Dark Matter

[Copernicus]

Are there any theories of the electron where dark matter, of some sort, orbits the electron?

[antoniseb]

Are there any theories of the electron where dark matter, of some sort, orbits the electron?

Not yet. One problem with this idea is that dark matter needs to be about six times the mass of all the protons and neutrons in the universe combined, meaning that if dark matter were bound to electrons, it would dominate the relationship, having 12,000 times the dark-matter mass per electron... further, we do observe the gravitational influence of dark matter, and it is not in places where electrons are concentrated... like atoms.

[cjameshuff]

Orbiting electrons would also imply electromagnetic interactions and positive charge, which would mean it wouldn't be dark.

[Copernicus]

Not yet. One problem with this idea is that dark matter needs to be about six times the mass of all the protons and neutrons in the universe combined, meaning that if dark matter were bound to electrons, it would dominate the relationship, having 12,000 times the dark-matter mass per electron... further, we do observe the gravitational influence of dark matter, and it is not in places where electrons are concentrated... like atoms.

I hope I didn't imply all dark matter being there.

[Copernicus]

Orbiting electrons would also imply electromagnetic interactions and positive charge, which would mean it wouldn't be dark.

Thats the thing, I almost see that the electron like what appears when a particle changes energy levels. It only manifests as the electron particle at that time. Kind of the opposite of De broglie waves. Instead of proposing matter has waves, propose that the electron manifests, when what ever it is orbiting manifests as matter, instead of an electron changing orbitals manifesting as light.

I guess the answer is that no it has not been looked at.

[cjameshuff]

Thats the thing, I almost see that the electron like what appears when a particle changes energy levels. It only manifests as the electron particle at that time. Kind of the opposite of De broglie waves. Instead of proposing matter has waves, propose that the electron manifests, when what ever it is orbiting manifests as matter, instead of an electron changing orbitals manifesting as light.

To the extent that that makes any sense at all, what could possibly make you think that? It sounds nothing like any physical behavior of electrons, atoms, light, etc that I've ever heard of.

I guess the answer is that no it has not been looked at.

Why would it ever have been?

[Copernicus]

To the extent that that makes any sense at all, what could possibly make you think that? It sounds nothing like any physical behavior of electrons, atoms, light, etc that I've ever heard of.




Why would it ever have been?

What we see is an electron. Lets have a thought experiment. Lets say there is a large exotic type of boson of some kind of charge, maybe color charge. We have a smaller boson orbiting it in an orbital. The smaller boson gets excited, jumps to a higher orbital. This transition to a higher orbital, or the jump back down shows as an electron. These boson pairs have a net negative electric charge, so the bosons end up in the orbitals we know and love. We never know where the electron is because we never know when the bosons might make these transitions from one orbital to the next. That is one of the reasons I asked about this article. https://physics.aps.org/articles/v13/s115

[cjameshuff]

What we see is an electron. Lets have a thought experiment. Lets say there is a large exotic type of boson of some kind of charge, maybe color charge. We have a smaller boson orbiting it in an orbital. The smaller boson gets excited, jumps to a higher orbital. This transition to a higher orbital, or the jump back down shows as an electron. These boson pairs have a net negative electric charge, so the bosons end up in the orbitals we know and love. We never know where the electron is because we never know when the bosons might make these transitions from one orbital to the next. That is one of the reasons I asked about this article. https://physics.aps.org/articles/v13/s115

...except electrons are charged elementary particles, and do not behave even vaguely like energy transitions of color-charged heavy boson pairs. They aren't even the same kind of thing.

As for not knowing where electrons are...do you have some confused idea that the uncertainty principle is specific to electrons and is less than fully understood? If not, then I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Copernicus]

...except electrons are charged elementary particles, and do not behave even vaguely like energy transitions of color-charged heavy boson pairs. They aren't even the same kind of thing.

As for not knowing where electrons are...do you have some confused idea that the uncertainty principle is specific to electrons and is less than fully understood? If not, then I have no idea what you're talking about.

Good point.

[Reality Check]

What we see is an electron. Lets have a thought experiment. Lets say there is a large exotic type of boson...

The thought experiment about bosons is irrelevant to electrons which are fermions. A bound boson changing orbitals will not change the fundamental property of spin to make it into an electron (assuming that it has the same mass and charge as an electron).

Hints of Dark Bosons is about suggestions of dark matter as dark bosons.
Observation of Excess Electronic Recoil Events in XENON1T reported an excess of low-energy electronic recoils.

An excess is observed between 1 and 7 keV that is consistent with a solar axion signal, a solar neutrino signal with enhanced magnetic moment, or a possible tritium background. We are unable to confirm nor exclude the presence of tritium at this time.

Dark bosons would interact weakly with matter. They would be exchanged as virtual particles between electrons and neutrons, thus changing the transition spectra. Two teams tested this. One team's results matched the standard model's prediction calculated to first order. The other team found a deviation from that prediction. That may be matched by the standard model by adding more terms to the predictions. That may be dark bosons.

[Copernicus]

The thought experiment about bosons is irrelevant to electrons which are fermions. A bound boson changing orbitals will not change the fundamental property of spin to make it into an electron (assuming that it has the same mass and charge as an electron).

Hints of Dark Bosons is about suggestions of dark matter as dark bosons.
Observation of Excess Electronic Recoil Events in XENON1T reported an excess of low-energy electronic recoils.

Dark bosons would interact weakly with matter. They would be exchanged as virtual particles between electrons and neutrons, thus changing the transition spectra. Two teams tested this. One team's results matched the standard model's prediction calculated to first order. The other team found a deviation from that prediction. That may be matched by the standard model by adding more terms to the predictions. That may be dark bosons.

When an electron changes orbitals a boson is given off. Could not a boson changing orbitals give off an electron? Would it need more than just bosons to accomplish this?

[Copernicus]

The thought experiment about bosons is irrelevant to electrons which are fermions. A bound boson changing orbitals will not change the fundamental property of spin to make it into an electron (assuming that it has the same mass and charge as an electron).

Hints of Dark Bosons is about suggestions of dark matter as dark bosons.
Observation of Excess Electronic Recoil Events in XENON1T reported an excess of low-energy electronic recoils.

Dark bosons would interact weakly with matter. They would be exchanged as virtual particles between electrons and neutrons, thus changing the transition spectra. Two teams tested this. One team's results matched the standard model's prediction calculated to first order. The other team found a deviation from that prediction. That may be matched by the standard model by adding more terms to the predictions. That may be dark bosons.

This is a case where two fermions pair and have the look of bosons https://physicsworld.com/a/how-to-tr...into-fermions/

[Shaula]

This is a case where two fermions pair and have the look of bosons https://physicsworld.com/a/how-to-tr...into-fermions/

That works because fermions have half-integer spins while bosons have integer spins. 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 but no combination of integers is ever going to give you a non-integer spin.

Next up boson in orbitals. I think it's been explained before but there are no exclusion principles to keep them there. So this just doesn't work even if you could find a way to bind them to each other. Kick a boson up in energy and it just decays back down straight away.

The whole idea is just counter to the way anything works in the Standard Model. Which is probably why its not been looked at. It's like saying "Why has no biologist ever looked into whether selectively breeding pigs can produce better egg laying hens?"

[Copernicus]

That works because fermions have half-integer spins while bosons have integer spins. 1/2 + 1/2 = 1 but no combination of integers is ever going to give you a non-integer spin.

Next up boson in orbitals. I think it's been explained before but there are no exclusion principles to keep them there. So this just doesn't work even if you could find a way to bind them to each other. Kick a boson up in energy and it just decays back down straight away.

The whole idea is just counter to the way anything works in the Standard Model. Which is probably why its not been looked at. It's like saying "Why has no biologist ever looked into whether selectively breeding pigs can produce better egg laying hens?"

I don't understand the argument of "no combination of integers is ever going to give you a non-integer spin. If the integer is a from a combination of half integers, that forms a quasi boson, why wouldn't breaking that up not cause a non-integer. If the other fermion in the pair is a neutrino, and we can't detect the neutrino from a tauon decay, how would we know if there would be a neutrino from a boson that is a pair of fermions, and one of the fermions is a neutrino.

[Shaula]

I don't understand the argument of "no combination of integers is ever going to give you a non-integer spin. If the integer is a from a combination of half integers, that forms a quasi boson, why wouldn't breaking that up not cause a non-integer. If the other fermion in the pair is a neutrino, and we can't detect the neutrino from a tauon decay, how would we know if there would be a neutrino from a boson that is a pair of fermions, and one of the fermions is a neutrino.

So now you have gone from proposing that electrons are just some manifestation of bosons to bosons being some manifestation of fermions...

That is where the argument came from. You said " Lets say there is a large exotic type of boson of some kind of charge, maybe color charge. We have a smaller boson orbiting it in an orbital. The smaller boson gets excited, jumps to a higher orbital. This transition to a higher orbital, or the jump back down shows as an electron."

But now you seem to be saying that actually the bosons are pairs of fermions which are bound (by some magic we have never observed) and when the pairs of fermions change energy level it looks like a fermion?

This is why I like solid scientific theories rather than this kind of wild jumble of ideas pastiched together.

[Copernicus]

So now you have gone from proposing that electrons are just some manifestation of bosons to bosons being some manifestation of fermions...

That is where the argument came from. You said " Lets say there is a large exotic type of boson of some kind of charge, maybe color charge. We have a smaller boson orbiting it in an orbital. The smaller boson gets excited, jumps to a higher orbital. This transition to a higher orbital, or the jump back down shows as an electron."

But now you seem to be saying that actually the bosons are pairs of fermions which are bound (by some magic we have never observed) and when the pairs of fermions change energy level it looks like a fermion?

This is why I like solid scientific theories rather than this kind of wild jumble of ideas pastiched together.

Thanks, that is the most encouraging thing you have ever said. I guess if it was easy anyone could do it. So far the idea is something has something in orbitals around it and when it jumps orbitals, even for an instant, an electron is seen. Are there any proposed particles in string theory and or dark matter, that could be arranged to do this.

[Shaula]

I guess if it was easy anyone could do it.

Anyone can do physics. It is very accessible these days.

So far the idea is something has something in orbitals around it and when it jumps orbitals, even for an instant, an electron is seen. Are there any proposed particles in string theory and or dark matter, that could be arranged to do this.

Given that transitions between orbitals don't tend to last forever (as electrons seem to) then no, no one has tried to explain stable particles as transient phenomena associated with a hidden layer of particles. As far as I am aware.

[PetersCreek]

Conpernicus,

This thread is a place to ask questions and get mainstream answers. This thread is also where you keep your ATM ideas to yourself.

[cjameshuff]

Thanks, that is the most encouraging thing you have ever said. I guess if it was easy anyone could do it. So far the idea is something has something in orbitals around it and when it jumps orbitals, even for an instant, an electron is seen. Are there any proposed particles in string theory and or dark matter, that could be arranged to do this.

Electrons are elementary particles that seem to have a quite permanent and independent existence. Orbital transitions are essentially instantaneous events. That you are looking for an explanation for the former in terms of the latter suggests some fundamental misunderstandings. Especially since you seem to be describing behaviors that don't exist.

You've gone beyond comparing apples and oranges, apples and orangutans, and apples and the color orange. You're trying, quite persistently, to equate an electron with something that has no discernible relationship to an electron. Are you somehow confusing electrons with virtual particles?

[Copernicus]

Electrons are elementary particles that seem to have a quite permanent and independent existence. Orbital transitions are essentially instantaneous events. That you are looking for an explanation for the former in terms of the latter suggests some fundamental misunderstandings. Especially since you seem to be describing behaviors that don't exist.

You've gone beyond comparing apples and oranges, apples and orangutans, and apples and the color orange. You're trying, quite persistently, to equate an electron with something that has no discernible relationship to an electron. Are you somehow confusing electrons with virtual particles?

Perhaps I am describing this incorrectly. Wave function collapse of the electron.

[Shaula]

Perhaps I am describing this incorrectly. Wave function collapse of the electron.

Wavefunctions collapsing are not actually part of any theory of QM. They are part of some interpretations of it. Since it doesn't exist in my preferred set of interpretations I can't really add much about them.

[cjameshuff]

Wavefunctions collapsing are not actually part of any theory of QM. They are part of some interpretations of it. Since it doesn't exist in my preferred set of interpretations I can't really add much about them.

Wavefunction collapse is also not specific to electrons, but is a general feature of quantum systems in those interpretations.

[Copernicus]

Wavefunctions collapsing are not actually part of any theory of QM. They are part of some interpretations of it. Since it doesn't exist in my preferred set of interpretations I can't really add much about them.

Thanks for explaining your reasoning.

[Copernicus]

Wavefunction collapse is also not specific to electrons, but is a general feature of quantum systems in those interpretations.

Thanks. I'm working on an ATM, but I wanted to try and understand what I was looking at. I do expect, if there are orbitals with the electron, and if there would be an explanation of wavefunction collapse, that it would be applicable to other quantum systems as well.