Could Neutrinos Be the Key to Understanding Dark Matter?

[StevenJParkes]

My thoughts are that there is Matter/Antimatter and yes, Dark Matter/Dark Antimatter. My thought on that is that Dark matter has its own set of quarks and bosons. So there would be Dark Leptons, Dark Mesons, Dark Baryons, Dark Bimesons, Dark Barymesons, Dark Trimesons and Dark Dibaryons. Matter/Antimatter DIRECTLY interacts with Matter/Antimatter. Dark Matter/Dark Antimatter DIRECTLY interacts with Dark Matter/Dark Antimatter. My own (strongly disputable) theory on annihilation is that when a particle interacts with its antiparticle, the annihilation yields a decay series of particles of the opposing kind. e.g. a Proton interacts with an Antiproton, the Matter yield is nothing, but Dark Matter yield occurs (not a Dark Proton and Dark Antiproton, but can't rule out the possiblity).

Do you think its possible that matter is created from the interaction between Dark matter and Dark antimatter? Could this be an explanation for the "Big Bang" expansion of the Universe?

 

[Whovian]

Possible, but the big bang? If I'm understanding your question right, you're wondering if it's possible for the big bang to have resulted from an interaction of Dark Matter and "Dark Antimatter." According to the current theory, time didn't exist before the big bang. There was no before the big bang. And anyways, it wasn't an explosion at a certain location in space. It, erm, occurred everywhere simultaneously. (Well, sort of.) If I'm misunderstanding, could you please explain your theory in a little more detail?

 

[Drakkith]

Hypothetically. On the assumption that dark antimatter exists. If it does and if we could trap it, would it then be possible to use it as an energy source by making it interact with dark matter? How destructive could that be? and what other consequences might there be?

Welcome to PF Steven.
Dark antimatter isn't theorized to exist. Not only that, but dark matter itself doesn't interact via the electromagnetic force, so any supposed dark antimatter wouldn't be capable of being trapped.

The other hypothetical question that led to the above one is as follows: "Is it possible that antimatter is the source of the limit to the speed of light?

What? This question doesn't make any sense. Do you understand what antimatter actually is? I highly suggest you read up on it on wikipedia.

My thoughts regarding the above questions relate to finding a method of exceeding the speed of light for the sake of space travel some time in the future.

FTL travel isn't allowed per PF rules, as it is pure unsupported speculation.

Do you think its possible that matter is created from the interaction between Dark matter and Dark antimatter? Could this be an explanation for the "Big Bang" expansion of the Universe?

Steven, I highly suggest you read up on the basics of General Relativity, Cosmology, and Quantum Mechanics before asking questions such as these. Currently you don't seem to know enough to ask an appropriate question. If you have questions about the basic concepts in those areas feel free to ask and we would be glad to help.

 

[StevenJParkes]

The other hypothetical question that led to the above one is as follows: "Is it possible that antimatter is the source of the limit to the speed of light?

This is embarrassing. I meant. Is it possible that dark matter limits the speed of light. It appears to have gravitational effects.

 

[StevenJParkes]

I am aware that the Big Bang occurred everywhere at the same time. I'm just speculating that this process is still happening as a possible, or impossible, explanation of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

 

[phinds]

Dark matter BENDS light, as has been pointed out. What do you mean by "dark matter limits the speed of light" ?

Dark matter has nothing to do with the acceleration of the expansion of the universe.

Your concepts seem to be quite garbled.

 

[Chronos]

There is so much dark matter in the universe it is unlikely much of it is 'anti' dark matter. We would otherwise expect to see an abundance of spurious gamma radiation in the cosmic background - which is not observed. It also appears probable dark matter is not a half spin particle meaning it has no anti particle equivalent.

 

[StevenJParkes]

There is so much dark matter in the universe it is unlikely much of it is 'anti' dark matter. We would otherwise expect to see an abundance of spurious gamma radiation in the cosmic background - which is not observed. It also appears probable dark matter is not a half spin particle meaning it has no anti particle equivalent.

Makes sense. So my line of questions meets a dead end. Still, I don't truly believe that the speed of photons is unaffected in a vacuum as we know it. This is because gravity would still exist in a vacuum should such a thing as a true vacuum exist. Perhaps the value of c would be different to what Einstein theorized in the absence of the effects of matter, dark or otherwise.

 

[Drakkith]

Makes sense. So my line of questions meets a dead end. Still, I don't truly believe that the speed of photons is unaffected in a vacuum as we know it. This is because gravity would still exist in a vacuum should such a thing as a true vacuum exist. Perhaps the value of c would be different to what Einstein theorized in the absence of the effects of matter, dark or otherwise.

I fail to see what gravity has to do with the speed of light. Also, there is nowhere in the universe that is free of gravity. Even the voids between galaxy superclusters have gravity.

 

[StevenJParkes]

I could be mistaken. If gravity could bend light it must be able to limit its velocity. Perhaps, outside our universe there is a void...a real vacuum and the universe is rushing off to form an equilibrium. It would be interesting though, if there were other universes rushing towards us, or something of that nature.

 

[Drakkith]

I could be mistaken. If gravity could bend light it must be able to limit its velocity.

I don't believe this happens.

Perhaps, outside our universe there is a void...a real vacuum and the universe is rushing off to form an equilibrium. It would be interesting though, if there were other universes rushing towards us, or something of that nature.

Please, try to avoid speculation without references to back it up.

 

[phinds]

I could be mistaken. If gravity could bend light it must be able to limit its velocity.

No, that does not follow. Gravity changes the geodesic that light follows but the photons still travel at c.

Even inside a black hole where light cannot escape, it is still traveling LOCALLY at c, because the black hole just warps the geodesic.

You say

I don't truly believe that the speed of photons is unaffected in a vacuum as we know it

You really need to get over this thought that it matters what you believe. You should study physics, not make stuff up.

 

[StevenJParkes]

Please forgive me. I will stop this. I was under the impression that thinking outside the box may stimulate something useful.

 

[phinds]

Please forgive me. I will stop this. I was under the impression that thinking outside the box may stimulate something useful.

Thinking outside the box is a GREAT thing to do, but ONLY after you understand what the box is.

 

[Drakkith]

Please forgive me. I will stop this. I was under the impression that thinking outside the box may stimulate something useful.

Bouncing off what phinds said, thinking outside the box requires that you understand how current theories work. Not just in an informal "i read a book or two on it" way, but an actual understanding of the math that governs the theory. Otherwise, similar to what Phinds said, you don't know where the box is or where it ends.

 

[Physgeek123]

Basically, there is no reason why anti dark matter can't exist. True, that it is not charged, but that can be perfectly explained by anti neutrons. Antineutrons have equal amounts of positrons and antiprotons.

A different explanation according to my theory:

Also on another note, since neutrinos have no charge and are not visible, could it be possible that neutrinos could be a new fundamental particle for dark matter? Maybe things like neutrinoprotons and neutrinoelectrons could exist. And since every particle has a anti matter part, nuetrinoparticles might as well have a antinuetrinoparticle counterpart? I'm confused about all this, but you tell me.

 

[mfb]

True, that it is not charged, but that can be perfectly explained by anti neutrons.

Wait, what? Antineutrons decay (into charged antiparticles), and they would react with baryonic matter via the strong interaction. This would be really bad for life.

Also on another note, since neutrinos have no charge and are not visible, could it be possible that neutrinos could be a new fundamental particle for dark matter?

The energy density of neutrinos can be calculated. It is not negligible, but it is not large enough to explain the amount of dark matter present in the universe.

Maybe things like neutrinoprotons and neutrinoelectrons could exist

No. Unless you write a paper with a theory where they pop up as result of the theory.
It is bad that theoreticians invent so many particles with a mathematical foundation. We don't need even more particle names without any theory behind it.

 

[Drakkith]

Basically, there is no reason why anti dark matter can't exist. True, that it is not charged, but that can be perfectly explained by anti neutrons. Antineutrons have equal amounts of positrons and antiprotons.

They do not. Antineutrons are composed of one up antiquark and two down antiquarks. An normal neutron is composed of one up quark and two down quarks. Protons and electrons, or their antimatter counterparts, do not make up neutrons and antineutrons.

A different explanation according to my theory:

Also on another note, since neutrinos have no charge and are not visible, could it be possible that neutrinos could be a new fundamental particle for dark matter? Maybe things like neutrinoprotons and neutrinoelectrons could exist. And since every particle has a anti matter part, nuetrinoparticles might as well have a antinuetrinoparticle counterpart? I'm confused about all this, but you tell me.

I suggest you read the following article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle