SEVENTH SOJOURN-THE DARK FIELD

AKA: Seventh Cosmos Declaration.

A short introduction to the other part of the universe-the dark sector or field.

Dark photons?, Dark Radiation? Dark Matter? Dark Stars? Dark Galaxies? Dark Energy?, Dark Standard Model? Dark Flow? Dark Baryons?, Dark quarks?, Dark anti-quarks?, Dark Higgs?, Dark gas? Dark Fluid,"Dark electromagnetism", etc.

What is all this and what does it mean?

It seems there is a lot of darkness around, and perhaps there will be more in the future. It is obvious that after billions of years of assumed existence of the universe, that there is much of the features that are found 'dark' without thorough understanding of how those features come about, proliferate, and by what natures. They probably are not all of the same natures as our visible features we tend to concentrate on and those dark aspects may hold clues to the composition structure of the universe. "Dark" is also indicative of undetermined natures by science. It should be thought that because it is perceived as "dark" that doesn't mean that nothing was going on in it. Non-visible, but as is known there are many radiations that are not visible to us even now. Likely so that invisible radiations were around in the dark then and so no reason to depict darkness as if empty of activity.

Perhaps, an old adage may hold out: darkness is the absence of light. Only it is likely darkness preceded the light in existence. An unlit entropy. Unlike stars that need to coalesce elements like hydrogen and then ignite at a particular location which supports them, darkness does not require coalescence. Unlit, darkness permeates everywhere rather than specific locations and does not require heat to be sustained, nor is it essential to be visible. It could be said that darkness is the backdrop of the universe, not ephemeral light (which is calculated to burn out after several billion years leaving the universe in the dark. It is marked by scientists that the rate of ignition of optic sources already has dropped significantly since the early times of the cosmos. By which it is difficult to say that the dark particles, etc. are mere counterparts of the optic cosmos.)

"The issue was that the deviation from the constancy was not on the anticipated direction. It was no longer enough to invoke only matter to explain those observations. A new component had to be invoked adjectivated dark." I. Albarran.

Yet, scientists say that much of the dark stuff does not interact ("collisionless") with the perception of  'our' cosmos but it is part and parcel a feature of the universe. [perhaps a new perspective and scope needs to engendered, including in schools.] Dark Matter, Dark Radiation, Dark gas (perhaps Dark Photons) are of a different level and do not interact electromagnetically with our assumed elements which are of positive nature, like light photons. Dark Energy seems to proceed indifferently with our positive cosmos (and gravity is seen as a dwindling influence). It is said that Dark Energy does not emit or absorb light. They don't directly interact. Same with Dark Flow? So it must be something more than mere absence of light, although that is why they are dubbed 'dark', they are invisible to detection through our eyes and optic  instruments. For instance, "Dark" does not mean that there is a black color which  blots out other colors. "Dark" alludes to no color at all, it is transparent and thus harder to distinguish from other background. They often have to be inferred. Yet there are so many affected elements around, it cannot be swept under a rug. There is a very good indication that the 'dark' features are generated and may be some are generated differently than what we assume of the visible universe. A note on Dark Stars, called dark but it is said those stars burn hydrogen like other stars and so they burn brightly but their source of combustion is Dark Matter, hence they are called Dark Stars and may be an originating source of composition of the universe's bodies.

If indeed some or all of the dark sector do operate differently, then it should behoove scientists to quickly find out how that is and what the meaning is on the overall nature and order of the universe.

>"we have shown that a free scalar field can indeed describe the dark sector in a unified way"-Saulo Carneiro, published in early August, 2018. The dark sector likely is without a baryonic source or content.<

This may prompt scientists to consider more the elemental levels of the universe and look to subtle, less material features including the dark field. This would require true explorative undertakings, not mere deduction. Perhaps more can be fleshed out and matched or reoriented in comprehending the whole universe. Directed studies on the dark field such as DES, Dark Energy Survey, DESI, and others will bring forth more germane information on the natures of the dark sector. So far, the studies do not completely match with information from Planck satellite which is now shut down. This is held because Planck focused on the early universe while the more recent time of the universe was measured by Hubble and so the figures do not match up. This contributes to what is called the "Hubble tension".

Some scientists, e.g. Robert J. Scherrer, Justin Menestrina in PhyRevD 85.047301 about early January 2012, also Torsten Bringmann, arxiv:  1803.03644, say that some of the dark particles only interact with other dark natures. Some say Dark Radiation behaves in a regulating way with the dark field, even though it is believed to be decayed from Dark Matter. An intriguing paper, among others, on these topics, which includes Sean Carroll and Marc Kamionkowski was published in Dec. 16, 2008, (arxiv 0810.5126).

It has been conjectured that at the time of the end of the Dark Ages or earlier at the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, there was polarization of microelements which each took a different spin, one positive spin and the other negative spin, one being of a higher energy this may lead the energies to develop visible manifestation or invisibility or "dark" if the fermions are imbalanced. Other studies by other scientists indicate that there is differences in development of the Dark Sector in that some of the natures operate at different frequencies than found in the Standard Model and so developed in different gauges of strengths at different times and may have extended influence far into the future of the cosmos that may not be matched from Standard Model postulations. Leaving an opening for a prior Dark NucleoSynthesis instead of a BBN, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.

It is added that right after the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, dark neutrinos traveled to various locations of the then new cosmos and that they had a hand in the forming of bodies, shapes and even distribution at that time which presently are being described.

One detailed paper involving dark baryogensis in Feb.13, 2018 by Stephon Alexander, Mc Donough, David Spergel layed out developments of the dark sector.  An evolving of the Dark Standard Model. It delves into darkgenesis and fermion chiral spin.

The paper deliberates in part thus: "Furthermore, this mechanism does not require any direct interactions with the Standard Model."

"A prototypical example of a model where this can be realized is an non-abelian gauge theory with a net number of chiral fermions, e.g. a dark standard model."

"This allows for simultaneous violation of standard model lepton number conservation and dark sector 'dark baryon' or 'dark lepton' number conservation, and thus a generation of standard model and dark sector asymmetries."

"The previous section established an initial condition for the cosmological evolution of the dark sector."

"As a result, the mechanism here requires no annihilation thermal freeze-out nor transfer of asymmetry from the  standard model sector, and hence requires no couplings to the standard model."

"Thus the dark baryon superfluid scenario presented here opens up a whole new phenomenology."

"the dark matter in our scenario is never in thermal equilibrium with the rest of the universe, making it a viable cold dark matter candidate."

Presently, there is much additional interest in the roles of the dark sector. One that could vibrantly be explored more is the actual beginning of the cosmos. There likely is good reason to determine the role in detail as much as the optic cosmos for the coming about and source of the cosmos which may include elements and interaction not yet brought forth. This field of study could become important for understanding the very early Universe and it subtleness, for then there certainly were no structures present from which to extrapolate such information.

"Darkleo synthesis" is explored by Gordon Krnjaic and Kris Sigurdson in Phys. Lett. B751 (2015), also arxiv: 1406.1171, Feb. 29, 2016. "Unlike visible BBN, which involves several (possibly anthropic) coincidences that impede the synthesis of heavier nuclei, darkleosynthesis can be highly efficient and proceed to high mass states." "Finally, nucleosynthesis in the dark sector can begin at higher temperatures and freeze-out later than visible-BBN, thereby extending the duration of reactions."

A paper on Dark Nuclei and  dark nucleosynthesis interactions is introduced by Detmold, McCullough and Pochinsky, arxiv:1406.2276.

In the dark of the very early cosmos, Yang Bai, et al, discuss the role of Dark Quarks in arxiv. 1810.04360.

There is an earlier conjecture about what could bring about an open universe from the activities of the quantum level in the 2013 paper of LIddle and Cortes.  They said

Regarding the role of Dark Energy and the expansion: the purpose that lead to discovering Dark Energy in cosmology was the idea that if the Big Bang is the origin then by now it should be slowing down after so much time has passed. Two separate observatories did measurements to confirm that in late 1997. To their shock, data indicated that the universe expansion was not slowing down but accelerating even now. That does not match with the Big Bang scenario. So not only is the universe found not sitting still but presently accelerating at 73.4 kilometers per second or 160,000 miles per hour. The earlier Planck satellite reading back in 2013 estimated the Dark Energy to hold the portion of the universe at 68.3%. Not stationary, that is now upgraded to 69.4%.

For the universe, on the whole, indications collected still point to the fact that there is expansion and it will continue which will increase the presence of dark in the makeup. Great voids with expanses over 230 million light years pervade the cosmos and are dark with very sparse body counts within, e.g. "underdense". Or, it is said that 94% of the universe is dark, then "underdense" should be treated as the norm.

As an aside, what is perceived darkness? Is it there really at all. Biologically speaking, there are many organisms that have varied sensitivities, and not just for light. On earth, many survive without seeing light. They live in the dark.

It is believed that organisms that have sight, eyes have evolved them. Light was not necessary during evolution of organisms. It is said that light shined on beings but they had not developed the sight organ, e.g. worms, scorpions, cave fish, olm, ocean bottom dwellers, etc. It is said that the cellular skin of some organisms reorganized and thinned out and eventually developed the sensitivity to light and the organ or eye developed. However, organisms on earth can be accustomed to living without light. Thereby, living with light is not a necessary perception or gauge of living in the universe, nor an especial development compared to other means.

And how dark is dark? How about 50 million times darker than our daylight.

Does it matter to computers whether it is dark or not?

A suggested read: Dark Matter & Dark Energy The Hidden 95% of the Universe,

Brian Clegg, Icon Books, LTD, 2019.