5 ms·

Dark matter may be an illusion caused by the quantum vacuum

58 points by cwan 15y ago

glimcat 15y ago
Not hugely likely, but interesting to explore. There are also things like neutrinos which wouldn't fit.
- raganwald 15y ago
  Very interesting to explore, starting with his bold assumption that anti-matter and matter are gravtiationally repulsive. That seems to lead down many inetresting corridors with delightful consequences to attempt to disprove.
- Zaak 15y ago
  Why wouldn't neutrinos fit?
  - glimcat 15y ago
    They're observable particles. They probably wouldn't fit unless it somehow turns out to explain the entire Standard Model. What I'm getting at is that it might explain some dark matter, but it is unlikely to explain all dark matter even if it turns out to be a correct model. That whole thing about neutrinos oscillating between flavors still freaks me out though. One of the weirder things in quantum mechanics.
VladRussian 15y ago
>Hajdukovic’s paper on a dark matter alternative is also an attempt to understand cosmological phenomena without assuming the existence of unknown forms of matter and energy, or of unknown mechanisms for inflation and matter-antimatter asymmetry. so he brings in unknown negative gravitational charge. Basically giving another name to unknown machinery behind the observed phenomena.
- po 15y ago
  I've always cringed at the name "dark matter". There is a discrepancy between what our models predict and what is observed and so we pick one of the possible explanations (there's some matter there that we can't see) and name it that. Then all of the discovery channel scientists try to explain what dark matter is to the general public by invoking this hidden matter theory. I think it would be much better if we referred to the gravitational pull discrepancy as the problem itself and called "dark matter" just one of the possible explanations.
  - glimcat 15y ago
    "Dark" is a typical label for unobservables (see also, "Dark Ages"). The fact that dark matter is specifically unobservable via electromagnetism just makes it funny. Well, a little bit, if you're a cosmologist.
    - richardw 15y ago
      It's dark, but is it matter? If it's not definitely matter, name it something else that doesn't bias the search for a solution.
      - harshpotatoes 15y ago
        Basically, there are some knowns: The universe expands according to the fried,am equation. Different percentages of matter, energy give rise to different expansion rates. Expansion history of the universe is known via looking at supernova (which are equally bright at the source). Knowing matter is mostly hydrogen/helium and energ is mostly photons allows us to calculate the density of matter/energy in the universe. These don't match the terms found from measuring supernova leading the differences to be called dark matter/dark energy. Additionally, gravitational lensing is seen by objects which can't be seen. Meaning, they have mass, but don't appear to absorb/reflect light. Additional additionlly, similar effects are seen affecting the formation of galaxies: extra matter is needed to give the structure we see, but we apparently can't see that matter. So it was originally dark because we knew nothing about it, but the name stuck once it appeared we could not see it. It is definitely matter.
derrida 15y ago
If anyone wants an introduction to the dark matter problem, I think this one is excellent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77yXhAibQp4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77yXhAibQp4
wazoox 15y ago
I like the elegance of this theory, if nothing else. Dark matter always seemed painfully ad hoc, and MOND kludgy. Now, we need to know more about antimatter and gravitation...
justincormack 15y ago
I can't take this website seriously. Full of ads in the middle of the page. This appears to be the real paper which the page apparently does not bother to cite. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.3333 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.3333
asdkl234890 15y ago
Non-physorg link?

58 points by cwan 15y ago

glimcat 15y ago

Not hugely likely, but interesting to explore. There are also things like neutrinos which wouldn't fit.

raganwald 15y ago
Very interesting to explore, starting with his bold assumption that anti-matter and matter are gravtiationally repulsive. That seems to lead down many inetresting corridors with delightful consequences to attempt to disprove.
Zaak 15y ago
Why wouldn't neutrinos fit?
- glimcat 15y ago
  They're observable particles. They probably wouldn't fit unless it somehow turns out to explain the entire Standard Model. What I'm getting at is that it might explain some dark matter, but it is unlikely to explain all dark matter even if it turns out to be a correct model. That whole thing about neutrinos oscillating between flavors still freaks me out though. One of the weirder things in quantum mechanics.

VladRussian 15y ago

>Hajdukovic’s paper on a dark matter alternative is also an attempt to understand cosmological phenomena without assuming the existence of unknown forms of matter and energy, or of unknown mechanisms for inflation and matter-antimatter asymmetry. so he brings in unknown negative gravitational charge. Basically giving another name to unknown machinery behind the observed phenomena.

po 15y ago
I've always cringed at the name "dark matter". There is a discrepancy between what our models predict and what is observed and so we pick one of the possible explanations (there's some matter there that we can't see) and name it that. Then all of the discovery channel scientists try to explain what dark matter is to the general public by invoking this hidden matter theory. I think it would be much better if we referred to the gravitational pull discrepancy as the problem itself and called "dark matter" just one of the possible explanations.
- glimcat 15y ago
  "Dark" is a typical label for unobservables (see also, "Dark Ages"). The fact that dark matter is specifically unobservable via electromagnetism just makes it funny. Well, a little bit, if you're a cosmologist.
  - richardw 15y ago
    It's dark, but is it matter? If it's not definitely matter, name it something else that doesn't bias the search for a solution.
    - harshpotatoes 15y ago
      Basically, there are some knowns: The universe expands according to the fried,am equation. Different percentages of matter, energy give rise to different expansion rates. Expansion history of the universe is known via looking at supernova (which are equally bright at the source). Knowing matter is mostly hydrogen/helium and energ is mostly photons allows us to calculate the density of matter/energy in the universe. These don't match the terms found from measuring supernova leading the differences to be called dark matter/dark energy. Additionally, gravitational lensing is seen by objects which can't be seen. Meaning, they have mass, but don't appear to absorb/reflect light. Additional additionlly, similar effects are seen affecting the formation of galaxies: extra matter is needed to give the structure we see, but we apparently can't see that matter. So it was originally dark because we knew nothing about it, but the name stuck once it appeared we could not see it. It is definitely matter.

derrida 15y ago

If anyone wants an introduction to the dark matter problem, I think this one is excellent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77yXhAibQp4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77yXhAibQp4

wazoox 15y ago

I like the elegance of this theory, if nothing else. Dark matter always seemed painfully ad hoc, and MOND kludgy. Now, we need to know more about antimatter and gravitation...

justincormack 15y ago

I can't take this website seriously. Full of ads in the middle of the page. This appears to be the real paper which the page apparently does not bother to cite. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.3333 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.3333

asdkl234890 15y ago

Non-physorg link?