Dark matter detector nearing activation in US mine (Update)

Nov 20, 2012 by Amber Hunt

Scientists hoping to detect dark matter deep in a former South Dakota gold mine have taken the last major step before flipping the switch on their delicate experiment and say they may be ready to begin collecting data as early as February.

What's regarded as the world's most sensitive dark matter detector was lowered earlier this month into a 70,000-gallon (264,971 liter) water tank nearly a mile (1.6 kilometers) beneath the earth's surface, shrouding it in enough insulation to hopefully isolate dark matter from the cosmic radiation that makes it impossible to detect above ground.

And if all goes as planned, the data that begins flowing could answer age-old questions about the universe and its origins, scientists said Monday.

"We might well uncover something fantastic," said Harry Nelson, a professor of physics at University of California, Santa Barbara and a principal investigator on the Large Underground Xenon experiment. "One thing about our field is that it's kind of brutal in that we know it's expensive and we work hard to only do experiments that are really important."

This one hasn't been cheap, at about $10 million, but like the discovery of the Higgs boson—dubbed the "God particle" by some—earlier this year in Switzerland, the detection of dark matter would be a seismic occurrence in the scientific community.

Scientists know dark matter exists by its gravitational pull but, unlike regular matter and antimatter, it's so far been undetectable. Regular matter accounts for about 4 percent of the universe's mass, and dark matter makes up about 25 percent. The rest is dark energy, which is also a mystery.

The search in South Dakota began in 2003 after the Homestake Gold Mine in the Black Hills' Lead, South Dakota, shuttered for good. Scientists called dibs on the site, and in July, after years of fundraising and planning, the LUX detector moved into the Sanford Underground Research Facility, 4,850 feet (1,478 meters) below the earth's surface. It took two days to ease the phone booth-sized detector down the once-filthy shaft and walkways that originally opened for mining in 1876 during the Black Hills Gold Rush.

There, the device was further insulated from cosmic radiation by being submerged in water that's run through reverse osmosis filters to deionize and clean it.

"The construction phase is winding down, and now we're starting the commissioning phase, meaning we start to operate the systems underground," said Jeremy Mock, a graduate student at the University of California, Davis who has worked on the LUX experiment for five years.

Carefully submerging the delicate detector into its final home—a water-filled vat that's 20 feet (6 meters) tall and 25 feet (7.6 meters) in diameter—took more than two months, Mock said.

Scientists are currently working to finish the plumbing needed to keep the xenon as clean as possible. The xenon, in both liquid and gas form, will fill the detector and be continuously circulated through a purifier that works much like a dialysis machine, pulling the substance out to remove impurities before pushing it back into the detector.

Keeping the water and xenon pristine will help remove what Nelson called "fake sources"—or stuff that scientists have seen before, such as radiation, that could serve as false alarms in their efforts to detect dark matter.

Nelson likens the experiment to Sherlock Holmes' approach to discovering the unknown by eliminating the known.

Once the data start to flow, it'll take a month or two before the detector is sensitive enough to claim the "most-sensitive" title, Nelson said.

After that, the scientists involved hope to start seeing what they covet most: something they've never seen before.

Explore further: Motion of two electrons in helium atom can be imaged and controlled with attosecond-timed laser flashes

4.2 /5 (14 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Mining for dark matter

Apr 23, 2008

While much of the attention in the world of high-energy physics is focused on the Large Hadron Collider nearing completion at the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) near Geneva, Switzerland, other physicists, including ...

Work begins on world's deepest underground lab

Jun 22, 2009

(AP) -- Far below the Black Hills of South Dakota, crews are building the world's deepest underground science lab at a depth equivalent to more than six Empire State buildings - a place uniquely suited to ...

New lab turns SD gold town into scientific hub

May 30, 2012

(AP) — Nestled nearly 5,000 feet beneath the earth in the gold boom town of Lead, S.D., is a laboratory that could help scientists answer some pretty heavy questions about life, its origins and the universe.

CRESST team finds new 'evidence' of dark matter

Sep 08, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- In the never ending search for proof that dark matter really exists, new findings have emerged from a team working under a big mountain in Italy. The group, from the Max Planck Institute in ...

Recommended for you

What's next for the Large Hadron Collider?

Dec 17, 2014

The world's most powerful particle collider is waking up from a well-earned rest. After roughly two years of heavy maintenance, scientists have nearly doubled the power of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) ...

User comments : 89

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

vacuum-mechanics
1.1 / 5 (13) Nov 20, 2012
Scientists hoping to detect dark matter… One thing about our field is that it's kind of brutal in that we know it's expensive… This one hasn't been cheap, at about $10 million,… Scientists know dark matter exists by its gravitational pull but, unlike regular matter and antimatter, it's so far been undetectable…

It seems that finding the dark matter in our conventional way is so complicate and expensive, why, could we use a much simple and cheaper way? May be something is wrong from the beginning, see detail here…
http://www.vacuum...14〈=en
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (15) Nov 20, 2012
"It is an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe remain hypothetical!" Jim Peebles
Nanowill
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2012
A simple logical proof that CDM does not exist has been submitted for publication in Phys Rev.Let. Lets see if they are open minded enough to publish it. It proves,via the Cosmological Holographic principle, all matter in the Universe is baryonic, i.e. electrons, protons and neutrons. Enough already of the Cold Dark Red Herring.
johanfprins
1.9 / 5 (20) Nov 21, 2012
This one hasn't been cheap, at about $10 million, but like the discovery of the Higgs boson—dubbed the "God particle"
There is NO PROOF that the blip they have observed at CERN does what is claimed that the hypothetical Higgs boson is doing, and I cannot think of any falsifiable experiment that can prove that this blip is responsible for mass-energy. It is thus totally irresponsible to claim that the Higgs boson has been discovered. No real scientist of repute, except a total crackpot, will claim that the Higgs boson has been discovered experimentally.

Are they hoping to detect another "particle" which they can again in a crackpot manner claim is dark matter? I wish our crackpot theoretical physicists will stop wasting the taxpayers' money on such a grand scale.

StarGazer2011
2.7 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2012
Should we stop talking about the universes 'mass' because we are talking about relativistic E=MC^2 mass/energy, sorta like spacetime. But we still use the outdated terms mass and energy as though they were different things.

And 10million is chicken feed, computer games cost more to make!
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (16) Nov 21, 2012
It is an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe remain hypothetical!

How is that embarassing? It only tells us that we're just some way along the road to understanding.

That's not really all that terrible - seeing as there is such a lot of the universe to understand. And given that we haven't even visited the tiniest part of it w already know quite a lot by comparison)

It's only the "everything is already figured out - there's no more science to do"-pundits who would feel any kind of frustration at the fact that we don't know everything, yet (by a long shot).

To scientists, living in such times, is pretty exciting, though.

It proves,via the Cosmological Holographic principle

Proof by (unsubstantiated) theory is utter nonesense.

It is thus totally irresponsible to claim that the Higgs boson has been discovered

Five sigma is more than enough to claim a discovery. Many scientific papers don't go beyond 2 sigma.
Egleton
2.7 / 5 (14) Nov 21, 2012
Bettcha we are going to have another Michelson-Morley Moment. No Higgs, No dark matter, No Dark Flow, no "Great Attractor" and no inflation after the Big Bang. In fact no Big Bang.
Most inconsiderate of the Universe!
There are too many band-aids and duct tape holding the Standard model together.
msadesign
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2012
The apparent existence of huge amounts of non-baryonic matter (and dark energy as well) are sure indicators that we remain in a bit of scientific dark age. And how wonderful! I wonder what the world will look like in 500 years?
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (17) Nov 21, 2012
Bettcha we are going to have another Michelson-Morley Moment. No Higgs, No dark matter, No Dark Flow, no "Great Attractor" and no inflation after the Big Bang. In fact no Big Bang.

By sitting on our thumbs and doing nothing we will never figure anything out. The kinds of experiments described in the article are exactly what we need to further our understanding ofthe universe.

Even if it turns up nothing then that is a very significant piece of knowledge by ruling out some theories. That's something laymen have a hard time grasping: Failed experiments are still valuable. You can learn a great deal from them (much like you can learn a LOT more from a lost chess mach than one you've won)
johanfprins
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 21, 2012
It is an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe remain hypothetical!

How is that embarassing? It only tells us that we're just some way along the road to understanding.


It tells us that we have totally missed the right road and are splashing around in the quagmire Quantum Field which is based on superstitious nonsense like "wave-particle duality", "complimentarity", "participating universe" , multi-universes, Aharanov-Bohm interaction between an electron and a magnetic-field while the electron does not move through the field, anyons, and what have you!
johanfprins
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 21, 2012
Bettcha we are going to have another Michelson-Morley Moment. No Higgs, No dark matter, No Dark Flow, no "Great Attractor" and no inflation after the Big Bang. In fact no Big Bang.
Most inconsiderate of the Universe!
There are too many band-aids and duct tape holding the Standard model together.


Well said!! No matter how many times they "renormalize" this model, it will always be abnormal superstitious unphysics!
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 21, 2012
The apparent existence of huge amounts of non-baryonic matter (and dark energy as well) are sure indicators that we remain in a bit of scientific dark age. And how wonderful! I wonder what the world will look like in 500 years?


If the nonsense that our present crop of theoretical physicists are spouting is not wiped and cleaned up, we will all be morons in 500 years time. It does not help to do experiments to look for energy excitations if there are not any experiments that can falsify what the crackpots in charge of QFT are claiming what these excitations are doing!
tadchem
5 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2012
All new things we 'observe' are observed as a result of their interactions with other things which we can be sure exist. We detect light from its interactions with our personal eyeballs, and matter from its interactions with our personal mass. All else is inference.
The difficulty for dark matter observers is that there is not yet a quantitative model that can tell us exactly what to expect in terms of DMs interactions with other forms of matter. Other than gravity, we do not know how DM will directly affect matter, energy, or space.
Does DM have energy emission or absorbtion lines? Does it collide with other matter and have an effect upon it? How can we identify the signature of DM if we DO happen to see it?
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (14) Nov 21, 2012
and are splashing around in the quagmire Quantum Field which is based on superstitious nonsense like "wave-particle duality",...

And why does that seem like nonsense to you?
'What makes sense' is what matches with our everyday experience.
Our everyday experiences are not of the nano- (or smaller) world. Our everyday experiences are averaged out over many events that happen in that world (either because they are too small or to fast to register with our slow biology individually).

So it doesn't seem reasonable to demand that that world conform to our macroscopic analogies (much like a view that only takes in an entire ant colony doesn't tell you much about the individual actions of a particular ant)

As long as these explanations work (i.e. produce good match with experiment) that's all there is to it. Whether you like the explanations or not is your personal problem.

If you want to have 'feel good' instead of 'useful' then you might want to try religion.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2012
It is an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe remain hypothetical!
How is that embarassing? It only tells us that we're just some way along the road to understanding.


Ask Mr. Peebles, it's his comment. Although it may have something to do with the fact that somewhere out there 96% of the Universe is still yet to be found (according to this failed theory).

BTW, if DM only interacts on a gravitational basis with other matter, how do they expect to detect it in this way. Is this swimming pool some kind of gravitational lensey waveatronic machine?

johanfprins
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 21, 2012
and are splashing around in the quagmire Quantum Field which is based on superstitious nonsense like "wave-particle duality",...

And why does that seem like nonsense to you?
'What makes sense' is what matches with our everyday experience.
Our everyday experiences are not of the nano- (or smaller) world.


Why MUST the nano-world be BIZARRE compared to the macro-world?

1. Why would a "particle" diffract when we KNOW that only a wave can?
2. Why must we cling to Dirac's flawed and fudged equation for an electron when it is easy to directly prove, by starting from the same equation that Dirac used and using the same substitutions, that the equation for a moving electron is a Maxwell equation for light moving at a speed lower than c? Unless of course you use bizzarre math
3. Why must we even consider superstitious fantasies, like Multi-verses, a participating universe, probability-waves etc. if it is clear that the nano-world is not different from the macro-world?
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2012
BTW, if DM only interacts on a gravitational basis with other matter, how do they expect to detect it in this way. Is this swimming pool some kind of gravitational lensey waveatronic machine?
Excellent question!!They are like the boy digging into a heap of horse manure claiming that with that much manure around there must be a pony inside. At least the boy knew that horse manure came from a horse. These DM experimenters do not have a clue where DM comes from or how to detect it within a mine shaft. What a waste of money!

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) Nov 21, 2012
Why MUST the nano-world be BIZARRE compared to the macro-world?

It doesn't have to be. There's just no reason for it not to. Whenever we have gone from macroscopic to microscopic views things have gotten more compex than we've thought at first (and I'm not even talking about the quantummechanical word. I'm talking about such macroscopic things as e.g. fluid dynamics).
So I wouldn't expect the quantummechanical world to stay as homogeneous as stuff looks like from afar.

Why would a "particle" diffract when we KNOW that only a wave can?

Beacuse a particle doesn't?

You still misunderstand what wave-particle duality even means. It doesn't mean that stuff is a wave and a particle. It means this stuff is something else that has wave-LIKE properties and particle-LIKE properties.
It is NEITHER a particle NOR a wave.
So arguing that it can't be a particle when it has wave-LIKE properties is nonsense.
sdorst
5 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2012
A simple logical proof that CDM does not exist has been submitted for publication in Phys Rev.Let. Lets see if they are open minded enough to publish it. It proves,via the Cosmological Holographic principle, all matter in the Universe is baryonic, i.e. electrons, protons and neutrons. Enough already of the Cold Dark Red Herring.


The claim that one can "prove" something about the universe based on a principle that is at best consistent with our current understanding of the universe is absurd. It's like claiming that one can "prove" that God exists by analyzing what we mean by the word "God."

One can hypothesize something about the universe based on something like the Cosmological Holographic principle (whatever that is), but then it is necessary to look for evidence that either confirms or refutes the hypothesis.
barakn
5 / 5 (10) Nov 21, 2012
A simple logical proof that CDM does not exist has been submitted for publication in Phys Rev.Let. Lets see if they are open minded enough to publish it. It proves,via the Cosmological Holographic principle, all matter in the Universe is baryonic, i.e. electrons, protons and neutrons. Enough already of the Cold Dark Red Herring.
Electrons aren't baryons. There's also overwhelming evidence of long-lived neutrinos and other particles that aren't protons and neutrons. One can only hope that the "logical proof" is written better than your description of it.
johanfprins
1.3 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2012
So I wouldn't expect the quantummechanical world to stay as homogeneous as stuff looks like from afar.
I did not say that! But it is not Voodoo like Bohr, Heisenberg and Born wanted us to believe and what is still believed by the mainstream crackpots.

Why would a "particle" diffract when we KNOW that only a wave can?

Because a particle doesn't?
Of course not! Although there is no definition of what a "particle" is, it has always been accepted that the defining characteristic of a "particle" is that it CANNOT diffract.

You still misunderstand what wave-particle duality even means.
I understand extremely well! A person who believes this is an incurable bipolar freak!
It doesn't mean that stuff is a wave and a particle. It means this stuff is something else that has wave-LIKE properties and particle-LIKE properties.
YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN? You are insane! Define to me what is "wave-like" and what is "particle-like". You CANNOT.
johanfprins
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2012
You send in one photon at a time into double slits, and after many photons the spots on the screen form a diffraction pattern. Only waves that can move through both slits can form a diffracted wave-front. This is thus proof that each photon MUST have moved through both slits: THUS, a photon is a wave.

Now prove to me experimentally that each photon must "also" have been a "particle".
sdorst
5 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2012
You send in one photon at a time into double slits, and after many photons the spots on the screen form a diffraction pattern. Only waves that can move through both slits can form a diffracted wave-front. This is thus proof that each photon MUST have moved through both slits: THUS, a photon is a wave.

Now prove to me experimentally that each photon must "also" have been a "particle".


Read what you just wrote. The photons leave discrete spots on the screen. That is the behavior of a particle, not a wave. That single experiment shows the dual nature of photons - or more accurately, it shows that photons behave in some ways like waves and in some ways like particles.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2012
There is a third way of looking at electromagnetic radiation.
Why couldn't it be waves of particles? With the waves being the particles that are spaced apart by its wavelength. As for the photon spot, that is where the waves of particles were focused.

How can a photon be a naturally occuring particle when the energy and momentum it contains is based on the length of a man-made unit of time, the second?
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2012
Now prove to me experimentally that each photon must "also" have been a "particle".


Read what you just wrote. The photons leave discrete spots on the screen.


I was fishing for this UTTERLY STUPID RESPONSE!!

What Planck REALLY found was that light waves cannot be EMITTED or ABSORBED when they have LESS energy than h*nu. The reason is that the sources and absorbers in the walls of the black-body cavity, owing to their atomic sizes, can only emit and absorb light with energy h*nu.

When a photon is emitted into the cavity, it INFLATES to form a stationary wave, or entangle to form part of an existing stationary wave. When a photon of energy is absorbed from such a wave it disentangles and is absorbed by a SMALL absorber: It thus collapses into a "spot".

This also happens when the diffracted photon reaches the detection screen. It collapses into ONLY one of the absorbers. Only a total idiot will assume that such a "spot" demands that the photon is a "particle".

johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 21, 2012
There is a third way of looking at electromagnetic radiation.
Why couldn't it be waves of particles?
This is what Einstein hoped it would be. But one can send through ONE photon every day and after many days you still get a diffraction pattern.

This means the single photon is a wave that diffracts when it moves through BOTH slits simultaneously. When this diffracted wave front reaches the screen it can only be absorbed by ONE of the billions of atomic absorbers, the first one that it resonates with will absorb it: A SPOT FORMS! Since it is easier to resonate where the photon wave front has the highest intensity,one obtains the intensity of the wave front after many photons have passed SIMULTANEOUSLY through the slits.

It is simple straightforward physics which does NOT contradict classical physics in any manner!

NO VOODOO REQUIRED!!!
sdorst
5 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2012
I was fishing for this UTTERLY STUPID RESPONSE!!

What Planck REALLY found was that light waves cannot be EMITTED or ABSORBED when they have LESS energy than h*nu. The reason is that the sources and absorbers in the walls of the black-body cavity, owing to their atomic sizes, can only emit and absorb light with energy h*nu.

...

This also happens when the diffracted photon reaches the detection screen. It collapses into ONLY one of the absorbers. Only a total idiot will assume that such a "spot" demands that the photon is a "particle."


Hmm. I thought your point was that quantum behavior is no different than non-quantum behavior. Certainly, no wave on a non-quantum scale collapses into a single point. On the macroscopic scale, waves are spread out, while particles are focal.

Perhaps I misunderstood your point. If so, I'm sorry. On the other hand, perhaps you could be a little less insulting in your responses. The comment guidelines are pretty clear about this.
sdorst
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2012


It is simple straightforward physics which does NOT contradict classical physics in any manner!

NO VOODOO REQUIRED!!!


I don't know about voodoo, but no wave in classical physics has all of its energy absorbed in only one point.
rubberman
4 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2012
This is the one experiment I most anticipate the findings of.

"I don't know about voodoo, but no wave in classical physics has all of its energy absorbed in only one point."

What is a quantum singularity?
StarGazer2011
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2012
This is the one experiment I most anticipate the findings of.

"I don't know about voodoo, but no wave in classical physics has all of its energy absorbed in only one point."

What is a quantum singularity?


I thought a quantum singularity was theoretical, not an observed entity; forgive my ignorance if I am wrong.
TransmissionDump
1 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2012
Excellent question!!They are like the boy digging into a heap of horse manure claiming that with that much manure around there must be a pony inside. At least the boy knew that horse manure came from a horse. These DM experimenters do not have a clue where DM comes from or how to detect it within a mine shaft. What a waste of money!



So if we search for a darkhorse, we might find an answer.
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2012
Hmm. I thought your point was that quantum behavior is no different than non-quantum behavior.
Correct!
Certainly, no wave on a non-quantum scale collapses into a single point.
Also not on the quantum scale: A spot on the screen is not a "single point" but determined by the size of the absorber.

On both the macro-scale and the quantum scale an incoming EM-wave changes shape and size when the boundary conditions change. This also happens to radio-waves where the amount of energy that is trapped within the antenna is determined by the physical characteristics of the antenna with which the wave resonates.

Exactly the same on the quantum scale: The wave collapses in size and shape to be detected by one of the atomic-sized "antennas" within the detection screen. Consecutive photon-waves resonate with different "antennas" and therefore the intensity of each identical wave-front which reaches the screen is steadily revealed as the spot-density increases.
johanfprins
2.2 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2012
On the macroscopic scale, waves are spread out, while particles are focal.

The same must be true on the quantum scale, except that on this scale there are no particles: Only waves. In fact, also on the macro-scale there are no "particles": All matter consist of waves: The only difference is that when the wave-length becomes very short (large-mass) relative to the macro-dimensions we do not observe any diffraction
Perhaps I misunderstood your point. If so, I'm sorry. On the other hand, perhaps you could be a little less insulting in your responses. The comment guidelines are pretty clear about this.
I am sorry and apologize very much. But after having been consistently censored by mainstream physicists like Frank Wilczek, 'tHoofd, Michael Berry, Brian Josephson, etc. etc. etc. one tends to lose all your respect for the physics community and thus react in a disrespectful manner. In fact, you did not deserve my insults since you have asked a relevant question. Sorry!
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2012
..no wave in classical physics has all of its energy absorbed in only one point.


If you have a laser cavity which emits a laser pulse so that it impinges into another laser cavity with which the incoming light can be in resonance, the incoming pulse can be totally absorbed.

On the quantum scale a photon is the minimum amount of coherent light energy (mini laser pulse) that can be emitted (by a mini laser cavity) and also the minimum amount of energy that can be absorbed when the photon resonates with another "mini laser-cavity". In principle there is no difference between the macro- and quantum-world which cannot be modeled in terms of Maxwell's equations. Schroedinger's equation is a special format of a Maxwell's equation for a stationary EM wave which forms a bound electron. When the electron is freely moving it is modeled by a Maxwell equation.

Thus by using lasers and resonant cavities one can reproduce on the macro-scale exactly what is happening on the quantum-scale.
johanfprins
1.9 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2012
What is a quantum singularity?


I thought a quantum singularity was theoretical, not an observed entity; forgive my ignorance if I am wrong.


Unfortunately Paul Dirac has given mathematical singularities the status of real physics entities. From this came his ridiculous prediction of a "magnetic monopole". Singularities are in my opinion useful mathematical constructs which do not exist as separate entities within our physical world.

For example, the center-of-mass is a singularity which moves as if all the mass of an object is concentrated at a single point, even when there is ZERO matter at that point (e.g. a hollow ball). But as soon as you accept that such a singularity can be a particle in its own right, as is done in QED, your mathematics explode: This tells you that your assumptions are wrong. To, in such a case, "renormalize" the mathematics to get the answer you want, you are not doing physics anymore but stirring a witches brew. Voodoo!
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2012
So if we search for a darkhorse, we might find an answer.


Even though the horse manure consist of "particles" the little boy knows well that this is not what he is looking for. As long as these experimenters look for entities like a WIMP, they are wasting taxpayers' money on a WHIM.
rubberman
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2012
So if we search for a darkhorse, we might find an answer.


Even though the horse manure consist of "particles" the little boy knows well that this is not what he is looking for. As long as these experimenters look for entities like a WIMP, they are wasting taxpayers' money on a WHIM.


Agreed, but I wouldn't mind being wrong on this one (I hope if anything, they find a graviton). I did not realize Dirac theorized a Quantum singularity as a magnetic monopole as I have never had reason to look at his work. Hmmm, given the incomprehensibility of the physics across the event horizon of a black hole, who knows?
sdorst
not rated yet Nov 22, 2012
Perhaps I misunderstood your point. If so, I'm sorry. On the other hand, perhaps you could be a little less insulting in your responses. The comment guidelines are pretty clear about this.
I am sorry and apologize very much. But after having been consistently censored by mainstream physicists like Frank Wilczek, 'tHoofd, Michael Berry, Brian Josephson, etc. etc. etc. one tends to lose all your respect for the physics community and thus react in a disrespectful manner. In fact, you did not deserve my insults since you have asked a relevant question. Sorry


Thank you for your apology.
johanfprins
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2012
Agreed, but I wouldn't mind being wrong on this one (I hope if anything, they find a graviton).
Sorry to be a party pooper, but I am sure that a graviton, just like a "magnetic monopole", and just like a "boson giving mass" to "other particles" are figments of hallucinating minds.
I did not realize Dirac theorized a Quantum singularity as a magnetic monopole as I have never had reason to look at his work.
I feel sorry for Dirac: Although he was well-intentioned, he led physics from reality into an autistic perspective.
Hmmm, given the incomprehensibility of the physics across the event horizon of a black hole, who knows?
It is possible that the matter on the other side of the event horizon is continuous and existing within a timeless manifold: This is most probably also the case within the center of an electron. The radius of the el. is then defining a event horizon at which incoming light becomes stationary when the el.-wave adds this energy to its mass.
rubberman
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2012
A timeless manifold is an excellent way to word it. I have been debating the universal structure with a dark matter proponent, I suggested to him that the reason the gravity model of the universe doesn't work is that gravity binds matter more to spacetime than interstellar space, but gravity more likely embedded us in it (spacetime) than controls our drifting through it. The structure is Electromagnetic with the heliosheath being the "coupling" point between the interstellar magnetic field and that of a star, and the heliosphere being like a gravity "bubble" in which gravity is the dominant force. We have been communicating via the personal message feature as there is too much material for the 1000 character limit of the post strings.
(I think you are correct with regards to the hallucinations, but I have always been curious about gravity as an attractive force and the true nature of it, hence why I picked a graviton, something tangible to attach the force to.)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 22, 2012
@ rubberman,

I wish you were a near colleague of mine since I think we have many thoughts in common. And if we could discuss where we differ, we might understand far more than we do at present.
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2012
One should not treat johanfprins the same as zephyr.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2012
The dark matter detectors are motivated mostly with SUSY models of WIMPs, which become more and more problematic in the light of the recent findings at LHC. The previous generations of XENON detectors were all unsuccessful with it, but the overgrown lobby of physicists (mostly represented with string theory supporters, who are remnant of adventurous theoretical physics of era before financial crisis) still need to keep their jobs and salaries despite the actual results and financial situation. The similar obstinate but futile approach we can perceive in the field of gravitational wave searches - while the cold fusion research is ignored with the same obstinacy. It just illustrates, how persistent the mainstreams science can be in searching for phenomena, which could justify the mainstream theories and with ignorance of phenomena, which are violating them. This bias represents billions of dollars, when being expressed in money
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2012
..that a graviton, just like a "magnetic monopole", and just like a "boson giving mass" to "other particles" are figments of hallucinating minds..
But the Higgs boson was already observed. Magnetic monopoles do exist in form of black holes with asymmetric jets, which are routinely observed. IMO the gravitons are equivalent to gravitational waves and forming the scalar portion of CMBR noise (spin-2 component of CMBR photons), which everyone can detect in his TV set - in this sense, they're omnipresent. The situation, when some concept is searched obstinately although it's omnipresent is nothing exceptional in mainstream physics (the extradimensions are all around us, the missing antimatter and SUSY particles is formed with neutrinos, etc).
ValeriaT
2 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2012
IMO the main problem of formal approach of mainstream physics is not, it predicts nonsense, but that it cannot recognize its own concepts in notoriously known artifacts. For example, the string theory predicts the extradimensions and every gravitational lensing, refraction or polarization of light can be considered as an evidence of extradimensions. But after then the light would violate the Lorentz symmetry, on which string theory is based too. The string theorists are therefore predestined to look for extradimensions just at the places, where they can never find them (the extradimensions would manifest itself just with violation of Lorentz symmetry, one of postulates of string theory therefore violates another one). There are many additional psychosocial mechanisms, which force the physicists into pilling of mutually equivalent (and as such redundant) concepts and investing the money into their detection. The more theories the physics maintain, the more theorists can keep their jobs.
johanfprins
2.2 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2012
But the Higgs boson was already observed.
Where and when? I do not see any falsifiable proof that ANYTHING ever discovered is a "particle" that gives other "particles" mass-energy.
Magnetic monopoles do exist in form of black holes with asymmetric jets, which are routinely observed.
Again there is no falsifiable proof that this interpretation of these jets requires magnetic monopoles. There are far simpler explanations for these jets.
IMO the gravitons are equivalent to gravitational waves and forming the scalar portion of CMBR noise
IMO you are again hallucinating!

Theoretical physicists have the same mentality as a man seen searching the ground under a street lamp. A passer-by was informed that the he had lost his wallet. After joining the search, the passer-by asked when he realized that his wallet was lost. He pointed into the dark. When asked why he is not searching at that position, he retorted: "There is more light under the street lamp!"
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2012
As long as these explanations work (i.e. produce good match with experiment) that's all there is to it. Whether you like the explanations or not is your personal problem.


Fair point......it was the state of things in 1913 when the Bohr model of the atom was the most widely accepted but which within a couple of decades was replaced by LV de Broglie's wave model, today's currently accepted theory of atomic structure. However, we see even this does not explain a few things, but what the hell, we use the model as a basis for building nuclear reactors, so it can't be all that bad.....
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Nov 24, 2012
The wave collapses in size and shape to be detected by one of the atomic-sized "antennas" within the detection screen. Consecutive photon-waves resonate with different "antennas" ....


OK, so what are you labeling as being "antennas"? I read this as if you are talking about the outer orbital structure of the electron shell of atoms. Outer orbital paired/unpaired electron orbitals result in the final determination of which wavelength photon will be absorbed to move an electron to a higher energy level....Is this what you are talking about?
dogbert
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2012
I don't see how they expect to detect these DM particles, since they cannot even describe what they are hoping to detect. How will they know if a phenomenon is due to DM or some other interaction?

But at least it gives a few scientists something to do other than promote AWG ...
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2012
LOL another headline that I knew, even before I read the article, would bring out the looney tunes and crackpots like moths to a porchlight in summer.

loneislander
1 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2012
"Scientists know dark matter exists by its gravitational pull but, unlike regular matter and antimatter, it's so far been undetectable"

This is not accurate. They have produced anti-matter molecules already. Besides, any hospital with a PET scanner is making positrons all day long...

Tch tch, that shouldn't slip through this illustrious, and typically excellent, publication.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2012
OK, so what are you labeling as being "antennas"?
The stationary electron-states (with NO KINETIC-ENERGY) which absorb the incoming light-energy act as antennas. These states have a definite size so that the photon MUST collapse to this size in order to be absorbed.
I read this as if you are talking about the outer orbital structure of the electron shell of atoms.
Every orbital has a size and a photon HAS to collapse to this size in order to be absorbed. Subsequently the electron-orbital has to inflate to accommodate this extra energy. If there is not a higher allowed energy-state available, the electron-wave will not entangle with the incoming light-wave in order to absorb it.

It is simple straightforward physics which also applies for light-waves on the macro-scale. Why do you want to believe that it MUST be different on the atomic scale? Just to defend crackpots like Bohr, Heisenberg, Born, Dirac, etc.?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2012
The photons leave discrete spots on the screen. That is the behavior of a particle, not a wave. That single experiment shows the dual nature of photons - or more accurately, it shows that photons behave in some ways like waves and in some ways like particles.


Reminder: In 'separate articles' setup only 'registers' the strongest portion of the incoming energy-feature 'effect' interacting with interaction-threshhold of the 'separate pixel' (or 'atom/molecule or whatever the 'screen/detector' is designed to consist of as the reception 'field' of 'active locations' triggered by a certain ienergy-density impact), so the 'particle' interpretation may be because of interpreting the 'hit location' as THE ONLY part of the incoming energy-feature, instead of the MOST EFFECTIVE part. Whereas in 'waveform' setups, the whole pattern is 'all at once' across the 'field/screen' if there IS actual interference 'in the one hit', not requiring separate hits/shots.

Go from there.

Cheers!
Parsec
5 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2012
All new things we 'observe' are observed as a result of their interactions with other things which we can be sure exist. We detect light from its interactions with our personal eyeballs, and matter from its interactions with our personal mass. All else is inference.
The difficulty for dark matter observers is that there is not yet a quantitative model that can tell us exactly what to expect in terms of DMs interactions with other forms of matter. Other than gravity, we do not know how DM will directly affect matter, energy, or space.
Does DM have energy emission or absorbtion lines? Does it collide with other matter and have an effect upon it? How can we identify the signature of DM if we DO happen to see it?

No matter how else DM interacts with ordinary matter, if it has mass then collision with ordinary matter will recoil. This detector hopes to measure that recoil effect.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Nov 24, 2012
OK, so what are you labeling as being "antennas"?


The stationary electron-states

So what do you mean by "stationary" ? Stable with paired orbitals?

Every orbital has a size and a photon HAS to collapse


What do you mean by "photon collapse"? A reduction in frequency?

Subsequently the electron-orbital has to inflate to accommodate this extra energy. If there is not a higher allowed energy-state available


Hmmm, I need some time to think about this, doesn't sound unreasonable.

Why do you want to believe that it MUST be different on the atomic scale?


I never brought this up, must be someone else.

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2012
even before I read the article, would bring out the looney tunes and crackpots like moths to a porchlight in summer
So far it seems, the XENON detectors are such a porchlights instead. They do attract the stringy theorists and various WIMPS seekers, who are spending whole years with research of hypothetical artifacts without success. Who is "looney tune" and "crackpot" here is therefore a matter of rather complex discussion.
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2012
so the 'particle' interpretation may be because of interpreting the 'hit location' as THE ONLY part of the incoming energy-feature
Praise the Lord! The penny is starting to drop!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2012
No matter how else DM interacts with ordinary matter, if it has mass then collision with ordinary matter will recoil. This detector hopes to measure that recoil effect.


BS! If the mass-energy is evenly distributed through space, smaller entities with mass should be able to move through it without interacting with a "recoil": Only if you are a crackpot like Bohr, Heisenberg and Born were and still are, will you believe that you cannot have a continuous energy field without any "particles".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2012
So what do you mean by "stationary" ? Stable with paired orbitals?
For example, the electron-orbitals around the nucleus of an atom are stationary waves without ANY kinetic-energy. When a suitable photon impinges and resonates with such a stationary electron-wave, the photon-energy is absorbed: It adds to the stationary energy, which requires the electron-wave to become a higher-energy stationary electron-wave.

What do you mean by "photon collapse"? A reduction in frequency?
NO NO NO! The photon CANNOT collapse UNLESS it resonates with the electron-wave: This means that it MUST have the correct frequency: so the frequency DOES NOT change during the collapse: Only the size of the photon-wave! It then adds energy h*nu to the electron-wave.

Thus, the size of the electronic absorber determines the size of the SPOT on a screen: NOT the size of the incoming photon-wave!!!!! It is SIMPLE physics which ALSO happens on the macro-scale.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Nov 25, 2012
So what do you mean by "stationary" ? Stable with paired orbitals?


For example, the electron-orbitals around the nucleus of an atom are stationary waves

What do you mean by "stationary"? Are you referring to "location probability pattern"? I guess you could say these are "stationary" but they are only a mathematical model, not an intrinsic one.

When a suitable photon impinges and resonates with such a stationary electron-wave, the photon-energy is absorbed: It adds to the stationary energy, which requires the electron-wave to become a higher-energy stationary electron-wave.


But again, what is "stationary"?

What do you mean by "photon collapse"? A reduction in frequency?


The photon CANNOT collapse

So define "photon collapse".

UNLESS it resonates with the electron-wave: so the frequency DOES NOT change


All atoms have a specific photon resonating frequency depending on electron shell configuration. Is this what you mean?

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2012
What do you mean by "stationary"? Are you referring to "location probability pattern"? I guess you could say these are "stationary" but they are only a mathematical model, not an intrinsic one.


What do you mean by "intrinsic" being different? We all know what a stationary wave is and can create and see them. When the wave forms within a medium a stationary wave still undulates; when it is not within a medium (like a light-wave which does not move within a medium: ether) the standing wave's intensity does not undulate within three-dimensional space.

An electron around the nucleus of an atom is such a stationary EM wave, and when it absorbs a photon-wave, the latter EM-energy adds to form a higher-energy stationary electron-wave wave.

So define "photon collapse".
The photon slows down and STOPS within the stationary electron-wave: The EM-energy of both waves entangle to form a higher-energy stationary electron-wave.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2012
All atoms have a specific photon resonating frequency depending on electron shell configuration.


Correct, and the latter frequencies are determined by the boundary-conditions which are required to "trap" stationary EM-waves.

In the case of a hydrogen atom, the boundary-conditions are caused by the potential well within which the electron becomes trapped. Where-as for a freely moving electron, the potential energy cause the electron to circle the proton while radiating, this same potential energy finally forms the boundary conditions (potential well) within which the electron forms a lowest-energy stationary EM-wave with no kinetic energy: Therefore: No more radiation being emitted.

The latter is not possible for a Bohr-atom, or any model with "wave-particle duality", since the only lowest energy state without kinetic energy (with a "particle") is a state with NO orbital momentum; and this state requires the electron to entangle with the proton in order to form a neutron.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Nov 25, 2012
We all know what a stationary wave is and can create and see them. When the wave forms within a medium a stationary wave still undulates; when it is not within a medium (like a light-wave which does not move within a medium: ether) the standing wave's intensity does not undulate within three-dimensional space.

An electron around the nucleus of an atom is such a stationary EM wave, and when it absorbs a photon-wave, the latter EM-energy adds to form a higher-energy stationary electron-wave wave.


SO we're not talking aether wave theory nonsense, am I correct?

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2012
SO we're not talking aether wave theory nonsense, am I correct?


Absolutely correct. When you have water waves, the aether is the water: When you have waves on a string, the string is the aether. When there is a medium, a stationary wave trapped by boundary conditions undulates, since there is an exchange of kinetic-energy (KE) and potential energy (PE) stored in the aether. This means that when the wave on a string moves through zero position, it has NO INTENSITY, but it still has its full energy stored within the string.

An EM wave does NOT have an aether and therefore to maintain its energy, such a stationary wave cannot undulate. All its energy given by its intensity is PE: NO KE.

For this reason an electron-wave around a nucleus, which is a stationary EM-wave does NOT have KE, and for this reason it cannot radiate light, unless there is a lower energy state into which it can morph by emitting a photon. The photon only gains KE when it is emitted.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Nov 25, 2012
@johan,

As I read your posts, I see two different types of "stationary waves":

1. stationary EM- wave

2. stationary electron wave

What does "stationary" refer to in either case? There is still no clear picture presented where I look for something that has a "stationary" characteristic which to me it suggests a condition of something "not moving", I'm still trying to visualize this characteristic in either of the two above cases.

I fail to understand how an EM-wave can possibly be "stationary", ever, it must move at light-speed.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2012
When you have water waves, the aether is the water: When you have waves on a string, the string is the aether. ...An EM wave does NOT have an aether and therefore to maintain its energy, such a stationary wave cannot undulate.
Every wave is connected with some material environment, so why just the vacuum should be an exception? Such an ad-hoced assumption would violate the Occam's razor. Not to say, the aether model leads into much more implications and predictions, than just the waves: for example, every environment exhibits the Brownian noise and vacuum contains it too (CMBR and quantum noise). Every environment exhibits both transverse both longitudinal waves - well and the scalar waves should therefore exist even for vacuum. The light should exhibit scattering in such an environment - and we are really observing it as a Hubble red shift. And so on - the aether model leads to much more analogies and testable predictions, than just EM waves.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2012
An EM wave does NOT have an aether and therefore to maintain its energy, such a stationary wave cannot undulate
How the aether model would prohibit the undulation of stationary EM wave?
For this reason an electron-wave around a nucleus, which is a stationary EM-wave does NOT have KE, and for this reason it cannot radiate light, unless there is a lower energy state into which it can morph by emitting a photon.
Here you see an analogy of quantum levels in the electron orbitals. You're just shamelessly denying the experiments confirming the aether model in the same way, like the other physicists are denying your superconductor experiments. I don't understand, why these physicists should be punished for it by your proclamations - and you not. You're not any better than Wilczek and other opponents of yours.
VendicarD
5 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2012
Why not off yourself and go ask Gawd?

"Why MUST the nano-world be BIZARRE compared to the macro-world?" - Johan

You seem to be very angry that the universe is too complicated for you to comprehend it.

Damn those gluons.

Let me tell you a secret..... The universe doesn't care about you or what makes you angry.

Neither do I.
VendicarD
5 / 5 (1) Nov 25, 2012
"An EM wave does NOT have an aether and therefore to maintain its energy, such a stationary wave cannot undulate." - Johan

Who then contradicts himself in the next sentence...

"a stationary EM-wave does NOT have KE, and for this reason it cannot radiate light" - Johan

Who just finished saying that light has no KE either.

Ignoring the CrackPotism of your comments, do you even know what an EM wave is?

It is a self perpetuating polarization of the charge distribution of the quantum vacuum.

You will of course, remain clueless in light of that stated fact.
VendicarD
5 / 5 (1) Nov 25, 2012
"If the mass-energy is evenly distributed through space" - Johan

Then you have a situation where space itself has mass.

Since we have never seen mass manifest in any other form than as particles, it seems reasonable to presume that the mass that space has is also comprised of particles, in contradiction to your claim that it's distribution must be smooth.

Is this space mass some new kind of mass that we haven't encountered before? Something we might call dark matter?
VendicarD
5 / 5 (1) Nov 25, 2012

"These states have a definite size so that the photon MUST collapse to this size in order to be absorbed." - Johan

How big are these antenna's and how does an electron "antenna" manage to make gone the portion of a photon's wave function that can be made to be arbitrarily far from the photon that is detected?

Is the electron "antenna" infinite in size?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2012
@johan,
As I read your posts, I see two different types of "stationary waves":
1. stationary EM- wave
2. stationary electron wave


They are both EM waves: The only difference is that a "free" electron wave is stationary within its own inertial reference frame (IRF) and therefore moves with a speed lower that the speed of light relative to all other IRF's. A "free" light wave cannot be stationary within any inertial reference frame since it moves with the speed of light c relative to all possible IRF's.
What does "stationary" refer to in either case?
A stationary light-wave can only form when the wave is NOT free: i.e. when it is bounded to stay within a region of an IRF by the presence of boundary conditions.

The wave on a violin string is a stationary wave since it is bounded by the clamps to the string.

A light wave within a laser cavity (or within a black-body cavity) is a stationary wave since it is bounded by the walls of the cavity to stay within the cavity.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2012
Since an electron-wave is also an EM-wave, it has to experience boundary-conditions within its own IRF to be stationary within this IRF.

The question is: Where do these boundary conditions come from. The only logical explanation at present is that the boundary conditions are the curvature of space around the rest-mass energy of the stationary electron. Rest-mass=gravity-field (boundary conditions) AND gravity-field=rest-mass. Just like Einstein deduced by using curvilinear coordinates.

There is still no clear picture presented where I look for something that has a "stationary" characteristic which to me it suggests a condition of something "not moving",
Exactly correct. Once wave is trapped by boundary conditions it is stationary and has NO MOMENTUM: It is then not moving!

I'm still trying to visualize this characteristic in either of the two above cases.
In the case of the electron-wave, the potential-field it finds itself in act as the boundary conditions.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2012
Therefore, the potential energy field around a proton acts at low energies of the electron to trap the electron as a stationary wave that forms around the proton.

Such a stationary electron-wave in turn acts as a "cavity" which can capture a photon light-wave. The photon light-wave thus becomes part of the stationary electron-wave, which must then morph into a higher-energy, allowed, stationary electron-wave. What is so difficult about this to understand?

I fail to understand how an EM-wave can possibly be "stationary", ever, it must move at light-speed.
As long as it is a free wave: YES! As soon as it is trapped by boundary conditions it MUST become a stationary wave within the "cavity" that trapped it!

This is how EM waves are generated and detected: If it were not so we would not have had radios and TV's. The same wave-behavior which gives us radios and TV on the macro-scale gives us "quantum-jumps" on the atomic scale. In both cases no "particles" are required.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2012
... to trap the electron as a stationary wave...


String theory...? Is that where you're going here?

Such a stationary electron-wave in turn acts as a "cavity"


So what creates the "cavity"? A closed string as described in "string theory?

I fail to understand how an EM-wave can possibly be "stationary", ever, it must move at light-speed.
As long as it is a free wave: YES! As soon as it is trapped by boundary conditions it MUST become a stationary wave within the "cavity" that trapped it!


You're almost describing a perfectly mirrored light box in which EM keeps bouncing around inside but can never escapes...what I can't figure out is your explanation of how this works inside a black body which is neither perfectly translucent or perfectly mirrored.

johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2012
Every wave is connected with some material environment,
Experimental evidence has already proved 107 years ago that this statement IS WRONG!!!! If a wave can only form within a medium, then its speed is determined by the medium. If a detector also moves relative to the medium, the speed of the wave will be DIFFERENT relative to the detector than relative to the medium.

Einstein's genius led him to conclude CORRECTLY that the Lorentz-transformation demands that the speed of light MUST be the same value c relative to any object no matter with what speed the object is moving. He then CORRECTLY concluded that this MUST mean that light-waves are NOT formed within a medium.

From this followed many results which have been proved experimentally to be correct. The latter results would not have been correct if a light-wave required a medium (aether) within which it forms.

It is astonishing that after this incontrovertible conclusion one can still get crackpots who claim otherwise!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2012
You seem to be very angry that the universe is too complicated for you to comprehend it.
This flies in the face of sanity! The fact is that the universe is not as complicated as the crackpots (Bohr, Born, Heisenberg, Dirac etc.) want us to believe.

Let me tell you a secret..... The universe doesn't care about you or what makes you angry.
HI!?: I thought that I made the Universe shudder!! Please, if you want to contribute to a sane discussion, stop these childish, stupid comments. It only proves that you have no grey matter between your ears.

Neither do I.
Then why go to all the PT to post your inanely stupid remarks?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2012
"An EM wave does NOT have an aether and therefore to maintain its energy, such a stationary wave cannot undulate." - Johan

Who then contradicts himself in the next sentence...

"a stationary EM-wave does NOT have KE, and for this reason it cannot radiate light" - Johan
Where is the contradiction? Only a idiotic fool who has NEVER solved a differential wave equation will see a contradiction.

Only a stationary wave that formed in a medium can undulate, since during each undulation potential energy is converted to kinetic energy within the medium and then back to potential energy. This is why you can see these undulations on a violin string.

When there is no medium, the intensity of the wave is given by the product of its wave-amplitude with its complex conjugate amplitude. As any idiot ought to know, the intensity of such a wave does not change within three-dimensional space: No undulations! Thus, there is no kinetic motion within 3D-space which can cause radiation.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2012
do you even know what an EM wave is?
Far better than you will ever be able to know!

It is a self perpetuating polarization of the charge distribution of the quantum vacuum.
Can you prove this absurdity experimentally?

You will of course, remain clueless in light of that stated fact.
You are not even able to solve a differential wave equation, or derive one; and YOU call ME clueless.

Can you derive Dirac's equation for the electron? You are far too stupid to explain this derivation, even with a text book open next to you!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2012
"If the mass-energy is evenly distributed through space" - Johan

Then you have a situation where space itself has mass.

Since we have never seen mass manifest in any other form than as particles,
WRONG!!! When you entangle many electrons to form a macro-wave, this macro-wave which do not consist of separately distinguishable electrons anymore, has mass, even though it is not a "particle". In addition, even an electron on its own is also not a "particle". In fact we HAVE NEVER seen mass in the form of "particles" but ONLY in the form of waves.

I have it seems reasonable to presume that the mass that space has is also comprised of particles, in contradiction to your claim that it's distribution must be smooth.
Within an electron-wave the mass-energy is distributed and is thus smooth. Within a large entangled electron-wave the mass is also smooth.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2012
Is this space mass some new kind of mass that we haven't encountered before?


No it is the same distributed mass we have encountered within electrons, protons, neutrons and all other entangled matter-waves.

Something we might call dark matter?


At last a tentative jump towards reasoning outside the accepted dogma! This is far more possible than to assume that dark matter MUST consist of "particles" without even being able to define what a "particle" is!

George Gamow assumed that our universe first existed of continuously distributed matter, which he called YLEM, from which neutrons disentangled to eventually form protons electrons and neutrinos. This makes far more sense than to claim that there was a fictitious quark-gluon plasma.

This could mean that large parts of our universe is still filled with continuously distributed matter-energy (mass).

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2012
How big are these antenna's
In the case of an electron around a nucleus the size is obtained by solving Schroedinger's wave equation. It is easy to derive that the mass-energy is distributed within a volume with a radius, outside of which you have exponential tails that represent the curvature of space around the mass of the electron-wave.

Localized electron-states within a material shows that these states have a limited volume since when their density becomes high enough, the localized waves overlap to form delocalised stationary states.

and how does an electron "antenna" manage to make gone the portion of a photon's wave function that can be made to be arbitrarily far from the photon that is detected?
The EM energy of a ph. and/or an el. cannot be arbitrarily large.

Is the electron "antenna" infinite in size?
Why would it be? Any idiot knows that the mass-energy of an electron is not distributed within an infinite volume.

Are you sure you are all there?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2012
String theory...?
NO! String theory is even more BS than the Higgs boson.

So what creates the "cavity"? A closed string as described in "string theory?


When you solve the Schr. equation for a hydrogen atom, or even more simply for an electron trapped within a in potential energy box, the potential energy defines the boundaries (cavity) which are required to obtain the solutions of stationary waves.

You're almost describing a perfectly mirrored light box
Exactly correct!
in which EM keeps bouncing around inside
Completely wrong! The EM energy does NOT "bounce" it forms a stationary EM-wave, or more than one stationary EM-waves.
...what I can't figure out is your explanation of how this works inside a black body which is neither perfectly translucent or perfectly mirrored.
Oh at an equilibrium temperature it is perfectly mirrored, since just as much light energy is absorbed by the walls as is emitted by the walls to maintain the waves.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2012
String theory...?


NO! String theory is even more BS than the Higgs boson.


So what creates the "cavity"? A closed string as described in "string theory?


When you solve the Schr. equation for a hydrogen atom, or even more simply for an electron trapped within a in potential energy box, the potential energy defines the boundaries (cavity) which are required to obtain the solutions of stationary waves.

The EM energy does NOT "bounce" it forms a stationary EM-wave, or more than one stationary EM-waves.


This seems pretty darn close to what "string theory" is based on. Biggest difference I see is what forms the cavity inside of which contains a repository of energy. In "string theory" the walls of the energy cavity is a "closed string", a string wound until the opposite ends meet & you end up with a shape that two dimensionally looks like an amoeba. Sounds whimsical to me, but there are serious physicists who tinker with this model.
rubberman
3 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2012
Is this space mass some new kind of mass that we haven't encountered before?


No it is the same distributed mass we have encountered within electrons, protons, neutrons and all other entangled matter-waves.

Something we might call dark matter?


At last a tentative jump towards reasoning outside the accepted dogma!

George Gamow assumed that our universe first existed of continuously distributed matter, which he called YLEM, from which neutrons disentangled to eventually form protons electrons and neutrinos. This makes far more sense than to claim that there was a fictitious quark-gluon plasma.

This could mean that large parts of our universe is still filled with continuously distributed matter-energy (mass).


So, instead of dark energy, you have galaxies "accelerating" because of their own energy interacting with this medium.

I would define all matter as an energy wave with a defined boundary, including "particles".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2012
This seems pretty darn close to what "string theory" is based on.

Nope!

Biggest difference I see is what forms the cavity inside of which contains a repository of energy. In "string theory" the walls of the energy cavity is a "closed string", a string wound until the opposite ends meet & you end up with a shape that two dimensionally looks like an amoeba.


This is similar to assuming that you can have a coherent wave that follows a circular path through space: Like the insane diagrams you see in text books where you have a Bohr-orbital being held together by a circular de Broglie wave. This is BS.

No differential wave equation can give such a solution unless you have a circular wave guide. There are NO circular wave guides around a nucleus: This is why the correct solutions are radially-symmetric STATIONARY waves given by Schr. eq.
Sounds whimsical
It is BS
but there are serious physicists who tinker with this model.
They are serious idiots.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2012
So, instead of dark energy, you have galaxies "accelerating" because of their own energy interacting with this medium.
Not necessarily. There does exist energy across a fourth dimension: Therefore we have that (delta)E*(delta)t for a matter-wave cannot be zero. This energy causes superconduction (and teleportation), and is probably also responsible for the acceleration of our Universe to eventually, again end-up in a zero-entropy state. Exactly the state from which our Universe inflated as a single matter-wave consisting of "Ylem".

I would define all matter as an energy wave with a defined boundary,
Correct.
including "particles".
No! A wave cannot be a "particle" since, according to the definition of a "particle", such an entity, if it could exist, can NEVER diffract. So please STOP using the term "particle": It is a nonsensical concept: It does NOT exist!
ValeriaT
3 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2012
So please STOP using the term "particle": It is a nonsensical concept: It does NOT exist!
I'd say, you're a particle exhibiting some hand-waving, and fulfilling the particle-wave duality concept as such...
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Nov 26, 2012
So please STOP using the term "particle": It is a nonsensical concept: It does NOT exist!
I'd say, you're a particle exhibiting some hand-waving, and fulfilling the particle-wave duality concept as such...
Where is the hand-waving? I use the SAME starting equation that Klein-Gordon have used, AND Dirac has used, AND I use the SAME substitutions that they have used and I get Maxwell's equation for BOTH the photon AND the electron.

You have F-All and are too stupid to understand what Einstein has postulated in 1905. You cannot derive ANY equations other than plastic ducks floating in a foam bath. Jeesh!!! Please go for some psychiatric help: If a psychiatrist can still help you: Which I doubt!!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.