The discussion centers around the nature of dark matter and the possibility of dark antimatter, exploring theoretical implications, particle interactions, and the current understanding of dark matter's properties. Participants engage in a mix of speculative reasoning and technical arguments related to astrophysics and particle physics.
There is no consensus on the existence of dark antimatter or its properties. Multiple competing views remain regarding the nature of dark matter, its interactions, and the implications of potential antimatter counterparts.
Participants acknowledge the speculative nature of the discussion, highlighting that the true nature of dark matter is still unknown and that current theories are based on indirect evidence and assumptions that may not hold true.
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?coronzon93 said: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).
StevenJParkes said: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?
StevenJParkes said: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?
StevenJParkes said: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.
StevenJParkes said: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?
This is embarrassing. I meant. Is it possible that dark matter limits the speed of light. It appears to have gravitational effects.StevenJParkes said: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?
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.Chronos said: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 said: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.
StevenJParkes said: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.
StevenJParkes said:I could be mistaken. If gravity could bend light it must be able to limit its velocity.
I don't truly believe that the speed of photons is unaffected in a vacuum as we know it
StevenJParkes said:Please forgive me. I will stop this. I was under the impression that thinking outside the box may stimulate something useful.
StevenJParkes said:Please forgive me. I will stop this. I was under the impression that thinking outside the box may stimulate something useful.
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.Physgeek123 said:True, that it is not charged, but that can be perfectly explained by anti neutrons.
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.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?
No. Unless you write a paper with a theory where they pop up as result of the theory.Maybe things like neutrinoprotons and neutrinoelectrons could exist
Physgeek123 said: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.