90% of the space within an atom is dark matter (page 3)

bohm

James:

(1) True, but one can see the effects of gravity by observing gravitational lensing and large-scale movement of ordinary matter, by doing that one can observe there must be "some other stuff" in empty space. Furthermore astronomers seem quite confident that they can rule out eg. cold gas (dont ask me quite how). In terms of observing dark energy, that has to do with how the universe behave on an even larger scale (the expansion) and is inferred by observation of the redshift of type 1a supernovas.

(2) I believe this is mostly known by observing the type 1a supernovas and direct observation of nearby space + extrapolation.

If you are interested in this stuff i would *really* recommend you this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

It is by dr. Laurants Krauss who manage to cover a lot of recent theory in a level where you do not need a phd, its really excellent stuff.

Re. dark-matter vs. ether: either option would be amazingly cool! This is why there is such an interest in dark matter, the experimentalists dream of dark matter making them the next michaelson-morley-s, the theorists of becoming the next einstein, and there is a very real chance it might happend within the next couple of years at the LHC. amazing times!

james_woods

If you are interested in this stuff i would *really* recommend you this video:

Thanks, I am a big fan of Lawrence Krauss - I have at least one of his books. He is a great "feet-on-the-ground" explainer of modern physics in plain language.

I agree that there are certain effects that indicate something unexpected happening on a galactic scale regarding gravitation - I am just saying that I think the jury is still out on the cause.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are such cool names that they seem to have taken on a life all their own even in absense of tangible proof. I think many people will be very sad if it turns out that the large scale effects are just something as simple as a misunderstood term of the relativistic gravitational equations - something like the cosmic constant - as you said above.

bohm

dorkydood: With all due respect bohm, I'll go with the information on Nasa's website, which seems to support what I'm saying...unless I am misunderstanding what is stated on their website?

look, I am not after you or anything, but you are right, you do misunderstand what is on those websites.

Dark matter/energy is usefull to account for the *large scale* mass distribution of the universe, what goes on between stars. It has nothing to do with the mass of atoms, which (as i have written two times) is *known* to be composed of three things, namely the rest mass and corrections due to relativity and the energy of the gluon field from quantum field theory (and properly also other effects, quantum field theory is one big mindfuck and i only took one course). Clearly none of those two effects are dark energy/dark matter because *then we would know what dark matter/energy was*.

Ofcourse it may be there is a fundamental connection between the two, we will know that when (if) we understand exactly what gravity, dark energy, dark matter and mass in general "is", but as it is they are different theoretical constructs operating on size scales which could not be further apart.

undercover

he probably meant that over 90% of anatom dub's brain is just empty space

FTFY

james_woods

Should we bring back that thread about the 1932 Awake explaining that gravitational force did not really exist, and that planetary and lunar orbits were due to electromagnetic attraction?

It also pointed out that "atoms consist of a single proton and many electrons", and that there were "wood and glass atoms - determined by how many electrons they had"...

The moon was also said to have a "pointed end" (like an egg) and that this pointed end always pointed toward the earth, which was why we can only see a little over one half-face of the moon.

I guess the JWs have not learned their lesson yet on making idiotic scientific speculations...

bohm

well if wood atoms are good enough for Jehovah...!

It also explain why carbon dating is wrong. The flood washed some of the wood-atoms electrons away or shortcircuted them or sumthin. there!

james_woods

Yes, the Carbon 14 dating method is indeed a tool of Satan.

These people are practically as bad as 21st century flat-earthers.

d0rkyd00d

Bohm, I don't think we're in disagreement here necessarily....but I can't make sense of what you're saying. It comes down to two questions:

Are atoms mostly empty space? As far as I can tell, the answer is yes:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/28/why-are-atoms-mostly-empty-space/

Does that empty space have a mass? Again, the answer is yes. So within the empty space of an atom, there is mass. This mass would be caused by dark matter / energy. It's as if you're saying atoms are a closed system where the space within is 100% accounted for. I can't see any evidence of that other than what you're telling me is true.

d0rkyd00d

I actually think maybe this is what I read about...but maybe not. I have a hard time remembering yesterday, much less what I read many moons ago. :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

Edit: my apologies, the article I read may have been pertaining to antimatter, not dark matter / energy, and I may have conflated the two.

james_woods

Are atoms mostly empty space? As far as I can tell, the answer is yes:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/12/28/why-are-atoms-mostly-empty-space/

Does that empty space have a mass? Again, the answer is yes.

I notice you have a link to support the (correct) idea that atoms are mostly empty space. I also notice that you do not include one to indicate that the empty space in an atom has mass. That is an idea not supported by modern, conventional science. The mass of the atom is mostly in the nucleus, and fractionally in the electron shells.

90% of the space within an atom is dark matter

Share this