Distribution of Dark and Light Matter: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » Distribution of Dark and Light Matter » Distribution of Dark and Light Matter

Distribution of Dark and Light Matter
breaking science news

Distribution of Dark and Light Matter

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5417

Posted 01/11/07 - 04:18 PM: Subject: Distribution of Dark and Light Matter	#1
See http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn10903?DCM... for details. Observational technology has improved so much that we now have 3d maps of the distribution of dark and light matter for regions at varying distances. This has allowed simulation of the dynamics of interactions between dark and light matter. I speculate that we will learn of some interesting connections between dark matter and black holes. Have any of the physicists here heard more interesting tales?
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

aegger
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 27, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 132

Posted 04/05/07 - 01:53 AM:	#2
Well, at this point there is a scientist who proposes a new idea on the movement of our universe. Dark matter (unless you are simply referring to matter that does not emit light from black body radiation), is being questioned as dark energy is being questioned as well. I am lost on the person's name, but essentially he has formulated the equation F=m*(a^2/ao). So the current acceleration squared over the original acceleration of the universe. It provides no need for dark matter or dark energy to cause this differential of galactic movements or, more importantly, differential acceleration amongst a spiraling universe. Many physicists are up in arms, but I don't see it as being contradictory to Newton's laws (a basic premise behind physics as we know it). If, in any localized situation, which is what we tend to work with, the acceleration we observe is fairly constant, then a=ao and F=ma again. I believe I saw this in one of these three magazines within the last few months (Nature, Discover, Scientific American). However, the validity of this compared to dark matter and energy is still up for debate (of course). In general, the website you've posted has more to offer as far as progress is concerned. Definately heed what they say, if dark matter and energy exist.

Sepiraph
Arayashiki

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2004
Location: In the vastness of the Net
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 489

Posted 04/05/07 - 11:36 AM:	#3
I am pretty sure we had the observationary technology for awhile now, even a few years ago when I was in undergrad, one of my classmates was working on a project with data from gravitational lensing. I am even bit puzzled as to why they'd consider this as scientific news, perhaps because they mapped a fairly large portion of the universe.
"... But as pioneers, they can become entities that will enlighten those who remained in the lower structure and make them continually aware of the higher structure, in the same way man felt respect and terror towards spiritual entities in antiquity." - Hideo Kuze

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5417

Posted 04/05/07 - 11:42 AM:	#4
Sepiraph wrote: I am pretty sure we had the observationary technology for awhile now, even a few years ago when I was in undergrad, one of my classmates was working on a project with data from gravitational lensing. I am even bit puzzled as to why they'd consider this as scientific news, perhaps because they mapped a fairly large portion of the universe. Yes, I think the size of the region mapped is what brought this item to the foreground. I have this hunch that when matter falls into a black hole, the part that isn't expelled in a jet, it is transformed into dark rotational energy which feeds back into the cosmos gravitational field. I doubt we'll be around to see very definitive answers, but it looks interesting.
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Cadrache
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada
Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 953

Posted 04/05/07 - 01:07 PM:	#5
The article concerning this guy was in the Discovery magazine around 6 months ago I think. It is probably the article you are talking about. I forget his name as well, though I do remember he was wearing a light blue-green shirt in the picture, with a tree with very green leaves in the upper left corner. Oh and some grey and brown/red colorings for the pavement/benches etc. I'm paraphrasing this to my own understanding, you should still be able to follow along hopefully. The difficulty, if I remember correctly, is that when we observed data of galaxies concerning their rotations that the outer edges are not moving at the correct speed as estimated as predicted by their old models. Because the prediction was off, obviously the universe is at mistake. So, they devised a hidden variable, which eventually was coined to be dark matter variables. Now to move on to 'basic physics', grade 11 theory that begets all this crap. This is concerning movement of an object such like a wheel. What they do, is they arbitraily place this point P for observation, and choose 2 other points on the wheel the same distance R, from the center of rotation of the wheel. What they then do, is they move the wheel forward. According to the picture, and the theory, this point P does not move in relation to the 'wheel'. What this denotes is that if you take an up/down approach, the weel, or circular moving object that you are looking at, is moving faster on the top of the wheel, then it is on the bottom. The math adds up, unfortunately the whole theory is a piece of crap. The problem is that it shows relativity, and they do not account for relativity. They make 2 mistakes in my accounting. If you apply the point of observation as a relation to the wheel, they forget to move the point P. In other words, if your point of observation is on the wheel, then if you turn the wheel, your point of observation should move, because your point of observation is always a particular individual particle on the wheel. If you move the wheel, and leave the particle constant to the rest of the wheel (ie. for some 'odd' reason, this particle moves with the rest of the wheel), then you naturally create the relativity distortion. The theory does not account for this. In other words, what you assumed to be a stable point P in space, is not relatively stable. Now, say they figure this all out and understand what I just said and they moved the point of observation at the same direction as the wheel moves, This keeps the wheel relative to the point of observation. It does not however keep the point relative to space. The wheel moves, since it travels along the ground. The second mistake I see, when they explain this theory, is that they shift the observation point P to the left. The don't keep the observation point P at the observation point P when you keep the observation relative to space, instead of keeping the point P relative to the wheel. What does all this have to do with the observation of the galaxy? Well it rotates. Where is the point of observation comming from? Well it is running around the dammed galaxy. The problem I have with what i've seen with the theory, is it does not take into consideration either the relativity of the point of observation (ie. earth, we'll say the rotation around the sun is negligible) to that of the galaxy, nor do they take the consideration of the point of relatvity towards spacial dimensions. In other words, if you do all the math, the observation that the outer edges of the galaxy is moving faster then they should be might be accountable because they do not include the relativity problem because they failed to notice the relativity of the point in the first experiment concerning the wheel. Sorry, just an annoyance of mine concerning all the 'galaxy' is not going as predicted attitude. No, i've not done the math, if you want to, feel free, just don't forget to ask which name I want tagged to the work, since it is my observation. Edit: Forgot to mention that this is all on the aspect that I don't have all the actual data, having no little white sheets of paper claiming 'I know stuff', so most is probably 3rd or 4th party removed and 'digested' towards easier understanding to the masses. They get stuff wrong when they do that on occassion, or forget to mention all the factors.. Edited by Cadrache on 04/05/07 - 01:13 PM

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1949

Posted 04/11/07 - 02:58 PM:	#6
There is some controversy about the distribution of dark matter and dark energy. Present thinking, and the math behind it, posits that dark matter is evenly distributed throughout the universe. The recently completed Sloan Survey seems to indicate that there are vast areas devoid of dark matter and dark energy and that it clusters like matter. Defenders of the status quo point out that the survey was of only a part of the universe and that the larger survey now being undertaken will show them correct in their assumptions. However, others have come up with a fractal model that agrees very closely with current observations of matter, dark matter, and dark energy distribution throughout the universe. Interestingly, this fractal model works at all scales while the traditional model has seemed to retreat to scales not yet surveyed. Needless to say this has spurred a great controversy among cosmologists.

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.