear energy remains as permanent energy source for particles in motion and a constant source for radiated heat energy. Only a perpetual motion machine can do that, which have not been invented.
  9. Apr 13, 2010 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    So what are the predictions of this theory?
  10. Apr 13, 2010 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Nucleons don't radiate. No source needed.
    You need some basic knowlede of physics before you develop "theories". (Just look up what "theory" means in a scientific context. It's far more than what you presented.) Skimming through he internet won't do.
    For example: There is no such thing as a temperature of a single particle. A single particle can't reach 0K because the concept of temperature is not applicable. Look up what "temperature" is.
    A system of a few particles, like quarks, can be in its ground state, and that's it. Neither can it lose energy, nor is it undetectable. That's a perfectly known state of affairs, nothing unusual about it.
    So these proposed states definitely do not exist.
    You should learn first what 0K means. It's nothing mystical, and it doesn't explain DM. It's simply not relevant.
  11. Apr 14, 2010 #10
    Thanks for the vote of confidence, felt like a knock out punch!
    If this cooling theory works, the penetration of the atomic mass into 0K would have to happen in sub particle level. Which by the way, is not fully understood and is considered as theoretical concept. Also, for the mass penetration to happen an Absolute Zero Kelvin point where particle motion is minimal should be: where absolutely no particle motion is present.
  12. Apr 14, 2010 #11


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    There is no such thing as 'no particle motion'. Before constructing your own theory, it is probably a good idea to read up on the current theories of physics. Otherwise, what's the point?

    What do you mean by the sub-particle level not being 'fully understood'? What is a 'sub-particle level'? Physicists don't speak that way. And it's important to understand what the word 'theory' means; a 'theory' is not a conjecture or a trifling guess -- it is a predictive, well tested system of conceptual understanding that provides a good description of physical phenomena.

    Also, I took the time to give you suggestions on your theory. Are you going to address any of the concerns I voiced?

    And, again...what are the predictions of your theory? What does it do that current models of dark matter do not? What is the point??
  13. Apr 14, 2010 #12


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Didn't work, obviously.
    Ok, let's try a different route: please return to the internet and try to formulate a "penetration of the atomic mass into 0K" at "sub particle level" such that it makes sense. You'll need to understand the concept of temperature, ground state, zero-point fluctuations and maybe some more.
    Then come back with the reformulated hypothesis.

    Of course, you'll find help here at PF if you get stuck somewhere. This forum is intended to help understanding, not to debunk pet theories. You may go to BAUT for such purposes.
  14. Apr 14, 2010 #13
    About the use of word “theory“ depends lot of application.
    “For laypeople, a theory is simply an idea. Some people use “theory” like “hypothesis,” posting an idea which needs to be tested. At other times, an idea may be dismissed as “just a theory,” with the implication that it cannot be proven and it is only a rough idea, not a firm fact or opinion“.

    Here is quote from my original posting:
    “Before getting into this theory, it must be noted that due to the undetectable nature of dark matter, applied science is not an option in reaching an explanation. That leaves logical reasoning, using well known facts, as a best bet in pursuing a conclusion.”

    My conclusion happens to be: The answer to quest for DM lies in the 0K environment.
    How to get there, my speculation may / may not be feasible.

    The reason for my posting “Cold Dark Matter” was to find out if there is one person in scientific community that has similar frame of mind. After 355 viewers, obviously not.
  15. Apr 14, 2010 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm sorry JKOK, despite the fact that you have given this much thought and study, this thread violates PF rules.

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook