Can Regular Matter and Dark Matter Be the Same Thing in Higher Dimensions?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the possibility that regular matter and dark matter could be manifestations of the same particles in higher dimensions. It suggests that while particles like electrons exhibit probabilistic behavior in three-dimensional space, they might also have a higher probability of existing in extra-dimensional spaces, potentially explaining dark matter's elusive nature. The conversation raises questions about whether current mathematical frameworks in quantum mechanics can accommodate this idea without violating fundamental principles like conservation of mass. A key point noted is that dark matter interacts only through gravity, distinguishing it from regular matter. The discussion ultimately seeks clarity on the compatibility of these concepts within existing scientific theories.
raid1000
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello, glad to be able to post my question ^^
ok I'm no scientist and I haven't looket at the math of quantum mechanics and such but i get the general idea that subatomic particles (like electrons) are like waves of probability, that they are more likely to pop "in and out of existence" in one area of space than in another (like in electron shells).
Does this math account for "extra dimensionability", like particles have the probability to pop in 3D space, but could they pop in higher dimensional space as well?
What I'm trying to say is that maybe regular matter and dark matter could be the same thing? particles could pop in 3D space (regular matter) but maybe have a way higher probability to pop in extradimensional space (dark matter) which whe can't see cause of electromagnetism being 3Dimensional force.
Can the math work that way? or i did i screw up something as basic as conservation of mass? xD
 
Space news on Phys.org
Dark matter is different from regular matter in one major respect. It is not effected in any way by anything by gravity.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top