Known Dark Matter Isn’t Enough

Brian Koberlein

I am an astrophysicist and faculty at Rochester Institute of Technology. I write about astronomy, physics and the occasional other topic that strikes my fancy. Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. mhstnsc says:

    Isn’t supersymmetry a hoax?

    “The failure of the Large Hadron Collider to find evidence for supersymmetry has led some physicists to suggest that the theory should be abandoned as a solution to such problems, as any superpartners that exist would now need to be too massive to solve the paradoxes anyway.[2] Experiments with the Large Hadron Collider also yielded extremely rare particle decay events which casts doubt on many versions of supersymmetry.”

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

    • It’s not a hoax, it just isn’t supported by solid evidence at the moment.

    • Nick James says:

      “Hoax – Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.”
      That is a rather unpleasant tag to apply to a proper scientific theory, as if it was just plucked out of the air over a beer by a bunch of people with ulterior motives.
      I prefer to see it as one of the best things we have had so far that tries to take the Standard Model of particles a bit further. It may not be right, but a lot of things are not right while advancing thinking on a topic.
      You have a deeper insight into this, obviously. Or at least, you claim you do.

  2. So just cos we don’t know how hot is under neutrino levels, cold for us, boiling over there. Major question is “What is that under that starts that cyklus and merge energy at such small levels to become higher particles such as neutrinos ?” As you mantion in “Little Neutral One” cit:’Radioactive decay is where the atom of an unstable element can decay into another type of element, releasing energy in the process.’ Latter in text stand ‘In 1968 Bruno Pontecorvo proposed that neutrinos had a small mass. This proposal would change the standard model slightly, but leave the overall predictions largely unchanged.’ But if we want to go in details we can tell that everything with energy has some minimal mass. Again, we can’t tell how big it is cos we are too big. So if mass is relative to energy there is always some mass in particles. Now we can ask next “What mass represents in fact, for real ?” We call it ‘weight’, but weight is not just mass. Even smallest electron can be something as sub dimensional neutron binary or ternary system based on our binary star system but much larger, or in this case a lot smaller. I’m just appointing to plausible situation. It is strange, real strange, when we see this on big scale. So what is mass ? We explain it as physical property of some matter. When is mass, then is matter. Later on studies we learn how EM forces doing the job we see as any physical interaction on our levels. Huh, let’s stop !! Mass is repulsive/attractive force of energy !?? Wooooo. But how can that be ? Then, there is no mass ! Just energy. Energy is somehow coded as there was proposal in M theory, string one. I’m not sure what we need that mass for ?! Better thing is that we find out how this energy preserve it’s form over sub/supra dimensions. If we really live in matrix then we got all the answers around us, but the problem may be to accept it bare minded.
    So about 1&3 is matter, up from neutrinos, we got zero Kelvins, we got Gama rays, so why we can’t have increment of 1&3 in dimensions from small to big ? We can use something like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prLIBnQeMME&index=22&list=LLVqdn3_5ECxTR3K0T4ETihA

    Cit:’Since neutrinos are “hot”, they have lots of kinetic energy to escape the gravitational pull of galaxies…’, or they are lost all energy and then they can ‘fall in’ this dimension, or slip to upper one. We observe them by experiments via LHC and sort of. We spend a sum of energy in collision, how then can they have lot’s of kinetic ? They are particles at rest, spoiled, warned out or so.
    Dark matter don’t need to clump at some regular base. It can behave almost like our twin universe(where we have matter and galaxies) there it is, cos it follow similar pattern. Universe don’t have college or degree in some specialization. Universe is smart enough to give us golden ratio, Phy and things like that. He is master of arrangement. Mr. Fix It.
    So in short. If 1&3 is matter, we can say that one third up and one third under give almost one whole integral part where universe is possible.
    I think that primordial b.h.-reverse-dark matter-reverse-our b.h. is just one cycle of dark matter+dark energy surplus. Like baryons, when they can’t be here they are in rest state, when they pop out they decay if not couple like. Defective state.
    About WIMPs. I would like to call them 1&3 part of each fractal-foam state(not space/time as Einstein proposed) cos space and time is unified name for different measurements, OK we all read time world wide same way. Supersymmetry is maybe just a by-product of coded, as proposed M theory say, strings in foaming 1&3 interpolation states. LHC is not giving supersymmetry, rather super-echoing. It’s like our colleges. We are recycling recycled recycle. Neutrino will pop out or half decay cos he has to. Universe has no sense for jokes.
    So, what gravity is ? Gravity is material stress expression of space around us. Gravity is The World of Universe.

  3. JLM says:

    The WMAP page from NASA says that 4.6/(24+4.6)=16% of the matter in the universe is made of atoms. Where does your 37% estimate come from?

    http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html

    • ..one third was about that we got step under, us and one step over. 16% is for now, and how much we can say. In some day it may be 20 or 30%. Thanks for correcting me. I m about the story not bare facts.

Leave a Reply

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: