Possible Fifth Force Would Make Direct Detection of Dark Matter Unlikely
March 26, 2009 By Lisa Zyga
In this image of the Bullet Cluster, the blue area shows what is thought to be dark matter. Physicists are investigating connections between a possible fifth force and the direct detection of dark matter. Image source: NASA / CXC / CIA / STSci / Magellan / Univ. of Ariz. / ESO.
(PhysOrg.com) -- No one knows exactly what a “fifth force” might be, but studies have shown that, if a long-range fifth force does exist, it could have surprising effects on the universe’s structure formation. A fifth force could reduce discrepancies between theory and observation in several areas of cosmology.
Now, as new research has shown, a fifth force could also be connected to dark matter. In a paper published in Physical Review Letters, physicists Jo Bovy and Glennys Farrar were surprised to discover that a fifth force in the dark sector could place constraints on dark matter that essentially exclude its direct detection through spin-independent interactions. Conversely, if future experiments do detect a spin-independent interaction of dark matter, then any fifth force in the dark sector must be so weak as to be astrophysically irrelevant.
“Our study shows that we can strongly constrain some properties of dark matter, i.e., the combination of its interaction with the visible sector and the strength of a long-range fifth force between dark matter particles, through experiments with ordinary matter,” Bovy, a Ph.D. student at New York University, told PhysOrg.com. As for which scenario appears to be more likely - a fifth force excluding direct detection of dark matter, or direct detection of dark matter excluding a relevant fifth force - Bovy and Farrar said that it’s impossible to say in advance. “Both would be very interesting both theoretically as well as observationally,” Bovy said.
Previous research has suggested the possibility that a new long-range, attractive fifth force might exist, which arises in several extensions of the standard model. Although most dark matter models predict that the force between dark matter particles is a short-range force, other models such as supersymmetry and string theory allow for the existence of a very light boson which could carry a long-range force in the dark sector.
In the current study, the theorized fifth force - a nongravitational, long-range attractive force - would couple directly to dark matter but not to ordinary visible matter. However, if dark matter particles interacted nongravitationally with ordinary matter, quantum corrections would make the fifth force emerge in the visible sector, as well. This quantum correction occurs when two virtual dark matter particles are coupled to both the fifth force scalar and to two quarks.
“Our study reveals a hitherto unrecognized connection between dark matter interactions with ordinary matter, and dark matter self-interactions,” said Farrar, a physics professor and Director of the Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics at New York University.
As Bovy and Farrar explain in their study, in order to be astrophysically relevant (i.e., on the order of the gravitational force), the fifth force carrier must have a vacuum expectation value on the order of the Planck mass. In turn, this requires that dark matter be very heavy in most scenarios. In direct detection experiments, scientists look for dark matter by observing ordinary matter particles recoiling due to being scattered by dark matter particles. As the mass of dark matter particles increases, the bounds on the coupling of dark matter and quarks become more stringent, making the direct detection of dark matter more difficult.
Besides its implications on the direct detection of dark matter, a fifth force has also been hypothesized to impact large-scale structure formation. If a fifth force was attractive and had a very long range, it would effectively increase the strength of gravitational interaction, and thus accelerate structure formation. As previous studies have shown, such a force could reduce discrepancies between observations and predictions in several areas, such as by increasing the number of galaxy clusters and superclusters and reducing voids, which would agree better with observations.
As the scientists explain, the impacts of a possible fifth force do not demand its existence, but they do motivate researchers to explore the implications of a fifth force.
“Jo Bovy and I are looking at what the analogous constraints are, between possible dark matter annihilation signals (searched for by Fermi-GLAST and other satellite experiments like PAMELA and ATIC) and a fifth force,” Farrar said. “Also, in collaboration with others, I'm studying the effects of a long-range dark matter force on cosmology and attempting to improve constraints on it from the Bullet cluster.”
Bovy added that he’s also investigating the implications of short-range attractive forces between dark matter particles, which may enable the detection of dark matter annihilation from satellite galaxies of the Milky Way.
More information: Bovy, Jo and Farrar, Glennys R. “Connection between a Possible Fifth Force and the Direct Detection of Dark Matter.” Physical Review Letters 102, 101301 (2009).
Copyright 2009 PhysOrg.com.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of PhysOrg.com.
Dec 12, 2008 |
not rated yet |
0
Plasma cosmology represents a more comprehensive cosmology than the current gravity-dominated cosmology can.
www.classicalatom.blogspot.com
"....the theorized fifth force - a nongravitational, long-range attractive force - would couple directly to dark matter but not to ordinary visible matter. However, if dark matter particles interacted nongravitationally with ordinary matter, quantum corrections would make the fifth force emerge in the visible sector, as well. This quantum correction occurs when two virtual dark matter particles are coupled to both the fifth force scalar and to two quarks."
They're going to end up with ptolemaic epicycles if they don't stop somewhere soon. I mean, how much duck tape can you wrap around a cosmology. If it's convoluted and ad hoc, its less interesting and sublime, even if it saves exiting theories.
Could it even generate the medium if it did not exist?
What happens at the shared boundary of two gravitational fields, when each field does not extend far enough to reach to origin, (generating mass), of the other?
Spontaneous generous of exotic matter, or a simple mechanism for energy conservation and suspension?
( I know. I read too much. ;-)
Pluto's gravitational field does not reach the Earth's gravitational field, yet they are both "immersed" in the larger gravitational field of the sun. As such, it's turtles all the way down... As in there is no gravitationally void space.
And then again, the coulombic forces are so very much stronger than gravity that the answers probably lie there instead of in ever more epicyclic patches.
AWT doesn't care about speculative effects.
http://en.wikiped...th_force
Electric Universe may sound naivelly for someone - but I never met with idea, dark matter can be formed by positivelly charged atom nuclei or positrons, which are repelling at distance. Now we are detecting positrons in dark matter and it appears like great finding for some.
http://aetherwave...ter.html
The gravity field inside of each gravitating body is zero, because of zero space-time curvature. Therefore every massive object exhibits an inflexion point of space-time curvature or gravity force in less or more distance.
http://aetherwave...ity.html
Whereas by relativity the highest curvature should appear exactly at the center, which leads to Schwartzchild solution with black hole singularity at center. Such solution is apparently unphysical, though.
http://en.wikiped...d_metric
Instead of this, we should always expect zero or even repulsive force in sufficient distance.
Isn't it trivial? Why nobody did come with this problem?
http://www.presto...ndex.htm
We should live with only one fundamental force, i.e. supergravity, which is shielding effect, following the inverse law for arbitrary number of dimensions in analogy to gravity, which is supergravity for 3D space. Gravity is dual to EM force by the same way, like underwater sound waves are dual to water surface waves, we can consider EM as a surface tension force of graviton foam, forming vacuum. For every particle environment exist pure transversal and pure longitudinal wave in pair and it has no meaning to discuss, which is more fundamental due the symmetry between longitudinal and transversal wave spreading.
We can derive more complex forces in hidden dimensions by consideration of shielding effect of dense particle clusters.
http://superstrun...orce.gif
For example, weak nuclear force is dual to Casimir force, both being indirectly proportional the fifth square of distance, i.e. acting in six dimensions. Strong force is surface tension of tiny quark droplets.
Dark matter which does not exist would be... rather difficult to detect. (-:
For example, underwater gradient is salt concentration cannot be seen, it cannot be fish out - it manifests only by underwater waves, which can sink incautious boats. By AWT dark matter is such gradient of environment density, it's just more blurry.
http://en.wikiped...ad_water
Every gradient exhibits a refraction phenomena with respect to spreading of energy waves. At the moment, when the refraction results in reflection of energy waves, we are talking about matter. For example event horizon of black holes is density gradient so dense, it reflects all incoming energy back into black holes.
By AWT observable reality is formed just by density gradients, nothing else. We are formed by such gradients, too - so we cannot observe anything else.
By AWT it's a surface tension effect of every gravity field. It behaves like dense blob of vacuum foam refracting the path of light, i.e. like giant but sparse mercury droplet. Surface of every dense object exhibits a surface tension phenomena, because it's curved and it can serve as a surface for spreading of surface energy waves. But energy tends to spread along straight path, so here's additional energy density, not the energy of space-time curvature, which is forming gravity field, but the density of curvature of gravity field curvature. It manifests like additional weak gravity force, which is acting at the surface of gradient field and it has a tendency to compensate it. It's a second order effect, which Einstein field equation doesn't consider explicitly, but it follows just from relativity theory and it makes it nonlinear and infinitely recursive.
When the density gradient becomes very strong and curved (usually at presence of black holes), the energy density of curvature of this field becomes more significant, then density of space-time curvature, event horizon tends to drown beneath the event horizon and it becomes undulate like quantum wave.
We can see, dark matter can be interpreted like quantum gravity phenomena, too.
We can observe similar phenomena near rotating black holes, just in more pronounced way (so called Kerr's solution of black holes).
http://www.nasa.g...ure.html
http://www.presto...ndex.htm
In your case it's not outside the box, it's outside the modern box and directly into the outdated Newtonian model of ether and gravity symmetry sans math.
Personally I consider Aether concept more intuitive and general, then formal theories based on ad-hoced postulates - but's it's the matter of personal preferences. Here exists many people, who are experimenced in formal thinking as well. The only problem is, they cannot explain their understanding to other layman people.
We shouldn't forget, concept of paralelized multiparticle environment doesn't play well with formal rigor, based on consecutive logic. The same problem we can met during modeling of real life phenomena, like flame or turbulence by formal math. Despite piles of theories, both engineering simulations, both movie effects are mostly based on particle models due the speed, reliability and flexibility.
Reality around us is based on multicomponent systems - the fact, some local connections can be expressed in math more effectivelly doesn't change the chaotic character of reality. And at the very end, every chaotic system can be modeled by particle gas or compressible fluid.
If you can't put math to the test of theory, then theory becomes hypothesis without merit.
By AWT, everything falls under the guidelines of fluidic physics in a null energetic state. Unfortunately for you, we now know there's no such thing as a null energetic state under the measured tennets of QM.
ether no; outmoded yes; Newtonian yes; sans maths no; gravity symmetric who knows; supported by evidence yes; not what you are expecting as the next step forward who cares; correct yes.
check it out.
http://www.presto...ndex.htm
Have you added to it since the last time we discussed your framework? If not it's still without math and based on outmoded gravitic symmetry. Don't take this as a dig, but it's not more than a hypothesis worth casually talking about until you have experimental means of measuring or observations that allow for scrutiny of the theory.
This is because logic is the base of every formal model, even math itself. In math every conjecture must be proven by predicate logic first, before they can be used in another rigorous derivations.
But somehow, contemporary physicists started to believe, they can manage their theories without predicate logics on background. So we can say: no less - but more math based rigor is required for physics by now! We should build a robust logical model of reality first, before we should try to derive something more specific about it.
AWT can be modeled and tested by particle gas simulations on computer with unlimited precision. It may be possible, chaotic gas cannot be modeled by math in their entirety, but this is a limitation of formal math, not the AWT.
For example, even system of five gravitating bodies cannot be solved by formal math - by such way, the formal math is virtually unusable for modeling of nearly every real life phenomena.
Whereas by computer simulation we can model turbulent phenomena, which are highly divergent and which cannot be solved in formal way. This is because particle is zero dimensional object - as such is singular by its very nature and formal math cannot handle it.
How do you actually model it without "formal" math?
One example please. Because you don't understand the basis does not mean the logical framework is false.
http://www.presto...ndex.htm
http://aetherwave...ory.html
Simmilar conceptual inconsistencies exist in general relativity.
http://aetherwave...ity.html
In general, single logical inconsistency is often able to falsify whole deep theory, because of supremacy of predicate logics over formal math. For example, observation of Venus phases is able to disprove whole geocentric model with pile of math, deferants and epicycle models, predictions of eclipses and conjuctions. Such model appears OK from formal math perspective, but it's not, because formal models are insensitive to logical flaws. They're based on logic - so they cannot reveal the logical holes.
It's not always easy task to trace all hidden dependencies. For example, Planck constant is dependent to gravity constant on background, therefore every formula with both these quantities at the same moment is unconditioned. But such dependence isn't always obvious for laymans or even many theorists.
In real cases, every theory consist of many postulates. Some of them are consistent, but redundant, whereas some other contradicting in various level. In general, every pair of postulates must be inconsistent, or it could be replaced by single one, i.e it's redundant. From this follows, every theory with more postulates is incomplete or inconsistent - here's no gold mean. Therefore logical analysis of many physical theories appears like detective story.
http://superstrun...logy.gif
http://superstrun...sity.gif
The source of this paradox is the insintric violation of equivalence principle. In real Universe gravity force has always a "center of action", whereas acceleration force hasn't. Therefore it's always possible to distinguish between acelleration and gravitation, thus violate the basic assumption of general relativity, i.e. the equivalence principle.
http://superstrun...rtia.gif
By another words, general relativity is strictly local theory. It still doesn't mean, it's fundamentally wrong - but because real observation in real world is always nonlocal one, general relativity is violated in smaller or larger extent.
Because gravity field/force is always zero at the center of gravitating object, it just means, a gravity field has always its "inflexion point", after which the gravity force becomes weak repulsive force. At the case of sparse system of gravitating objects, like galaxy, inflexion point can become pretty remote and it manifest itself like dark matter with "negative mass component" of like "fifth force". We can see, it's just a geometry effect, fully consistent with relativity, when considering not just curvature of space, but the curvature of this curvature, the curvature of curvature of curvature of space-time and all higher differentials of gravity field curvature in nested recursive way.
But Mr. Einstein forgot(?) his "own" mass-energy equivalence formula E=mc^2, which follows from relativity, too (albeit in somewhat less straightforward way, then Einstein has derived in 1905). So he didn't realize, every energy density corresponds certain amount of mass density, which could exhibit its own gravity action, too.
Because maximal curvature of space-time for every nonlocal object isn't at it's center, but near its surface, we should expect the action of this additional gravity field right here. It would manifest itself as a weak antigravity force, connected to surface of gravity field gradient, surrounding every nonlocal massive object.
It would mean, this "dark matter"/"fifth force"/"surface tension"/"supersymmetry"/"antigravity"/"negative mass" effect doesn't violate general relativity in its concequences. To derive these effects properly, we should be even more consequential in application of general relativity theorems, then Mr. Einstein did, instead.
But because the zone of maximal space-time curvature is never at the center, but near surface of such dense object, a strange things appears, whenever such object becomes suficiently dense. The immense space-time curvature will make the surface of such dense star more dense, then its interior, thus violating a buoyancy condition. The surface will tend to sink down into less dense interior of dense star.
But every attempt will be followed by formation of negative space-time curvature. This will make the surface less dense in this place, so it will be repelled back again. Instead of this, it will undulate like metastable quantum wave. Whole dense collapsar will change into giant elementary particle: a undulating dense blob of space-time instead of pin-point singuarity, so we can live inside it.
Which is the main problem with general relativity models of black hole, like the Schwarzschild solution? It's steady state solution, which is the result of energy distribution in its equillibrium state. But when we attempt for thorough time dependent simulation of dense star collapse, we would see, such solution is unphysical, because bellow certain density limit, the dense star cannot collapse anymore without evaporation of excessive mass into radiation. Such effect even prohibits large black holes in merging by the same way, like surface tension prohibits foam bubbles or mercury droplets in merging under direct contact. The large cluster of black holes therefore will behave like cluster of giant foam bubbles. We can even observe such foam from inside as a "hall of mirrors".
http://superstrun...lex2.gif
http://physicswor...nt/23009
TION Unified Field Time.
Even The Univrse Begins in the Particle State.
c. Liberte
Ed Britt/cpu//
cpuoneac@rogers.blackberry.net
cpuoneac@yahoo.com
1-902-549-0220
386 Charlotte Street
Apt. 10, Third Floor,
Sydney, Nova Scotia,
Canada, B1P 1E2.
Do proponents of this crap think that trying to win the support of fellow idiots will somehow be helpful to their side in the debate?
It's the only aspect of their framework where it's plausable. If we get to discussions of the infinitely small it falls apart, just like the Newtonian physics it is based upon.
Absolutely, positively, patently false.
Tim, I haven't had a chance to re-read yet. I want to make sure I grant adequate time to properly go over the new material.
To be specific:
"This is subject to the assumption that anti-gravity matter is cold, has no pressure and its particles have no kinetic energy"
For AGM to have no kinetic energy then the medium in which AGM sits must be mobile, otherwise AGM would have to have kinetic energy.
So I'd need some clarification on your referential framework to explain either the kinetic energy of AGM or the expansion/contraction/motion of the space time fabric and it's effects on AGM.
On reading the rest I do think you're making progress toward either a torpedoing of your hypothesis, or strengthening into something more substantial.
Keep at it and let me know as it progresses.
velanarris@gmail.com
Your math's are very, very strained, especially since you pick and choose which part of your framework to apply. Unfortunately I'd have to say it's incomplete, and doesn't show much promise unless you can unify your framework and set some hard limiters on your calculations.
Otherwise you're just plugging in X and assuming everything else is Y, then plugging in Y and assuming everything else is X, which is no good when trying to find a constant, or a factor of force.
Sorry... don't mean to be cynical.
A. A note about "new Theory of Everything Breakthrough"
"We are a group that is challenging the current paradigm in physics which is Quantum Mechanics and String Theory. There is a new Theory of Everything Breakthrough. It exposes the flaws in both Quantum Theory and String Theory. Please Help us set the physics community back on the right course and prove that Einstein was right! Visit our site The Theory of Super Relativity:
Super Relativity
http://www.superr...ity.org/
Mark Fiorentino Mar. 18, 2009"
B. My note, of a commonsensible primitive mind, about the above note
I think you'll find this link of "complementary interest" to you, even if without math, and not that you need complementary ideas...
http://www.physfo...ic=22994&st=0&#entry373127
However, "my ether" is being laid by the expanding galactic-clusters...
C. Commonsensible conception of gravity
1. According to the standard model, which describes all the forces in nature except gravity, all elementary particles were born massless. Interactions with the proposed Higgs field would slow down some of the particles and endow them with mass. Finding the Higgs %u2014 or proving it does not exist %u2014 has therefore become one of the most important quests in particle physics.
However, for a commonsensible primitive mind with a commonsensible universe represented by
E=Total[m(1 D)], this conceptual equation describes gravity. It does not explain gravity. It describes it. It applies to the whole universe and to every and all specific cases, regardless of size.
2. Thus gravity is simply another face of the total cosmic energy. Thus gravity is THE cosmic parent of phenomena such as black holes and life. It is the display of THE all-pervasive-embracive strained space texture, laid down by the expanding galactic clusters, also noticed in the expanding energy backlashes into various constructs of temporary constrained energy packages.
D. Commonsensible conception of the forces other than gravity
The forces other than gravity are, commonsensibly, forces involved in conjunction with evolution:
http://royalsocie...?id=4770
The farthest we go in reductionism in Everything, including in Life, we shall still end up with wholism, until we arrive at energy. Energy is the base element of everything and of all in the universe. At the beginning was the energy singularity, at the end will be near zero mass and an infinite dispersion of the beginning energy, and in-between, the universe undergoes continuous evolution consisting of myriad energy-to-energy and energy-to-mass-to-energy transformations.
The universe, and everything in it, are continuously evolving, and all the evolutions are intertwined.
Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
Life's Manifest
http://www.the-sc...page#578
EVOLUTION Beyond Darwin 200
http://www.physfo...ic=14988&st=405&#entry396201
http://www.the-sc...age#1407