Ask Me Help Desk - Is it possible that dark matter.

Is it possible that dark matter and/or dark energy are the way that the output or exhaust or byproduct appears after "regular" matter has been processed in a blackhole? Possibly blackhole existing extra-dimensionally? Unleaded in, smog out? Matter and energy spontaneously appearing in our universe may be residue of matter created in other dimension with different physical laws then broken down, destroyed , discharged. It's different character makes it unobservable to instruments based on our physical laws , except indirectly through gravity measurement.Apparently gravity can exist and move inter-dimensionally.

Just a thought, Crazy Packrat

All theories are possible:D
I enjoyed reading yours.

Well 561packrat,
Hope not too crazy since I have been thinking along the same lines for some time now. Going through a black hole has to be big and bad enough to strip atoms down to their most infinitessimal parts. Parts so small that it would take a long, long, long... long time to be reassembled back into observable matter, or maybe they can't reasemble, they are spent, their done, but they still exist. Voi la, you have dark matter forever.
I have alway's thought of space as a soup, or water with ingredients in it, unobservable ingredients but they must be there because air itself is composed of molecules. Since scientists say all life is based on water, well, I need to breath more often than drink, what if air is just another type of water we don't understand yet, We already know it has eddy's and currents.
Also, could our universe have began from matter/water flowing through a tear or rip in space/time from another universe??

Now that sounds even crazier huh?

One thing I do believe, is that there was dakness before there was light. Because God said "Let there be light."

Very nice and beautiful ideas you have, I must say!

Of course, this is not a question anybody here really could answer. To start with, you make a fair amount of assumptions here (although, not more assumptions that scientists do):

1) Astrophysicists talk often about and have very good reasons to believe that the black hole candidates we see in the Universe are the same black holes that are predicted by general relativity. What happens when any matter hits the singularity inside the black hole, is unknown, since we can only try to understand this in form of theory and observations, but have no chance to make any experiment at these distances far away from us. But are those supermassive black holes we observe in the center of galaxies really the same black holes as Einstein predicted? We have not even seen any direct proofs of Hawking radiation yet, and it's been almost 40 years. Possibly, can quantum gravity predict what could happen...
2) We do not know whether extra dimensions exist or not. String theory and Kaluza-Klein theory and all those many-dimension theories are still only theories that make beautiful predictions, on which we have many expectations.
3) We do not know whether gravity exists extra dimensionally, neither we understand gravity as a force. Of the four fundamental forces (strong, weak, electronmagnetic, gravity) we have found the force mediator of strong (gluons that bind the quarks), of the weak (Z, W+- bosons) and the electromagnetic (photon) but yet not the graviton belonging to the gravity! It is supposed to interact on great distances compared to the other forces, but we have no sign at all yet that the graviton exists. Standard Model is confused about it. What is gravity? This is a question that puzzles many. But do we really need including extra dimensions to understand it?
4) Dark matter and dark energy. Nobody is sure that dark matter or dark energy really exists. It might be so, that our models are incorrect. After all, we are humans...

But I think, it sounds very beautiful and esthetical what you suggest :-) I have heard very similar theories to yours, so keep up the good work, and become a theoretical physicist :-)

Adding a little comment:

One candidate for dark matter would actually be primordial black holes :-)

Packrat

Everything is possible. But I do not know of any scientific support for this idea you post here.
We do know that black holes collect matter, that they radiate part of incoming matter in the disk again at high speed, but there is no support for the idea of any processing of matter in a black hole.
A black hole is not magical at all. It is just a place of such a high gravity that light can no longer escape from there. We do not know of any more dimensions than the standard three (L, W, D) plus time. So a possible blackhole having extra-dimensional features is unscientific.
There are several explanations on the exchange of matter in energy and vice versa in the universe.

But as I already stated : everything is possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaryJS

One candidate for dark matter would actually be primordial black holes

Not really Mary. We have no idea if dark matter exists, what it is, and where it would be coming from.
All we know is that galaxies behave as if there is much more matter present than we can see there is.
Dark matter is just a possible explanation for what we seem to observe. Dark matter and dark energy are hypothetical items, 'created' by humans to explain effects we have no proper explanation for.

But if black holes would produce 'black matter' and emit that into space, that 'black matter' - lacking the high gravity under which it would be formed - soon would turn into normal matter. So that would not explain the presence of dark matter and dark energy in space...

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarnian

Not really Mary. We have no idea if dark matter exists, what it is, and where it would be coming from.
All we know is that galaxies behave as if there is much more matter present than we can see there is.
Dark matter is just a possible explanation for what we seem to observe. Dark matter and dark energy are hypothetical items, 'created' by humans to explain effects we have no proper explanation for.

But if black holes would produce 'black matter' and emit that into space, that 'black matter' - lacking the high gravity under which it would be formed - soon would turn into normal matter. So that would not explain the presence of dark matter and dark energy in space ....

Please, reread my post again, I think you missed "Dark matter and dark energy. Nobody is sure that dark matter or dark energy really exists. It might be so, that our models are incorrect. After all, we are humans..." :-) :-) :-) The only thing I am writing, is the number of unknown assumptions that are done in his hypothesis, that makes it impossible to both speak against or for the theory.

I have never stated anywhere that dark matter or dark energy exists... :-) The existence of dark matter and dark energy, is something that only the main population believes in, because media presents it this way to the public. The science is now living in the era of the Benchmark model.

The only thing I commented that primordial black holes have themselves been candidates for dark matter, as have been neutrinos, and axions (but all these are getting quite ruled out in theory). As you know, the dark matter research gets HUGE fundings every year... even if nobody knows about it! So sure, rotational curves of galaxies speak about great amounts of missing mass in galaxies (and same for clusters), and they spend a lot of money in research of possible dark matter candidates. MOND does not get equally large fundings, even if it represents an alternative to the dark matter theory.

Nobody knows if dark matter exists, but people continue researching possible dark matter candidates, independently of this. For instance, have you heard about the AMANDA or IceCube project? Neutrino telescopes at South Pole, searching for interactions of possible Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs)... but still, nobody knows if dark matter exists. And, we have all the MACHO-collaborations... simply: nobody knows whether it exists, but LHC will be searching for supersymmetric particles to find the neutralinos (hottest candidates for WIMPs) anyway, and that collider is not exactly cheap. In the same way, primordial black holes have been possible candidates for dark matter.

MaryJS

Yes, I agree with you that it may well be that our models are way off.
The reason for all the searching for dark matter and dark energy is not because we have strong indications that they exist, but because if these would not exist, there is something terribly wrong with both our theory on sub-atomic particles and the theory on the construction and content of galaxies.

As to (primordial) black holes being candidates for dark matter : it is possible, but we do not have any real idea about the content specifics of a black hole. We have no idea about the real size of black holes, nor about the state of compression inside a black hole.
Just one huge black hole in the center and/or several additional black holes here and there won't do to stabilize galaxies, nor keep all galaxies together in groups.

In sub-atomics we still miss several particles. And accordingly to the latest thesi we now even have to double the quantities of all sub-atomic particles (supersymmetry).

And next we have to add several dimensions to make all the above mentioned stuff viable, notwithstanding that we have no reasons to assume more dimensions to exist than the 4 we already know.

As a font supporter to the Oxham's razor thesis I keep to the thought that it is more likely that somewhere we must have missed something!

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarnian

MaryJS

Yes, I agree with you that it may well be that our models are way off.
The reason for all the searching for dark matter and dark energy is not because we have strong indications that they exist, but because if these would not exist, there is something terribly wrong with both our theory on sub-atomic particles and the theory on the construction and content of galaxies.

As to (primordial) black holes being candidates for dark matter : it is possible, but we do not have any real idea about the content specifics of a black hole. We have no idea about the real size of black holes, nor about the state of compression inside a black hole.
Just one huge black hole in the center and/or several additional black holes here and there won't do to stabilize galaxies, nor keep all galaxies together in groups.

In sub-atomics we still miss several particles. And accordingly to the latest thesi we now even have to double the quantities of all sub-atomic particles (supersymmetry).

And next we have to add several dimensions to make all the above mentioned stuff viable, notwithstanding that we have no reasons to assume more dimensions to exist than the 4 we already know.

As a font supporter to the Oxham's razor thesis I keep to the thought that it is more likely that somewhere we must have missed something!

I agree there too :) In general, if you watch all these dark matter candidates, they all have some big flaws. Also, watch now the supersymmetry. It is not enough to have supersymmetry, no, you need to have a symmetry-breaking too :) As fast as we cannot explain anything, particle physicists just add another symmetry breaking :) I bet on that
It will turn out that CPT-symmetry is non-absolute too :)