3 ms·
I find this fascinating, but still purely hypothetical, yes? Basically: IF the observed expansion of the universe is indeed due to dark matter as we think of i
by hliyan 11y ago
I find this fascinating, but still purely hypothetical, yes? Basically:
IF the observed expansion of the universe is indeed due to dark matter as we think of it, and
IF such dark matter exist as streams, and
IF such streams mix with ordinary galaxies, and
IF the solar system is passing through such a stream
THEN Earth MAY have dark matter filaments in its vicinity.
IF we locate such a filament and send a probe, we might be able to learn about dark matter directly.
Fingers crossed. That would be an amazing discovery.
- berntb 11y agoYou are mixing up dark matter and dark energy. The main effect of dark matter is not universal expansion, it is from both influences of gravity on galaxies and theory. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evid...
- jon_smark 11y ago> IF the observed expansion of the universe is indeed due to dark matter as we think of it, and The accelerating expansion of the universe is thought to be caused by dark energy, not dark matter.
- poelzi 11y agoThe universe does not expand: www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf I follow the BSM-SG model in which dark matter/dark energy is absolutely clear what it is and how it functions. The illustration is even a bit similar to the BSM-SG model, if you see it as the CL dimensions. Larger astronomical bodies have their own CL space, which means they carry a bubble with them those geometry is dependent on the body itself. This is why the photons get into a gravitational pull on heavy bodies, time goes differently, ...
- Steuard 11y agoThe Big Bang model of cosmological history is one of the most exquisitely tested ideas in science. Just for starters, any competing model would need to duplicate the highly sensitive predictions of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis), the results of detailed simulations of structure formation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_formation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_formation), and the existence of the cosmic microwave background (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background) (and at this point it would probably need to match the detailed spectrum of the CMB at least as well as inflationary models do). That's not an impossible task, but it's an awfully high bar: the widely accepted "Lambda-CDM" model (a specific Big Bang scenario involving both dark energy and cold dark matter) and its parameters have proven to be amazingly consistent under a whole bunch of very different observational tests. The odds that it has passed all of those tests so very consistently purely by dumb luck, while the universe actually follows some entirely incompatible set of rules and history, seem vanishingly small.
- hliyan 11y agoWhat I meant to say was: our observations with regards to expansion (or lack thereof). Thanks for the clarification (although you could have explained some of tho acronyms you used for the benefit of non-physicists).
- Steuard 11y agoThe previous poster probably ought to have explained those acronyms for the benefit of physicists, too: I'm a tenured physics professor specializing in high energy theory (with some research experience in relativity and cosmology), and I've never heard of that model. (Most physicists I know are also hesitant to flat out contradict widely accepted and observationally verified models without at least a bit of caution in their language, too: just saying "the universe does not expand" without qualification is unusually bold. To my knowledge I have never met a professional physicist who doesn't buy into at least the basic framework of the Big Bang model.)
- poelzi 11y agoI linked the newsletter, go through each of those papers and you will see, that those come from the peer reviewed process. It's hard to believe that those scientists will still think that the Big Bang happened. Eric Lerner, from LPP fusion to just mention one of them: Nice presentation with his findings: https://vimeo.com/97608525 https://vimeo.com/97608525 If you give me an explanations for each of the findings in the newsletter mentioned, I would reconsider, but 20 evidential findings that do absolutely not fit, are enough for me to declare a theory falsified. Apart from the Background Radiation, (2.72 K) which is derived for me (BSM-SG Mainbook Chapter 5.2), not much speaks for the theory at all and this is ignoring the huge number of theoretical problems.
- scentoni 11y agoIn case this isn't immediately clear, BSM-SG is crackpottery akin to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube
- poelzi 11y agoexplain: I take logic errors or math errors seriously, everything else is just crackpot talk.
- kazinator 11y agoDo not forget errors of fact (which are not logic errors). A statement can be logically deductive, and contain no arithmetic errors; yet be based on propositions which do not have true interpretations in this universe.
- wfn 11y ago@ 'berntb, you've been shadowbanned for unclear reasons IMO, FYI. Their dead comment: You are mixing up dark matter and dark energy. The main effect of dark matter is not universal expansion, it is from both influences of gravity on galaxies and theory. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence
- pavel_lishin 11y agoI don't see their comment as shadowbanned, even when not logged in.
- wfn 11y agoIt was shadowbanned before, but apparently it isn't anymore.