what's Dark Matter to you?

[kyser_soze]

That's the mistake people make when they try to call quantum mechanics in aid of some other idea.

Just because we're made of subatomic particles doesn't mean that the way they behave in vast numbers (us) in any way rembles the way they behave individually. If this wasn't so, then at this moment I'd be 47% at this desk and 53% out on the porch having a ciggy... without having passed through the door.

I think, if I'm reading this correctly, Merlin is saying that quantum interactions have an effect on us, just as we must have an effect on them (e.g. while typing this I am deliverately ordering numberless quantum particles to behave in this and that way. How the interactions of the brain affect the QU I don't know). The effect of an indiviudal particle would, in the normal course of events, be of no consequence. Or is it? Surely Chaos maths shows that the smallest interactions can have huge effects when amplified - and there's a long way to go from the QU to us!

 

[Crispy]

Surely Chaos maths shows that the smallest interactions can have huge effects when amplified - and there's a long way to go from the QU to us!

It's not quite that simple. There are plenty of phenomena that exist at the very very tiny scale that never affect us. For example, the dual slit experiment can be performed with whole hydrogen atoms (IRRC), but you'd never in a million years get a billiard ball to do the same trick.

 

[J77]

Surely Chaos maths shows that the smallest interactions can have huge effects when amplified - and there's a long way to go from the QU to us!

In it's simplest form but things are far from simple...

The first argument that comes into my head against the simplicity of "sensitivity to initial conditions" is that of multiple time-scales - eg. if something reacts on a very slow time scale, that something may as well be treated as consant. Conversely, if things evolve extremely fast, you may as well average out their dynamics.

Including all variables and parameters is usually overkill - you have to look for the ones which actually do something to the system.

(Also, noise effects can obviously overshadow the less important dynamics.)

 

[J77]

J77: Anyway, trouble is that dark matter has by definition no mass, so this makes it very difficult...

Not true, dark matter has to have mass for it to have gravitatioal effects.

Perhaps I was thinking about the dark energy... (from the Horizon prog.)

 

[merlin wood]

That's the mistake people make when they try to call quantum mechanics in aid of some other idea.

Just because we're made of subatomic particles doesn't mean that the way they behave in vast numbers (us) in any way rembles the way they behave individually. If this wasn't so, then at this moment I'd be 47% at this desk and 53% out on the porch having a ciggy... without having passed through the door.

The significance of quantum effects in relation to human beings are not of the kind that physicists are so fond of talking about endlessly.

But rather such effect are, in particular, that hugely powerful forces have been measured to act within matter and so as to attract of repel between its subatomic parts, and yet these components can be and remain in highly organised states as complex as DNA and protein molecules.

Matter in all its forms as atoms, molecules and all life on Earth can be and remain organised out of its smallest parts despite the action of the forces.

So why shouldn't stars remain in too rapid orbits around galaxies without the aid of dark matter and especially when there really is no adequate theory of how galaxies formed in the first instance while assuming just the action of the forces?.

 

[J77]

So why shouldn't stars remain in too rapid orbits around galaxies without the aid of dark matter and especially when there really is no adequate theory of how galaxies formed in the first instance while assuming just the action of the forces?.

Did you see the galaxy forming simulations on Horizon? Although, they did admit that you can usually get what you want from a simulation

 

[laptop]

The significance of quantum effects in relation to human beings are not of the kind that physicists are so fond of talking about endlessly.

Did the significance they have for you come to you in a dream, or while tripping?

 

[J77]

links

Horizon: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/missing.shtml

Cosmological simulations: http://www.virgo.dur.ac.uk/new/index.php

Cool movie: http://star-www.dur.ac.uk/~takashi/pub2/s2burst_baryons.avi

 

[maya]

is "dark matter" the same as "antimatter"?

 

[Kameron]

I like the way dark matter travels at 9km/s

Just a little diversion but; the circumference of the Earth at the equator is 24900 miles and the residences of the tropic areas travel that distance every 24 hours. That means they are travelling just over a thousand miles an hour. At 38° latitude we are travelling about 820 miles per hour. That is quite impressive but it pales in comparison with the orbital speed of the Earth, The average distance of the Earth from sun is 93.5 million miles. This means that in 365.25 days the Earth travels 587.5 million miles. This works out to about 67 thousand miles per hour. The milky way in the neighbourhood of our solar system (called the Orion-Cynuis arm) has a period of rotation is ~250 million years and is situated ~20,000 Light years from the centre of the Galaxy giving it an average speed of 240 km/s. This is the speed we travel 24 hours a day, 365.25 days a year. Given these speeds let us just say that dark matter is essentially stopped or going at the same speed compared to us depending on what the 9km/s is relative to?

"It looks like you cannot ever pack it smaller than about 300 parsecs - 1,000 light-years; this stuff will not let you. That tells you a speed actually - about 9km/s - at which the dark matter particles are moving because they are moving too fast to be compressed into a smaller scale.

From this it seems to be a theoretical limit therefore probably fixed with respect to the universe and therefore should be compared to the 240 km/s that our sun is doing.

For the record I did try and get some stats on how fast our galaxy is moving away from others in our cluster but couldn't find enough data to make any calculations.

And "stop the world I want to get off" is going to give you serious whip lash!

 

[Crispy]

is "dark matter" the same as "antimatter"?

No. dark matter is a form of standard matter that we havn't figured out yet. It's not atoms, but it is matter. Antimatter is a mirror set of matter. Antielectrons are +ve charged, regular ones are -VE and so on. In fact, there's probably anti-dark matter. There is (almost certainly) no extant antimatter in the universe, as when it comes into contact with regular matter it annihilates in a flash of energy.

 

[merlin wood]

Did the significance they have for you come to you in a dream, or while tripping?

Neither (although, funnily enough, I do remember having a dream that I consider to be related this significance when I was very young).

But the detailed significance of the quantum findings came to me by developing a theory supported by the ordinary available natural evidence.

The reasonble basic assumptions of this theory are:

(1) no properties of the forces can or could ever be descrobed to explain how matter is organised into atoms and molecules. So that no such forces that surround the subatomic components of matter could themselves act so so as to organise these components so that the obey the Pauli principle.

(2) Quantum wave, spin and entanglement as described in quantum mechanics are evidence of the effects of a cause that, by acting nonlocally (ie. with an action that does not vary in any way with increasing distance) does not surround any objects. And thus Bohmian mechanics is the true interpretation of the quantum findings, although not adequate for developing a general theory.

(3) A nonlocal causatin could only act from extra spatial dimensions and such a cause could be visually represented in diagrams.

(4) a diagrammatic quantum hypothesis can be clearly related to astronomical observations and Big Bang cosmological theory and to.evidence of living organisms.

 

[Crispy]

...

 

[laptop]

...

 

[888]

The 9km/s is a reference to the average speed of the dark matter - i.e. its temperature. It's not going anywhere in particular. Air molecules are travelling at 15(?) m/s at room temperature.

The fact that we haven't managed to produce a useful "commonsense" metaphor for quantum mechanics isn't it's problem.

There is no common sense explanation for quantum mechanics. In fact, even newtonian mechanics, with its emphasis on force and acceleration rather than just velocity, doesn't immediately make sense to a "common sense" that is adapted to objects that usually stand still or move at a constant speed in everyday life.

 

[merlin wood]

OK so its puzzling.

But essentialy what you need to think is that there's this force that's measured to act within all matter that attracts between electrons and atomic nuclei and electrons and repels between electrons.

While there's nothing that can be measured and described of this force to suggest that it could cause matter to be to be in any of 9its forms as elements and compounds.

But rather you can think that there something that resists the force and prevents electrons falling into the nuclei. and acts so that electrons remain organised around nuclei.

Trouble is you can't describe the action of such a cause by measurement and mathematical formulae since it neither attracts nor repels objects and so has no measurable strength. So this is one big reason why most physicisrs don't recognise the existence of any such cause.

Although since 1972 many eperiments have been carried out where effects have been measured to occur at large scale distances between entangled photons in particular. while electrons (and protons) are also described in quantum mechanics as being entangled in a similar way

Physicists regard these entangled effects as being totally mysterious. but then you can think that they could be expected if you think that a cause needs to act so as to conserve or maintain the subatomic organisation of matter in spite of the forces.

Such a cause that doesn't surround objects could also produce quantum wave behaviour in subatomic particles and photons. So it can be asked could a cause that can act across the entire universe so as produce wave behaviour in radiation also act on the cosmic scale and so produce the effects on galaxies and galaxy clusters that are presently regarded as resulting from dark matter and gravity?

 

[Crispy]

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

 

[merlin wood]

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

I'm notdenying the existence of the fundamental forces. But I say ask what can the forces be described to explain?

So for one thing you have this electromagnetic force that can only be measured to have the same properties as it surrounds electrons and protons from whatever source.

So how could this force explain how electrons arrange themselves in all the various atoms and molecules of the elements and compounds?

the physics of the forcescan only say that subatomic particles are self organising. But then you have to say that quantum mechanics requires there to be quantum entanglement that as Einstein pointed out, requires there to be some kind of 'spooky action at a distance', and which has now been measured on a large scale in many physics experiments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

 

[merlin wood]

So the existence of a cause acting upon matter with nonlocal effects - that don't vary in any way with increasin distance between objects - makes quite simple and straight forward sense because you can ask how can matter remain organised out of its subatomic parts given the action of the forces?

While in answer to this question you can propose that a cause would need to act universally just so as to maintain or conserve this organisation.

This cause would therefore act without pushing or pulling objects and so would have no measurable strength that could, like the forces, reduce or cease with increasing distance between objects.

Nonlocality exists, the universe is next door and makes sense!

 

[Crispy]

So how could this force explain how electrons arrange themselves in all the various atoms and molecules of the elements and compounds?

This was figured out years ago, and quantum mechanics confirms it. I'd like to see some references for this massive hole in our knowledge of how subatomic particles are arranged into atoms and molecules.

 

[merlin wood]

This was figured out years ago, and quantum mechanics confirms it. I'd like to see some references for this massive hole in our knowledge of how subatomic particles are arranged into atoms and molecules.

Trouble is, for understandable reasons of interpretation, methodology and specialism, no-physicist has yet considered the problem in a sensible and systematic theoretiacl way in relation to large scale natural evidence and, it seems, refuse to take my own efforts seriously or. mostly, just fail to respond.

But I hope to acquire enough loot to set up and run my own website some time later this year.

 

[Crispy]

Trouble is, for understandable reasons of interpretation, methodology and specialism, no-physicist has yet considered the problem in a sensible and systematic theoretiacl way in relation to large scale natural evidence and, it seems, refuse to take my own efforts seriously or. mostly, just fail to respond.

Well, no offence intended (although you'll probably take some), you don't really come across as someone who's rationally probing modern physics, but more as a fairly standard 'hippy who read a brief history of time , took some hallucinogens and realised that QM is just as weird as a trip'. For this reason, I'm not surprised that no scientist wants to talk about it with you. Remember, that's just my opinion based on a few posts on a bulletin board - you could be a world class physicist for all I know

 

[J77]

I read your site Merlin - and while it reads well, I'm left with the impression that you're just a good writer.

I think a lot of this new-age/science cross-over boils down to this.

People who are good story writers, able to gloss over the science.

Not that I think that's a bad thing - just that over recent years people are taking this stuff to heart, as the gospel truth.

 

[Diem K]

Back to the original question, my money is on something LIKE following option:

(However, due to general ignorance, lack of understanding/research I am not willing to stake more than €5)

According to string theory there are more than the "normal" 4 dimensions which we are familiar with. Theories suggest that there could be 10 or 11 dimensions: the dimensions which we can't see exist everywhere but are "curled" up really small so we can't see them.

I reckon that dark matter could be found in the "curled" up dimensions - perhaps its the dark matter that's casued them to be "curled" up??

Maybe the connection between our the dimensions we know and the ones we don't is curled up really small but on "the other side" they open out again?? This is where we could find some special matter???

Dark energy could be a force at the boundary that repels the dimensions we know and stops anything leaking into the "curled up" ones????

(please forgive non-scientific jargon in this post and feel free to advise wherever the content is considered nonsense)

 

[Crispy]

To be honest, there's probably only about 100 people in the world who can speak with actual authority on this.

 

[merlin wood]

Well, no offence intended (although you'll probably take some), you don't really come across as someone who's rationally probing modern physics, but more as a fairly standard 'hippy who read a brief history of time , took some hallucinogens and realised that QM is just as weird as a trip'. For this reason, I'm not surprised that no scientist wants to talk about it with you. Remember, that's just my opinion based on a few posts on a bulletin board - you could be a world class physicist for all I know

Actually, I've spent about fifteen years reading up on quantum theory and interpretation as well as cosmology and astronomy and written several versions of a theory that is now coming up to 16,000 words long.

One big big problem in communicating my theory to physicists is the chasm between the way quantum physics is taught and interpreted in a standard BSc physics course and a nonlocal causal interpretation, which for various reasons, is seldom taught at all in a degree course and is not required reading unless you want to specialise in comparative quantum theory. This being so even though the causal interpretation is mathematically detsiled snf consistent with a wide range of evidence.

For strong mathematical and commonsense arguments in favour of the causal account and against the others see John Stuart Bell's Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (CUP) and a short clear exposition of the de Broglie-Bohm theory see Jim Baggott's Beyond Measure (OUP).

 

[merlin wood]

although I suppose I could add that I do have an early effort on a cheap website
http://uk.geocities.com/cosmicmind2003/

but the cosmology in particular needs updating considerably.

 

[Crispy]

I still don't get your principle question.

While the only universal causes that science generally recognise at present are a few push or pull causes called forces. But could the universe evolve into the galaxies of stars and planetary systems, and atoms molecules and living organisms including trees and human beings given only the action of such causes? Would there not need to act a further cause or causes of a different kind to explain how the universe has evolved into and remains in this particular form?

I was under the impression that the formation of stars, the arrangement of protons and neutrons in the nucleus and the arrangement of atoms in molecules weer already very well explained by current physics. We can certainly predict their behaviour to very high levels of accuracy. Why is there a need to try and turn Quantum Entaglement into a fundamental force?

PS: If English is your second language, I apologise, but your sentence structure could really do with some cleaning up. You're a hard guy to read

 

[merlin wood]

I still don't get your principle question.

I was under the impression that the formation of stars, the arrangement of protons and neutrons in the nucleus and the arrangement of atoms in molecules weer already very well explained by current physics. We can certainly predict their behaviour to very high levels of accuracy. Why is there a need to try and turn Quantum Entaglement into a fundamental force?

PS: If English is your second language, I apologise, but your sentence structure could really do with some cleaning up. You're a hard guy to read

You only get the impression that the forces can explain everything because it does seem very much as though the forces could be the only causes that act in the world. And also because Quantun Field Theory has been developed without needing to describe any further cause.

But then, really, like Keplers laws, QFT only accounts for the evidence and predicts the results of further observations and measurements by describing the behaviour of objects and not any cause of this behaviour.

So ask how could the forces alone produce DNA and protein molecules? Where and how could there be the complexity in the nature of these forces that could produce and maintain such complexity and variation of organisation? And then think of what details could be described of a cause that would just act so as to maintain all this organisation

And then again, look at all the stuff that has been needed to be introduced - ie both theories and exotic matter and energy - to explain the large scale observable universe, while none of this stuff can be confirmed by any definite observable evidence. One can hink of this as being lke the Ptolomaic explanation of planetary motion before Copernicus cam along with the simple right answer.

I expect the lack of readability is in part due to trying to say too much in too short a space, when really it does take at least 60,000 words (+ diagrams) to present a sufficiently convincing argument.

 

[Crispy]

So ask how could the forces alone produce DNA and protein molecules? Where and how could there be the complexity in the nature of these forces that could produce and maintain such complexity and variation of organisation?

There's nothing magical about it. The mechanisms by which atoms form molecules are well understood and stand up to repeated experiments. The formation of complex molecules fits in perfectly with the models we have. It's amazing that such simple rules can produce such fabulous complexity, but the reasoning can be followed through all the way. Look at the weather. Unpredictable and full of forms and behaviours. But with our knowledge of how it workds, we can build models that behave in exactly the same way.

I am fully open to new theories that can explain the things we can observe in a more accurate way - this is the way science progresses. But I can't see the gap in our knowledge that you're trying to fill. By side-stepping the scientific method and proposing fabulous mechanisms to explain things that are already well explained, you are being no more scientific than religion. If what you are describing is so groundbreaking, then you should be able to tell us of an experiment we can do to prove it.