Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_31.thumb.jpg.b7a41d6a0fa4e315f57ea3e240acf140.jpg

Recommended Posts

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.

antimatter.thumb.jpg.e89af607844ebdb58f4cfa0ec7f8d334.jpg

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'.

Edited by Delasaurus
Spelling and grammer
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think clever people invented dark matter / energy to make less clever people feel even less clever than they actually are! e.g. Yours truly!  

Possibly.  What I'm getting at, somewhat clumsily, is that perhaps scientists should not name unexplained phenomena after hypothetical solutions.  It might have  been better to refer to these as

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

Posted Images

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.

antimatter.thumb.jpg.e89af607844ebdb58f4cfa0ec7f8d334.jpg

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.) ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

image.png.6d2bcc4b197890a34b58f4c65d3203c5.png

 

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

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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  

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By StarPrincess
      Sun on March 20, 2021 with Astrodinsk <3
    • By StarPrincess
      Moon Surface 16 April 2021 21:32 Celestron NexStar 6SE ZWO ASI 462mc
    • By MarsG76
      This is NGC3603 and NGC3576 (AKA The "Statue of Liberty" nebula), a massive H-Alpha region containing a very compact open cluster, located in the constellation "Carina" about 20,000LY away.
      I took this photo on multiple nights, between 19th February and 15th March 2021.
      Imaged using my cooled and full spectrum modded Canon 40D DSLR attached to a Bosma 80mm f6.25 refractor on a CGEM equatorial mount.
      Total exposure time was 22 Hours and 1 minute using 7nm HII, OIII and SII Narrowband filters and stars are from natural color (UV/IR Cut filter) subs... imaged from a semi rural sky.
      HII: 6x600s, 6x900s and 4x1200s subs,
      OIII: 10x900s, 8x1200s and 1x1800s subs
      SII: 18x1800s subs
      RGB: 19x60s, 19x120s, 18x180s and 20x300s subs @ ISO1600.
       
    • By stevewanstall
      A very crisp and cold night.  I added more luminance data and also collected some RGB for NGC 2841. There is now around 4 hours in L and an hour each in R, G and B. The subs are 114s at a gain of 139. 
       
       

       
      Wikipedia:
      NGC 2841 is an unbarred spiral galaxy in the northern circumpolar constellation of Ursa Major. A 2001 Hubble Space Telescope survey of the galaxy's Cepheid variables determined its distance to be approximately 14.1 megaparsecs or 46 million light-years. 
      This is the prototype for the flocculent spiral galaxy, a type of spiral galaxy whose arms are patchy and discontinuous. The morphological class is SAa, indicating a spiral galaxy with no central bar and very tightly-wound arms. There is no grand design structure visible in the optical band, although some inner spiral arms can be seen in the near infrared. 
      The properties of NGC 2841 are similar to those of the Andromeda Galaxy. It is home to a large population of young blue stars, and a few H II regions. The luminosity of the galaxy is 2×1010 M☉ and it has a combined mass of 7×1010 M☉. Its disk of stars can be traced out to a radius of around 228 kly (70 kpc). This disk begins to warp at a radius of around 98 kly (30 kpc), suggesting the perturbing effect of in-falling matter from the surrounding medium.
      The rotational behaviour of the galaxy suggests there is a massive nuclear bulge, with a low-ionization nuclear emission-line region  at the core; a type of region that is characterized by spectral line emission from weakly ionized atoms. A prominent molecular ring is orbiting at a radius of 7–20 kly (2–6 kpc), which is providing a star-forming region of gas and dust. The nucleus appears decoupled and there is a counter-rotating element of stars and gas in the outer parts of the nucleus, suggesting a recent interaction with a smaller galaxy.
      Equipment: Celestron 9.25 XLT at F10, Skywatcher EQ6 Pro GEM, ZWO 1600MM Pro, ZWO EFW with ZWO LRGB filters, QHY5IIC guide camera on Skywatcher 9 x 50 finderscope
    • By MarsG76
      Mosaic of the Large Magellanic Cloud One of two (known) companion/satellite galaxies of the Milkyway galaxy, located 160,000LY away and only visible from the southern hemisphere. Due to the angular size of the LMC, this image consists of 4 frames, each exposed in natural color at 500mm focal length through an 80mm refractor. The 4 frame are combined into one image to fit the whole satellite galaxy into the frame. The camera used was my astromodded and active cooled canon 40D. Exposure time was 2 hours and 42 minutes per frame for a total of 11.5 hours for the whole image.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.