Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Black Holes--a theory

Hi All,

The other night, I was watching an episode of "The Universe" on The
History Channel. The episode was about Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
It got me to thinking, and though I'll admit I'm no physicist, I
thought I would run this by you all and see if you think this is
plausible...and I'll let you work out the math either way, lol!

Ok, anyway, the episode talked about how we know that dark matter is
most likely some unknown type of particle that is not like ordinary
matter in that it has mass and gravity, but is not made of atoms and
therefore does not interact with ordinary matter. The episode also
mentioned that by mapping with gravitational lensing, we now know that
dark matter forms a sort of scaffolding that keeps the galaxies from
spinning themselves apart. Also discussed was the mysterious dark
energy that is causing the universe to continue accelerating in its
expansion. Several candidates for what dark matter is were discussed
and ruled out. One of those candidates was black holes.

Anyhow, as I said, it got me to thinking and I think I came up with
something that might explain a whole lot:

Ok, we know that dark matter is holding the universe together and that
there is approximately a 10:1 ratio of dark matter to normal matter.
Since that is the case, it seems unlikely to me that it's counterpart,
dark energy, is any type of energy that is pushing the normal matter
apart. There simply isn't enough normal matter in the universe that
pushing on it would cause the universe to behave as it does. That
leaves the scaffolding--the dark matter! Whatever the dark energy is,
it is causing the dark matter lattice itself to expland, carrying the
galaxies along with it. So, that leaves--in my mind, at least--one
question: What could possibly push on something that is 10 times more
massive than normal matter and cause it to move? Since dark matter
does not interact easily with normal matter, it would HAVE to be
something that behaves in like manner--easily interacting with dark
matter while not interacting much--if at all--with ordinary matter.
There is only one thing I can think of that interacts with dark matter
easily: MORE DARK MATTER!!!

Now, this is where black holes come into the picture. If jets of dark
matter are pushing against the dark matter lattice and causing it to
accelerate as it expands, then that extra dark matter has to be coming
from somewhere. My answer: Black holes! Consider:

A black hole is a collapsed star with a gravity well so intense that
it warps space and time into a singularity. Any--and I cannot stress
the important of the word that follows *enough*--normal particle,
including a photon, that is trapped in its gravity, cannot escape.
Current theory, as I understand it, says that anything that gets
pulled in gets "spaghettified" into a string of atoms. But what if
that is not the case? What if, instead of a string of ordinary atoms,
the intense gravity of the black hole crushes ordinary matter and
compacts it so much that instead of just a string of atoms
disappearing into nothingness, it converts it into a whole new kind of
particle...or technically, the oldest type of particle in existence in
our Universe....dark matter?! This substance, not being made of atoms
as normal matter is, could conceivably not be bound to all the same
laws of physics as said normal matter. Presuming this is the case, I
believe it is quite possible that dark matter could not only escape
the gravity well of a black hole, but could, in fact, be ejected from
it at such a high velocity--perhaps even at superlight speeds (which
would make it undetectable) that it displaces the darkmatter in its
path almost like a cueball knocking the 8 ball into the corner pocket.

Anyway, that's my theory. What do you think?

Thanks,
Jason

Dear jason:

<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

We don't know what internal structure it might have (your
reference to "atoms"), but it only interacts with normal matter
via gravity. For now "Dark Matter" is simply a placeholder for
something we cannot experimentally verify other than by deep
space observations.

There are variations of different theories that do what Dark
Matter (and Dark Energy) do... without them. Science however
needs to investigate Dark Matter, because these modified theories
end up with "arbitrary" assumptions, so K.I.S.S. comes into
effect.


More like it controls how they "spin apart".


This "pushing" also affects the Dark Matter. It *is* a
"gravitational effect".


No. The matter and dark matter relationship is held together by
gravity, and the relationship (and proportions) is not altered
over time. Therefore Dark Energy affects both types of matter
exactly the same.


It isn't that Dark Matter is "discretely" more massive, it is
that there is just more of it. And F=ma... does not care how
much "m" is.


No, you have well and truly wandered off into the woods now.


No jets, because they too would lense. Dark Matter is
*attractive*. Dark Energy affects all matter and is repulsive.


Which you noted was discounted. Also, there are no "lensing
jets" coming from supermassive black holes.


No, all we can see of a black hole is a "surface of last
emission", where light essentially can never leave. No
singularity exists this side of that surface, and we have no
tools to survey the inside and report back. So we *guess* there
is a singularity


Including Dark Matter, since mass is constrained to travel less
than c.


Depends on the size of the black hole. Were you to fall into the
one at the center of our galaxy, you'd never know it until some
long time after you could no longer tell the outside world about
it.


No. First, it still cannot leave. Second, there is no evidence
or expectation that Dark Matter came first.


We don't know that.


But the Universe that it is in *requires* it to be so bound.


No, it would be entirely fatal to the Universe, and completely
unbound from galaxies... making Hot Dark Matter does not help
Science. The Dark Matter halos are "stuck" to the galaxies they
surround. This means these particles must travel sublight speeds
when at the event horizon.


If you like this sort of stuff, you need to take classes and
study more.

David A. Smith

On Feb 7, 12:01*am, "[Only registered users see links. ]" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

Let's make up a timeline (units are billion years).
0 = Big Bang
0+ = Inflation stops, "flat expansion"[*] starts
0.0004 = CMBR medium stops glowing
10 = end of "flat expansion", start of acceleration
14.7 = where / when we are now
[*] the expansion rate did vary a bit over that age, but not too much.

Dark Energy Only effects "things" that are ~ 5Gly (or ~5Gy) away.
Your "jets" idea happens to miss everything local (which are much
bigger, angularly speaking), and only hit more distant stuff. How can
it do that?

I think the thing you need to consider is that "Dark Energy" is a
shorthand name for the effect of how fast new space is being formed
between "super clusters" now.

And I should have provided a link to a good online resource:
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ] (somplace to start...)

David A. Smith

Hey, it was only an idea. At least it shows there are people out
there who THINK about this!

Although, you know... Black holes are only one possible source. It's
a big universe out there and we have no way of knowing what other
phenomena there are out there that we haven't discovered yet!

Jason

Dear jason:

On Feb 7, 12:11*pm, "[Only registered users see links. ]" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

Oh I personally accept that black holes are the source of the *effect*
of DM... remotely. But as to some mythical, otherwise undetectable
"substance" as Dark Matter... no.


Yes, I hope we get a chance to go find out.

David A. Smith

David,

Thanks for responding. First, let me clarify a few points, as your
response seems to indicate I was unclear in some areas. 1)The
physicists discussing this topic on "The Universe" discounted black
holes as BEING dark matter because there simply are not enough of them
to produce its gravitational effects; What I suggested in my original
post was that black holes may EMIT it, which is a star of a different
magnitude. 2)Every time I used the words "We know" in my original
post, it was because those same physicists used that phrase when THEY
said it. 3)I realize it may be a matter of semantics, but it was said
on that same episode of "The Universe" that the normal matter in the
universe is sticking to the dark matter, not vice versa. Don't know
what, if any, difference that really makes.

Now that that's out of the way, let me address a few of the things you
said. The bulk of the statements you use to refute my argument center
around the fact that everything in the Universe must conform to its
natural laws. This is true; however, you are making the mistake of
assuming that just because we've been watching the game for a few
decades that we've learned the entire rulebook! The number of
contradictory paradoxes we've observed in these past few decades
should be enough to tell you we haven't! Case in point: Electrons in
orbit around the nucleus of an atom jump spontaneously from one orbit
to another with no apparent path between points A and B--a "quantum
jump." There are only two ways to explain this that I know of: The
electron is either shifting in and out of our Universe or else it is
exceeding the speed of light. Both of these explanations defy our
understanding of the laws of nature. Yet, our own observations of
this event tell us that one of these MUST be the case! Therefore, it
stands to reason that either there are some things in the Universe
that do not conform to all of its laws, or else that we do not yet
KNOW all the rules! It is, therefore possible to have a particle able
to move with enough velocity to escape a black hole without violating
the laws of physics!

You also said that we don't know that dark matter is not composed of
atoms. Well, unless there is an element on the periodic table that
I'm not aware of which contains no protons, neutrons OR electrons,
whatever dark matter is *cannot* be atomic in nature! If it were, it
wouldn't be "dark" because we would be able to detect it directly.

You also made the point that Hot Dark Matter would be fatal to the
Universe and not bound to galaxies. I have two things to say on
this. 1)I don't know about you, but I would call any force that will
one day cause the universe to pop like a cosmic balloon and then
dissipate "fatal"; and 2)Cold Dark Matter does exist, but it does not
discount the existence of Hot Dark Matter because, if all matter in
the universe follows the same set of laws then dark matter, like any
other particle in the universe, can--and does, because it MUST--exist
in various states of excitement.

Therefore, Hot Dark Matter WOULD conform to all the laws of physics,
including those that we've seen evidence of, but do not yet fully
understand. This brings me to another point in favor of the idea I
brought up in my original post: Dark Matter--Hot and Cold alike--
conforms to all the laws of physics, including the Newtonian laws. We
do know that when two objects collide, there is a transfer of momentum
between them. The slower object will speed up and the faster one will
slow down. Therefore it is possible that Hot Dark Matter colliding
with Cold IS the dark energy that is causing the expansion of the
universe to accelerate, as I suggested because the Hot would not just
rip through the cold and keep going at its original speed. Nor would
the Cold remain still upon the collision. The Hot would "cool off"
and slow down, while the Cold would "heat up" and gain speed, moving
with the momentum transferred to it. The normal matter fixed to the
Cold would simply move along with it!

Lastly, I will address your point about Hot Dark Matter not helping
Science by saying this: Neither does assuming that we know all the
rules and dismissing an idea just because we think we know better.
Science is helped by thinking outside the box. If we DIDN'T think
outside it, we'd all still be living on a tabletop in a geocentric
universe surrounded by crystal spheres!

Ok, I'm going to end this post here, as I am about to start waxing
philosophical.

Thanks for listening!

Jason

Dear jason:

<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
....

That was clear. In fact, I agree with that, given that the "it"
that is emitted is a field, rather than stuff.


It is total bullshit. I suspect you misunderstood. No Dark
Matter has ever been detected, save through microslensing and
anomalous rotation. *We* are matter, and no DM is stuck to us.
We do the same sorts of stuff that could generate DM, yet the
energy balance is zero. DM production would carry off energy,
since mass is energy.

<snip you telling me how much we don't know>

Given.


It is interesting that you assert that DM is a particle, then you
follow later with it can't form atoms. How do you know this?


Find positronium on the periodic table. Find anti-hydrogen on
the perodic table. Being on the table means nothing in this
discussion.


I did not say this.


The Universe "popped" when the CMBR quenched. The Universe
popped at the instant of the Big Bang. "Popping" is also birth.


.... and remains undetectable, except through certain
observations. Hell, even LIGO should pick up DM if it has any
sort of "lumpyness".

.... snip Hot Dark Matter bit

How does it blow past *now*, and strike (and push us away from)
only the past? There were black holes in the past, and they
emitted powerful jets of matter, just like they do now...


Dark Matter does not interact with itself (or normal matter),
except via gravitation. It cannot impact other Dark Matter
particles.


They did not say this. We can see normal matter. We see that
Dark is co-located with normal matter. We see that Dark Matter
is in places we have not yet seen normal matter. No "adhesion"
is required. Dark Matter looks like some sort of lattice, but
only gravitational "forces" hold the lattice together.


Yes, you repeat yourself.

You argue points that you are sure of. You ducked most of my
arguments. If you insist on wasting energy on being "right", I
am done with this thread. If you want to do some research, now
would be a good time.

David A. Smith

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:



:-0

Wondeful



Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

Not wasting energy on being "right." I'm the first to admit anything
when I'm wrong. And I was not "telling you how wrong you are." I was
simply telling you, from a layperson's perspective, that your
arguments didn't entirely make a whole lot of sense to me and
explaining to you WHY they don't. I'm here for information and
discussion, not to get involved in a flame war of intergalactic
proportions. I'm not doing any namecalling or calling anybody
"stupid." (Not saying that you are, either.)

Was also just trying to make the point that Science has reached an
unfortunate rut, which you yourself seem to have proven. For so MANY
scientists out there, ESPECIALLY in the field of physics, Science
seems to have changed its focus to a point where it is not true
Science anymore. Science is supposed to be about discovery and
finding out how something works and why. Instead, it has changed into
"This is how it is and if you tell me any different you're a crackpot
and we'll blackball you from the scientific community." A true
devotee to Science would plug all the numbers into the equation to see
if it worked before dismissing it outright.

If I came across with an attitude of anything other than "Here's why
your explanation doesn't make COMPLETE sense to me and here's why," I
do apologize. It was not my intent. But, David, I must also tell you
that you yourself did come across with that Scientifically-Superior-I-
Have-A-Degree-In-Physics-So-I'm-Smarter-Than-You-Which-Makes-You-Wrong-
Holier-Than-Thou attitude. This may not have been your intent, but it
did come across that way and however *I* came across, it was that
perceived attitude on your part that I was responding to.

That said, I'll make you a deal: I'll bone up on my research if you
*ACTUALLY* plug my numbers into the necessary equations to see if
they fit or else if you can MAKE them fit. Deal?

Jason

<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
....

Ah, so you are a "duffer", you are not invested in being right,
you have this clear misunderstanding of a single TV program, you
won't do any research, and you want me to do your math for you?
Is that about right?

Sorry, no. I am not interested in playing another Ernest Wittke
game.

David A. Smith