Simplification of Dark Matter effects

[MadDog66]

TL;DR Summary

Can someone help me identify a checklist of simplified effects that would define a discovered Dark Matter candidate?

What would be the distribution galactically, universally etc? How might distribution of DM change if involved forces, masses, energies or other fundamental components of DM occurred at different weights ie: Could there be less but stronger or perhaps "more but weaker" models of DM?

What would be the fundamental required presence and occurrence of simple Mass and Energy for something to do what DM seems to do?

I guess I asking for (genuine - not vanity) simplification and breakdown of a simplified checklist that would observably or mathematically define "something" as Dark Matter. (Both locally in the Galactic spin rates etc and/or universally.I understand the origin story of Dark Matter as a place holder for an unknown construct in physics.

What I seek is a checklist that would define the important basic components of the "place" being held. If I had a theoretical magical discovery of DM what would the values of the gross building blocks, energy, mass and other big fundamentals, have to include?

I am trying very hard to avoid ANY explanations or ANY theoretical discussion about DM and things like string theories and stuff.

My goal is to have a short list of essential but basic ingredients for DM. Something that might include "Total mass of DM equals x" or "total energy of DM equls Y" or "Total distribution of DM through the U. is clumped here thusly or spread evenly over there".

Without spending a single second of time considering anything it might "DO", how would you define what Dark Matter "IS" in a single-paged list with no formulas?

 

[MikeeMiracle]

If I had a theoretical magical discovery of DM...

I think you killed any chance of a response with this line, this forum is here to discuss established, peer reviewed and accepted science. This line implies you want to know how to validate a personal theory which is out of scope for discussion on this forum.

Could such a list be created? You could argue yes it could however, this would be only applicable if dark matter's properties are the same as normal matter. Perhaps Dark Matter is a different type of matter with different physical properties to regular baryonic matter? If that is the case then all of the "answers" in the list could turn out to be completely meaningless and prove/validate nothing.

In short, your asking a question which cannot be answered at present.

 

[PeroK]

Without spending a single second of time considering anything it might "DO", how would you define what Dark Matter "IS" in a single-paged list with no formulas?

Dark matter is matter that interacts gravitationally but not electromagnetically.

 

[Bandersnatch]

This isn't a difficult request, is it?
Within galaxies you need extra gravity to account for the rotation curves. In clusters you need extra gravity to account for lensing effects. There's a need for a collisionless source of gravity in the Bullet Cluster. For the CMB power spectrum you need something to suppress the even peaks. And I think you need extra mass for structure formation.

I bet others can do a better job at summarising this. Paging @ohwilleke .

 

[MadDog66]

I think you killed any chance of a response with this line, this forum is here to discuss established, peer reviewed and accepted science. This line implies you want to know how to validate a personal theory which is out of scope for discussion on this forum.

Could such a list be created? You could argue yes it could however, this would be only applicable if dark matter's properties are the same as normal matter. Perhaps Dark Matter is a different type of matter with different physical properties to regular baryonic matter? If that is the case then all of the "answers" in the list could turn out to be completely meaningless and prove/validate nothing.

In short, your asking a question which cannot be answered at present.

Just to be clear you condescended my use of the phrase "theoretical magical discovery" as unscientific. Then you explained how any falsifiable and scientific method determined parsimonious answer to the question that does arise can be proven wrong (by you) using semantics that can readily be described as a theoretical magical discoveries. it seems like your concern is the vanity of gatekeping whose ideas are accepted more than whose ideas are most likley to be validated. just sayin'

Although I am annoyed by apparent appropriation of gatekeeping duties for all physics to tell me in so many words that my question is too dumb to be answered the answer has helped me a lot:

My interpretation of this respose leads me to perceive that Either the loosely defined/accepted current Standard Models of either/ both cosmology and quantum scale physics are wrong or; Dark matter exists within the reasonable boundaries of those current models' reality.

Which would actually be a huge breakthrough of understanding the question for me personally if it is a legit way to put it. So, is that a valid way to phrase the knowledge gap of Dark Matter?

 

[MadDog66]

This isn't a difficult request, is it?
Within galaxies you need extra gravity to account for the rotation curves. In clusters you need extra gravity to account for lensing effects. There's a need for a collisionless source of gravity in the Bullet Cluster. For the CMB power spectrum you need something to suppress the even peaks. And I think you need extra mass for structure formation.

I bet others can do a better job at summarising this. Paging @ohwilleke .

If I had a prize for sorting my confusing lagauge skills to answer my question I would givie it to you.. THANK YOU.

Collisionless gravity/bullet cluster effect is a thing I've seen but not read up on at all - It seems like "gravity stuff" which I can kind of self-guide through...Can you lead me towards resorces about the CMB issue you note? That is exactly the kind of effect or evidence of DM that is news to me and exactly why I asked.

The CMB spectrum peak effect also seems like electromag stuff (arghh) more than gravity stuff (hmm, ok.) I am challenging myself to get some kind of rudientary grip on the "electromag stuff" which seems to belong more on the quantum side of the scale. These are the key learning goals for my inquiry on this...

As som eone else kindly mentioned DM is profoundly more Gravitational then Electromagnetic so this CMB peak limiting thing might be a good learnng bridge for me to wander across betwent the two things.

 

[PeterDonis]

I think you killed any chance of a response with this line, this forum is here to discuss established, peer reviewed and accepted science. This line implies you want to know how to validate a personal theory which is out of scope for discussion on this forum.

If you think someone's post violates PF rules (to be clear, I don't think the OP does--I don't think the phrase you quoted was intended to mean what you think it means), the proper response is to use the Report button so a moderator can take a look.

your asking a question which cannot be answered at present.

I think you are misunderstanding the question the OP is asking. @PeroK in post #3 gave a simple one sentence answer, which could of course be elaborated on but which should give a good sense of what the OP was actually asking.

 

[Bandersnatch]

@MadDog66 See if the following is digestible for you: http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/intermediate/intermediate.html
There's a lot in there, but very in-depth, with helpful visualisations. Once you get a grasp of what those peaks in the spectrum are, check the 'higher peaks/power' section - there's an animation showing how adding particulate cold dark matter affects how they look.
Max Tegmark should still have similar animations on his site.

In basic terms, these are snapshots of early universe plasma collapsing on itself around local inhomogeneities, and then bouncing back, and then repeating the process in a harmonic manner. The peaks show the densities of such 'bubbles' as captured at the moment of cmb emission. With collisionless dark matter, the bubbles behave differently, as some matter then doesn't bounce back due to pressure (it has to collapse fully and then swing back), so the baronic part is retarded on some bounce-backs, but not on the others. Without DM there is none of that retarding effect so the peaks should look different than they do.

Anyhow, Wayne Hu's site does a much better job at explaining this than I ever could.

Edit: I should probably clarify, that this is also a gravitational effect. Like all others, it is detected by how it affects visible matter. But the requirement for a DM particle to fit these observations is to be non-interacting electromagnetically.

 

[PeterDonis]

Just to be clear you condescended my use of the phrase "theoretical magical discovery" as unscientific. Then you explained how any falsifiable and scientific method determined parsimonious answer to the question that does arise can be proven wrong (by you) using semantics that can readily be described as a theoretical magical discoveries. it seems like your concern is the vanity of gatekeping whose ideas are accepted more than whose ideas are most likley to be validated. just sayin'

Fyi, this line of discussion is off topic. Please note my comments in post #7.

 

[MikeeMiracle]

I apologise for misunderstand the post.

 

[MadDog66]

@MadDog66 See if the following is digestible for you: http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/intermediate/intermediate.html
There's a lot in there, but very in-depth, with helpful visualisations. Once you get a grasp of what those peaks in the spectrum are, check the 'higher peaks/power' section - there's an animation showing how adding particulate cold dark matter affects how they look.
Max Tegmark should still have similar animations on his site.

In basic terms, these are snapshots of early universe plasma collapsing on itself around local inhomogeneities, and then bouncing back, and then repeating the process in a harmonic manner. The peaks show the densities of such 'bubbles' as captured at the moment of cmb emission. With collisionless dark matter, the bubbles behave differently, as some matter then doesn't bounce back due to pressure (it has to collapse fully and then swing back), so the baronic part is retarded on some bounce-backs, but not on the others. Without DM there is none of that retarding effect so the peaks should look different than they do.

Anyhow, Wayne Hu's site does a much better job at explaining this than I ever could.

Edit: I should probably clarify, that this is also a gravitational effect. Like all others, it is detected by how it affects visible matter. But the requirement for a DM particle to fit these observations is to be non-interacting electromagnetically.

 

[MadDog66]

"But the requirement for a DM particle to fit these observations is to be non-interacting electromagnetically."

Is the main reason for this later point regarding DM simply because we can't observe or identify a baryonic mass source for the gravity? Or are there additional reasons for this (the "dark" part of the subject)
buried inside the higher detailed physics I have become competent at yet?

 

[Bandersnatch]

"But the requirement for a DM particle to fit these observations is to be non-interacting electromagnetically."

Is the main reason for this later point regarding DM simply because we can't observe or identify a baryonic mass source for the gravity? Or are there additional reasons for this (the "dark" part of the subject)
buried inside the higher detailed physics I have become competent at yet?

Wherever characteristics like being collisionless or not exerting pressure are required, these boil down to the lack of (or very weak) electromagnetic interactions.