Dark Matter

[feller469]

where is the "facepalm" icon when you need it?

 

[JayJohn85]

It's not possible to "view" dark matter- hence the term. A dark matter particle would behave sort of like an "anti" photon. Photons move very fast and when they bump into other particles it causes the release of energy aka. light. The light travels back to the human eye where it is translated in the brain to a 3-d mapping of the objects that the light refracts from.

Dark matter particles move more slowly though and when they encounter photons they bounce off of them. It does release energy, but it releases a very low level of energy that is so far undetectable because it's less than the energy of light, or the energy that the photon is already giving off. The photon doesn't bounce, or refract it's trajectory enough that it's noticeable to the human eye, or to any previously available equipment that detects energy signals.

Dark matter can be indirectly observed or interpreted on the effects of other matter. Any large quantity of particles has a gravity field and the pull of gravity causes space to curve, according to general relativity. The more mass, the greater the curve and so light won't refract off a dark matter field, but it will curve around it. Gravity fields are also sites of high-impact particle collisions, so any site that has a lot of high energy radiation like gamma waves and x-rays is a good indicator of a large mass object. That is how scientists have been able to detect black holes and neutron stars, other "invisible" phenomenon; this is also what led to the theory of dark matter in the first place.

The theory of dark energy is "anti" gravity. The universe seems to have much more energy than it has mass, which is apparently impossible, yet can be viewed simply by it's exponential expansion. Since it's being acted upon by some force that is greater than gravity, it's deduced that it must have a hidden energy and hidden mass.

where is the "facepalm" icon when you need it?

No u.......

String theory is a developing branch of quantum mechanics and general relativity with the aim of merging and reconciling the two areas of physics into a quantum theory of gravity.[1] The strings of string theory are one-dimensional oscillating lines, but they are no longer considered fundamental to the theory, which can be formulated in terms of points or surfaces too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

Physicists hope that the LHC will help answer the most fundamental questions in physics, questions concerning the basic laws governing the interactions and forces among the elementary objects, the deep structure of space and time, especially regarding the intersection of quantum mechanics and general relativity, where current theories and knowledge are unclear or break down altogether. These issues include, at least:[11]

* Is the Higgs mechanism for generating elementary particle masses via electroweak symmetry breaking indeed realised in nature?[12] It is anticipated that the collider will either demonstrate (or rule out) the existence of the elusive Higgs boson(s), completing (or refuting) the Standard Model.[13][14][15]
* Is supersymmetry, an extension of the Standard Model and Poincaré symmetry, realised in nature, implying that all known particles have supersymmetric partners?[16][17][18] These may clear up the mystery of dark matter.
* Are there extra dimensions,[19] as predicted by various models inspired by string theory, and can we detect them?

Other questions are:

* Are electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force just different manifestations of a single unified force, as predicted by various Grand Unification Theories?
* Why is gravity so many orders of magnitude weaker than the other three fundamental forces? See also Hierarchy problem.
* Are there additional sources of quark flavours, beyond those already predicted within the Standard Model?
* Why are there apparent violations of the symmetry between matter and antimatter? See also CP violation.
* What was the nature of the quark-gluon plasma in the early universe? This will be investigated by ion collisions in ALICE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron_collider

How do you propose one would go about understanding "anti-gravity" without first understanding gravity.:rofl:

PS> My final troll and with that I bid thee good night!

 

[calpoon]

How do you propose one would go about understanding "anti-gravity" without first understanding gravity.:rofl:

PS> My final troll and with that I bid thee good night!

Are you talking to me? Didn't you read what I said where I wasn't talking about "anti-gravity"? The use of quotation marks in this instance indicate that a phrase is being used colloquially. There have been several theories of quantum gravity as well as attempts to unify it with classical dynamics besides bullshit string theory... none of which have anything to do with Dark Matter.

 

[HE1FiNEARTiST]

lol you all sound scared like some bitches lol

 

[JayJohn85]

Are you talking to me? Didn't you read what I said where I wasn't talking about "anti-gravity"? The use of quotation marks in this instance indicate that a phrase is being used colloquially. There have been several theories of quantum gravity as well as attempts to unify it with classical dynamics besides bullshit string theory... none of which have anything to do with Dark Matter.

No I was quoting you to show the relevance of the research I linked.....I was replying to fellar....Alicia dude I dont know wtf your reply is about??????????????????

 

[calpoon]

It just occurred to me that a very simple and logical explanation for the substance of Dark Matter could be Micro-black holes. A normal sized and a massive black hole contains a powerful gravity field that light can't escape from making it invisible. A black hole also contains all of it's mass compressed into a singularity, so that it can take up over 1,000 times less space than the Earth, while possessing over a 1,000 times as much mass and energy. This totally fits into the description of Dark Matter which is undetectable, yet comprises 80% of the universes mass and energy.

A micro-black hole might be so small that it is a dwarf compared to even sub-atomic particles. This has already been acknowledged in the model of Quantum Foam. This has implications for both Dark Energy and quantum gravity.

The gravity field of a micro-black hole would be at least equal, although probably far less than that of normal matter, so that it would be unnoticeable in large matter clusters like galaxies, and more noticeable in "empty" space- a quality that also must be a characteristic of theorized Dark Matter.

A normal black hole cannot be seen, but can be indirectly observed by it's effect on other objects. Objects pulled into it's gravity field speed up and spin faster and release more energy in the form of highly charged particles like X-Rays and Neutrinos. A universe full of micro-black holes should have the same effect, right? There may be evidence of such a thing in the fact that the universe has a uniform pattern of low-level radiation that scientists call the "background static."

I believe that many scientists have thought of this idea before, but that it has been suppressed in popular media because it could cast some doubt on the Big Bang Theory. The "background static" is one of the key pieces of evidence in the explanation for that theory, which is the most popular among scientists.

I've talked about problems between the Big bang and black holes before. A remedy for this problem that could explain the creation of micro-black holes in the early universe could be reactions between matter and anti-mater. But this is not sufficient because Hawking Radiation would render a very short lifespan for a micro-black hole and there is virtually no anti-matter left in the modern universe. the ratio of matter to anti-matter is even more offset than that of dark Matter and matter.