Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: CD13 on 31/08/2012 19:29:35
-
Hope this isn't too basic but ....
If dark matter has mass (I'm assuming it must have or it wouldn't affect gravity), does it follow that it must be influenced by the Higgs Field?
Therefore ... the force carrier must be present?
-
What if it is made up from exotic particles? Meaning not our normal atoms but something different? Dark matter neither radiate, nor absorb light. According to the amount of deuterium measured from our Big Bang it can't be made from atoms, if it was we would have less deuterium available.
"The proportion of deuterium that ought to emerge from the Big Bang depends on how dense the Universe is, and observations agree with theory if there are 0.2 hydrogen atoms in each cubic metre. This proportion agrees quite well with the actual number of atoms in shining objects — half of these atoms are in galaxies, and the other half in intergalactic gas — but nothing much is then left over for the dark matter. If there were enough atoms to make up all the dark matter, the concordance with theory would be shattered. The Big Bang calculations would then predict much less deuterium, and somewhat more helium, than we actually observe: the origin of the deuterium in the Universe would then become a total mystery."
So what is it made from?
-
Dark Matter.
I believe this does not exist, and that it is gravity or another ( undiscovered ) force. Gravity's secrets have eluded scientists so far in there quest for there "unified theory". Gravity might be the key, but that puzzle is eluding them as much as this so called "dark matter". Dark is used for unknowns, ex - dark matter, dark energy, dark particles, etc.
there is something causing "unknown" effects on matter, but this "force" may just be one of gravities many puzzles.
-
We have already detected dark matter, it is slow neutrinos. Oscillations of neutrinos is not oscillations but elastic collisions between slow and usual fast neutrinos. Where does all this dark matter comes from? The universe is eternal and certainly larger than what we thought. 95 to 98% of all energy expelled from supernovae is neutrinos... ;)
Neutrinos are so light that they are less likely (statistically speaking) than ordinary matter particles to be absorbed by black holes.
There is no higgs field but a gravitational-inertial field. Inertia and gravity are the 2 sides of the same coin. Any 0 spin particle is composed of 2 elementary particles having +1/2 and -1/2 spins. If not, it would invalidate Relativity. It does not make any sense.
The higgs boson is a dead end and nothing useful will come out of it. And it certainly not Peter Higgs fault...
-
We have already detected dark matter, it is slow neutrinos. Oscillations of neutrinos is not oscillations but elastic collisions between slow and usual fast neutrinos. Where does all this dark matter comes from? The universe is eternal and certainly larger than what we thought. 95 to 98% of all energy expelled from supernovae is neutrinos... ;)
Neutrinos are so light that they are less likely (statistically speaking) than ordinary matter particles to be absorbed by black holes.
There is no higgs field but a gravitational-inertial field. Inertia and gravity are the 2 sides of the same coin. Any 0 spin particle is composed of 2 elementary particles having +1/2 and -1/2 spins. If not, it would invalidate Relativity. It does not make any sense.
The higgs boson is a dead end and nothing useful will come out of it. And it certainly not Peter Higgs fault...
yes, the universe is both eternal and infinite.......
-
Yeah, neutrinos are a good guess to me too but??
Take a look here, and follow the links (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17227/how-do-we-know-dark-matter-isnt-simply-neutrinos)
-
First, modified gravitational laws would produced specific patterns of gravitational lensing that are not observed. What is observed is clearly dark matter particles. These particles must be extremely stable. Heavy cold dark matter particles would gather in clumps that could be denser than stars which would be easily observed.
Neutrinos don't seem to decay.
Cold neutrinos are not expected because the universe is supposed to be born from a singularity. But the singularity is just an indication that Einstein Field equation is incomplete or simply an approximation. Our visible universe seems to leak matter and radiation. The most logical explanation is a much larger universe with many cyclic bigbangs. Thus there is certainly slow neutrinos that came from other bigbangs if my theory is correct. Neutrinos are very light but contrary to what people think, they are not small but very large, about 500 000 times larger than electrons which are over 100 times larger than protons. So from a matter particles point of view, slow neutrinos (no length contraction) will be seen as flat waves and thus not interacting with it but gravitationaly.
Hawking-unruh radiation is the particles themselves. Black holes are similar to neutrinos but they are made of multiple Planck wavelengths. Neutrinos don't radiate so black holes should not. Hawking-Unruh radiation comes from vacuum energy. There is no vacuum energy, the universe is one wave of energy. The Quantum Theory is so near but so far from the truth at the same time. Some bad concepts are haunting it and the cause is conditioning. Before teaching Science, free thinking should be taught. Analysis is well taught but synthesis is badly taught...
-
Leak radiation and matter CPT?
Hmm, you better present some proofs for that one :)
If that's correct our conservation laws should be in dire circumstances, as I think.
-
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-the-universe-leaking-energy
In my theory, there is no conservation problem, it is implied. The bigbang is a black hole expanding. Half of the black hole energy is kinetic energy, half is gravitational energy (which is the strong force in a black hole, unified with electromagnetism). The kinetic energy is exchanged with other black holes in the cycles of bigbangs. It is strikingly similar to the exchange of halves charges between particles (entanglement). Black holes are particles... I found both independantly!!!
In order to leak, matter just need escape velocity. There is a center to bigbangs if they come from a black hole and black holes are particles. It does not violate relativity in any way because the universe is made of multiple bigbangs. There is no dark energy, the observations leading to dark energy is a circular argument inside the cosmological model. In fact, it is a proof of non homogeneity but in the standard model you need dark energy. Dark energy is an observation of non homogeneity but it is not considered in this way. Closed mind problem...
The center is probably the cold spot...
And don't forget that neutrinos are slower than the speed of light. Light always has the speed of light whatever the observer, not matter even if it travels at near lightspeed for an observer, it can be stopped for another.
-
CPT ArkAngel & yor_on: A short discussion about why Dark Matter composition should only be a small fraction made up of neutrinos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Hot_dark_matter
-
If dark matter has mass (I'm assuming it must have or it wouldn't affect gravity), does it follow that it must be influenced by the Higgs Field?
Good question! If we assume that dark matter is a form of matter that interacts via gravity, but not via electromagnetism (which means it doesn't emit light), then we know it has gravitational mass--the kind of mass that causes interaction with gravity. However, the Higgs field explains only inertial mass--the kind of mass that makes it take more work to accelerate a car to a given speed than to accelerate a tennis ball. As far as we know, the two types of mass are equivalent--dark matter with gravitational mass should also have the same amount of inertial mass, which would mean it interacts with the Higgs field. However, we don't know why this should be the case. We only know that it appears to be the case in all our observations.
-
What does it explain really JP? The inertia of something accelerating? How does it stand on the equivalence principle? stating that a uniform acceleration is equivalent to a uniform gravity? Using that you can see all masses as 'uniformly accelerating' but using Higgs I seem to introduce a 'preferred frame of reference' defining what is a acceleration. To me that is as good as trying to invalidate GR? And by indirect reasoning too, assuming/inducing instead of measuring.
=
now as a byside :)
"Actually...one of the exciting findings is that the Higgs boson's mass is lower than expected. So low that the standard model predicts that the vacuum should be unstable. That means any space with no particles in it should be boiling away, with the zero point energy converting into real energy. Since we probably would have noticed if the universe had spontaneously disintegrated, that suggests something needs to be fixed in the standard model."
Not the Higgs then?
But the standard model, and GR too possibly?
==
Hm reading some more it seems as if its mass stop, just before this 'disintegration'. Still, GR is validated directly by time dilations etc, Higgs isn't, well, as far as i know?
-
JP
If the dark matter particles violate weak equivalence and have say zero inertial mass whilst having positive gravitational mass does that imply that they would be moving at SoL?
Yoron
On the wikipedia is good on the differences between the weak, Einsteinian, and strong equivalence principles. I am not sure that a field like that described really does form a preferred frame of reference.
quote from where? calculations from ZPE to background energy just do not work - we have something wrongin our theory; it was 10^120 orders of magnitude wrong before the Higgs and remains wrong regardless of the energy of the higg's boson. in the vast majority of concepts the higgs is a huge plus for the standard model.
-
Matthew, I don't know the answer. I can make some educated guesses though. Certainly if the weak equivalence principle were violated, we'd have to rethink general relativity (GR). It shouldn't, however, influence special relativity (SR) directly, since SR doesn't rely on and special relativity. In other words, something with zero inertial mass should move at the speed of light (unless we find SR is also violated).
I was being somewhat pedantic in posting that, but it is important to know that there is a difference between inertial and gravitational masses. Even though the weak equivalence principle appears to hold in all cases we've checked, we don't know a fundamental reason why it should hold. Presumably there is some underlying connection between the Higgs mechanism and gravity, but we don't know what that is.
-
Nah, Imatfaal, I sort of threw it in, in the heat of the moment :) I'm irritated with the way the Higgs has assumed almost religious proportions on the net. Self-fulfilling prophetias need to be experimentally verified by direct experiments. I'm pretty sure that using high energies we can find all sort of interesting phenomena, after all, assuming a hot Big Bang we should then close in on symmetrybreaks and what more? Don't get me wrong here, Cern is money well spent but when it comes to the Higgs I need a lot more than just indirect evidence, especially as it seems to overthrow GR. And that one hasn't been answered by you either?
-
As for what preferred frame is, it has to be a frame of reference that you can relate, for example, all accelerations too. Depending on view you can find people defining a 'acceleration' as a 'infinite amount of displacements' from uniform motions, meaning that they all could be seen as including 'instants' of uniform motion, as imagined 'frozen in time'. Using that definition and turning that around you can so also define a uniform motion as a 'instant of a acceleration'. And Einsteins original GR is pretty clear on the equivalence principle, I still haven't seen any clear definitions of how the Higgs see it. There's a lot of theories claiming that they 'fit' relativity, and I've seen that claim for Higgs too. So this should be a simple question, already solved?
==
In a indirect way Higgs also propose the mechanism why all uniform motions are 'the exact same', as observed from the view of 'inertia' of a system, so if I want to be mean :) I could say that the Higgs is a try to quantify 'motion'. And in relativity we then have two types. Uniform motion and accelerations in where uniform accelerations is equivalent to 'gravity'. But Higgs avoid 'gravity' as I understands it? Einstein and Higgs collide there as I see it. SR is a very clear theoretical definition, in a 'flat space', GR on the other hand works, as far as I know, for what we see practically. And those field equations are still being milked for all sorts of interesting ideas. If you like I might relate SR as more close to philosophy, that is very logical but also very restricted, hmm, that sounded weird :) let's put it like this instead, 'defined inside a system' than what I find GR:s SpaceTime to be. GR is more of 'poetry in equations' to me :) if you get my drift, and works.
Is the Higgs a better fit than GR?
-
The Higgs mechanism doesn't deal with the equivalence principle since it's a part of the standard model. It explains non-gravitational effects of mass, i.e. inertial mass--as in why mass "resists" accelerations (it takes more force to accelerate a large mass object from rest to a certain speed than it does to accelerate a small mass object).
I don't see how there's a problem with between the Higgs mechanism and general relativity, since we don't know why gravitational and inertial masses appear to be the same. Presumably there's some mechanism at work that will link all this up in a sensible way, but we haven't found it yet.
-
It's a problem :)
I can happily 'play' with 'c', as in SR, alone, until we get to 'gravity'. After that I find Einsteins definition of 'motion' and 'gravity' to be what makes most sense to me (GR). In my own ideas I keep trying to relate Relativity to a very small scale, fitting for QM, and I agree that with 'gravity' we need a way too relate it too. But that has to do with the continuum and background dependencies of the same to me, not 'particles' per se, although? 'particles' exist, don't they? So maybe there is 'particles/bosons' covering 'gravity' too. But then those also should be what creates a SpaceTime, to me that is :)
And then we need to remember the superimposing, super positioning, we assume Bosons to be able to do, to find a definition of seamlessness, maybe? Not sure at all there. But yeah, inertia relative gravity JP. But if you try to define what makes the inertia in a uniform acceleration, without considering its 'gravity' you will need to split 'gravity' in two definitions as it seems to me?
One 'false' sort of, being uniform accelerations, and one 'real', what we experience being at rest on a planet. and that? It isn't GR to me. Or how would you define it?
==
Maybe you can split inertia from gravity? I know we've discussed this before, but I find it so much simpler to assume that they are two sides of the same coin. And that's the way I presume GR to think of it too, although to give it a strict definition you need to make the equivalence between a 'uniform acceleration' and 'gravity'?
-
I think acceleration and gravity can be viewed as locally identical phenomena ifwe take the view that both cases express how matter behaves in a space-time that is not flat.
-
The role of things such as the Higgs, then becomes that of linking matter to space-time, with the result that the Higgs would impart the same sort of behavior whether in an accelerated reference frame or on the surface of a gravitating body.
-
You might say that the Higgs is closely related to the question what 'motion' really means. Relativity defines it as 'relative motion' implying that all uniform motion can be defined as being equivalent. That includes the question if you then move 'at all', meaning that you are free to define yourself as 'unmoving', as I understands it.
So what is 'motion' from a relativistic perspective?
Locally you will see blue and red shifts though, depending on your motion so in that motto we may be allowed as defining ourselves as 'moving' in some absolute way. The Higgs assume a absolute frame of reference for 'motion' as I read it? In where accelerations are what creates the 'resistance' of the Higgs Bosons, or 'field'. I like the idea of fields, but I'm not sure what sort of 'field' this would be as we know that relative ourselves there exist different uniform motions/speeds. The field is assumed to ignore this fact and only react presenting a 'inertia' at accelerations. Against that we have the idea of traveling uniformly close to the speed of light in where you will find a distorted Space and time, relative other frames of reference, which tells us that uniform motion indeed can be different as compared between frames, and also 'strictly locally', if you accept that radiations energy will change due to uniform motion? Myself I find it very hard to assume otherwise.
-
No, the Higgs field shouldn't assume an absolute reference frame any more than the electromagnetic field or any other field in the standard model does. I only know very fuzzy details, but the Higgs field accounts for inertial mass, so its effects should only be felt when trying to accelerate a particle. Therefore, it should treat as equal all particles moving with constant velocity, so no preferred reference frame. The way in which the Higgs acts should agree with special relativity (all parts of the Standard Model should), and so observations of inertial mass should depend on the observer's reference frame relative to the observed.
-
It may be that I look at it differently than the main stream definition JP? In a main stream definition you have a 'unified indivisible SpaceTime' defined by four dimensions, same for us all, although containing 'frames of reference'. I prefer to look at it from locality, assuming nothing about a 'same invariant SpaceTime', instead using radiation as a representation joining localities. From such a definition 'fields' becomes problematic.
As for the Higgs, the universe know how to differ between uniform motions as I understands it. That's what your local radiation will tell you when it blueshift, as I think of it? But it's also a problem with defining what a frame of reference should be. As I think of it, it should belong to Plank scale, although HUP steps above that scale. But yeah, it could be a 'field' to me too, but how many degrees of freedom would that field represent? It's also a question about what the 'motion' of radiation represent, as there is only recoil and annihilation observed.
When it comes to a preferred frame that is :)
-
It's a difference between relative uniform motions in the blueshift, though. What the standard model (including the Higgs mechanism) does is to predict the results of measurements/interactions between things, and in that case the only way velocity should come into the model is as relative velocity between particles/the observer, not an absolute velocity. In the case of a blueshift, it's relative velocity between the photons in your neighborhood and yourself (or between the emitter of those photons and yourself).
-
Yep, but it tells you one thing, that the universe has a way to define 'relative motion' locally, as I see it. Although you have the 'motion' of celestial objects relative each other to consider too in it.
-
Yep. Relative motion is definitely detectable. As far as we can tell, absolute motion isn't. The Higgs field should act in a way that only relative motion matters when you calculate the predicted results of interactions.
-
We agree there :)
As I see it then, a 'absolute frame of reference' is the one 'at rest'. That's your 'locally invariant frame of reference'. That this frame is shared by us all do imply that we all have a 'same origin', as in a definition of how to relate it. But it does not state, again as I see it, that what we observe considering time dilations and especially LorentzFitzGerald contractions are a undivided SpaceTime. What I see joining us is what I call 'locality', radiation describing the relations between those localities, as defined by each observers clock and ruler.
==
In a way this way of thinking becomes my 'static reality', if you see my drift :) Without 'motion' and without the arrow of time everything is 'at rest', in a exactly same 'ground state' if you allow me that expression. If we introduce the arrow without introducing motion, relative and accelerations, that static 'same reality' must start to differ (comparing between frames of reference), as in gravitational time dilations and LorentzFitzGerald contractions.
And yeah, we're wandering into philosophy here.
=
Assuming that uniform accelerations is 'gravity', you can't really differ between the arrow and 'motion' though. The expression of gravity in a uniform acceleration must then be equivalent to 'motion' as expressed in mass, being in uniform motion, that motion describable as 'being at rest', unmoving.
But then you have that lights blue shift, as locally expressed?
-
I see what you're getting at with defining your own frame as special and measuring everything with respect to that frame (that's what all observations consist of anyway). But physicists avoid terming that 'absolute frame of reference' because that phrase has historical connotations of some universal reference frame, which is at odds with relativity.
You can, of course, redefine terms to mean something new, but in order to avoid a lot of confusion the physics community has chosen to leave 'absolute reference frame' as meaning a universal, absolute frame, and discuss everything as relative motions between objects in different reference frames. So when you mention 'absolute reference frame,' the meaning to a physicist is that you're talking about a universal frame, hence my confusion!
-
Yeah. I agree, but that's also what I question. Science must build on real time observations. And those must be repeatable locally, as defined from approximately same 'frames of reference' if we use Einsteins terms. And the way to do those observations/experiments is 'locally'. Introducing 'weak measurements' we automatically assume some definitions, as causality chains, fitting what we see on Earth and elsewhere macroscopically but that's not science, that's philosophy to me.
==
Don't get me wrong there. Philosophy, when logic, creates foundations for explaining science as I think. I meet a Chinese guy once, almost ashamed to admit that he loved philosophy but without philosophy what explanations do we have for those experiments? So in a way the defenders of causality chains are as correct as me. that's also why I think I'm wandering into 'philosophy of science', discussing the importance of 'locality'. But to me it's all important :)
-
I'm not sure what you mean by weak measurements. Are you talking about the idea in quantum mechanics of measuring making a measurement perturbing the system slightly? I'm don't follow how that applies here.
I don't think there is any problem with calling your observation reference frame unique. That's the point of special relativity (and much of quantum mechanics): predicting results that a given observer would measure, which of course relies on their reference frame. It's only the term 'universal reference frame' that's a problem here, since scientific consensus defines that to mean something completely different than the observer's reference frame.
The question of what makes an observer special certainly does have a lot of philosophical implications, though. It's a bit beyond science, though, which restricts itself to predicting results, not trying to describe the metaphysical 'meaning' of it's equations.
-
To me it is about what you observe, relative how you interpret it, JP. And a 'weak measurement' can be defined from statistics as 'probabilities', it must be possible to do so. But the way I find it presented reading about it is as 'hidden' causality chains mostly. Which I don't agree on btw. You can think of 'light paths'. and experiments 'proving' their existence to see my point there. It creates a causality (from a strictly local perspective, observing) that is not observed, except theoretically and cerebral.
=
What I'm arguing against is the idea of everything fitting a 'classical interpretation', as we see it macroscopically. That's one good reason, to me, for embracing indeterminism as 'real', at least on that very small scale. Macroscopically we have a 'classical interpretation' that fits very well with what we see normally though. But then comes relativity, and puts it all on its head.
-
Do you feel like starting up a thread about weak measurements and causality chains? It's an interesting topic, but I don't want to derail this thread on dark matter too much. :)
-
Hmm, as always, TNS threads grow 'organically' it seems? :) A much better way than the Asimovistic, ahem, in where only 'straight lines' are taken into account, and very fitting to how the universe works to me. But yes, this thread is about dark matter, sorry about that :)