Jump to content

Can matter be tranfered into dark matter and back?


angushall19

Recommended Posts

We don't know what dark matter is yet, so the physics doesn't exist that could answer this question. But dark matter isn't molecules of energy, because energy isn't a substance, it's a property.

It is still theoretical, but it is thought to be a almost nonexistant energy mass from the big bangs energy wave.

Edited by angushall19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering if anyone knew if matter could be transfered to dark matter and back.

 

As swansont says, without some understanding of dark matter and some decent models it is hard to say. Dark matter cannot interact very strongly with the particles of the standard model: this is for sure via gravity, or maybe even some other force we do not know about yet. Anyway, one would expect dark matter to be quite stable (or at least the final states after decays). For example the neutralino would be expected to be stable as it is the lightest particle in typical SUSY extensions of the standard model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

As far as we can tell dark matter is a soupy fluidic matter that doesn't interact with anything except gravity. But if dark matter IS MATTER, than at some point it's composed of energy. All things can be broken down to their simplest state. So it is safe to say even without knowing what dark matter is that it can be broken down to energy. I DO NOT KNOW if this implies that it can be constructed though. That is a LOT more complex of a question ironically. Again, this is only assuming dark matter IS matter. There are some theories that state the gravitational effect we see that we assume is caused by dark matter may be gravity from other universes bleeding into ours. There are a ton of other possibilities too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as we can tell dark matter is a soupy fluidic matter that doesn't interact with anything except gravity. But if dark matter IS MATTER, than at some point it's composed of energy. All things can be broken down to their simplest state. So it is safe to say even without knowing what dark matter is that it can be broken down to energy.

 

No, not really. Energy is a property of things, not a thing unto itself. Saying that things (matter) can be broken down into energy, or is composed of energy is, at best, an awkward representation. Dark matter will have energy (much like it will have momentum if it's moving), but is not composed of energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No, not really. Energy is a property of things, not a thing unto itself. Saying that things (matter) can be broken down into energy, or is composed of energy is, at best, an awkward representation. Dark matter will have energy (much like it will have momentum if it's moving), but is not composed of energy.

 

 

If it is matter. It has an atomic structure. The atomic structure can be broken, releasing light, radiation and other things that have energy. Or am I misunderstanding? I know the way I said it was super simple but I don't feel it was inaccurate? Well it was inaccurate but I mean, I think we all understand what I mean?

Edited by TheGeckomancer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as we can tell dark matter is a soupy fluidic matter that doesn't interact with anything except gravity. But if dark matter IS MATTER, than at some point it's composed of energy.

As already stated, energy is a property of 'stuff' and so your statement is too loose. As dark matter interacts gravitationally it must posses the property of energy: or better stated it must posses energy-momentum in order to act as a source of gravity.

If it is matter. It has an atomic structure.

What do you mean by atomic structure in this context?

 

You mean something like stable or quasi-stable bound states of dark matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I mean it has atoms. Particles bound together into a structure. Particles in a free state don't clump like that. To be clear. I am not saying dark matter IS atoms. I am saying if dark matter IS matter than it's atoms. Because thats the definition of the word. And we know we can break atoms to release light, heat, and radiation. I am not making any crazy claims or anything outside of science.

Edited by TheGeckomancer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I mean it has atoms. Particles bound together into a structure. Particles in a free state don't clump like that. To be clear. I am not saying dark matter IS atoms. I am saying if dark matter IS matter than it's atoms. Because thats the definition of the word. And we know we can break atoms to release light, heat, and radiation.

So you mean more-or-less what I said: stable or quasi-stable bound states of dark matter.

 

I have not come across anyone discussing this, not that dark matter is really my subject and you may find something in the literature.

 

Such bound states I think would be unlikely if dark matter only interacted gravitationally. The forces of the standard model must interact with dark matter very weakly: so electromagnetically bound dark atoms are unlikley . If there were some other force that only dark matter experienced (or at least does not course much of an interaction with the particles of the standard model), then this could be more likely. One cannot rule out atomic-like structures being formed by dark matter particles. But again, without some further indication of what dark matter is and how it couples with all the known forces and maybe new ones it is hard to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. And I am not saying that they are. I am just saying IF THEY ARE they still follow all the rules we know. Just a bit exotic to us.

That may depend on the rules you are talking about. I mean, if they do form 'atoms' via some other as of yet unknown force then details of the 'atomic structure' could be very different. I have no idea what kind of constraints one has here coming from astronomy and observational cosmology.

 

I suggest a literature search to see if anyone has proposed much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If it is matter. It has an atomic structure. The atomic structure can be broken, releasing light, radiation and other things that have energy. Or am I misunderstanding? I know the way I said it was super simple but I don't feel it was inaccurate? Well it was inaccurate but I mean, I think we all understand what I mean?

 

An electron is matter, but can't be broken down.

 

For normal matter at the atomic level, you require energy input to break them down onto their constituents. The one way we know of to "erase" matter is pair annihilation (and from one perspective having a particle and antiparticle means you have no net matter), but then you get photons out, which have energy, rather than being energy.

 

As far as understanding what you mean, that's a tough one. It's not obvious from what you said. A lot of people think about energy as a substance, and that leads to trouble when you get into more complex discussions.

But if dark matter particles don't interact via anything other than gravity, as is generally thought, then they won't form structures to be broken down.

 

Which is tied in with some of its behavior. There is no way to dissipate energy except via gravitational radiation, meaning it should behave in a manner that's different than normal matter. Drastically reduce dissipation and it's almost frictionless; more elastic than inelastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I am super outdated by encyclopedia britannica defines an atom smallest unit into which matter can be divided.

 

The definition of "matter" becomes fairly ambiguous at this point. Atoms are made of electrons and protons and neutrons. So I think many people would consider them (constituents of) matter. But protons and neutrons are made of quarks? Are they "matter"? If so, are all hadrons?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always favored the empirical definition of matter. Something I can interact with. Touch taste smell feel see or hear. I don't THINK I can pick up a handful of quarks. I don't know honestly but don't think so.

 

As it turns out, you must pick up a handful. You can never pick up one — quarks can't exist alone. They always must be bound to another quark or two (or possibly more)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A visible to the naked eye amount that I can grab with my fist. My point is i don't think you can stack them like sand on top of each other and ever have something you can SEE and touch. Correct me if I am wrong, but particles are strictly out of the empirical realm?

Edited by TheGeckomancer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.