hypothesis for dark matter

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Richard Saam - 14 Aug 2008 09:00 GMT

All

Here is an hypothesis for dark matter.
What factors negate it?

---
Big Bang nucleosynthetic adiabatically produced hydrogen helium
(according to a mechanism presented in:
Alpher, Bethe & Gamow,
The origin of Chemical Elements, Physical Review,73,7, April 1, 1948
expressing a build-up process
for nuclear entities 'ni' in accordance with
first order differential equation dni/dt
as a function of nuclear cross section of ni)
modified by solubility product concept as expressed in:
(Stumm and Morgan, Aquatic Chemistry, 1996
where reaction 'solids'
are in the form of a Bose Einstein Condensate (BEC)
with total mass accounting for ~1/3 universe 'dark matter'
(the CO2 fire extinguisher analogy
and much lower temperature than CMBR 3000 K at that time
and at temperatures ~1E-9 K - 1E-16 K)
congruent with observed early
galactic hydrogen helium fractional abundances
(because of 'solid' nature second phase BEC's
are not observed in ~380,000 million year CMBR
Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)
Observations: Data Processing, Sky Maps, and Basic Results
G. Hinshaw et al
http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0732
except as possible contribution to milli-kelvin variation
in observed CMBR and existing in substantially more mass
than related to WMAP observed CMBR)
and remaining after 13.7 billion years to present
(because of BEC discrete quantum absorption emission characteristics
also rendering it essentially electromagnetically invisible from earth
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9908002
characteristic hydrogen signature or spectrum
1S - 2S transition at 2.43E-05 cm [243 nm]
This corresponds to a frequency [nu] of 1.23E+15 hertz
(band width of ~1E6 hertz [fig. 2)]
an energy of 8.17E-12 erg [5.1 ev] [h nu]
a temperature of 59,200 K [h nu)/k]
at about 1E-9 K - 1E-16 K [much lower than CMBR])
existing as residual clumps
(about density 1E-24 g/cc ~galactic density
Marusa Bradac et al, Strong And Weak Lensing United III:
Measuring The Mass Distribution Of The Merging Galaxy Cluster
1E0657-56, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608408
and A. Mahdavi et al, A Dark Core in Abell 520,
http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3048 and Marusa Bradac et al,
Dark matter in the merging cluster MACSJ0025.4-1222
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0806.2320v1)
of about meter BEC sized objects
(congruent with being not optically visible from earth)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer-Lambert_law is not applicable)
about density 1 g/cc by Temperature
(extrapolating from BEC experimental work
in earth laboratories MIT et al)
contained within and around galaxies
(accounting for observed flat galactic rotation curves)
as well as in extended intergalactic space,
a small portion of which gravitationally collapsed
into nuclear reactive stars.

Richard D. Saam

Reply to this Message

Uncle Al - 15 Aug 2008 20:30 GMT

> All
>
> Here is an hypothesis for dark matter.
> What factors negate it?

[snip]

> modified by solubility product concept as expressed in:
> (Stumm and Morgan, Aquatic Chemistry, 1996
> where reaction 'solids'
> are in the form of a Bose Einstein Condensate (BEC)
> with total mass accounting for ~1/3 universe 'dark matter'

[snip]

Whatever - and if ever - dark matter is, it can have no interactions
whatsover except gravitation. It must be equisitely invisible to all
optical and particle detectors and utterly absent from all accelerator
collisions (or 4-momentum would not balance). It cannot radiate
blackbody radiation. It cannot be massless or it would not be bound.
It cannot form a background with any EM properties,

http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031

Dark matter cannot be chemical stuff. A Bose-Einstein condensate is
still chemical stuff. It is manipulated with light.

Signature

Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Reply to this Message

johndevers@iprimus.com.au - 19 Aug 2008 15:39 GMT

> Whatever - and if ever - dark matter is, it can have no interactions
> whatsover except gravitation. It must be equisitely invisible to all
> optical and particle detectors and utterly absent from all accelerator
> collisions (or 4-momentum would not balance). It cannot radiate
> blackbody radiation. It cannot be massless or it would not be bound.
> It cannot form a background with any EM properties,

How does dark matter lose enough energy for our solar system to have
300 times the density of the galactic halo dark matter?

Can it clump just using gravity and not losing energy in any other
way?

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/06/26/dark-matter-is-denser-in-the-solar-system/

Reply to this Message

Uncle Al - 20 Aug 2008 20:55 GMT

> > Whatever - and if ever - dark matter is, it can have no interactions
> > whatsover except gravitation. It must be equisitely invisible to all
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> http://www.universetoday.com/2008/06/26/dark-matter-is-denser-in-the-solar-system/

"Over the history of the Solar System, Xu and Siegel calculate..."

Contemporary physical theory is a whore (e.g., Yukawa potentials to
rationalize unlimited study). It will do whatever observation tells
it to do and scream impossibilities outside that envelope (e.g.,
string theory, SUSY; proton decay and Super-Kamiokande, axions and
CAST).

Matter can be hot and clump - ordinary matter as a star. In fact,
dark matter must be hot and *not* cool or it severely clumps at the
centers of gravitational wells. If dark matter does not stay
large-radius distributed to unify galactic visible matter rotation
rates then there is no reason to hypothesize its existence.

A muon will orbit *within* a high-Z atomic nucleus no problem. There
is no interaction mechanism between the negative lepton and the
positive collection of baryons other than charge even at nuclear
densities, 2x10^14 g/cm^3.

In principle dark matter plus matter should have a small but finite
scattering cross-section hence massive ionization- and deep cryogenic
phonon-mediated detectors to search for WIMPs via their elastic
scattering interactions with nuclei. The most clever of these
(sensitivity and selectivity) is Juan Collar et al. and their large
volume liquid bubble chambers. Very large volume, very dense
telemetry, very sensitive LHC detectors saw no anomalies during
zero-beam shakedown.

Collar's detectors use CF3I (for massive iodine) or perfluorobutane
(for heavy spin target F) superheated as a bubble chamber medium. If
he were especially naughty with grantology he'd ramp up the budget
with I(CF3)7, MW = 609.95, gaseous at room temp, 21 times the density
of air. It might not be a better bubble medium but it would be
tremendous fun to play with.

Signature

Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Reply to this Message

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax - 22 Aug 2008 20:26 GMT

> Collar's detectors use CF3I (for massive iodine) or perfluorobutane
> (for heavy spin target F) superheated as a bubble chamber medium. If
> he were especially naughty with grantology he'd ramp up the budget
> with I(CF3)7, MW = 609.95, gaseous at room temp, 21 times the density
> of air. It might not be a better bubble medium but it would be
> tremendous fun to play with.

What's I(CF3)7 called in words?
And how toxic is it?

Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

Reply to this Message

Richard Saam - 22 Aug 2008 20:26 GMT

>> All
>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> Dark matter cannot be chemical stuff. A Bose-Einstein condensate is
> still chemical stuff. It is manipulated with light.

Such reasoning is based on
calculated Big Bang nucleosynthetic abundances of
H, 4He, D, 3He, 7Li
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html
baryonic matter conforming to ~4% of the universe critical density.
The other 96% logically elicits the descriptors:

'can have no' 'must be' 'cannot radiate' 'cannot be'

But what if there is something else that has not been considered
and is congruent with the current nucleosynthetic model.
In the previously stated hypothesis,
that something else is the concept of the solubility product.

For example, consider the aqueous carbonate system:

H2O, H+, OH-, Ca++, CO3=, HCO3- & CaCO3(s)

A given pH (-log[H+]) establishes concentrations (abundances) of:

H+, OH-, Ca++, CO3=, HCO3-

But nothing can be said about the solid CaCO3(s) abundance
other than it 'must' exist to establish predictable
H+, OH-, Ca++, CO3=, HCO3- abundances.
The CaCO3(s) may be a chunk or many chunks
of 1 gram or 1,000,000 kilogram.

It is noted that H+, OH-, Ca++, CO3=, HCO3- abundances
could exist without chemical contact with CaCO3(s)
but in very unpredictable values.

So has anyone considered introducing
this solubility product concept into Big Bang nucleosynthesis
with a hydrogen Bose Einstein Condensate (BEC)
as another phase ('solid')
(as chunks with density much higher than universe critical density)
which would be a 'chemical stuff' accounting for the dark matter
and not interfering with (but perhaps assisting in establishing)
the observed Big Bang nucleosynthetic abundances of
H, 4He, D, 3He, 7Li?

The general criteria for a BEC is expressed in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose-Einstein_condensate

Temperature = constant * (density)^(2/3)

which could exist (as a 'solid') in the nucleosynthetic condition
and extrapolated to the present universe condition.

These BEC's would not easily be detectable
from the Big Bang 13.7 billions years ago
to the present except gravitationally by their mass.
and in particular not by any Beers Law EM attenuation procedure
(because of dispersed BEC chunks ~1 g/cc)

Such BEC presently would be extremely cold (~1E-16 K)

The Black Body spectrum of a medium at ~1E-16 K
indicates EM frequencies on the order of ~1E-5 Hz.
There are some observed astrophysical frequencies
that are in that range.

Within a galaxies, these BEC would follow Keplerian laws
contributing to galactic flat rotation.

BEC EM interaction would be through
very discrete characteristic frequencies
(not the myriad of vibrational frequencies
normal chemical solids are prone to: this is a quantum solid)
(again very difficult to observe
by any Beers Law EM attenuation procedure),
which would dictate a BEC stability over the universe age
except for the small portion
that gravitationally collapsed into nuclear reactive stars.

Richard D. Saam

Reply to this Message

Natural Science Forum / Physics / Research / August 2008

hypothesis for dark matter