Cosmology News Physics

Standard model may account for dark matter?

Spread the love

From ScienceDaily:

Instead of WIMPS or axions, dark matter may be made of macroscopic objects as small as a few ounces up to the size of a good asteroid, and probably as dense as a neutron star or the nucleus of an atom, researchers suggest.

Well, if the standard model accounts for dark matter, isn’t that a reason to stick with it, instead of jumping ship to a multiverse?

The limits of the possible dark matter are as follows:

A minimum of 55 grams. If dark matter were smaller, it would have been seen in detectors in Skylab or in tracks found in sheets of mica.

In the range of 109 to 1018, dark matter would collide with Earth once annually, providing nothing to the underground dark matter detectors in place.

A maximum of 1024 (a million billion billion) grams. Above this, the Macros would be so massive they would bend starlight, which has not been seen.

The range of 1017 to 1020 grams per centimeter squared should also be eliminated from the search, the theorists say. Dark matter in that range would be massive for gravitational lensing to affect individual photons from gamma ray bursts in ways that have not been seen.

If dark matter is within this allowed range, there are reasons it hasn’t been seen.

At the mass of 1018 grams, dark matter Macros would hit Earth about once every billion years.

At lower masses, they would strike Earth more frequently but might not leave a recognizable record or observable mark.

See also: Multiverse cosmology: Assuming that evidence still matters, what does it say?

See also: In search of a road to reality

Follow UD News at Twitter!

11 Replies to “Standard model may account for dark matter?

  1. 1
    ppolish says:

    This recent study suggests 9dark matter comes from stars: http://www.nature.com/news/phy.....un-1.16174

    Whatever dark matter turns out to be, it will be more boring than all the hype suggested I bet.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    this report from 2006 on Dark Energy and Matter still rings true today:

    REPORT OF THE DARK ENERGY TASK FORCE
    The abstract of the September 2006 Report of the Dark Energy Task Force says: “Dark energy appears to be the dominant component of the physical Universe, yet there is no persuasive theoretical explanation for its existence or magnitude. The acceleration of the Universe is, along with dark matter, the observed phenomenon that most directly demonstrates that our (materialistic) theories of fundamental particles and gravity are either incorrect or incomplete. Most experts believe that nothing short of a revolution in our understanding of fundamental physics will be required to achieve a full understanding of the cosmic acceleration. For these reasons, the nature of dark energy ranks among the very most compelling of all outstanding problems in physical science. These circumstances demand an ambitious observational program to determine the dark energy properties as well as possible.”
    http://jdem.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs.....report.pdf

    In the following video, Dr. Ross is very clear in what, or more specifically, Who, he thinks is responsible for Dark Energy:

    Hugh Ross PhD. – Scientific Evidence For Cosmological Constant (Expansion Of The Universe)
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347218/

    Here are the verses in the Bible Dr. Ross listed, which were written well over 2000 years before the discovery of the finely tuned expansion of the universe by ‘Dark Energy’, that speak of God ‘Stretching out the Heavens’;
    Job 9:8; Isaiah 40:22; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 48:13; Zechariah 12:1; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13; Jeremiah 51:15; Jeremiah 10:12.
    The following verse is my favorite out of the group of verses:

    Job 9:8
    He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.

    The Truman Show – Truman walking on water – screenshot picture
    http://gaowsh.files.wordpress......0-pm-2.jpg

    Here is the pre-print paper from the atheistic astrophysicists, that Dr. Ross referenced in the preceding video, that speaks of the ‘disturbing implications’ of the finely tuned expanding universe (1 in 10^120 cosmological constant):

    Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant – Dyson, Kleban, Susskind (each are self proclaimed atheists) – 2002
    Excerpt: “Arranging the universe as we think it is arranged would have required a miracle.,,,”
    “A external agent [external to time and space] intervened in cosmic history for reasons of its own.,,,”
    Page 21 “The only reasonable conclusion is that we don’t live in a universe with a true cosmological constant”.
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013.pdf

    This following paper clearly indicates that we, contrary to whatever ‘disturbing implications’ atheists may have about it, actually do live in universe with a ‘true cosmological constant’. i.e. A cosmological constant that is not reducible to a materialistic basis.

    Dark energy alternatives to Einstein are running out of room – January 9, 2013
    Excerpt: Last month, a group of European astronomers, using a massive radio telescope in Germany, made the most accurate measurement of the proton-to-electron mass ratio ever accomplished and found that there has been no change in the ratio to one part in 10 million at a time when the universe was about half its current age, around 7 billion years ago. When Thompson put this new measurement into his calculations, he found that it excluded almost all of the dark energy models using the commonly expected values or parameters.
    If the parameter space or range of values is equated to a football field, then almost the whole field is out of bounds except for a single 2-inch by 2-inch patch at one corner of the field. In fact, most of the allowed values are not even on the field. “In effect, the dark energy theories have been playing on the wrong field,” Thompson said. “The 2-inch square does contain the area that corresponds to no change in the fundamental constants, and that is exactly where Einstein stands.”
    http://phys.org/news/2013-01-d.....-room.html

    Also of note, in the following paper it is found that the proton-electron mass ratio does vary in strong gravitational fields either, thus, at least, giving a small suggestive hint that dark matter may also, like dark energy, be ‘merely’ a transcendent constant that is not reducible to any materialistic basis:

    Physical constant is constant even in strong gravitational fields – Sep 19, 2014
    Excerpt: An international team of physicists has shown that the mass ratio between protons and electrons is the same in weak and in very strong gravitational fields.,,,
    The idea that the laws of physics and its fundamental constants do not depend on local circumstances is called the equivalence principle. This principle is a cornerstone to Einstein’s theory of general relativity.,,,
    The researchers compared the proton-electron mass ratio near the surface of a white dwarf star to the mass ratio in a laboratory on Earth. White dwarfs stars, which are in a late stage of their life cycle, have collapsed to less than 1% of their original size. The gravitational field at the surface of these stars is therefore much larger than that on earth, by a factor of 10,000. The physicists concluded that even these strong gravitational conditions, the proton-electron mass ratio is the same within a margin of 0.005%. In both cases, the proton mass is 1836.152672 times as big as the electron mass.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2014-09-p.....ields.html

    Supplemental note:

    Stronger and More Comprehensive Tests Affirm the Universe’s Unchanging Physics – July 1, 2013 By Dr. Hugh Ross
    Excerpt: For thousands of years, the Bible has been on record stating that the physical laws governing the universe do not vary. For example, Jeremiah 33:25, God declares that he “established the fixed laws of heaven and earth” (NIV, 1984).,,,
    Laboratory measurements have established that variations any greater than four parts per hundred quadrillion (less than 4 x 10-17) per year cannot exist in the fine structure constant, which undergirds several of the physical laws.,,,
    ,,they confirmed with 99 percent certainty that possible variations in the fine structure must be less than two parts per 10 quadrillion per year over the past 10 billion years. This limit is about a thousand times more constraining than the one I described in More Than a Theory.
    http://www.reasons.org/article.....ng-physics

    Verse and Music:

    Psalm 119:89-91
    Your eternal word, O Lord, stands firm in heaven. Your faithfulness extends to every generation, as enduring as the earth you created. Your regulations remain true to this day, for everything serves your plans.

    Kutless – Strong Tower
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOxeyj7itJE

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    correction: Also of note, in the following paper it is found that the proton-electron mass ratio does NOT vary in strong gravitational fields either,,,

  4. 4
    Goldman Stackz says:

    Hi guys, I know that most here and in the ID movement are old-earthers and thus believe in the big-bang model. However I believe it is even easier to see the invalidity of BB than Darwinian evolution (because it’s a much smaller topic). Dark matter is part of the argument against BB!

    As you know the two main evidences for the BB are cosmic background radiation and galactic red-shift implying expansion. BB predicted CBR before it was discovered. What isn’t commonly discussed is that also, the steady-state and dynamic equilibrium models did too. Furthermore the BB theorists had the worst predictions!

    Since the discovery of extremely red-shifted objects the explanation of RS as a Doppler effect (thus generating a recession velocity) was no longer plausible. So an ad hoc fix was introduced by postulating that the space itself was expanding. There is no evidence for this being physically real.

    Dark matter was then introduced to explain away the large difference between average density of mass asserted by BB and that from empirical observations. Again this is an ad hoc fix and there is no evidence for it! As this article shows, physicists are still speculating about what it could be.

    Finally, as we all know inflation was introduced as an ad hoc fix to explain the homogeneity of the CBR. Per Penrose, this is fine-tuned to one part in 10 to the power 10 to the power 123. This is absurd! The only plausible explanation would be that it was God-ordained. For refutation of this claim I would cheekily point you to the Genesis account! Although I know you obviously don’t all take that to be discussing literal days as I do!

    When you need to invent ad hoc fix time and again it has to call the validity of the model into question. Please check out the references and you will see that there are far more physically plausible explanations for the data, that had greater predictive power and no need to invent imaginary entities/ processes. The only thing BB has as a plus is that it gives a history back to a point of origin, whereas the dynamic equilibrium model will only explain the universe as it is.

  5. 5
    Goldman Stackz says:

    Here are the references for my first post, had a bit of trouble making links so I will try again!

  6. 6
  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    The Theistic Implications Of Dark Energy – Hugh Ross PhD.- video
    https://vimeo.com/111289252

  8. 8
    jstanley01 says:

    What if dark matter and dark energy are fundamental forces, like the weak and strong nuclear forces, except that they are operating on a much bigger scale? We already have one fundamental force that operates on a universe-wide scale, gravity. So what’s wrong with a couple more? If that’s what they are it would mean that, like the other fundamental forces, they would be inexplicable. They just are.

  9. 9
    jstanley01 says:

    Great video, BA. Thanks for posting.

  10. 10
    Goldman Stackz says:

    Correction to my earlier post. I should not have written that the figure from Penrose shows that inflation needed to be fine-tuned to that massive figure. After more thought, that is the figure to get you to the universe as seen today, but the universe could have developed many possible ways. Please ignore my last point!

  11. 11
    tjguy says:

    Instead of WIMPS or axions, dark matter may be made of macroscopic objects as small as a few ounces up to the size of a good asteroid, and probably as dense as a neutron star or the nucleus of an atom, researchers suggest.

    Well, if the standard model accounts for dark matter, isn’t that a reason to stick with it, instead of jumping ship to a multiverse?

    I’m with Goldman on this one.

    Why is it that you guys are so committed to the Standard Model?

    Would it be the end of the world if the Standard Model was found to be untrue?

    There are still a lot of things it cannot explain.

    Here, the quote is this: “Instead of WIMPS or axions, dark matter MAY BE ….”

    “MAY BE” being the operative word here. Don’t go jumping on the bandwagon too quickly. The OP did NOT say that it actually does account for dark matter, but that it MIGHT.

    I agree with ID cosmologists such as Dr. Ross, that IF the standard model is accurate, then God had to be involved for it to happen.

    But the opposite view can also be taken. There are so many improbable events that it is basically falsified. Dr. Ross uses these “improbable” things as evidence for God’s involvement, but they could just as easily be interpreted as evidence that the Big Bang never happened. Dr. Ross’s ‘god of the gaps’ cosmology is only one interpretation of the data. Sure, it makes for an impressive book, but is it true? That is the question.

Leave a Reply