# Thoughts on Dark Matter and Dark Energy



## FromTheWorldUp (Aug 30, 2010)

If by chance there is anyone here that could give some insight on some ideas I've had or point me towards related research I would very much appreciate it.

For a long time I've had some ideas about dark matter and dark energy that I haven't been able to find information to contradict or confirm. 

From what I understand dark energy is what is suspected to account for the observed acceleration in the expansion of the universe. Also dark matter has been suspected to account for measured but unobserved mass which causes galexies to spin at a faster than predicted rate.

I've come to suspect that maybe both phenomena have a common cause and one that could be tested over the long term. My suspicion is on interdemensional gravity. I believe it could account for both the unaccounted for mass measured as well as the acceleration of expansion. 

My idea idea is that there may be other systems much like our own but the concentration of mass is so great that light cannot escape them and therefor they remain unseen to us. Their gravity however does reach us just as the gravity of objects outside a black can be expected to reach objects within the event horizon of black hole even though their force is too weak to overcome that of the black hole. The gravity from these other systems acting on objects in ours could account for the gravitational effects attributed to dark matter. In addition the acceleration of the expansion of our system could be attributed to those same gravitational sources increasing in strength as the proximity between the two systems decreases just as an object speeds up to terminal velocity when falling to the earth. My thought is that as our system expanded and slowed down under it's own gravity it eventually expanded to the point that the gravity of other systems grew strong enough to overcome the gravity of our own system and started pulling it towards it at increasing rate preventing the big crunch. This would link dark matter to dark energy and would mean there should be measurable increase what is called dark matter that is in relation to the accelerating rate of expansion.

Everything I've read about dark matter seems to fit with this however I don't know its actually possible to determine if dark matter is ininvreasing in relation to dark energy.

Please tell me if this makes any or no sense or if there's already evidence that debunked the idea of a limited multiverse with multidemensional gravity.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

I'm no physicist but prior to drawing any possible conclusions, why not wait until after the LHC experiments restart later this month? Their last run confirmed the Higgs boson.


----------



## suremarc (Jan 13, 2013)

The amount of dark matter in galaxies & galaxy clusters is generally around 10x more than the matter we observe directly. This extra mass is believed to be located in round blobs surrounding galaxies and in rings permeating galaxy clusters. 
If dark matter were composed of massive objects with event horizons, we would see very clearly that its distribution was concentrated in clumps, even with "small" but evenly distributed event horizons. But the velocity vs. radial distance curves are uniform enough that event horizons are too concentrated to make up dark matter. 

I'm having a hard time making head or tail of your thoughts on dark energy, but you should know that the _entire_ [observable] universe is expanding. And it's expanding uniformly. From what I can gather, you're positing the existence of mass clusters distributed in such a way that they are pulling on the observable universe outward in all directions. 
But the acceleration in the expansion of space is uniform. If these mass clusters were causing the expansion in space, objects closer to these mass clusters would be accelerating faster by the inverse-square law of gravitational force. So such a solution is simply not possible.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Duo said:


> I'm no physicist but prior to drawing any possible conclusions, why not wait until after the LHC experiments restart later this month? Their last run confirmed the Higgs boson.


The LHC isn't powerful enough to produce dark matter. That's why there is always a new, bigger model in the works!

International Linear Collider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## stargazing grasshopper (Oct 25, 2013)

IMHO gravity is more complex than we realize, dark energy is likely the ying to gravity's yang.
I think that after the fundamental forces split during the very early universe, then maybe due to matter/anti-matter particle annihilation or whatever cause, gravity was split into two opposing forces. 
Initially the positive vacuum energy (gravity) became the initial dominant gravitational force & was/is responsible for the attraction/clumping of matter that formed galaxy clusters etc. 
At some point in time the universe had cooled sufficiently to allow the two opposing gravitational forces to reach a state of equilibrium & as the universe continues to cool, Dark Energy will continue becoming the ever increasing dominant gravitational force within the universe. 


As for Dark Matter, IMHO there must have been matter within the early universe that was affected by the gravitational force present prior to the decoupling era. I think that any gravitational force that dominated the early universe must have been a much stronger version of gravity if our known gravitational force has indeed weakened as the universe cools. 
Therefore an immense gravitational force present prior to the decoupling era would've likely attracted/clumped matter which consisted of exotic particles (yet undiscovered) that existed while the universe was pitch black & are too massive or otherwise somehow impervious to the effects of photons.
I'd guess that Dark Matter's atomic structure includes an outer shell which consists of exotic protons (anti-electrons) that have decayed into even lighter particles & migrated outward from the atomic nucleus due to cooling of the universe.



In short, Dark Energy is the ying to the yang of gravity as we experience it & it'll continue becoming the dominant gravitational force within the universe.

Dark matter is comprised of matter that was present prior to decoupling era within the earlier universe, we can only detect it through it's effects upon visible matter because it's unaffected by photons.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I think the simplest explanation is that our theories are wrong. They can't explain 75% of the universe. There are massive holes. Tons of band aids. 

I think it raises an interesting philosophical question, how such precise theories that line up with experience cannot explain the vast majority of the universe. The entire cosmological model may have to go.


----------



## FromTheWorldUp (Aug 30, 2010)

suremarc said:


> The amount of dark matter in galaxies & galaxy clusters is generally around 10x more than the matter we observe directly. This extra mass is believed to be located in round blobs surrounding galaxies and in rings permeating galaxy clusters.
> If dark matter were composed of massive objects with event horizons, we would see very clearly that its distribution was concentrated in clumps, even with "small" but evenly distributed event horizons. But the velocity vs. radial distance curves are uniform enough that event horizons are too concentrated to make up dark matter.
> 
> I'm having a hard time making head or tail of your thoughts on dark energy, but you should know that the _entire_ [observable] universe is expanding. And it's expanding uniformly. From what I can gather, you're positing the existence of mass clusters distributed in such a way that they are pulling on the observable universe outward in all directions.
> But the acceleration in the expansion of space is uniform. If these mass clusters were causing the expansion in space, objects closer to these mass clusters would be accelerating faster by the inverse-square law of gravitational force. So such a solution is simply not possible.


I haven't read anything about specific locations or configurations of dark matter being measured in. Do you have a link to somewhere I could read about it? Also, I think I didn't explain myself well. I wasn't meaning clumps of unobserved matter within our observable universe with event horizons like black holes. I was thinking of our entire observable universe being like a galaxy that was so massive and distant from any other mass that light could not escape it but it could still be affected by the gravity of other massive but distant systems like itself. 

Also I don't believe we can really observe the universe expanding outward uniformly. We can't observe it all in real time. The light we observe from distant galaxies or quasars tells us where they were and how our relative position has changed. It could be that our place in space is being stretched away from the rest and causing everything to appear redshifted at the same degree relative to distance. You could think of pinching and pulling on the surface of a balloon. Honestly I didn't know a consistancy in the redshift had been obsrverved to indicate everything was accellerating away at the same rate. There's still anomalies such as blue outliers that I thought hadn't been explained.

If you have any good articles to point me to about what you said please share them.


----------



## FromTheWorldUp (Aug 30, 2010)

@suremarc

What do you think of this? 

Cosmologist suggests universe might not be expanding after all


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

Cosmetologist suggests universe might need a microdermabrasion.


----------



## knife (Jul 10, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I think the simplest explanation is that our theories are wrong. They can't explain 75% of the universe. There are massive holes. Tons of band aids.
> 
> I think it raises an interesting philosophical question, how such precise theories that line up with experience cannot explain the vast majority of the universe. The entire cosmological model may have to go.


Right. The one thing most laymen who talk about this stuff don't realize is -- the idea of dark matter is _itself_ a band-aid. It's basically a factor stuck in to the system to make the measured inputs come out to the known output. Everything else is pure speculation, since we haven't actually figured out what it _is_ (or why we can't measure it or why it's needed in the model or why the known inputs don't match up with the known output anyway) yet. That's not bad: speculation is fun and interesting to read. But let's not kid ourselves, we're beyond the realm of the empirical and hence the truly scientific when we talk about dark matter.



Jeff Felis said:


> Cosmetologist suggests universe might need a microdermabrasion.


:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> The LHC isn't powerful enough to produce dark matter. That's why there is always a new, bigger model in the works!
> 
> International Linear Collider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It's not intended to produce dark matter. It's intended to prove or disprove subatomic level particles and their conceptual models of movement and interaction.


----------



## suremarc (Jan 13, 2013)

FromTheWorldUp said:


> I haven't read anything about specific locations or configurations of dark matter being measured in. Do you have a link to somewhere I could read about it?


That information has been in circulation for a long time now. Here's 2007 article from Hubble. 



> Also, I think I didn't explain myself well. I wasn't meaning clumps of unobserved matter within our observable universe with event horizons like black holes. I was thinking of our entire observable universe being like a galaxy that was so massive and distant from any other mass that light could not escape it but it could still be affected by the gravity of other massive but distant systems like itself.


No, you misunderstand. Any region of space which traps light is by definition an event horizon. It may not necessarily be a black hole. 

There are two conditions for a region of space to be an event horizon. Let us recall what you said:


> our entire observable universe being like a galaxy that was so *massive* and *distant*


The first case is one in which a region of space becomes enclosed within its Schwarzchild radius. In that case, the escape velocity at the boundary of that region of space is no less than the speed of light. All paths through spacetime end inside this region--hence, an event horizon. 

The other case is when two regions of space are too far away to have interacted. In fact our observable universe is an event horizon--we refer to the edge of observable spacetime as the "cosmic horizon". The key thing is that no information travels faster than the cosmic speed limit (i.e. the speed of light in a vacuum), and so the range of spacetime we can observe is limited by how much time light has had to travel. Gravitational waves are no exception--they propagate through spacetime at the speed of light. 
So any region of space outside of the observable universe cannot leave gravitational "imprints" in the observable universe because all paths between our universe and it exist only in the future. 



> Also I don't believe we can really observe the universe expanding outward uniformly. We can't observe it all in real time. The light we observe from distant galaxies or quasars tells us where they were and how our relative position has changed.


The Milky Way moves at around 600 km/s. Suppose it had been traveling constantly at that speed in a straight line for the last 6 billion years. Then the total distance covered would be about 4 megaparsecs. 
The Hubble telescope observes distant galaxies, some of which are at least 13 billion light years away (not accounting for metric expansion, which increases the actual distance by more than a factor of three). The velocity at which galaxies move is inconsequential insofar as the maximum distance they could have covered in the last 13 billion years is insignificant. 
Distant objects should be barely moving at all on the scale of the distance between the Earth and them. However, the spectra of these galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field are so redshifted that they should be moving faster than the speed of light, which is absurd. 

To put all this more succinctly, the light from distant galaxies is very rich in information, as is the electromagnetic spectrum in whole--we can study the emission spectra of galaxies to learn, among other things, how fast they are traveling and where their current position would be. 



> It could be that our place in space is being stretched away from the rest and causing everything to appear redshifted at the same degree relative to distance. You could think of pinching and pulling on the surface of a balloon.


I'm familiar with the rubber sheet analogy for general relativity, but what you're proposing makes no sense. You can't have a point in space "receding" in all directions while the rest of the space remains still. You ought to write an equation for that, and you'd find it doesn't work. 
The only event in which that is possible is in a spacetime singularity, i.e. an event horizon. 



> Honestly I didn't know a consistancy in the redshift had been obsrverved to indicate everything was accellerating away at the same rate. There's still anomalies such as blue outliers that I thought hadn't been explained.


Hubble observed that 80 years ago and there's been a lot of accumulating evidence to back his original study up. If you have an explanation for why there are a couple blue outliers among the other several thousand redshifted galaxies, I'm sure that the whole scientific community would be all ears. 



> If you have any good articles to point me to about what you said please share them.


If you read so much about dark matter then frankly you should have already known the things I've said about it. Dark matter has been known to be dispersed in galaxies and galaxy clusters ever since its discovery, and cosmological redshift has been an observed phenomenon for 80 years. 
Go take a look at the wikipedia articles on dark matter, dark energy and Hubble's law. They have all of the information you need.


----------

