CRESST team finds new 'evidence' of dark matter

In the never ending search for proof that dark matter really exists...

Never ending because you can look for imaginary particles without finding them forever -- or until you tire of looking.

In the never ending search for proof that dark matter really exists...

Never ending because you can look for imaginary particles without finding them forever -- or until you tire of looking.

Teehee, scientist faith.

Yeah, I am unimpressed. First they need to explain why they have a signal when everyone else cant find anything. What is unique about their setup which would account for the difference? Just according to this article, the score is 4-1 against dark matter detection.

So far all these findings were withdrawn few months later. IMO they could have another explanation - for example the annihilation of atoms in contact with antineutrinos, which I do believe are forming main constituent of warm dark matter. This research is feeding to many people for stopping soon. If the scientists would seek for evidence of cold fusion with the same obstinacy, we would have it implemented already.

http://www.lenr-c...akIR.wmv

In the never ending search for proof that dark matter really exists...

Never ending because you can look for imaginary particles without finding them forever -- or until you tire of looking.

Teehee, scientist faith.

Faith is not based on evidence... we have evidence that mass exists in the universe that we cannot account for. We give this unaccounted mass the term "dark matter"...

we have evidence that mass exists in the universe that we cannot account for.

Actually, we only observe that the movement of stars and galaxies does not match our models of gravity. Dark matter was created (conceptualized) as an explanation for the failure of our models.

Eventually we will need to develop better models or actually discover why the models fail. Imaginary mass is an insufficient resolution to a failed model.

Galactic clusters that are close enough, won't be effected by the Hubble expansion, because of gravity, so they don't expand themselves.

If they are not moving WITH expanding space, they must be moving (or 'falling') through expanding space, right? If so, are they subject to relativistic mass increase from an observers perspective,... or if just in an 'additional' free-fall, wouldn't this at least effect galactic /cluster rotation? Are the effects of 'dark matter', homogenous through all space despite Hubble accelerated expansion?

For once, the extreme conservatives(Quacks, religious, whatever) and the science minded more or less agree that this *particular* experiment should be viewed with skepticism.

This hurts me to say that I agree with dogbert, but the view on dark matter tends more toward faith than science. The only science about dark matter is that there is an unexplained mass or gravitational anomoly in the universe, and we know a few things that it can't be. That's it.

Yeah, I am unimpressed. First they need to explain why they have a signal when everyone else cant find anything. What is unique about their setup which would account for the difference? Just according to this article, the score is 4-1 against dark matter detection.

i think you misread...it says:

"Others looking to discredit the whole notion of dark matter such as the CoGeNT project going on in Minnesota, wound up finding evidence of the opposite, as did the DAMA/LIBRA team, which has been running experiments for the past 12 years. Unfortunately, other teams such as XENON and CDMS II havent been able to find any evidence of dark matter at all."

thats others looking to DISCREDIT THE NOTION FOUND THE OPPOSITE...that means they found evidence for it instead of against it...
2 labs were mentioned that havent found anything for or against, yet...
So the score is 4-2 that dark matter likely exists....

I have so much faith in "X" I will preform experiments to disprove "X"?
I don't think that is faith.

For once, the extreme conservatives(Quacks, religious, whatever) and the science minded more or less agree that this *particular* experiment should be viewed with skepticism.

This hurts me to say that I agree with dogbert, but the view on dark matter tends more toward faith than science. The only science about dark matter is that there is an unexplained mass or gravitational anomoly in the universe, and we know a few things that it can't be. That's it.

"extreme conservatives" are not science minded? What's the difference between a dark matter denialist and a AGW denialist?

We estimate background contributions to this observation from four sources...

They *estimated* the background contributions, limited to four select sources. Frankly, I'd like to know why just these four, although I can't argue against these particular parameters.

Using a maximum likelihood analysis, we find, at a high statistical significance, that these sources alone are not sufficient to explain the data. The addition of a signal due to scattering of relatively light WIMPs could account for this discrepancy, and we determine the associated WIMP parameters.

...then they decided that there was a high likelihood their *estimate* was "not sufficient to explain the data". Having decided that there might be a shortfall, they used their estimated gap to "determine" WIMP parameters... that's fairly flimsy reasoning which still led them to lighter-than-expected results.

...has recorded 67 events which they say cannot be explained by anything other than Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPS), a type of dark matter.

I am getting SO tired of this "discovery by not being able to think of another explanation, therefore we'll call it 'evidence' and assume we're correct" routine.

@Chollman82 said:

...we have evidence that mass exists in the universe that we cannot account for.

And then dogbert stole my thunder, so I'll simply add the obvious: we don't have "evidence of mass" - we have indications of motion that we can't explain, and that we - sans any such evidence - attribute to mass. Thus the dilema.

I find it strange that while $absurdillions are spent in the hunt for "missing mass", those who posit "hey, you know maybe that motion wasn't caused by mass... maybe it was caused by something 39 orders of magnitude stronger" are less welcome in astronomical circles than leprous child molesters.

Dark matter is real, it exists. I was watching Thor last night, and as he as flying through the ether, transiting the 9 realms, there was plenty of dark matter in space. I saw it.

http://www.youtub...F19BajxE

Sheesh.

"extreme conservatives" are not science minded? What's the difference between a dark matter denialist and a AGW denialist?

A lot of the extreme conservatives tend to be anti science. Period. Many conservatives do believe in science, but look at the presidential lineup - The majority of them believe that evolution is a failed theory.

Obviously it is just a theory, but it does fit what we know very well, and there are no theories that even come close to explaining it as well - and evolution certainly can be supported better using scientific data than a religion.

Global warming is definitely complex, but there is a lot of data, trends, and correlations that they can put together to estimate or test global warming.

Dark matter is a theory to explain a couple anomalies in observation. There is no firm evidence that points to DM over other explanations. We have a lot of inconclusive or failed experiments.

There is a BIG difference between AGW and DM deniers

"we don't have "evidence of mass"
Gravitational lensing effects provide evidence of mass.

Apologies ekim, I mistakenly gave you a one - I missed the word "don't" in your prior post.

@LuckyBrandon You're right, I did misread that. Not the clearest sentence in the world, but that explains why they didn't feel the need to explain contradictory findings.

Dark matter? if there is more of it why don't we see it. Could it be that we don't see it because simply it does not exist. Time to re-work gravitational equations.

If baryonic matter condensed from smaller particles, Wouldn't there be more of these sub-particulates left over? I would assume that matter condensed for similar reasons that every-day condensation happens. Remember that condensation is the excess of what our atmosphere can hold. That means there is quite a bit of sub-atomic particles all around us that cannot be directly detected. Think of the classic "metal plates in a vacuum test." The effect shows that there is stuff in a vacuum that has to account for the difference created by separation. This "Zero point energy" is what is responsible for the expanding universe. the quality of this quantum state is equal to zero unless there is an exchange of information. Our creation is all around us, yet we cannot touch it, taste it, see or hear it. If there is no dark matter or dark energy, then what will end up in its place? These two ideas are a way of explaining why the mass of the universe does not add up to the inflation we have.

If dark matter truly exists then it is the energy potential of the universe. Dark matter must decay into light matter. Electromagnetic energy is kinetic in nature (although it can be stored as potential) while mass which holds strongly and has gravity is potential (although it can release its potential becoming kinetic). E=mc^2.

1. Matter is both potential (it has mass) and is kinetic (mechanical).
2. Light is kinetic (it flows) but not potential (it has no mass).

So light is kinetic energy and matter is composed of kinetic and potential energy. So what is standalone potential energy?

Dark mass. And it has the potential to emerge. Changing its potential into mechanical energy and eventually turns kinetic. Matter burns (loses its potential turning it kinetic).

It is an endless conversion cycle. Potential (which is dark mass) converts to matter (which is potential going kinetic) until all potential is lost (light remains, it is kinetic) and finally this kinetic energy gets stored (b

ecoming potential once more). And we're back to the beginning of the process. The universe is eternal. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It either is (kinetic) or is stored (potential).

@All the "theorists" who are saying dark matter is a scam -

We don't have anything better! You can talk about MOND or whatever other alternative is out there, but you have to know that these models are woefully bad compared to dark matter models. Dark matter fits observation more closely than any other model. The only situation where this isn't the case is galatic rotational speeds, where MOND does fit more closely, however given that MOND was developed based upon galactic rotation, this isn't very surprising. Of course these MOND models that work well for galatic rotation fail miserably at nearly every other test, so you can't really call these accurate models when you take everything into account.

This is just ego based stuff, i.e "if the earth isn't the center of the universe, and existentialism says I and everything is nothing, at least the matter I'm made of must be the most important type of matter!"

The above actually still holds true... our matter seems more interesting!

@Epsi00

Dark matter? if there is more of it why don't we see it. Could it be that we don't see it because simply it does not exist. Time to re-work gravitational equations.

In order for us to be able to 'see' something, the 'object' must emit radiation, which in turn, must be capturable by an appropriate receptor/detector (the eye, photosentive film, other, etc. Well, you get the gist.) The conventional wisdom is that dark matter doesn't actually radiate, hence is invisible (Also, hence the term 'dark'). Note that they are trying to capture the particle itself. It is also possible that we haven't yet managed to build the right kind of detector. And, just like with Higgsy, they probably don't actually have any real idea of how pick it from a crowd (they did think that they might have found it, for a while), so there will be at least a certain level of guesswork as to the nature of what they have captured. Don't forget that we don't even know which category it belongs to...cont

cont...We just think that it MIGHT be a WIMP - and this is a rather broad category. Weakly Interacting Massive Particle. That doesn't give anything away about more specific properties. The best thing we can all do, is keep an open mind about this, with a healthy dose of scepticism thrown in.
But I wouldn't entirely write off the current gravitational equations just yet!

Cheers, DH66

Wimps are relatively dark matter. They are not truly dark they are spectrally out of range. The test for wimps is checking new spectral regions. It is conducted underground in order to minimize interference from other radiative sources. Wimps would be tiny tiny little particles that reside in our spacetime but are so varied spectrally (their energy levels are so low) that it is almost like they are not even there electromagnetically. Most sensitive detectors would prove these, not technically subatomic, more like sublevel particles.

I thought WIMPS were kind of logically impossible, since one of three things must be true: 1) They should be constantly falling into stars and increasing their mass, causing supernova because the WIMPS are attracted by gravity but not repelled by electromagnetic effects of stellar fusion, thus upsetting the finely balanced explosive/implosive properties of stars
or 2) they must be their own antiparticle, which would lead to their self anhilliation inside stars (thus avoiding problem 1) but would still leave tell tale signs of anhilliation in the DM halos of colliding galaxies
or 3) they are blessed with the perfect angular momentum in all places in the universe to never fall into a galaxy and thus into stars (which is stupid)
Since we dont see heaps of supernova, we can discount 1, since we dont see energy from WIMP/WIMP anhilliation, we can discount 2 and since 3 is stupid we can discount WIMPS

Wimps are relatively dark matter. They are not truly dark they are spectrally out of range. The test for wimps is checking new spectral regions. It is conducted underground in order to minimize interference from other radiative sources. Wimps would be tiny tiny little particles that reside in our spacetime but are so varied spectrally (their energy levels are so low) that it is almost like they are not even there electromagnetically. Most sensitive detectors would prove these, not technically subatomic, more like sublevel particles.

I'm not sure we've narrowed it down quite so much Turrit, you're saying they interact with the electromagnetic spectrum, we don't even know if that is the case as yet! I.e neutrinos only play ball via the weak force, it could be that dark matter doesn't interract with the weak, strong, or electromagnetic forces... Which would make them essentially impossible to detect for the meantime...

Mmmmm...(Pondering and enjoying an exchange that is actually a bit enlightening. Much preferrable to the interpersonal nastiness that appears far to often....)

IF (and I do say IF) Turriptosis is correct, then these things might be very, VERY near 0K (zero Kelvin)and a tiny, tiny size (would have to be a very basic particle) MIGHT correlate with what he is saying. I am unsure though, whether we can detect 'free' particles at those temperatures. Do we yet have that capability? Can anybody contribute some wisdom on that last question? I eagerly await.

Cheers, DH66

Hey Darkhorse - Full agreement on the calm nature of the discussion, can get rare on here, particularly when it comes to dark anything.

Anyway, to go further with the concept of detecting 'free' particles (great term for particles that don't interact via the forces we know and love btw), we might require a particle physicist with good QCD knowledge. Although surely we can speculate none the less!

All I can really go upon here with the concept of detecting 'free' particles is via the pauli exclusion principle, but given the speculative nature of dark matter, this principle may not apply (i.e, boson, fermion, could dark matter be either one, or something new entirely?).

Also on the question of the temperature of the particles that you bring up... I can't get past wondering if temperature is even applicable to a particle that may not act via the electromagnetic spectrum. I.e, how can a particle "cool down", without a photon release? Which is electro interaction... cont...

However if we're assuming that they are near zero K, and do interact via electromagnetism EXTREMELY weakly, then... maybe Turriptosis is correct in his assertion?

Hmmm... so all I've really got in the above is a maybe maybe maybe=maybe?

Hmm... MAYBE!

@RDD1977 - I think you're 1,2,3 assertions are broadly correct, however I think these can be gotten around in various ways, i.e they are their own anti-particle but don't annihilate in the normal sense, they just fly right through stars and galaxies due to the non-interactive nature of them... But broadly I agree, which I guess is why everyone would agree that dark matter is really quite odd.

Why pulling this dead WMIP horse?

Though WMIPs would explain rotation curves of galaxies, they could never never explain many other galactic properties, such as the ubiquitous 15 K minimal dust temperature (now confirmed by Planck) or the very frequent "mysterious radio events". People discover stars "that shoulld not exist", etc. These problems add up to the thesis that cold dark matter cannot exist. See, for instance, the works of the Kroupa group on dwarf galaxies. Having a lot of dark matter, they should confirm cold dark matter, but, instead, they rule it out.

Dear Pete
I was thinking in terms of:
a)"cold is the relative absence of heat" Therefore, there is ALWAYS a temperature associated with ANYTHING. It follows from that, that a COMPLETE absence of heat is 'just' zero K!
b)temperatue & the equivalent associated wavelengths, &
c)the nature of the 'excitability' of particles when they are in close proximity to each other, ie heat has an association with movement & pressure. egA balloon being filled with gas gets hot. At so near zero K, such particles would hardly be moving at all. I'm assuming that the behaviour (does contain photons, can't see why it shouldn't) is no different to others, but that the ejection rate of such would be EXTREMELY low,slow (that bit would affect wavelength if not velocity) & infrequent. Put it this way, if there were NO ejections at all, you would be looking at zero K -or less. Of course, this led to the (more general) Q about our capabilities of measuring temps via the extreme bottom end of the EM-spectrum.

Why pulling this dead WMIP horse?

Hi Theon. I think most of us would agree with you, however there are also many situations where dark matter fits better than the other alternatives. Dark matter could be a few different types of particles even. If you're willing to explore the possibility of relativity being wrong in some pretty major ways, all luck to you, but I don't think many of us have the ability for such an exploration. Thus... WIMPS! (accidental pun! *puts on sunglasses)

Hi Darkhorse

I was thinking in terms of:

Sorry I did get that, but I got sidetracked by the thought of temperature and it's relationship with electromagnetism. I ended up quite confused, and to be honest just dodged the question in the end.

So if we assume extremely cold WIMPS... Well... I just can't picture such a thing given gravity. I mean the one thing we do "know" about these things is that they interact with gravity. As was mentioned earlier, why wouldn't this result in dark matter rushing into gravity wells, (quite quickly one would assume) given that they don't interact much at all... Conceptually I can't picture this at all. I just don't see how this could work, and trying to factor temperature into the equation makes my mind shut-down every time.

Dear Pete1983, let me please not claim that relativity or Newton's law is wrong. The point is that we should understand the behavior of baryons better. Galactic dark matter will be in MACHOs of earth mass, this solves the "missing baryon problem". They were observed by Schild 1996 in quasar nanolensing, but believed to be ruled out by lensing against the Magellanic Clouds. By now the observations are becoming better than in the mid-nineties, when the crucial observation (Renault et al, EROS-1, 1998) was done. Sumi et al (MOA group, Nature, 2011) see twice the number of expected Jupiters. Efforts are underway to redo EROS-1. The earth mass MACHO picture explains a lot of galactic properties with high school mathematics. All by all, this is a simpler approach, assuming no new particle. Nonbaryonic dark matter can actually be caused by neutrinos, but it is only effective at galaxy cluster scale.

Sorry I did get that, but I got sidetracked by the thought of temperature and it's relationship with electromagnetism. I ended up quite confused, and to be honest just dodged the question in the end.

When speaking of 'cold' dark matter, ie, WIMPS, what is meant is that the particles are heavy and travel at low velocity (unlike, say, neutrinos).

Dear Pete
If memory serves me correctly, the majority of DM is at its most concentrated around the OUTER edges of a galaxy; where gravity is at its weakest and therefore I would assume that the gravity wells are at their most shallow (w.r.t to the galaxy, not empty space). Over all, galaxies would be at their coldest around their edges too. It is unlikely that any 'regular' particles that are 'floating around' in the vicinity of said DM are exactly rushing either.

let me please not claim that relativity or Newton's law is wrong

Hi theon, sorry I was not suggesting you were claiming the above, just expressing what I understand to be the difficulty of looking at alternative options.

When speaking of 'cold' dark matter, ie, WIMPS, what is meant is that the particles are heavy and travel at low velocity (unlike, say, neutrinos).

Cheers Deesky.

@Deesky:

[

When speaking of 'cold' dark matter, ie, WIMPS, what is meant is that the particles are heavy and travel at low velocity (unlike, say, neutrinos).

Taking my own earlier description into account; are you trying to say that these particles ARE their own heat, ie that they are acting like a gas being compressed (in this case, not very). Your own description of 'cold' and 'slow' mirrors my own description of behaviour at very low Kelvins. Yet even such a gas will emit at least SOME radiation in response???
Your own description of 'cold' and 'slow' mirrors my own description of behaviour at very low Kelvins. Our two viewpoints don't exactly seem to be mutually exclusive, just coming from different directions. So, I'm having trouble working out, where exactly a contradiction is occurring here. And I'm very curious about that.

Cheers DH66

If memory serves me correctly, the majority of DM is at its most concentrated around the OUTER edges of a galaxy; where gravity is at its weakest and therefore I would assume that the gravity wells are at their most shallow

Not so. DM is distributed in halos (spherical to slightly football shaped distributions) in which baryonic matter is embedded.
http://www.univer...er-halo/

are you trying to say that these particles ARE their own heat, ie that they are acting like a gas being compressed (in this case, not very).

Somewhat. The term 'cold' simply denotes a particle which is slow moving. If you take your gas (which DM is not) then the faster the particles move, the hotter or higher the temp. Conversely, the slower they move, the colder/lower the overall temp.

The best fit DM theory is a cold dark matter one.

@Deesky
Nice article. And it showed a novel approach. It does reenforce the general point that I was trying to make, that DM is less concentrated further inwards of a galaxy, than further outwards. But you said it better. And more clearly.

Cheers, DH66

@Deesky
Soooo......why are we assuming that these guys are Massive, not Mini :)?
Serious question -despite the 'M' double-entendre-, by the way.

Cheers, DH66

Nice article. And it showed a novel approach.

You might also like this one:
http://news.softp...41.shtml

Soooo......why are we assuming that these guys are Massive, not Mini :)?

Because this attribute fits best with observations. They need to be massive and therefore slow to stick around and clump together.

Additional question: Does it HAVE to follow that there is always an inverse relationship between size and velocity? I'm also thinking about what very hot environments (for example, inside the sun) do to the velocity of particles with mass. Might it not be possible that a very cold environment can have the reverse effect, ie slow particles down to at least some degree? Cheers, DH66

The "dark matter problem" is not only about rotation curves

Dear all, not only does galactic rotation "need" dark matter, there is a host of galactic properties that need it. Eg. the "missing baryon problem", the growth of central black holes, the ubiquitous 15 K "dust" temperature, star formation, the unexpected young stars near our "own" black hole at Sagitarius A*.

So please do not get misled by "rotation-only" theories, such as Cold Dark Matter or MOND.They fail to explain, eg, that "cosmic dust" appears never to cool below 15 K.

@Deesky
Soooo......why are we assuming that these guys are Massive, not Mini :)?
Serious question -despite the 'M' double-entendre-, by the way.

"Massive" in this context means the having the property of rest mass, rather than "massive" meaning really big, as in the colloquial sense. for example Photons are not massive, but electrons are, even though they're both titchy :)

Anti-gravity matter

http://www.presto...ndex.htm

Eventually we will need to develop better models or actually discover why the models fail. Imaginary mass is an insufficient resolution to a failed model.

Dogbert,

You aren't wrong, but I give you 1s for your attitude towards the pursuit of knowledge. You rarely, if ever, propose testable ideas. You seem to be here only to bash the science community, their methods, their motivations, and their style of communication. I think you do this because you disagree with the level of confidence /you/ perceive in these Physorg summaries and abstracts.

Why do you consistently assume that these hypothesis and theories are considered "complete" by the scientists who propose them? I ask this because that is what your attitude conveys to me and my perspective. Can you enlighten me with your actual stance on the value of the quest for knowledge, aka science?

Sub:Tamasoma Jyothirgamaya-Lead kindly Light fro dark-matter groups.
Plasma occupies the shape of the body-my Universal Plasma Energy Model-IEEE-ICOPS introduces the subject leading to Cosmology Vedas Interlinks [15 books]http://vidyardhicosmology.blogspot.com/
Search beyond dark-mode concepts-This is my appeal to Space-Cosmology groups
15.SPACE VISION-OM-COSMOLOGICAL INDEX-By Vidyardhi Nanduri-TXU 1-731-970
SPACE SCIENCE-Reports Cover [ESA]-2010- Environment-Sensex-Earth-Glow-Sun Life-Significance
Human Being in-depth-Milky-way Sensex-Aditya links
3.COSMOLOGICAL INDEX-MILKYWAY SENSEX-VISIBLE -INVISIBLE MATRIX - By VIDYARDI NANDURI 2010..PPT-33
The above report is preared for Euclid-ESA groups -Change in concepts Requested.

I was implying that the wavelengths don't have a finite minimum. If we bring the temperature down to absolute zero and then infinitely zoom in, we find that the process of cooling is proceeding and subsequently once again reaches absolute zero, but if we infinitely zoom in to that point of zero once again we notice that the point hasnt been reached.

Now here's a fun thought. We have a 3D web of atoms moving around in space. In between these atoms reside infinitely smaller atoms and there is infinitely more of them than there is regular atoms.

So we have equal ratio of mass per volume.

Can we see infinitely small things? No. Their wavelength is beyond our scope. But we could feel them. They are infinite in number so their collective mass (which is individually infinitely small) adds up.

This is an alternate universe residing in our own space and time. We are bound by relativity. We can expand our scope but that is an extension of what we see as relative.

This alternate universe is dimensionally separated from us. We have a set of dimensions (x, y, z,) and they have a set of dimensions (x, y, z).

To us their dimensions are like ours only alot smaller (x/google, y/google, z/google). To us they are infinitesimally small.

Our dimension is the big, their dimension is the small. relatively speaking.

Things that are too small to be relative will continue to elude us (and the inverse as well, things that are too large we can't see either (like for instance the structure that our universe is a part of.)) Finite creatures have finite limits. Our limits can expand, though.

Skultch,

You aren't wrong, but I give you 1s for your attitude towards the pursuit of knowledge. You rarely, if ever, propose testable ideas. You seem to be here only to bash the science community, their methods, their motivations, and their style of communication. I think you do this because you disagree with the level of confidence /you/ perceive in these Physorg summaries and abstracts.

Why do you consistently assume that these hypothesis and theories are considered "complete" by the scientists who propose them?

If you have actually reviewed my posts, you will find that I often laud important research and even suggest areas for further research. I have a great respect for science and scientific endeavor.

However, when articles claim something which is not true, it should be pointed out that the claim is not true. You even agree that there is no evidence that dark matter exists.

continued ...

I don't know the answer. Our models fail to predict the movement of stars and galaxies. We should try to discover the reason(s) our models fail and either correct the models/generate better models, or if there is something we don't know about which is causing our models to be wrong, we should try to identify that something and determine its nature.

Creating imaginary matter and then claiming we have solved the problem is certainly not scientific. It is not logical and it is dishonest.

Pointing out that we don't know the answer(s) is not being disrespectful of science, the scientific method or scientists.

A claim that is dishonest or just unintentionally wrong should not stand without challenge. If we are comfortable with fantasy, we never discover reality.

Just thunk of particles attracted by gravity but not reacting with matter, I can picture swarms of particles falling into a mass and then out the other side until they eventually slow down and fall back again, Endlessly.

Imagine a huge number of particles doing that for every mass in the galaxy basically oscillating right through every star that crosses there general path.

Not sure how you would get them to slow down enough to make a crowd around a galaxy though. I would expect they would travel right though and gradually slow down somewhere in intergalactic space where gravity would be so weak that they may never fall back again.

I'd like to see a plot of lightspeed through a bosonic gas vrs temperature before I make a judgement call on DM.

Creating imaginary matter and then claiming we have solved the problem is certainly not scientific. It is not logical and it is dishonest.

Preforming tests to prove or disprove is logical. Not preforming tests would be illogical. Nobody is claiming in this article to have definitively proven that dark matter is the only answer. Yet it remains the most plausible theory so far.

If a "WIMP" or "MACHO" was ever found, how would it fit in with the standard model? Personally, I think this one will rumble on forever, because they are not even supposed to interact, and that means they can't be detected even if they are really there. My own theory is that they are the gravitational effects of matter in the black-hole/universe that has collided with ours. This would mean we cannot expect to find the particles, which, as excitations of space, are always confined to their own space.

Thus, dark matter is related to dark energy, which is the conversion of gravitational energy to "zero-point" energy during the collision.

Could the detected masses be muons? Muons penetrate 10's of meters.
They report 10 GeV masses. Muons have a mass of 105.7MeV which is orders of magnitude lighter.
On the other hand it could be evidence of muon catalysed fusion where the extra energy is donated by the destructive fusion of the tungsten.
Please check the plates for anomalous isotopes and elements after exposure.

"extreme conservatives" are not science minded? What's the difference between a dark matter denialist and a AGW denialist?

A lot of the extreme conservatives tend to be anti science.

I think you're victim of over simplificationary caricatures syndrome. I know of no one who is ANTI-science. That's a silly statement. Conflating faith and the notion of Anti-science is your error.

a) There are as many religious democrats as there are religious conservatives. b) The vast majority of the regular folks whom comprise all permutations of left, right, religious, non-religious, are 'not science minded'. c) there are more non-religious conservatives than you think; conservatism does not equate to religious any more than democrat equates to religious.

A different approach? I dont know,

Dark matter is supposed to bind everything. This has definable properties, which have consequences.

The theorem I should have put forth with the earlier post. a detectable 3rd order transition in phase as the temperature goes to zero. (3rd?) hope I got my math right (I'm basing the order on similarities with superconductors; I'm sure experts more knowledgeable than I get the gist). Normal expectations is a extra phase transition shouldn't happen.

So, Id look for a 3rd order state transition for a bosonic gas in a high vacuum; plotting the change in lightspeed verse temperature as it goes to zero (first test)... (there're getting down to nano Kelvins these days), so there shouldn't be one, but what if there exists regions of a phase transition? (more tests?)

Global warming is definitely complex, but there is a lot of data, trends, and correlations that they can put together to estimate or test global warming.

Dark matter is a theory to explain a couple anomalies in observation. There is no firm evidence that points to DM over other explanations.

There is a BIG difference between AGW and DM deniers

Catastrophic AGW (as opposed to climate change) in fact has not and can not be experimentally verified. It's as much a theory as is GR, except with questionable precision claimed. In contrast, GR has been experimentally verified to high degree of certainty, so when it's applied to rotation of galaxy clusters and the observations aren't right, it's more than reasonable to suppose there is missing mass-energy.

There is a CONSENSUS that there must be DM, and a Higgs field, and GR and the standard model of particle physics are far more developed than AGW, so therefore,...

What's the difference between AGW, DM, and Higgs deniers?

,.... Would you say that someone who questions the notion of dark matter, or dark energy, or the Higgs field, are being "Anti-scientific"? AGW deniers don't question the basic physics,.. it's the proposed political solutions, the speculative nature of cataclysmic predicitons of global warming.

if you cant see the entire universe, any edge of the universe in any direction, how can you determine any matter as missing. DM/DE are normal matter we cant see acting on the matter we can see. not enough matter in a visible galaxy to account for its action or it's motions? we just can't see the rest because it is blocked by what we can see. we can't see to the center of our own galaxy, so how can we claim to see all the matter in another. magnetics and electromagnetic forces are never taken into consideration either, and magnetics has both an attractive and repulsive force, unmeasurable from here. exoplanets we couldn't resolve are now being "found" and many, many more are yet to be found. all the mass measurements that say matter is missing is based on inconclusive theories.how much matter is lurking just out of sight near the edges that we can't see.70%,90%?nothing is missing,just unseen and unaccounted for by our limited sight and knowledge.we will find more as we go out in space

account for all matter the look for the rest of what cannot be accounted for, then i may beleive inDM/DE. a basic tenent of GR has equations that use numbers to represent quantities, and when the quantities are unknown how can anyone plug the correct values for the variables. i say i have fifty dollars, i owe it to the bank. i give them my money and the teller tells me after counting thanks for the payment paid in full. teller saw all the fifty dollars. show me where any ony has counted all the matter and then let me count it. if we can not see it, then maybe it is out of sight, something that we never saw before. lets call it dark. lets call it god particle but by all means lets keep looking for it till we find it.

AGW deniers don't question the basic physics,..

Some do. For instance many are fond of claiming that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. The claim seems to based on some really bad physics a German put forth. Oliver posted it many times for a short while. I must have got through to him for once because he stopped posting it.

Ethelred

What if dark matter is just matter going faster than the speed of light?

ex. You are in a spaceship that is going 99.99999...% the speed of light and you turn on a light outside the ship. that light is still going 186,000 miles a second fatser than you. so wouldne't you be able to go 185,999 miles a second faster to catch up with that light?

Letter-to-editor writers mentioning the "CO2 is not a green house gas" bull are still getting published all the time. Drives me bonkers.

What if dark matter is just matter going faster than the speed of light?

ex. You are in a spaceship that is going 99.99999...% the speed of light and you turn on a light outside the ship. that light is still going 186,000 miles a second fatser than you. so wouldne't you be able to go 185,999 miles a second faster to catch up with that light?

Relativity eludes you...

Noumenon: "c) there are more non-religious conservatives than you think; conservatism does not equate to religious any more than democrat equates to religious."
That doesn't square with the number of emphatic god-botherers currently lining up in the GOP's presidential candidate race.

Noumenon: "c) there are more non-religious conservatives than you think; conservatism does not equate to religious any more than democrat equates to religious."
That doesn't square with the number of emphatic god-botherers currently lining up in the GOP's presidential candidate race.

LOL, it's kind of hard for a agnostic or a atheist to get elected to high office, whether democrat or republican, unfortunately. So it should not be surprising that religious people are the ones running for office. Can you name a high profile Democrat that is either agnostic or a atheist?

In any case, I was speaking of conservatives in general, of which I know many who don't care a wit about religion.

AGW deniers don't question the basic physics,..

Some do. For instance many are fond of claiming that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. The claim seems to based on some really bad physics a German put forth. Oliver posted it many times for a short while. I must have got through to him for once because he stopped posting it.

Ethelred

Yes, that is quit silly. Almost as silly as adding 5mph to hurricanes, cataclysmic floods within a few decades, increase of the hiv/aids epidemic, and claiming a precision of "worldwide warming for the next 40 years of about 0.1 degree Fahrenheit".

@Dogbert - Sorry if I insulted your integrity by implying that you seem to me to only provide critiques to this site. I have limited exposure to your posts and have no interest in researching your tendencies. I call it like I see it; sorry if it's wrong sometimes.

I don't know the answer. Our models fail to predict the movement of stars and galaxies. We should try to discover the reason(s) our models fail and either correct the models/generate better models, or if there is something we don't know about which is causing our models to be wrong, we should try to identify that something and determine its nature.

What makes you think this isn't happening? What makes you think there haven't been a dozen studies like what you suggest that just happen to provide a null result? Will you complain for eternity?

Creating imaginary matter and then claiming we have solved the problem is certainly not scientific. It is not logical and it is dishonest.

straw man

Yes, that is quit silly. Almost as silly as adding 5mph to

No. It was bullshit. Not even silly. The stuff you mentioned was either the numbers the simulation produced OR just plain crap that is pretty much irrelevant to GW. When the heck did someone try to weld HIV onto this? Not saying no one did just wondering.

You could have just left it with the first sentence or if you couldn't stand to just stick with reality you could have just not replied. I know you have a problem with me lately but sometimes its best to just stick to the reality.

adding 5mph to hurricanes

Pump in more heat and more to the point more heat differential and that is what will happen. Why do you have a problem with that one?

cataclysmic floods within a few decades

We have them now. Sometimes that sort of thing is what shows up in the simulation. It may need adjustment or it could be that the heat differential would make more such floods.

Ethelred

Ethelred, when humans contribute a mere 0.28% of all greenhouse gases, it is groundless wild speculation to make those claims which I cited, all of which have been made. No, I don't have a problem with you. I added the rest of the comment because there has been non-sense of both sides. Also, I doubt most AGW "deniers" would claim that co2 is not a green house gas, so throwing that around the neck of those opposed to AGW claims is unfounded and exaggerated.

@Noumenon, there is at least a chance that Ethelred was referring to me (I hope neither of you break into a chorus of "You're So Vain"). I am an AGW denier who claims that CO2 is probably not a greenhouse gas, but only because I'm not sold on the whole "greenhouse" paradigm as it relates to our atmosphere.

So I've essentially got two layers of argumentative protection here, because even if I'm wrong about the greenhouse process, I'm still firmly on board with humanity's contribution to it being essentially inconsequential, and arguably immeasurably so.

So, Ethelred, if you DIDN'T have me in mind as one of "that type" of denier, feel free to throw me on the pile I guess.

By the way, I am actually "pro-science", and in fact very much so. But the science is far from settled, and the so-called "consensus" is also coincidentally pushing an agenda I oppose. Big surprise there.

Cheers!

By the way, I am actually "pro-science", and in fact very much so. But the science is far from settled, and the so-called "consensus" is also coincidentally pushing an agenda I oppose. Big surprise there.

I don't see how you can call that a coincidence. Being 'pro-science' and having a different opinion to the scientific consensus could be more closely termed 'radical' than coincidence.

Also you say you're not on board with CO2 being a greenhouse gas? Put it this way... if you believe a blanket keeps you warm at night, then you should also believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

I suggest this article for a more in-depth look at that:http://scienceblo...ts_k.php

I'm curious as to where the deniers think the excess CO2 goes after it is released. Much of the CO2 cycles through the ecosystem. Plants absorb it, animals eat plants and exhale it. However the Tons of CO2 that was sequestered underground, and is now being released, adds to this cycle. Are we to believe there are more plants growing to counter our actions? Is 0.28% growth in CO2 levels matched by 0.28% growth in the ecosystem? Much like the "debt crisis", where budgets are not balanced, do we have a "CO2 crisis" due to an imbalance?

Actually it's 4% co2, and presumably 40% of that is being accommodated by nature (absorbed). What is special about that man made tiny amount that it can not be accommodated in natures cycle where the huge remainder can? The question is how much time does it take. If there has never been an example found in historical observations where co2 has increased so rapidly in such a short time, how do we know how nature responds?

The resolution of data is not fine enough to be able to see such an example. In any case the amount of man made green house gas are so small (0.28%) that IMO it is wild speculation to say global temperatures are going to rise cataclysmically.

Given the (border line fraudulent) precision claimed in predictions, I would think they could have predicted that the global temps have dropped for the last decade.

How is this extra CO2 absorbed? If it is used to create more plants, then where are they? If it is absorbed into the oceans it causes acidification. The cycle is no longer balanced.

Wrt 'what's the difference between a AGW, Higgs field, or dark matter denier,....

"In the [American Physical Society] it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is 'incontrovertible'?" - Ivar Giaever, AGW "Denier", 1973 Nobel Prize in physics

"The claim is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," - Ivar Giaever, AGW "Denier", 1973 Nobel Prize in physics

What about the hundreds of Nobel Prize winners who agree that man made CO2 has an impact on the environment? Why should I take the word of one over the voices of many? Ivar Giaever may be an expert on tunneling in semiconductors, but what does he know about the economics of the biosphere?

He operates in the hard-sciences and knows how science works. Science does not operate by majority vote nor does it operate by authority of the American Physical Society. The point is that in other sciences one can freely publish and pursue alternative theories, yet in climate science, one is an outcast if it's questioned. Giaever is resigning from the APS because they push the term 'incontrovertible' to describ AGW, which not only is patently false but is anti-science. The political atmosphere is different wrt AGW than even in the hard sciences where far more accuracy in terms of predictions are possible.

Do you have stats of Nobel prize winners who agree with cataclysmic AGW? Naturally climate scientist are going to support their own foundational paradigm.

There is no way that climate science can predict within a few tenths of a degree in half a decade what the global average temperature will be, especially given the multitude of variables. To claim so if fraud.

Giaever is far from alone,

http://www.climat...CC--Gore

http://www.climat...-Warming

Could it be? Per http://www.cgd.uc...mes.html
...global warming leads to increased moisture content of the atmosphere which in turn favors stronger rainfall events

Well I'm no spring chicken but I've never seen waves of water flowing uphill on the street in front of my house. Just anecdotal evidence I guess.

A black car gets hotter in the sun than a white car.
That is 'incontrovertible'.
CO2 absorbers infrared (black).
O2 is transparent to infrared (white).
Changing the color of the planet, even in infrared, will have an effect on the planet.

"The claim is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," - Ivar Giaever, AGW "Denier", 1973 Nobel Prize in physics

It's unbelievable that a physics Nobel prize winner talks of "degree Kelvin".

...more science will have to be done before anything definitive can be declared.

Well maybe what we need is something more definitive, as I have discussed elsewhere:

...Particles are given mass by compressed units of spacetime. Compressed into various shapes by various forms of the strong force. This causes neighboring units of spacetime to be stretched apart. They don't like being stretched so they or whatever it is that holds them together pull back, resulting in what we see as gravity.

Which is information transference of mass. Information exchange is the cause for energy loss (and for that equivalent mass loss). Photons do not have physical mass but they carry mass potential. When an atom emits a photon its sphere shrinks. When atoms emit photons they lose mass. The photon is massless but because it carries away mass it is potentially massive. Waves have mass potential. When an atom receives and absorbs a photon its radius enlarges. Light reception increases total energy - e=mc^2 - and the atom becomes more massive.

All spacetime points have mass potential. Localized energy has drag so there is a vortex reaction which produces pull. Local energetic points pull towards themselves. this is strong force. This causes structural formation of particles which is atoms. Atoms pull on surrounding atoms. This is gravity induced from collective strong pull. Gravity is rarified strong force (decayed gluons).

Wave Interference creates particles within photonic rest frame. Light is a wave to us (massless) but a particle from its rest frame (so not necessarily massless). It all boils down to relative events. a particle is what we see it as. We reside in the energy. If your whole body is made of waves to you those waves would appear as particles regardless. You could be moving at lightspeed in a higher dimension but in your dimension you're sitting still. Space and time are completely relative. Waves and particles are restframe dependent. Atoms are both waves and particles in alternate dimensions simultaneously.

Time is relative. Dimensions are relative.

Let there be light.