Are dark matter and dark energy the same?

[Delasaurus]

For my twopenny worth, as I understood, dark matter is the negative of matter, known as anti-matter. The other side of the two headed coin. It is matter which has either imploded under its own mass and fromed a black hole (negative matter) or is the flip side of a particle in Quantum mechanics, ie the particle has changed state from negative to positive and is opposite to its original position on an x,y grid which becomes -x,-y. The negative state being its reversed state, anti-matter.

And since all matter contains energy (allbeit mostly unleashed) as in Einsteins equation E=mc2 and his famous quote, 'there is enough energy in the tip of my pen to destroy the entire universe', dark matter therefore contains dark energy or the same thing, anti-matter contains anti-energy. Dark energy but none the less 'energy'.

[rockystar]

18 hours ago, Delasaurus said:

For my twopenny worth, as I understood, dark matter is the negative of matter, known as anti-matter. The other side of the two headed coin. It is matter which has either imploded under its own mass and fromed a black hole (negative matter) or is the flip side of a particle in Quantum mechanics, ie the particle has changed state from negative to positive and is opposite to its original position on an x,y grid which becomes -x,-y. The negative state being its reversed state, anti-matter.

And since all matter contains energy (allbeit mostly unleashed) as in Einsteins equation E=mc2 and his famous quote, 'there is enough energy in the tip of my pen to destroy the entire universe', dark matter therefore contains dark energy or the same thing, anti-matter contains anti-energy. Dark energy but none the less 'energy'.

Sorry to say, but most of this incorrect. 

Anti-particles and anti-matter are well understood and researched. We know very little about what makes up dark matter as it doesn't interact with anything and we have yet to directly observe it. 

As far as we know Dark Energy and Dark Matter share nothing in common other than a name that means "we don't know". You may as well say Pine cones and pineapple come from the same place. 

Yes, dark matter must contain energy, but not dark energy. 

Anti-matter has the same energy as matter, not anti-energy.

[andrew s]

33 minutes ago, rockystar said:

Sorry to say, but most of this incorrect. 

Anti-particles and anti-matter are well understood and researched. We know very little about what makes up dark matter as it doesn't interact with anything and we have yet to directly observe it. 

As far as we know Dark Energy and Dark Matter share nothing in common other than a name that means "we don't know". You may as well say Pine cones and pineapple come from the same place. 

Yes, dark matter must contain energy, but not dark energy. 

Anti-matter has the same energy as matter, not anti-energy.

I agree with what you say but would say that while "We don't know" is true in the sense we can't point to a dark matter or energy particle we do know quite a lot about their properties. In a way it is similar to a neutrino where they have never been directly observed but are known to be there to make the sums add up and we know how they work in the standard model of particle physics. 

Regards Andrew 

[rockystar]

28 minutes ago, andrew s said:

I agree with what you say but would say that while "We don't know" is true in the sense we can't point to a dark matter or energy particle we do know quite a lot about their properties. In a way it is similar to a neutrino where they have never been directly observed but are known to be there to make the sums add up and we know how they work in the standard model of particle physics. 

Regards Andrew 

I did original write "we know noting about dark matter", but re-worded it as you are correct, we know loads about it, just not what it is

I thought neutrinos had been detected, albeit in extremely small numbers, like 1 or 2 a month, when it's suspected that millions a second pass through the detectors?

[andrew s]

2 minutes ago, rockystar said:

I did original write "we know noting about dark matter", but re-worded it as you are correct, we know loads about it, just not what it is

I thought neutrinos had been detected, albeit in extremely small numbers, like 1 or 2 a month, when it's suspected that millions a second pass through the detectors?

They have been detected in the sense that the products of an interaction of a neutrino and an atom have been seen. Is that very different from dark matter being detected via lensing? To me the only real difference is we can create Neutrinos in accelerators. 

Regards Andrew

[Delasaurus]

6 hours ago, rockystar said:

I did original write "we know noting about dark matter", but re-worded it as you are correct, we know loads about it, just not what it is

I thought neutrinos had been detected, albeit in extremely small numbers, like 1 or 2 a month, when it's suspected that millions a second pass through the detectors?

Quote from the New Scientist;

.....in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, a 1000 ton heavy water solar-neutrino detector picks up about 10¹² neutrinos each second. About 30 neutrinos per day are detected.

 

I don't think they had a problem detecting them Andrew, it was the 'percentage' that they were detecting that they couldn't figure out. Why only some could be detected and others couldn't when in fact, theoretically, they should be able to detect them all. Which led on to studies in Quantum mechanics with particles..not appearing when they should and appearing when they should not. Hence the work at the Cern labs.

[andrew s]

4 hours ago, Delasaurus said:

Quote from the New Scientist;

.....in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, a 1000 ton heavy water solar-neutrino detector picks up about 10¹² neutrinos each second. About 30 neutrinos per day are detected.

 

I don't think they had a problem detecting them Andrew, it was the 'percentage' that they were detecting that they couldn't figure out. Why only some could be detected and others couldn't when in fact, theoretically, they should be able to detect them all. Which led on to studies in Quantum mechanics with particles..not appearing when they should and appearing when they should not. Hence the work at the Cern labs.

That is not true. Neutrinos only interact via the weak nuclear  force so it is expected that most just go through matter without interaction. The "picks up" in your quote refers to the number passing through.

The point I am making is that neutrinos have not been seen directly (say as a bubble chamber track) only indirectly via interaction decay products. Perfectly ligitimate though.

Regards Andrew 

[Paul M]

A couple of years ago I had the very great pleasure of visiting the Hayden Planetarium (NYC) and watching the then current main show. Written and narrated by Neil Degrasse Tyson. The subject was dark matter and dark energy.

It offered no answers, just an insight into the size of the holes in our understanding of the large scale Universe. 

Deeply thought provoking!

[Delasaurus]

6 minutes ago, andrew s said:

That is not true. Neutrinos only interact via the weak nuclear  force so it is expected that most just go through matter without interaction. The "picks up" in your quote refers to the number passing through.

The point I am making is that neutrinos have not been seen directly (say as a bubble chamber track) only indirectly via interaction decay products. Perfectly ligitimate though.

Regards Andrew 

I don't know what 'interaction decay products' are.

My knowledge of the experiments that they made in the late 70's and early 80's is that the experiments were very crude, placing several big barrels of dry cleaning fluid, Tetrachloroethylene, I believe, down a very deep mine shaft, flooding the shaft to a certain level that covered the barrels and hooked them up to some kind of detection equipment, how that detector was configured, I don't know.

But what I do remember from those days is that it was making very big headlines and they could not figure out why they could not detect all of them and as I said in my previous post, it led onto study at Quantum level mechanics. And is still being researched at Cern today. There is a good bit of study on them in Open University litrature. (Might have been units S101 Quarks and Quasars, which explains all the maths and experiments.)

[Delasaurus]

34 minutes ago, andrew s said:

That is not true. Neutrinos only interact via the weak nuclear  force so it is expected that most just go through matter without interaction. The "picks up" in your quote refers to the number passing through.

The point I am making is that neutrinos have not been seen directly (say as a bubble chamber track) only indirectly via interaction decay products. Perfectly ligitimate though.

Regards Andrew 

Do you mean like this?

 

Or do you mean that we have only seen the 'effects' of Neutrinos and not the actual beast itself?

 

[andrew s]

The issue was they were detecting 1/3 the rate of neutrinos expected from the Sun. This was found to be due to them being able to transform between the 3 types of neutrino. This led to the conclusion they must have mass even if it were very small.

Interaction products might be an electron or muon.

Regards Andrew  

 

 

 

[Delasaurus]

6 minutes ago, andrew s said:

The issue was they were detecting 1/3 the rate of neutrinos expected from the Sun. This was found to be due to them being able to transform between the 3 types of neutrino. This led to the conclusion they must have mass even if it were very small.

Interaction products might be an electron or muon.

Regards Andrew  

 

 

 

Yes that's right, I do remember calculating their potential mass for an exam once, albeit a long time ago now, at first it was thought that they had no mass or zero mass, at all I believe. I like to view them as 'leakage' from atomic interactions...they don't quite know where they fit in. They don't belong to an electron, or neutron or any 'tron', they are Mis-fits of the atomic world, if you like.

Do you think that if they are Quantum, that the 3 different types of Neutrinos are actually different forms of the same thing, whereby they seem to behave differently or are the 3 differents states the apparent behavour of a single Neutrino itself?  Or perhaps they are 3 seperate entities?

[andrew s]

52 minutes ago, Delasaurus said:

Yes that's right, I do remember calculating their potential mass for an exam once, albeit a long time ago now, at first it was thought that they had no mass or zero mass, at all I believe. I like to view them as 'leakage' from atomic interactions...they don't quite know where they fit in. They don't belong to an electron, or neutron or any 'tron', they are Mis-fits of the atomic world, if you like.

Do you think that if they are Quantum, that the 3 different types of Neutrinos are actually different forms of the same thing, whereby they seem to behave differently or are the 3 differents states the apparent behavour of a single Neutrino itself?  Or perhaps they are 3 seperate entities?

Neutrinos are a key part of the standard model of particles. The Wikipedia article on Neutrino Oscillations is quite good so look that up. It explains the relation of "Flavour " to "Mass" eigen states.

Regards Andrew 

[Absolute zero]

On 4/9/2017 at 11:43, Patrick2568422 said:

To my understanding, matter is just crystallized energy. So is dark matter the crystallized form of dark energy? Sorry if this is a bit of a stupid question, just couldn't get it off my mind.

Any answers would be much appreciated - thanks.  

Before all of the land on earth was mapped, map makers would shade in any areas not yet explored. This is where the phrases darkest Africa, the dark interior of North America and the dark side of the Moon come from. I think the person who coined the term dark energy was referring to the unexplored physics of dark energy. Dark matter does not release electro magnetic radiation so it is dark.