2
   

Could dark matter be the cold, dead remnants of a previous big bang?

 
 
Reply Sun 14 Apr, 2019 04:09 pm
If our big bang happened in a universe that already had an earlier big bang which had died and cooled, could that explain dark matter and dark energy? Is it consistent with observation to say the baryonic matter of our big bang could have been brought together by nearby dead (baryonic) black holes as it passed them? Later, as it grew, it might be approaching more dead black holes out beyond its expanding surface (and gravitationally attracted to them.)
I realize this is a very simplistic idea. I'd feel better if I knew that somebody had considered it and rejected it before considering new, exotic forms of matter and energy.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 2 • Views: 354 • Replies: 5
No top replies

 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Apr, 2019 04:30 am
@MarkGartland,
Not within the current model.
MarkGartland
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2019 07:56 am
@rosborne979,
Thank you for your reply. I understand you to mean that the idea I outlined is not part of the current model. I agree with that because it is obviously true. But, I wish to learn more about the history of the development of the current model. Specifically, did anybody ever consider (and reject) the idea I outlined? Can someone tell me that they tried to model it and the models didn't work? If so, I'd like to hear that. I find it difficult to search for references to this idea because it is so obscure; I get no hits.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2019 01:03 pm
@MarkGartland,
As I understand it, 'dark matter' is (mathematically)required to make up the total mass in the universe to account for some gravitational phenomena, such as ths bending of light by 'invisible mass' The phrase 'current model' tends to be ambiguous because it could refer either to 'the standard model' of fundamental particles, or to the mechanics involved in gravitational models.
NB. I suggest you take care with the phrase 'obviously true' since both 'obvious' and 'truth' may have little relevance in the shifting paradigms of frontier
science.
MarkGartland
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Apr, 2019 04:58 pm
@fresco,
Thank you, Fresco. Although my understanding of dark matter is limited, I think it is meant to explain how gas clouds collapsed to form galaxies faster than the amount of visible matter within them can account for. A large amount of unseen mass probably accounts for it. In most of the articles I read, physicists are searching for hitherto unknown particles to be that mass. When I read such articles, I often find myself doing lateral thinking to create more parsimonious explanations. This post is one such. It is a very simple idea, quite different from what I normally see in Science News, and probably wrong. But don't have the means to test it. I hope to find an appropriate forum for doing that. An ideal forum would be a large list of frequently asked physics questions with answers like, "such-and-such person tried to model that, once, and it didn't work." Can anyone suggest a forum or searchable database for me to try?
0 Replies
 
Jewels Vern
 
  0  
Reply Wed 17 Apr, 2019 03:59 pm
According to wikipedia dark matter was invented in 1932 by Ian Oort to fudge his data so it would agree with his theory. Somehow it got to be the basis for about half of everything we think we know about the universe. This is called "hoax".
0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Could dark matter be the cold, dead remnants of a previous big bang?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/09/2020 at 08:09:00