Could Dark Matter Be Anisotropic Like Earth's Core?

[common_sense_seeker]

Here's an interesting article which shows that the innermost core of the earth has a directional quality or anisotropic Earth's New Center May Be The Seed Of Our Planet's Formation. I was thinking; could dark matter also have such a directional or anisotropic property? What do you reckon? Good idea, bad idea?

 

[prometheus]

I give this thread another 5 posts max before it is cessed or pseudoed.

Anisotropy typically arises in crystals, and dark matter is almost certainly not composed of crystals. If you are saying that dark matter overall may have some directional properties, it's an idea that's been around in one form or another for a long time that has been pretty much ruled out by observation.

 

[quantum_wave]

Here's an interesting article which shows that the innermost core of the earth has a directional quality or anisotropic Earth's New Center May Be The Seed Of Our Planet's Formation. I was thinking; could dark matter also have such a directional or anisotropic property? What do you reckon? Good idea, bad idea?

Bad idea. And this should go to Pseudoscience.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

I give this thread another 5 posts max before it is cessed or pseudoed.

Anisotropy typically arises in crystals, and dark matter is almost certainly not composed of crystals. If you are saying that dark matter overall may have some directional properties, it's an idea that's been around in one form or another for a long time that has been pretty much ruled out by observation.

Why when I google "is dark matter anisotropic?" I get a list of results such as this Gamma-ray background anisotropy from Galactic dark matter substructure?

So what kind of anisotropy are they talking about then??

 

[quantum_wave]

The reason I answered “bad idea” is because we cannot observe dark matter and there is no evidence to correlate it to the Earth’s core.

When it comes to radiation that we can observe like the cosmic microwave background or the gamma ray background, we observe high degrees of isotropy. The imperfections in the isotropy are referred to as slight anisotropy in the case of the CMBR. It appears that there is higher anisotropy to the gamma ray background discussed in your link but it still seems to be slight perturbations in the isotropy.

 

[D H]

I give this thread another 5 posts max before it is cessed or pseudoed.

Bad idea. And this should go to Pseudoscience.

Concur.

Mod hat: Thread pseudoed.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

The reason I answered “bad idea” is because we cannot observe dark matter and there is no evidence to correlate it to the Earth’s core.

When it comes to radiation that we can observe like the cosmic microwave background or the gamma ray background, we observe high degrees of isotropy. The imperfections in the isotropy are referred to as slight anisotropy in the case of the CMBR. It appears that there is higher anisotropy to the gamma ray background discussed in your link but it still seems to be slight perturbations in the isotropy.

Thanks for the explanation qw. I haven't looked into it with detail, but isn't there a connection between the radiation and where its coming from or what it's going through?

Here's someone asking the same thing Why do we assume that the universe is homogeneous?

 

[CptBork]

I don't see why the distribution of dark matter throughout the universe needs to be any more isotropic than the distribution of ordinary matter. Anisotropy is practically a must, otherwise we're dealing with something a lot stranger than we initially thought.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

I don't see why the distribution of dark matter throughout the universe needs to be any more isotropic than the distribution of ordinary matter. Anisotropy is practically a must, otherwise we're dealing with something a lot stranger than we initially thought.

Well said Captain. There's no reason why anisotropy can't exist at the smallest scale for both dark matter and ordinary matter.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Well said Captain. There's no reason why anisotropy can't exist at the smallest scale for both dark matter and ordinary matter.

Quote:

WHY do we assume that the Universe for ALL observers is indeed homogeneous and isotropic????

Recently astronomers/astrophysicists HAVE plotted the irregularities and asymmetries of the residual Big-Bang background radiation and the "Bubble/Cellular", foamy, non-homogeneous overall nature of the observable cosmos ---- as seen from Earth's position. Will this not also look different from a different vantage point?

It all depends on what scale you consider. On scales smaller than a few hundred million light-years, you can have some pretty significant inhomogeneities. But observations show that the universe is homogenous on scales larger than that. That is, compare any two slices of the sky that are a few hundred million light-years across, and they'll look pretty much the same.

How can the universe look the same on large scales, but not on small scales? It's actually pretty easy to think of some everyday examples that mimic this behavior. Imagine that you're in an airplane flying high above the desert. If you're up high enough, you might not be able to see any features on the ground. But if you were to fly much lower, you might see elaborate features in the landscape. So whether one patch of desert looks like another patch of desert depends on what scale you're considering--just like the universe.

 

[quantum_wave]

That is simply a restatement of the cosmological principle.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

That is simply a restatement of the cosmological principle.

Yes, and it should now be clearer that the principle can no longer be held in such high esteem imo. There's increasingly evidence that the cosmological principle doesn't hold water.

 

[quantum_wave]

Yes, and it should now be clearer that the principle can no longer be held in such high esteem imo. There's increasingly evidence that the cosmological principle doesn't hold water.

The principle does hold water on a grand scale IMHO. There may be huge structures in our observable universe composed of galaxies that seem to form walls of matter and energy that are so large that you might want to say that the universe is not homogeneous and isotropic. Is that what you are basing you statement on?

Personally I go to the next larger scale and view the universe as a landscape of similar arenas, each one equivalent to the energy and matter content of our known universe. But that is not helpful to you if you consider the entire universe as only what we can observe.

In your case are you accepting the idea that the observable universe is expanding? Do you condiser it possible that as expansion procedes there is a change in the huge structure and such changes cause changes in the observed anistropy? With an endless expansion and a changing anistropy over time it could be said that "over time" the net view would fit the parameters of the cosmological principle, IMHO.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

You're thinking of the BIG scale only though. Just because the biggest scale is homogenous and isotropic doesn't necessarily mean that the SMALLEST scale is also! I've just read a 2004 New Scientist article in the barbers this morning; a mathematical quantum physicist stating that he believes the standard model is missing quantum fractals! At last, someone with..

 

[quantum_wave]

You're thinking of the BIG scale only though. Just because the biggest scale is homogenous and isotropic doesn't necessarily mean that the SMALLEST scale is also! I've just read a 2004 New Scientist article in the barbers this morning; a mathematical quantum physicist stating that he believes the standard model is missing quantum fractals! At last, someone with..

I don't think science knows what the smallest scale is like. There may not even be a "smallest scale". If energy fills all space then it is infinitely fine . That would be homogeneous and isotropic.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

I don't think science knows what the smallest scale is like..

We can agree on this then,