Dark Matter Makes Up 80% of the Universe.

[64K]

I'm a little confused by this. If it's matter and it causes a gravitational effect then it must have mass so why wouldn't it be able to absorb light.

http://arstechnica.com/features/2014/07/dark-matter-makes-up-80-of-the-universe-but-where-is-it-all/

 

[Sasqui]

That, my friend, is the answer they are trying to find. What is it and why does if affect gravity but seemingly nothing else?

 

[Drone]

90% of all matter in Andromeda and Milky Way is dark matter

 

[Sasqui]

Here's a great article on it: http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

This is mind blowing:

"The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe."

In the context of e=m*c^2 (Mass and energy are different forms of the same thing):

"One explanation for dark energy is that it is a property of space. Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing. Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property that Einstein discovered is that it is possible for more space to come into existence. Then one version of Einstein's gravity theory, the version that contains a cosmological constant, makes a second prediction: "empty space" can possess its own energy. Because this energy is a property of space itself, it would not be diluted as space expands. As more space comes into existence, more of this energy-of-space would appear. As a result, this form of energy would cause the Universe to expand faster and faster. Unfortunately, no one understands why the cosmological constant should even be there, much less why it would have exactly the right value to cause the observed acceleration of the Universe. "

 

[SKBARON]

I though the distribution of stuff in the universe was something like:
5% visible matter
about 25% dark matter
and 70% dark energy

Did something change for it to be 80% dark matter or was it a mistake in the article?

 

[Ahhzz]

matter=unspent energy

 

[Sasqui]

I though the distribution of stuff in the universe was something like:
5% visible matter
about 25% dark matter
and 70% dark energy

Did something change for it to be 80% dark matter or was it a mistake in the article?

The NASA article says "roughly" 67% is dark energy. Close enough!

 

[64K]

I though the distribution of stuff in the universe was something like:
5% visible matter
about 25% dark matter
and 70% dark energy

Did something change for it to be 80% dark matter or was it a mistake in the article?

The article I linked to must be wrong. I would trust the NASA article that Sasqui linked to more.

 

[Drone]

"distribution of everything in the universe" is not the same as "distribution of matter in the universe"

everything = dark matter, dark energy, matter, energy, antimatter
matter = dark matter, matter

distribution of everything in the universe means 2/3 is dark matter
distribution of matter in the universe means 80-90% is dark matter, 20-10% normal matter and antimatter

 

[patrico]

matter=unspent energy

i like to look at it as condensed energy, like matter is the water and energy is the steam, i like your take on it too


we are in big holographic tv screen powered by eletrons, played by the creators and its running super sim universe13 on an open source op sys hehe

 

[W1zzard]

we are in big holographic tv screen powered by eletrons, played by the creators and its running super sim universe13 on an open source op sys hehe

http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847

 

[Sasqui]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847

 

[Ahhzz]

.....
we are in big holographic tv screen powered by electrons, played by the creators and its running super sim universe13 on an open source op sys hehe

My controller keeps making me pick my nose at weird times of the day.....

 

[FordGT90Concept]

We know that there's a lot of invisible debris in between solar systems in galaxies. That could account for a lot of dark matter. It is too far from any light source to be visible and too small to obstruct the view from distant light sources. The question is what is between galaxies, if anything? That space is much more vast than the space in galaxies.

 

[Steevo]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847

I was sold by the smiley face.


Particle wave duality and the fact that according to its findings photon's are a mere probability wave until we observe them and collapse them into a particle that interacts would be awesome if not for the pesky trees, but perhaps they are a simulation of the probable interaction with a energetic particle given the output from calculated sources in the equation also.

 

[W1zzard]

We know that there's a lot of invisible debris in between solar systems in galaxies. That could account for a lot of dark matter. It is too far from any light source to be visible and too small to obstruct the view from distant light sources. The question is what is between galaxies, if anything? That space is much more vast than the space in galaxies.

If I remember correctly normal unlit matter was excluded somehow, don't remember the details.

Space between galaxies can't account for dark matter, which has to be clumped up around the center of galaxies, so that rotational velocities of the outer stars work out properly (the underlying reason why dark matter was invented)

 

[FordGT90Concept]

If the entire basis for dark matter is the behavior of galaxies then I say it isn't matter at all that is responsible because gravity is not responsible. Whatever establishes the parameters of a galaxy likely moves the fabric of space and time entirely as well as having immense gravity. Think of gravity as a sphere but the effect on space/time as more of a torus. Perhaps we'll learn if even medium stars like our own have its own torus effect as Voyager travels deeper into space. If it does, Voyager may be unable to leave because it is unpowered.

It could also explain why solar systems tend to be flat as well. Perhaps the same star stuff that allows a star to be born in small quantities allows a galaxy to be born in large quantities. I never bought the idea the stars could haphazardly form out of cloud of gas. Something has to have caused the gases to coalesce otherwise why would it not form a gaseous planet like Jupiter? This same stuff is what also may make the fusion heart of a star tick. When a star dies, the same stuff is responsible for forming a new star out of the debris.

Think a black hole but as a force of construction instead of destruction as Hawking likes to make it.

 

[W1zzard]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve
http://www.cool-science.ca/article/3360

Jupiter almost became the second star in our solar system, if it had only gotten more mass (1 star per solar system is actually quite uncommon)

and a star dying provides is one way to disturb nearby gas clouds to form a new solar system. btw, electrostatic attraction is a big factor, too, to have matter clump together, besides gravity.

 

[AphexDreamer]

Here's a great article on it: http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

This is mind blowing:

"The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe."

In the context of e=m*c^2 (Mass and energy are different forms of the same thing):

"One explanation for dark energy is that it is a property of space. Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing. Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property that Einstein discovered is that it is possible for more space to come into existence. Then one version of Einstein's gravity theory, the version that contains a cosmological constant, makes a second prediction: "empty space" can possess its own energy. Because this energy is a property of space itself, it would not be diluted as space expands. As more space comes into existence, more of this energy-of-space would appear. As a result, this form of energy would cause the Universe to expand faster and faster. Unfortunately, no one understands why the cosmological constant should even be there, much less why it would have exactly the right value to cause the observed acceleration of the Universe. "

So it sounds like its just space stacking within itself.

Also I'm sure this isn't an answer, but if it weren't the right value we wouldn't be here to observe it. Since we are here, we can observe it and it happens to be just right.

 

[Drone]

i like to look at it as condensed energy

matter / energy .. after all it's just an illusion created by strings or branes in hyperdimensions. The main hero here is the spacetime itself. It's all about resonances and vibrations sounds pervy I know

 

[FordGT90Concept]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve
http://www.cool-science.ca/article/3360

Jupiter almost became the second star in our solar system, if it had only gotten more mass (1 star per solar system is actually quite uncommon)

and a star dying provides is one way to disturb nearby gas clouds to form a new solar system. btw, electrostatic attraction is a big factor, too, to have matter clump together, besides gravity.

Let me start over...

"Dark energy" is on the verge of being dispelled by way of "gravitational waves." They operate by expanding space-time itself. So, if this proves true, could the astrophysics need for "dark matter" be eliminated by taking the same concept and placing an object in the center that these waves are attracted to? The further out they get, the more energetic they become up to a limit presumably established by the properties of the object in the center? It may, in fact, be the opposite: the same waves responsible for expanding the universe are being caught and decelerating as they approach the galactic core. Not very likely seeing as there doesn't seem to be any order to the orientation of galaxies. No matter how the rotation of "gravitational waves" is achieved, can they not explain the rotation of galaxies?

Edit: Actually if you think of a black hole for gravitational waves, it pretty much fits perfectly.

 

[Drone]

nice video

 

[Drone]

Is cosmic radiation the dawn of new physics or statistical slip-up?

Interesting article to say the least

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Not really. The limitations of our perspective can always skew results. It is nigh impossible to prove how skewed it is until it can be studied from a different perspective.

 

[mpc755]

Dark matter is not a clump of stuff traveling along with the Milky Way.

The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the dark matter.

This is why the Milky Way's halo is lopsided.

The displaced dark matter pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward the matter.

Displaced dark matter pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

What is referred to as deformed spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the dark matter.