Revolutionary theory of dark matter

Jan 23, 2013 by Yngve Vogt
The image shows all the gamma rays recorded by the Fermi-LAT space probe as a map of the entire universe. The red band through the middle of the image is radiation from our own galaxy. The centre of the galaxy is almost at the centre of the image.  "It is here that a small surplus of gamma rays has been seen that one cannot immediately explain by the radiation one expects from ordinary matter. The observations may fit our dark matter models. This surplus of gamma rays is not visible to the eye, but can be found by a time consuming analysis of the data," says Are Raklev, who reminds us that the analysis is still a little uncertain. 

The universe abounds with dark matter. Nobody knows what it consists of. University of Oslo physicists have now launched a very hard mathematical explanation that could solve the mystery once and for all.

Astrophysicists have known for the last 80 years that most of the universe consists of an unknown, . The solution to the mystery may now be just around the corner.

"We are looking for a new member of our particle zoo in order to explain dark matter. We know that it is a very exotic beast. And we have found a plausible explanation," reports Are Raklev, an associate professor in particle physics in the University of Oslo's Department of Physics. He is the university's leading in and has launched a model that explains what dark matter may consist of and how one can discover the invisible particles experimentally.

Even though dark matter is invisible, astrophysicists know it exists. Without this dark matter it is impossible to explain how the visible things in the universe hang together.

An 80 year fight

The world famous, Swiss physicist Fritz Zwicky was speculating on what dark matter might be as early as the 1930s.

have calculated that 80 per cent of all the mass in the universe is dark, invisible matter. Thanks to gravity this dark matter together as ordinary matter.

Dark matter can explain why stars move like they do. Dark matter may also explain the rotation speed of .

"Even though we can calculate how much dark matter there is in the universe, we still know little about what dark matter is. The particles in dark matter must either have a lot of mass, or there must be very many of them. Neutrinos meet all the requirements of dark matter. But there is one big difficulty. They have far too little mass."

Are Raklev is now trying to prove that dark matter consists of gravitinos. This is a particle that has been unfairly treated for years.

And just what are gravitinos? Hold tight: gravitinos are the supersymmetric partner of gravitons.

Or, to be even more precise:

"The gravitino is the hypothetical, supersymmetric partner of the hypothetical particle graviton, so it is also impossible to predict a more hypothetical particle than this," laughs Raklev, who writes on his web pages that he is looking for dark material both under his sofa and other places.

In order to dig deeper into why Raklev believes dark matter consists of gravitinos, and have any chance at all of understanding the theory behind gravitinos, Apollon has to take a couple of steps back:

Step 1: Supersymmetry

want to find out whether or not nature is supersymmetric. Supersymmetry means that there is a symmetry between matter and forces. For each type of electron and quark there is a corresponding heavy, supersymmetric partner. The supersymmetric particles were created in the instant after the Big Bang. If some of them have survived to today, they may be what dark matter is made of.

The supersymmetric partner of the gravitino is, as Apollon said, the graviton.

"A graviton is the particle we believe mediates gravitational force, just like a photon, the light particle, mediates electromagnetic force. While gravitons do not weigh anything at all, gravitinos may weigh a great deal. If nature is supersymmetric and gravitons exist, then gravitinos also exist. And vice versa. This is pure mathematics."

But there is a small but. Physicists cannot demonstrate the relationship between gravitons and gravitinos before they have managed to unify all the forces of nature.

Step 2: The forces of nature

One of the biggest things physicists long to do is to unify all the forces of nature in a single theory. In the middle of the last century physicists discovered that electricity and magnetism were part of the same force of nature. This force has since been called electromagnetism. Two of the other forces of nature are the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. The weak nuclear force can be seen in, among things, radioactivity. The strong nuclear force is ten billion times as strong and binds together neutrons and protons.

In the 1970s, electromagnetism was unified with the strong and weak nuclear forces in what physicists call the standard model.

The fourth force of nature is gravity. Even though it is unbelievably painful to fall down stairs, gravity is the weakest of the four forces of nature.

The problem is that physicists have not yet been able to unify gravity with the three other forces of nature. The day physicists gain a unified understanding of all four forces of nature, they will gain a unique understanding of the world. This will make it possible to describe all imaginable interactions between all possible particles in nature. Physicists call this the ToE Theory (Theory of Everything).

Are Raklev, the university's leading theoretician in astroparticle physics, has launched a mathematical model that explains what dark matter may consist of.  Credit: Yngve Vogt

"In order to unify gravitational force with the other three forces of nature we have to understand gravity as quantum theory. This means we need a theory in which the particle graviton is included in the atomic nucleus."

Researchers are now looking for signs of both supersymmetry and the ToE Theory. Discovering the graviton would be an enormous step in this direction.

Reveals dark matter

As the reader may have understood, it is very difficult to research dark matter. This is because dark matter has no electromagnetic relationships to terrestrial particles at all. One example of dark matter is the aforementioned neutrino. Unfortunately, neutrinos make up only an imperceptibly tiny part of dark matter.

Even though it has not been possible to observe dark matter, several billion neutrinos race through your body every second. However, their speed is somewhat limited. The particles move just as slowly as the speed the solar system moves around the galaxy. In other words, a mere 400 kilometres a second.

"When there are no electromagnetic relationships with visible particles, the particles can pass right through us without any measuring instruments detecting them. This is where supersymmetry comes in. If supersymmetry is right, physicists can explain why there is dark matter in the universe. That is what is fun about my job," laughs Raklev.

He is now asserting that dark matter mostly consists of gravitinos.

"Supersymmetry simplifies everything. If the ToE Theory exists, in other words if it is possible to unify the four forces of nature, gravitinos must exist."

The gravitinos were formed right after the Big Bang.

"A short time after the Big Bang we had a soup of particles that collided. Gluons, which are the force bearing particles in the strong nuclear force, collided with other gluons and emitted gravitinos. Many gravitinos were formed after the Big Bang, while the universe was still plasma. So we have an explanation of why gravitinos exist."

Changed life span

Physicists have up to now viewed gravitinos as a problem. They have believed that the theory of supersymmetry does not work because there are too many gravitinos.

"Physicists have therefore strived to eliminate gravitinos from their models. We, on the other hand, have found a new explanation that unifies the supersymmetry model with dark matter that consists of gravitinos. If dark matter is not stable, but just very long lived, it is possible to explain how dark matter consists of gravitinos."

In the old models dark matter was always everlasting. This meant that gravitinos were a bothersome part of the supersymmetry model. In Raklev's new model, their life span is no longer endless. Nonetheless, the average life span of gravitinos is very long and actually longer than the life span of the universe.

However, there is a big difference between an unending life span and a life span of more than 15 billion years. With limited a life span, gravitinos must be converted into other particles. It is precisely this conversion effect that can be measured. And the conversion explains the model.

"We believe that almost all dark matter is gravitinos. The explanation lies in very hard mathematics. We are developing special models that calculate the consequences of these theories and we predict how the particles can be observed in experiments."

The measurements are underway

Researchers are now trying to test this experimentally and explain why these new particles have not yet been seen in the CERN experiments in Geneva in Switzerland.

"On the other hand, it should theoretically possible to observe them from a space probe."

The simplest way of observing gravitinos could be studying what happens if two particles collide out in the universe and are converted into other particles such as photons or antimatter.

Even though the collisions occur very rarely, there is still so much dark matter in the universe that a significant number of photons should be able to be produced.

The big problem is that gravitinos do not collide.

"At least it happens so rarely that we could never hope to observe it."

Nonetheless there is hope.

"Luckily for us, gravitinos are not one hundred per cent stable. They are converted into something else at some point. We can predict what the signal looks like after gravitinos have been converted. The conversion will send out a small electromagnetic wave. This is also called a gamma ray."

NASA's Fermi-LAT space probe is currently measuring gamma rays. A number of research groups are now analysing the data.

"So far we have only seen noise. But one of the research groups claim they have observed a small, suspicious surplus of gamma rays from the centre of our galaxy. Their observations may fit our models," says the man behind the very difficult mathematical model for dark matter, associate professor in theoretical , Are Raklev.

Explore further: Superstring theorist at University of Florida wins 2015 Heineman Prize

Related Stories

Dark matter could provide heat for starless planets

Apr 01, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- In a recent paper posted at arXiv.org and submitted to Astrophysical Journal, Dan Hooper and Jason Steffen, physicists at Fermilab in Illinois, present the theory that cold and dark planet ...

Could dark baryons explain dark matter?

Jul 20, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- "The prevailing belief about dark matter particles is that they should be about 100 or more times heavier than protons," Subir Sarkar tells PhysOrg.com. "However, we were thinking about the possibility of lig ...

Still in the dark about dark matter

Dec 06, 2011

Dark matter, the mysterious stuff thought to make up about 80 percent of matter in the universe, has become even more inscrutable.

Signs of dark matter may point to mirror matter candidate

Apr 27, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Dark matter, which contains the "missing mass" that's needed to explain why galaxies stay together, could take any number of forms. The main possible candidates include MACHOS and WIMPS, but there is no shortage ...

A Theory of Dark Matter

Sep 08, 2009

Among the most astounding, unexpected, and important achievements of the past century (or even more) have been the discoveries of dark matter and dark energy, collectively dubbed the "dark sector."

Recommended for you

Cooling with molecules

Oct 22, 2014

An international team of scientists have become the first ever researchers to successfully reach temperatures below minus 272.15 degrees Celsius – only just above absolute zero – using magnetic molecules. ...

User comments : 153

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kevinrtrs
1.4 / 5 (36) Jan 23, 2013
"We believe that almost all dark matter is gravitinos. The explanation lies in very hard mathematics. We are developing special models that calculate the consequences of these theories and we predict how the particles can be observed in experiments."


So, the gravitas of the matter then is that it's not what goes into the mouth that, well, matters, but rather it's the darkness that is brought forth from deep within the heart that, well, matters. Pun[s] fully intended.

To misquote liberally : "Who knows what darkness lies in the hearts of men? Only the Shadow knows".
Had to really dig this one up from the deep of the past. But does it matter?

dogbert
1.9 / 5 (43) Jan 23, 2013
These elaborate tales in support of fantasy matter are almost entertaining. It is also somewhat sad that so much time, effort and resources are being diverted into seeking imaginary matter.
Tristan
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 23, 2013
A model that allows for a ToE, explains dark matter *and* is experimentally verifiable? Sounds almost too good to be true...
Sonhouse
4 / 5 (23) Jan 23, 2013
These elaborate tales in support of fantasy matter are almost entertaining. It is also somewhat sad that so much time, effort and resources are being diverted into seeking imaginary matter.


But of course you have a much better theory, right? Let's hear it oh enlightened one.
dogbert
2.2 / 5 (36) Jan 23, 2013
Sonhouse,

But of course you have a much better theory, right? Let's hear it oh enlightened one.


Anyone can point out that the Emperor is naked without knowing how he should be clothed.

Fantasy should not be a part of scientific research.

Dark matter is and remains a kludge, conceived when we became aware that our models of gravity do not account for the movement of stars around galaxies, galaxies in galaxy clusters nor the gravitational bending of light. That is, our models fail on stellar scales. Always, the observations show gravity to be stronger than we want it to be based on our models.

Perhaps we need new models.

You are welcome to create a new model or you are welcome to continue to live in a fantasy world.
PPihkala
4 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2013
As I understand this: Dark matter particles are very slowly transforming into ordinary particles and energy.
gopher65
4.5 / 5 (22) Jan 23, 2013
dogbert: That's called MToG (Modified Theory of Gravity). It was for a long time considered to be a strong contender to explain the observations that Dark Matter explains.

Unfortunately, observations over the past decade, such as those of the bullet cluster, have completely ruled out the possibility that a MToG can explain the weird movement of stars and gas at galactic and inter-galactic scales.

The only explanation that remains after everything else is ruled out is that there must be some form of matter that doesn't emit electromagnetic radiation (to any significant degree), but still interacts gravitationally with normal matter and energy (can still bend light, etc). Hence "Dark Matter".

Note that as the article implies, Dark Matter isn't a single particle, but a catch all term for all the types of dark matter out there. Neutrinos are a type of Dark Matter, but they can only make up a small percentage of the whole.
brt
3.4 / 5 (14) Jan 23, 2013
1.) I thought Zwicky was French

2.) revolutionary in that it is 3 generations of theory deep; i.e. bulls***. If gravitons exist and if supersymmetry exists and if gravitinos exist...
vacuum-mechanics
1.2 / 5 (22) Jan 23, 2013
The problem is that physicists have not yet been able to unify gravity with the three other forces of nature. The day physicists gain a unified understanding of all four forces of nature, they will gain a unique understanding of the world. This will make it possible to describe all imaginable interactions between all possible particles in nature. Physicists call this the ToE Theory (Theory of Everything).

How about this, which is understandable one.
http://www.vacuum...=9〈=en
verkle
2 / 5 (22) Jan 23, 2013
This article reads like a marketing advertisement.
"The world famous, Swiss physicist Fritz Zwicky"
Now, who was that?

And makes absurd claims as if they were fact:
"The universe abounds with dark matter."
"Without this dark matter it is impossible to explain how the visible things in the universe hang together."

This is not science, folks. This is some simple postulation. Nothing observed, nothing repeated, nothing known.

Give me some proof of dark matter, and I will believe. Until then, I include it in the world of fantasy.

indio007
2.2 / 5 (26) Jan 23, 2013
Well why was dark matter postulated in the first place?
To save relativity.
The list of unobservable physics is getting pretty long at this point.
When are we going to admit relativity is seriously flawed.
brt
2.4 / 5 (16) Jan 23, 2013
Well why was dark matter postulated in the first place?
To save relativity.
The list of unobservable physics is getting pretty long at this point.
When are we going to admit relativity is seriously flawed.


It has long been known that relativity is an approximation; which is why Einstein spent the rest of his life trying to find a theory of everything which would fix the approximation aspect of relativity theory. But it is not "seriously flawed". It has been proven correct time and time again. Relativity was an improved theory of Newtonian Gravity. The "theory of everything" will be an improved theory of Einstein's theory of gravity: Relativity.

Dark matter was postulated because nobody has challenged the Big Bang (Hubble's observations) with an alternative theory. And when they do, they get shot down by the community very quickly.
Jitterbewegung
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 23, 2013
"The strong nuclear force is ten billion times as strong and binds together neutrons and protons."

I thought that the strong force bound the quarks together and the residual nuclear force bound the protons and neutrons together?

Thats why a nuclear bomb doesn't release very much of the energy in the atom because it doesn't split quarks!
Jitterbewegung
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 23, 2013
"Astrophysicists have calculated that 80 per cent of all the mass in the universe is dark, invisible matter."

Yes it's close to 80% if we forget E=mc2 and knock out dark energy;-)
brt
3.7 / 5 (15) Jan 23, 2013
@ Natello

my point was that it is correct in the parameters it is intended for. Einstein did not believe (or know) that quantum mechanics existed at the time. We also thought that our galaxy was the whole universe at the time. Within our galaxy, absent of quantum mechanics, relativity is 100% correct so far.

Aether has been proven incorrect time and time again. So using the proven incorrect aether to try and disprove the proven correct relativity; is logic not grounded in reality.
indio007
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 23, 2013
Relativity isn't even very good on a short scale... i.e. no retarded gravity waves.
rkolter
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2013
Dark matter is and remains a kludge, conceived when we became aware that our models of gravity do not account for the movement of stars around galaxies, galaxies in galaxy clusters nor the gravitational bending of light. That is, our models fail on stellar scales. Always, the observations show gravity to be stronger than we want it to be based on our models.

Perhaps we need new models.

You are welcome to create a new model or you are welcome to continue to live in a fantasy world.


My issue with your statement is the assumption that Dark Matter is in fact a fantasy. I agree Dark Matter sounds like a kludge, but to dismiss a theory based on something as etheral as a feeling is not science. To refute a theory that does explain current observations, you should have some kind of conflicting evidence. This article suggests, albeit hypo-hypothetically (find the graviton first.. then the gravitino...) a means to test Dark Matter. Ergo, I like this article.
brt
3.4 / 5 (15) Jan 23, 2013
Relativity isn't even very good on a short scale... i.e. no retarded gravity waves.


That's just flat out ignorance on your part.
rubberman
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2013
I had started to post all of the things wrong with this article by using quotes from the article....then i realized I was just reposting the article. Good luck Mr. Raklev.

That said, if a "gravitino" is the name we wish to apply to the force carrier of the induced magnetic effect that is gravity, fine.

But you can't make the force carrier the source of the force carrier.

"In the 1970s, electromagnetism was unified with the strong and weak nuclear forces in what physicists call the standard model.

The fourth force of nature is gravity. Even though it is unbelievably painful to fall down stairs, gravity is the weakest of the four forces of nature.

The problem is that physicists have not yet been able to unify gravity with the three other forces of nature."

At least one has conciously (primer fields model), and these guys demonstrated it unwittingly:
http://phys.org/n...lds.html

rkolter
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 23, 2013
But at the case of cold fusion no hypo-hypothetical speculations are allowed at all - even not experimental verifications as a justification - all people just consider the smoothly selling E-Cat units as the only evidence of cold fusion existence without any official research.


Be fair. Cold Fusion has a sordid history. People "know" Cold Fusion is a hoax, snake oil, a money pit, akin to buying the brooklyn bridge, etcetera. Note the quotes around the word "know". I am not judging if the reputation is deserved or not, I am only describing the situation as it is.

This theory has nothing to do with Cold Fusion. You should not let your impression of the handling of one theory color your impressino of this one.
rubberman
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 23, 2013
My issue with your statement is the assumption that Dark Matter is in fact a fantasy. I agree Dark Matter sounds like a kludge, but to dismiss a theory based on something as etheral as a feeling is not science. To refute a theory that does explain current observations, you should have some kind of conflicting evidence...


For starters the sloppy physics behind it's attributed properties which are conflictionary with logic, observation, each other and known physics. An example from this article is the assumption that a gamma ray (the most energetic wave we can detect) propegates from a substance with the ascribed properties of DM. This guy makes an assumtion that Supernovas, particle jets and WIMP's share this commonality...

I'll get on board with Natello before I believe this.

rubberman
1.8 / 5 (15) Jan 23, 2013
but you can't make the force carrier the source of the force carrier.
Who and how is doing "the force carrier the source of the force carrier"? Where did you come into it?


If a gravitino is the force carrier of gravity, and DM is gravitino's, and DM acts as a source of gravity, they have just made the force carrier the source of the force carrier.
rubberman
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 23, 2013
If a gravitino is the force carrier of gravity, and DM is gravitino's, and DM acts as a source of gravity, they have just made the force carrier the source of the force carrier.
But the dark matter doesn't serve as a force carrier of gravity. You just said, it serves as a source of gravity (which is rather speculative assumption). Being a source or force carrier is indeed a difference. For example, the electron is the source of EM force, but the the carrier of EM force is photon instead.


Nat, the guy in the article said it, not me. I disagreed with him, and the only assumption I make about DM is that you can only detect it while riding a unicorn in the 5th dimension.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.9 / 5 (14) Jan 23, 2013
To have the lowest energy supersymmetric WIMP DM candidate quasistable may be ingenious, but unlikely. The SM sector such particles are stable, more or less by definition.

Let us remember that the Fermi-LAT results seems to have been an instrument problem. After it was identified and adjusted for, the signal disappeared.

Creationists shouldn't comment on science. It is hilarious and makes deconverts from religion, see Dawkins's Converts Corner. Our rude resident troll has likely made more atheists than his peers. Oops!

"darkness". Science is emotional but the phenomena investigated are not. In fact, processes do not labor under the religious gods problem of having to be utterly evil to predict the observed world and its predation, diseases, and religious trolls.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (16) Jan 23, 2013
Why is it, that every time there is an article like this, every loon has to toss out their usual crap? Almost every comment here is either useless or displays an almost total lack of knowledge of the scientific method.

Like listening to kindergarden kids explain, well, relativety.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.3 / 5 (17) Jan 23, 2013
Magnus, it tests well the theory of incompetents. Unfortunately.

It is worse than kids, kids are funny and want to learn. These rejects from the brain factory are boring and not interested in science at all, just their own satisfaction of spouting inanities.

@natello: No, very few fields (particles) have been introduced. Mostly it comes of symmetries (laws). Particle physics 101.

Aether was rejected for over a century ago, and is not legible for use. Physics 101.

@indio: Relativity has nothing to do with "retarded waves". Relativity is a property that derives from spacetime, not from its fields.

Relativity has been well tested on all scales, up and above Planck scales thanks to observations on cosmological supernova photons.

And coincidentally relativistic quantum field theory has nothing like "retarded waves".
Antoweif
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2013
Dark matter makes sense. The universe is dark after all.
ValeriaT
2.2 / 5 (15) Jan 23, 2013
By NASA the Universe is beige. Dark matter therefore doesn't make too much sense.
Disprocelite
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 23, 2013
All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered: the point is to dis-cover them:
Drop the classic GR assumtion of double differentiability, introduce scale covariant drivatives accounting for the induced effects and finally one can obtain a formulation, including besides the "Newtonian" potential due to macroscopic space-time curvature an additional "Quantum" potential, due to microscopic space-time fractality (here not meaning self-similarity but divergent for increasing resolutions), which can account for the most of the dark effect. See "Scale relativity and fractal space-time: theory and applications".
IronhorseA
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 23, 2013
Well why was dark matter postulated in the first place?
To save relativity.
The list of unobservable physics is getting pretty long at this point.
When are we going to admit relativity is seriously flawed.


Actually it was to save Newtonian gravity, which is what all of the velocity predictions are base on. Most astronomers are either too lazy or too unfamiliar with General Relativity to apply it directly (not withstanding the computer power needed for even the simplest simulations ) to galaxy sized objects, the assumption being that GR only needs to be trotted out for black holes, etc. However experts in GR theory have done the work, and although not conclusive, do show that the inherent non-linearity in GR might very well explain the velocity differences without needing to resort to dark matter.
rubberman
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2013
Sorry for getting preachy by plugging the what I support in that first post, I'll just stick to calling BS when I see it (and showing why as usual) until all of the videos are out and the paper is written.

That said, i realize the rating system doesn't require a comment to accompany a rating....but i was expecting the "1" ratings to be from knowledgable people who have a physics education and a response...not 3 people who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground....then again, a 1 rating from lite usually means you know what you are talking about.
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2013
Actually it was to save Newtonian gravity, which is what all of the velocity predictions are base on.
On the contrary - the dark matter has been found just with violation of rotational curves of stars inside of galaxies from Newtonian gravity with Oort, Zwicky and others.
Disprocelite
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2013
Yeh, so fellows neen a rubber to cover their very facial a..
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 23, 2013
Didn't the high likelihood of the Higgs Boson put super-symmetry on the back burner?
omerbashich
2.1 / 5 (18) Jan 23, 2013
And then they wonder why people laugh at physicists, disbelieving them increasingly. Physicists should be mocked in fact, daily. Actually, a Bozo(n) the Clown (aka a physicist) and his "theory" should be shot down every minute.

Their crap has started to cost us immensely. Their lunatic "theories" have started metastasizing like a cancer on the society. Who the hell is paying for all this junk?! LHC is the major example of Ridiculous. Finding any Bozo(n)s lately?

In the meantime, on planet Earth where reality holds: "How Wineland & Haroche Stole My Discovery (and got 2012 PHYSICS NOBEL PRIZE for it...)" https://sites.goo...ci#Nobel
eljo
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2013
Well, my two cents:

If the Higgs boson is real, we might no longer need Gravity to explain why objects fall towards each other. Space could be described as a Higgs-fluid through which objects flow', encounter resistance and feel pressure gradients. In that case gravity is just an emergent effect analogous to 'lift' on an airfoil. No gravitons needed.

With objects (or particles) moving in a fluid, you can explain their apparent motions (falling towards each other in a gravity well) with Bernoulli's principles, basic thermodynamic and fluidodynamic principles that show they do this because the pressure in between them being smaller then the pressure pushing outside of the two. Fluidodynamic principles further explain why objects in space are rounded, move in orbits around each other, why lagrange points exist, why orbits are usually in one plain, why galaxies are flat disks, light has that particular speed in a vacuum (refract. index of the Higgsfluid), etc.

Is there a precedent here?
omerbashich
2.1 / 5 (15) Jan 23, 2013
Well, my two cents:

If the Higgs boson is real, we might no longer need Gravity to explain why objects fall towards each other.


Off goes a "theory" which collapses after a single Q: If the Higgs boson "gave mass to everything" (reading the press releases), what "gave mass to Higgs boson" then? A Schmuck's hoson?

So sleep tight: it's not real.
ValeriaT
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 23, 2013
Didn't the high likelihood of the Higgs Boson put super-symmetry on the back burner?

The problem for SUSY is, so far the Higgs boson properties correspond rather pure Standard Model Higgs without any SUSY extensions. If the Higgs boson found would be of considerably lower rest mass, then it would serve as an evidence for SUSY instead.
Space could be described as a Higgs-fluid through which objects flow', encounter resistance and feel pressure gradients.
Maybe it could, but nobody does it from apparent reason - Higgs field doesn't behave like the fluid, even in context of dense aether model. The Higgs field doesn't exhibit viscosity or pressure gradients. The heavy objects are moving trough vacuum without friction in similar way, like the lightweight ones: the viscosity of vacuum isn't apparently connected to particle mass.
kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (15) Jan 23, 2013
@dogbert It is also somewhat sad that so much time, effort and resources are being diverted into seeking imaginary matter.
Imaginary matter is known as SPACE
indio007
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2013
Relativity isn't even very good on a short scale... i.e. no retarded gravity waves.


That's just flat out ignorance on your part.


Gravitational effects travel at the speed of light no?
If they do, the effects of gravity must be retarded in time, the same as electromagnetic waves.

So tell me what exactly am I ignorant of. I'd like to hear it.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (12) Jan 23, 2013
Gravitational effects travel at the speed of light no?

We don't really know. As of yet no experiment has directly detected a gravitational wave (though indirect evidence exists in the form of decay of the orbits of the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar)

Relativity would predict a speed of light - but prediction isn't measurement. The enhanced LIGO experiment may be able to tell, soon.
NikFromNYC
2.3 / 5 (16) Jan 23, 2013
The idea that dark matter is all hiding in far away nooks and crannies seems odd since if it's 80% of matter in our own galaxy then might it be expected to be all around us and if so then rather trivial to detect due to its massive inertial mass? It just seems silly that physical particles would pull normal matter into galaxies and then somehow avoid instead of cling to things like rocks.
dogbert
2.5 / 5 (16) Jan 23, 2013
rkolter,
My issue with your statement is the assumption that Dark Matter is in fact a fantasy. I agree Dark Matter sounds like a kludge, but to dismiss a theory based on something as etheral as a feeling is not science.


Dark Matter is not a theory. It was simply created from nothing to explain the failure of our observations to match our models.

To refute a theory that does explain current observations, you should have some kind of conflicting evidence.


There is not theory which explains the current observations, therefore, there is no need to produce conflicting evidence. The supposed existence of dark matter is simply that our observations do not match our models. There is absolutely nothing at all which indicates the existence of dark matter.

If 80% of the mass of the universe were actually dark matter, don't you think some of it would be in the neighborhood of our solar system? What exclusionary principle keeps all of it out of our neighborhood?
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 23, 2013
Continued ...

Our models fail only at stellar distances. They work fine in our solar system. Again, why is no dark matter found in our solar system?

Because dark matter is simply made up. It is a fantasy. This does not mean that there is no invisible matter. It means that we have no reason to suppose that dark matter is the solution to the fact that our observations on stellar scales do not match our models.
Phil DePayne
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 23, 2013
The theory is a random shot in the dark (matter).
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (16) Jan 23, 2013
So, the gravitas of the matter then is that it's not what goes into the mouth that, well, matters, but rather it's the darkness that is brought forth from deep within the heart that, well, matters. Pun[s] fully intended.
Ahaahaaa kevin thinks physics can be done with the heart. No kevin your god gave us brains for this purpose. What a tard.
Tri-ring
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2013

But of course you have a much better theory, right? Let's hear it oh enlightened one.


How about this if you incorporate string theory in which there are 12 demensions for the string to viberate to explain all. What happens if there are certain strings that completely does not interact with our 3 demensions.
Think it as music, each demension is a certain sound pitch and the viberation of the string composes music, there can be music without using any of the three sound pitches making them not detectable nor interact within our three demensional space.
NeptuneAD
3 / 5 (6) Jan 23, 2013
Nice article, even if it does turn out to go nowhere, at least he is trying to find answers, unlike natello who prefers to spew dark matter out every time he comments.
theon
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2013
It is very good that this old standard idea is so strongly driven over the top. The WIMP idea has been to often been found futile, so just call it "revolutionary" before it is truly dead. As is SuSy, as is CDM. Another step in the right direction, the Galaxy does not sustain CDM. We'll get there, DM without "C". My compliments.
Whydening Gyre
1.6 / 5 (14) Jan 23, 2013
...then again, a 1 rating from lite usually means you know what you are talking about.

If looked at that way - since lite has made a point of "1"ing EVERY comment I've made - I must be a genius...
by the way - if anyone is interested, I have a suspicion who lite is a sock puppet for...
yep
1.8 / 5 (16) Jan 24, 2013
With the Electric Universe theory 99% of the Universe is Plasma we do not need Big Bang, Black Holes, or Dark Matter. Even the gamma rays from the center no longer confuse us as electric discharge phenomenon have been studied in labs for over a hundred years.
JIMBO
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2013
This guy is one of the Thousands of SUSY theorists who are still in Denial since LHC gutted ~80% of the MSSM sparticle parameter space. Nothing, nada was found, & they need to WakeUp & smell the coffee. One can say w/a great deal of confidence that SUSY is on `life support'. Still they keep believing, like cultists !
Worse still, it was shown several years ago that single gravitons cannot even be detected in principle, thus gravitinos are even more unreal. Gravitinos are the offspring of Supergravity, which was buried in the early `80s, as it is non-renormalizable.
Egleton
1.9 / 5 (18) Jan 24, 2013
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
I think that is my cue.
(Rushes in, arms flailing wildly)
How do we Know that the yardstick that we use to measure the size and distances of the cosmos is calibrated correctly? Could the redshift be explained by light losing energy in its long journey?
Paul Marmet thought so.
http://www.newton...hor.html
Ramael
3 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2013
Are we still hung up on this super symmetry crap? Doesn't the higgs boson illustrate a much cleaner interpretation of mass, matter and energy that doesn't involve gravitons? This all sounds kind of silly to me.
What about negative temperature, and how even normal baryonic atoms exhibit dark energy like characteristics? What about the fact that gluons make gluons, and that all particle collisions that we've observed form baryonic particles from other baryonic particles, but none are stable candidates for dark matter. I don't think we're going to understand the nature of dark matter until we can address question's like "how did the em force emerge and why doesn't dark matter interact with it?" It's not a characteristic of space. It's a characteristic of particles. Clearly dark matter isn't baryonic.
And I think we need to stop pandering the idea that the big bang was the beginning, rather than a cosmic scale phase change. Antimatter asymmetry indicates a longer and more complex process
Whydening Gyre
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2013
What about negative temperature, and how even normal baryonic atoms exhibit dark energy like characteristics? What about the fact that gluons make gluons, and that all particle collisions that we've observed form baryonic particles from other baryonic particles, but none are stable candidates for dark matter. I don't think we're going to understand the nature of dark matter until we can address question's like "how did the em force emerge and why doesn't dark matter interact with it?" It's not a characteristic of space. It's a characteristic of particles. Clearly dark matter isn't baryonic. And I think we need to stop pandering the idea that the big bang was the beginning, rather than a cosmic scale phase change. Antimatter asymmetry indicates a longer and more complex process.

Perfectly put...
Disprocelite
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2013
In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.
I'm still asstonished, when arlequinos perdue in serving again and again cold capuchinos.
Have any of the kind minds out there ever taken a closer look to the theory of Scale Relativity, and explained why it appears to work so well, where others fail.
Job001
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2013
How do we Know that the yardstick that we use to measure the size and distances of the cosmos is calibrated correctly? Could the redshift be explained by light losing energy in its long journey?
Paul Marmet thought so.
http://www.newton...hor.html

Good reference! History and statistics show both sides of vociferous disagreement suffer from bias and illusion. In this case, both astrophysicists and physicists suffer under some of the same weak assumptions. For instance, Occam's razor disallows complexity beyond ones data, all the while ignoring the experimental residual which proves more complexity exists than the new model explains.
Astrophysics assumptions of red shift solely caused by receding velocity, ignores relativistic, radial expansion and gravitational effects. Physicists also clamor that their model is correct in spite of their theory being incomplete.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2013
In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

While this is true, jumping from there to the conclusion that therefore every heretic is just an unsung genius is logical fallacy.
Job001
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2013
Have any of the kind minds out there ever taken a closer look to the theory of Scale Relativity, and explained why it appears to work so well, where others fail?

Einstein insisted adjustments be made so all observers come to the same conclusion. Thus scale relativity adjusts for the observer that science practice has often ignored. Wherever possible dimensionless ratios eliminate confusion.
See the excellent work by Planck to eliminate anthropomorphic units like feet, pounds, days and use Plank length, mass, charge, temperature and time. http://en.wikiped...k_units. The history of Planck units is interesting and may help explain your question.
Disprocelite
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2013
In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.

While this is true, jumping from there to the conclusion that therefore every heretic is just an unsung genius is logical fallacy.


So, this is it? Why Mr Raklev's ideas don't make him an heretic then? Do I smell prejudice here, or is there recent reason involved? I have more interest in a probably risky theory, but developed on sound general first principles, which succeeds in unifying elegantly GR & QM and then provides also an explanation for the dark stuff, imagined by others to fill a huge gap, instead of a another ad hoc imagined ino, devised with the unique aim to close that ugly gap.

By the way, Smolin himself insisted in his conclusion of "the trouble with physics" that probably there are implict assumptions, which have to be dropped to make new progress possible. What are you waiting for guys? Dare!
GSwift7
3 / 5 (14) Jan 24, 2013
So far we have only seen noise. But one of the research groups claim they have observed a small, suspicious surplus of gamma rays from the centre of our galaxy. Their observations may fit our models


He is claiming that his theory is testable by observing surplus gamma rays. That assumes there is no other possible explanation for surplus gamma rays.

Personally, I think the solution to our 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' questions lie in the interaction between mass and time. He is talking about gravity as an actual force, but as I understand it, gravity is a virtual force that arises only as a consequence of distortion of time. There is a huge difference between the two concepts. With gravity as an actual force, it would have a measurable propagation speed that cannot excede the speed of light. As I understand it, gravity is instantaneous. It seems like there should be ways to confirm or deny this by careful observations.

I'm not buying what the guy above is selling.
Wolffy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2013
In the 1970s, electromagnetism was unified with the strong and weak nuclear forces in what physicists call the standard model. The fourth force of nature is gravity.

I though Gravity was in reality 'warping of space' and not a force.

I guess it depends if you think like Newton or Einstein.
GSwift7
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 24, 2013
Dark Matter is not a theory. It was simply created from nothing to explain the failure of our observations to match our models


Actually, dark matter is just a coined term. The theory it comes from is the theory of General Relativity. Based on our observations, GR predicts the presence of a lot more mass than we observe. So dark matter is not a theory, it is a prediction of GR. If we do eventually find a source for the unseen mass, it would be a huge success for the predictive skill of GR.
ValeriaT
2.4 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2013
dark matter is not a theory, it is a prediction of GR
It isn't - in particular it violates the equivalence principle of GR. Which is why the physicists are developing the new theories for it like this one above after all.
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (10) Jan 24, 2013
Best I can figure is; the researcher is seeking "antigravity" gravitnos to explain gravity, right? Since our observed universe is expanding ever more rapidly, it appears he has chosen that as his most logical explanation- his "theory"...
T me, it's kinda like asking why does time seem to go faster, the older you get. Just my opinion, tho...
Anda
3 / 5 (4) Jan 24, 2013
Just read the first page, can't stand more nonsense.
Nobody seems to know what we are talking about.
This article is based on string theory and gravitons, in opposition to standard model and higgs particle (not yet confirmed).
ValeriaT
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 24, 2013
This article is based on string theory and gravitons, in opposition to standard model and higgs particle
This article has nothing about string theory a and gravitons. SUSY is not about string theory (actually it was applied to QED first and it's used in Standard Model too). And gravitinos aren't gravitons.
yash17
1 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2013
"Astrophysicists have known for the last 80 years that most of the universe consists of an unknown, dark matter. The solution to the mystery may now be just around the corner."

"Even though dark matter is invisible, astrophysicists know it exists. Without this dark matter it is impossible to explain how the visible things in the universe hang together."

I expect dark matter is particles of compressed atom structure matter. That is when in atoms, electrons and protons/neutrons get compressed together to become extremely small. In cosmos, dark matters fleet at extremely high speed. DM can convert into standard matter, when it get pressure drop, temperature drop and speed drop.
GSwift7
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2013
Gyre:

Best I can figure is; the researcher is seeking "antigravity" gravitnos to explain gravity, right? Since our observed universe is expanding ever more rapidly


This article is not addressing the increasing expansion at all. Dark energy is an entirely different subject than dark matter. It is unfortunate that the name 'dark energy' stuck like it did. It isn't a very good name, and it confuses people into thinking that dark matter and dark energy are related, or the same thing. The Big Bang is another unfortunate choice of name, which leads to much confusion among most people.
GSwift7
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2013
Natello:

Dark matter is very sparse stuff, which surrounds massive objects and which exhibits weak deceleration and gravitational lensing effects. It cannot be composed of compressed atoms or electrons, because it's density is just a few milligrams per cubic kilometer.


You can't say that with certainty. You are most likely correct, and that is the concensus assumption, but it could still be widely spread point sources of high mass.

I still say that it is too early to rule out the possibility of some unknown effect that looks like mass but isn't mass. When I say 'looks like mass', I mean from our frame of reference. I think it is still possible that we have not reached the full implications of GR on large scales.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2013
Valeria:

It isn't - in particular it violates the equivalence principle of GR. Which is why the physicists are developing the new theories for it like this one above after all


Where do you come up with this crap? As usual, you are way wrong. That doesn't make any sense at all. What does dark matter have to do with the equivelance of acceleration due to gravity being indistinguishable from uniform acceleration? Maybe you are confused about what the equivalence principle is?

The idea that there must be more mass than what we can see comes directly from the calculated forces of gravity given by GR equations. You have it backwards. If there is dark matter in the quantity we suspect, then it would confirm that prediction of GR. If we do not find some source of mass/gravity, then THAT would conflict with the predictions of GR.

BTW, we are still trying to either prove or disprove the equivalence principle, though we have managed to test with very high precision.
ant_oacute_nio354
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 26, 2013
All modern physics based on abstract mathematics is wrong!
Antonio Saraiva
ant_oacute_nio354
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 26, 2013
All modern physics based on abstract mathematics is wrong.
Dark matter are muon neutrinos.

Antonio Saraiva
ValeriaT
1.9 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2013
You can't say that with certainty. You are most likely correct, and that is the concensus assumption, but it could still be widely spread point sources of high mass.
So there is a Randall-Sundrum's theory of micro-black holes composition of dark matter. I even consider this theory relevant, because the physicists didn't realize, that these micro-black holes are actually quite common atom nuclei, which are routinely formed during LHC experiments. The heavily ionized atom nuclei may form a substantial portion of dark matter. Are they composed of compressed electrons? Technically yes, if we consider, that the neutron is formed with compression of electrons into protons...
ValeriaT
2 / 5 (9) Jan 26, 2013
Dark matter are muon neutrinos.
Why not electron ones? The dark matter could be formed with mixture of many particles, which are actually known already. For example, we cannot detect the neutrinos with energy bellow 0,25 MeV - but such a neutrinos could form very huge portion of dark matter.
GuruShabu
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 26, 2013
"Even though dark matter is invisible, astrophysicists know it exists. ""
This is misinformation.
Nobody, "knows" DM is simply a ad hoc hypothesis to explain something that present astrophysics cannot explain.
Unfortunately, this sort of article states bluntly something that is not true - the accepted and PROVED existence of DM. As a consequence we can find "maps of dark matter" and other non-sense presented without the scientific care of duty to mention it is ONLY a theory.
ValeriaT
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2013
..this sort of article states bluntly something that is not true - the accepted and PROVED existence of DM..
This is the least problem of the said theory. With compare to SUSY, existence of gravitons and gravitinos the existence of DM has a good phenomenological support. Now I'm talking about DM like about common denomination of collection of phenomena found with Oort, Zwicky and later astronomers, which present astrophysics cannot explain - not like about particle matter, composed of single or at least well defined kind of particles - which is just a speculation.
ValeriaT
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 26, 2013
The existing observations indicate rather clearly, that the dark matter effect is composed of "cold", "warm" and "hot" dark matter components, which exhibit different properties. So we can say quite reliably, every theory, which considers the dark matter as a homogeneous concept is predestined to failure - no matter which concept it actually is. It's a common problem of all modifications of general relativity (MOND, TeVeS), which describe rather the "cold dark matter", both theories based on existence of unknown-yet massive particles (scalar field, quintessence, mirror matter, axions, inflatons, heavy photons, fat strings, sterile neutrinos, chameleon particles, dark fluid and dark baryons, fotinos, gravitinos and WIMPs, SIMPs, MACHOs, RAMBOs, DAEMONs or microscopic black holes). The particle models describe the aspects of "hot dark matter" better ("Bullet cluster") - but they will fail in predictions of cold dark matter properties instead.
DavidW
1 / 5 (8) Jan 27, 2013
GSwift7,
wow!

Where do you come up with this crap? As usual, you are way wrong.


She can't be wrong. She will be who she is, not as how you attempt to define her or label her.

Maybe you are confused about what the equivalence principle is?


None of us can change the past. We are all equal and important, per the truth. Attempting to define another is attempting to place oneself above the truth.

This is not semantics. This is truthful reality. In your attempt to define her as wrong, you attempt to define everyone, including yourself, as wrong. The truth says life is most important.

Seems to me you require some sit down time quite time in the corner to review truthful reality. Our potential importance is limitless, so long as we don't attempt to place ourselves above what gives us this importance: the truth. You are not wrong, you have said something wrong. There is a difference. One is a lie and one is the truth.
rah
1 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2013
So the gravitinos are dark matter!! IF, supersymmetry exists, and IF gravitons exist, and if gravitinos decay after 15 billion years, then the math proves it!
Horus
4 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2013
These elaborate tales in support of fantasy matter are almost entertaining. It is also somewhat sad that so much time, effort and resources are being diverted into seeking imaginary matter.


Relative to the energy consumed and wasted on the fantasy of Religion this equates to about an electron's worth.
Whydening Gyre
1.5 / 5 (16) Jan 27, 2013
I think we all except E=mc2 as a truth(for the most part). However, since it does not work in ALL conditions, we ask why and seek clarification.
Einstein knew that he could NOT put an actual value to m or c or that act would be an inaccurate statement. So, he just hinted at the value of c by putting a limit (speed of light) on one probable constant (c).
I also think he suspected that Phi was the MOST probable value for c. But he died before he either found out or maybe he just KNEW that eventually other people would figure it out - or not. They'e gonna just keep looking, anyway...
Personally, I think Einstein would have made the greatest comic in the world...
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (16) Jan 27, 2013
"Without this dark matter it is impossible to explain how the visible things in the universe hang together."

The only real impossibility is to remove people from their dogma. It should read;
"Without this dark matter it is impossible to explain how the visible things in the universe hang together BY USING GRAVITY AS THE ONLY FORCE THAT ACTS OVER LONG DISTANCES."

By simply considering how EM forces control the plasma that pervades all of nearly everything, the need of inventing fudge factors (DM) will cease to exist. It's EM forces that dominates the organization of matter in our Universe, not gravity.

Q-Star
3 / 5 (19) Jan 27, 2013
I think we all except E=mc2 as a truth(for the most part). However, since it does not work in ALL conditions, we ask why and seek clarification.


Au contraire, it most certainly does work in ALL conditions tested so far, without exception. As long as you understand the actual meaning of it. (Someone who doesn't know that hydrogen in its most common form has no neutron probably doesn't know the actual meaning of E= mc^2)

Einstein knew that he could NOT put an actual value to m or c or that act would be an inaccurate statement. So, he just hinted at the value of c by putting a limit (speed of light) on one probable constant (c).


Why do you think Einstein thought such a thing? He hinted at nothing. His equations are quite emphatic and unambiguous.

I also think he suspected that Phi was the MOST probable value for c.


Why do you think that? What is the value of Phi as applied to the speed of light? The constant c has never been found to vary, ever.
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (15) Jan 27, 2013
Is Benni stamping his foot and pouting? "That mean ol Q-star hurt my feeling so I'm going to call him a big fat one."

Or does he also think that Einstein thought that E=mc^2 only sometimes? Or is it that he also thinks that Einstein had second thoughts about using c as a symbol for light speed and thought Phi would be a better symbol?

My guess is he got his feeling hurt and is pouting.
Whydening Gyre
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 27, 2013
show me how it works with 0 as m and/or c
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2013
Au contraire, it most certainly does work in ALL conditions tested so far, without exception. As long as you understand the actual meaning of it. (Someone who doesn't know that hydrogen in its most common form has no neutron probably doesn't know the actual meaning of E= mc^2)

Why do you think Einstein thought such a thing? He hinted at nothing. His equations are quite emphatic and unambiguous.


What is this? A sudden conversion on your part of Einstein's commentary on "infinity"? You trash Einstein in another post, but accept his GR here by defending criticisms of E=mc^2. Or maybe you're not aware that this equation precludes any pretense of infinity in relation to the Structure of the Universe.

I almost never vote the star rankings, but if you wannabe a scientist, you need to strive for a consistent mindset or you'll never make the grade.

Q-Star
3 / 5 (16) Jan 27, 2013
What is this? A sudden conversion on your part of Einstein's commentary on "infinity"? You trash Einstein in another post, but accept his GR here by defending criticisms of E=mc^2. Or maybe you're not aware that this equation precludes any pretense of infinity in relation to the Structure of the Universe.

I almost never vote the star rankings, but if you wannabe a scientist, you need to strive for a consistent mindset or you'll never make the grade.


You must have me mixed up with someone else. I am one of SR & GR biggest and most devote proponents. GR is one of the best tested items in the entire history of physics. You really must have me mixed up with someone else.

Einstein got a few things wrong. Everyone does does. They were minor things,,,, he got the big things right as far as anyone has been able to test.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (16) Jan 27, 2013
What is this? A sudden conversion on your part of Einstein's commentary on "infinity"?


I have never proposed an infinite universe. It's beyond our present state of knowledge to have a certainty one way or another. I tend to "think" that it is finite, but I have no evidence that it is.

You trash Einstein in another post, but accept his GR here by defending criticisms of E=mc^2. Or maybe you're not aware that this equation precludes any pretense of infinity in relation to the Structure of the Universe.


You seem to have a reading disorder. I agree with E=mc^2 and don't pretend to think the universe is infinite, I am in the finite camp, and always have been.

I almost never vote the star rankings, but if you wannabe a scientist, you need to strive for a consistent mindset or you'll never make the grade.


Until you complete a "See Dick & Spot Run" book on basic reading comprehension, I'll take your 1's as a vote of confidence. Thanks for your support.
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (17) Jan 27, 2013
show me how it works with 0 as m and/or c


First you have to be able to explain what the hell that question means?

It works quite well with m and with c. Why would anyone use a 0 value in either the place of E or m? c is a constant, you never change the value of c. (Psssst, that why they call it a CONSTANT.))

Are you under the impression there are some things that get put into the equation that have a value of 0? If so, then you are truly uninformed as to what the equation is, and what it is used for.
Whydening Gyre
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 27, 2013
Au contraire, it most certainly does work in ALL conditions tested so far, without exception. As long as you understand the actual meaning of it.

If you consider it to "work" with 1 or 0 - it will not match the scientific observation of "Energy" output ratio and therefore thrown out as not relevant.

(Someone who doesn't know that hydrogen in its most common form has no neutron probably doesn't know the actual meaning of E= mc^2)

One does not need to know the value of anything beyond that EVERYTHING is relative, including - relativity.
If you can't wrap your head around that - knowing the true meaning of relativity is beyond you.
His equations are quite emphatic and unambiguous.


Your descriptors cancel eachother out. Poor choices.
What is the value of Phi as applied to the speed of light?

Phi is as irrational a number as Pi. I could not even begin to tell you a value. Nor could anyone - not even the much vaunted Q.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (16) Jan 27, 2013
If you consider it to "work" with 1 or 0 - it will not match the scientific observation of "Energy" output ratio and therefore thrown out as not relevant.


Physical formulas deal with quantities,, you know things WITH units. As in c = 299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum. m would need some units also, most often give in eV or kg. E will use units

One does not need to know the value of anything beyond that EVERYTHING is relative, including - relativity.
If you can't wrap your head around that - knowing the true meaning of relativity is beyond you.


We are taking physics, not philosophy. You don't know the meaning of relativity as applied to physics.

What is the value of Phi as applied to the speed of light?
Phi is as irrational a number as Pi.

So you think 299,792,458 m/s not as close to c as 1.6180339887498948482...,,, well sir, I commend you on a brand new definition of light speed. (Oh that's right, you think Einstein thought it a better value too.)
Whydening Gyre
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 27, 2013
As to the "constant" of the speed of light.
Because we have not yet observed it, it does not necessarily imply or mean it has not been subject to change.
Light (photons) are created as a result of baryonic interactions (. Once created the photon appears to be instantly accelerated to light speed - making that speed it's "1" state.
Was it's transition from 0 to speed of light instantaneous? If so, that means it's acceleration time was actually completed during the time it took for those baryonic particles to interact.

You appear to wish to niggle over semantics or snippets of someones comments - always out of the broader context of what was intended, in an attempt to appear more knowledgeable.
All I can answer to that is - stop fearing imagination. It's what brought ALL of us here to this place in time to do the things we are doing.
Even Einstein said - imagination is MORE important than knowledge.
John Lennon just said - do it...:-)
I know, I know... stop giving away the secret...
Q-Star
3 / 5 (16) Jan 27, 2013
As to the "constant" of the speed of light.
Because we have not yet observed it, it does not necessarily imply or mean it has not been subject to change.
Light (photons) are created as a result of baryonic interactions (. Once created the photon appears to be instantly accelerated to light speed - making that speed it's "1" state.
Was it's transition from 0 to speed of light instantaneous? If so, that means it's acceleration time was actually completed during the time it took for those baryonic particles to interact.


Are you on drugs and think that actually means something? Or are you fond of jargon without actually caring which words you are throwing together?

(Or maybe this is just another of your forum "experiments"?)

Whydening Gyre
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 27, 2013
c is a constant, you never change the value of c. (Psssst, that why they call it a CONSTANT.))

Pssst - by using a letter, instead of a numeric value, CONSTANT could be what ever you choose.
Man, you need to crawl out of that box you've locked yourself in, once in a while. It would be healthier for your head.
Think Garrett Lisi...
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 27, 2013
Pssst - by using a letter, instead of a numeric value, CONSTANT could be what ever you choose.
Man, you need to crawl out of that box you've locked yourself in, once in a while. It would be healthier for your head.


Thank you but this box I'm in provides me with food, shelter and never ending wonders. (A very nice standard of living to boot.)

Think Garrett Lisi...


He may smart, but not smart enough to keep a job.

I have a paying position at a major institution of higher learning, so I'll pass on thinking like him.
Whydening Gyre
1.4 / 5 (13) Jan 27, 2013
Thank you but this box I'm in provides me with food, shelter and never ending wonders. (A very nice standard of living to boot.)

Okay. I accept that (maybe a little jealous of the never ending wonders part...) and it makes me truly happy for you.

Think Garrett Lisi...
He may smart, but not smart enough to keep a job.

Maybe he is just at a place in his life that he does not feel he needs one.

I have a paying position at a major institution of higher learning, so I'll pass on thinking like him.
Actually, did not intend to put you on defense like that. my apologies.
I accept that I may not be as well informed as you. In return, I ask that you please refrain from making disdainful remarks in regards to that possibility.
I believe it is best just to accept that I start out everything I do from a slightly left of center (left handed, go figure...). Different, relative to your point of view...
It should be relatively easy to relate to that...:-)
tkjtkj
2 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2013
Re: Kevinrtrs : who said:
'To misquote liberally : "Who knows what darkness lies in the hearts of men? Only the Shadow knows".
Had to really dig this one up from the deep of the past. But does it matter?


Well, i vote yes indeed! For if all things are possible, so it is for humor, a gazillion times over ...
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (17) Jan 27, 2013
Okay. I accept that (maybe a little jealous of the never ending wonders part...) and it makes me truly happy for you.


Science requires hard work, discipline and much time, the harder you work at it, the greater the wonders. It's not done with an unrestrained undisciplined randomly focused mind. That's philosophy.

Maybe he is just at a place in his life that he does not feel he needs one.


Pandering to the gullible on cable TV seems to give him plenty of satisfaction.

Actually, did not intend to put you on defense like that. my apologies.


On the defense? Why would I feel I needed to be on the defense? You've yet offer the slightest thing that I could find threatening.

I believe it is best just to accept that I start out everything I do from a slightly left of center (left handed, go figure...).


Left of center? Before you were mistaken, thinking this is a philosophy site, now it's a political forum? You seem to have lost your way,,, again.
Whydening Gyre
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 27, 2013
Q.
Left of center? Before you were mistaken, thinking this is a philosophy site, now it's a political forum? You seem to have lost your way,,, again.
Who mentioned anything about Politics?!?
Okay, Yoda. I assume you are an academic in your comfortable position at your institution. My bad if I assumed incorrectly.
I am an artist, self employed. Also make a decent living.
You pursue beauty in the facts. I pursue facts in the beauty.
What makes us different? Our POV of course.
Now. Back to the Article. The term "Theory" is tossed about too lightly on this site. This article describes an educated speculation on a possible explanation of/for DM - NOT a theory. It has not been "proven" by anything other than "A-priori" speculation.
Is there any other research along similar lines? If so, would someone please point me in that direction.
Neinsense99
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2013
Battlestar fans will tell you that the galaxy is held together by the gravitas of Edward James Olmos (Admiral Adama)
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (8) Jan 28, 2013
It's not done with an unrestrained undisciplined randomly focused mind. That's philosophy.

Only the "drunk guy at the bar"-type philosophy. Reading some philosophers' works (Nietzsche, Hegel, Kant, Wittgenstein, Feuerbach, et al) you'll find that they're pretty hardcore in terms of mental discipline. I once picked up a work of Schopenhauer - the guy makes (well constructed and logical) run-on arguments pages long.
(Ultimately not stuff I agree with, but there's no denying that the guy did some SERIOUS and structured thinking.)

People with an "unrestrained undisciplined randomly focused mind" are basically useless - especially in science. The only thing they may be able to do is "art" (since there's no real minimum quality requirement to what you can call "art").
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Jan 28, 2013
Einstein got a few things wrong.


Like what?

swordsman
1 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2013
Space has known, measurable electromagnetic properties, which supports the concept of a dark matter permeating the universe. One must also consider the possibility that it is may not be of a particulate nature.
GSwift7
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 28, 2013
Isn't it funny how the alternative physics theory articles bring out the strangest posters?

I think it's even worse than the threads on climate or evolution.

I see a few new names, but they sound an aweful lot like some of the old ones. Some of the stuff here is so whacky that I can't help but hope it's just some guy trolling for some laughs.

Even the original story is really far fetched, as Rah and others have pointed out already. The original article is a house of cards built on a table made of cards inside an even larger house of cards.

As I pointed out earlier, the idea of gravity as an actual force means you are rejecting General Relativity. Quantum physics geeks get carried away with thinking of everything as a particle sometimes. Just because it makes the math easier doesn't mean that there is an analog for it in real life.

As for photons accelerating, they aren't particles. As I said, don't confuse terminology with reality.
GSwift7
2.8 / 5 (14) Jan 28, 2013
Einstein got a few things wrong.

Like what?


Well, for one thing, he didn't realize how accurate GR actually is. He was cautious about taking the implications of GR litterally in regard to things like black holes and such.

In his memiors he says that the biggest scientific mistake he ever made (and latter corrected) was his initial assumption of a static Universe. After others pointed it out, it seemed so obvious that it can't be static. He felt like a dolt for not realizing it for himself.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Jan 28, 2013
Who mentioned anything about Politics?!?


The term "left of center" is political term. It refers to those seated on the left side of the chamber.

I am an artist, self employed. Also make a decent living.
You pursue beauty in the facts. I pursue facts in the beauty.
What makes us different?


There is no artistry in facts, they are what they are.

This article describes an educated speculation on a possible explanation of/for DM - NOT a theory. It has not been "proven" by anything other than "A-priori" speculation.


My comments were not on the validity of views expressed in the article. My comment was addressing the silly notion that Einstein thought that light speed c, was a variable phenomenon. That c is a variable quantity. That E = mc^2 gives inconsistent results.

Artistic license in science produces the same product as artistic license in history,,,, a falsehood.

You practice the weakest sort of philosophy,,, sophistry,, and not very well at that.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 28, 2013
Einstein got a few things wrong.

Like what?


Well, for one thing, he didn't realize how accurate GR actually is. He was cautious about taking the implications of GR litterally in regard to things like black holes and such.

In his memiors he says that the biggest scientific mistake he ever made (and latter corrected) was his initial assumption of a static Universe. After others pointed it out, it seemed so obvious that it can't be static. He felt like a dolt for not realizing it for himself.

You're "kind of right", but then there's the rest of the story, that being that when he did the math before publishing his 1916 GR, he actually did come up with the Cosmological Constant. His mistake was that under pressure of his "static universe" peers, he dropped publishing it with the 1916 edition of his GR, and that was his "greatest blunder", he reinserted it in his revised 1924 publication when Hubble's observations proved him correct in the first place.
GSwift7
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2013
conservative assumption of steady state Universe


Be careful not to confuse the terms "steady state universe" and "static Universe".

Steady state usually referes to a sort of perpetual big bang, where the universe is constantly being created.

http://http://en.wikiped...e_theory

when he did the math before publishing his 1916 GR, he actually did come up with the Cosmological Constant. His mistake was that under pressure of his "static universe" peers, he dropped publishing it with the 1916 edition of his GR


Actually that's backwards. I was right. See my second link regarding the Static Universe. He erroneously added a cosmological constant to force it to be static. He did not change it to be an expanding model till after Hubble.

GSwift7
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 28, 2013
Doh, when I edited my post, it deleted my second link. Here's the link to the Static Univese wiki:

http://en.wikiped...universe

and that was his "greatest blunder", he reinserted it in his revised 1924 publication when Hubble's observations proved him correct in the first place


No, his original cosmological constant was a fixed solution to the problem that forced it to be static. He didn't 'reinsert' anything. He adjusted it up to match Hubble's observations. When Einstein first did his model, it should have been an unknown and unconstrained variable, not a constant. He made it a constant that fit a static universe model. If it was lower than the value he selected, the universe would one day collapse. A value larger than he selected leads to an ever expanding universe. There's nothing at all to explain the accelerating universe we think we observe today. No value of the cosmological constant fits that.
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 28, 2013
Steady state usually refers to a sort of perpetual big bang, where the universe is constantly being created.
For example the system of many tiny big bangs which runs like the quasars all around us. Such an universe must disappear again somewhere. From human perspective it's equivalent with static universe, because even in static universe the matter is converted into radiation and back again.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 28, 2013
No, his original cosmological constant was a fixed solution to the problem that forced it to be static. He didn't 'reinsert' anything. He adjusted it up to match Hubble's observations. When Einstein first did his model, it should have been an unknown and unconstrained variable, not a constant. He made it a constant that fit a static universe model. If it was lower than the value he selected, the universe would one day collapse. A value larger than he selected leads to an ever expanding universe. There's nothing at all to explain the accelerating universe we think we observe today. No value of the cosmological constant fits that.


OK, that's a better explanation, I was just trying to recall some off the cuff history without getting into a long litany of details surrounding it.
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (11) Jan 28, 2013
So now we are making up a new particle, the gravitino, because we need a partner for another particle we have made up, the graviton, which is necessary to explain gravity, which was also made up once upon a time - it doesn't exist! See "The Situation of Gravity".
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (10) Jan 29, 2013
This article describes an educated speculation on a possible explanation of/for DM - NOT a theory. It has not been "proven" by anything other than "A-priori" speculation.


My comments were not on the validity of views expressed in the article. My comment was addressing the silly notion that Einstein thought that light speed c, was a variable phenomenon.

Get over yourself, "Professor". My statement was on the article, NOT your previous comments.
And 1 more question - C (speed of light) has no acceleration phase?
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (15) Jan 29, 2013
And 1 more question - C (speed of light) has no acceleration phase?


No it has no acceleration phase. You are mixing up your measurements. Speed is one thing, acceleration is something different. It would be like trying to measure temperature in units of meters, it doesn't work that way. The speed of light in a vacuum (c) is what it is. It's a single number, not a range of numbers. It is defined as Its value is 299,792,458 meters per second. No more, no less.

Nothing can surpass that speed. As far as we know, the only thing that attains that speed is the photon. A massless particle which comes into existence at that speed, and goes out of existence at that speed. The only other particle that may have that property is the "theoretical" graviton.

This really is high school physics. If you state things incorrectly, it's not the fault of the person who notices, it's your fault for not reading more and assuming you don't need to.
GSwift7
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2013
And 1 more question - C (speed of light) has no acceleration phase?


If you're talking about a particle moving near the speed of light, then yes, it must have been accelerated.

If you are talking about the speed of propogation of electromagnetism, then no, it does not accelerate. It is a wave-front, not a particle. Acceleration only applies to something with mass/momentum/inertia. A wave-front does not have those properties. Conversely, you cannot apply a force to a wave.

This really is high school physics.


To be fair, the reason there's no acceleration of an EM wave is a little beyond most high school studies. Although it can be reasoned out using only the topics covered in a HS physics class, I think it requires mastery of several basic concepts in order to understand how to reason it out. Unfortunately, this is beyond the level of most HS physics students. I would expect the average STEM college freshman to be at this level though.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2013
To be fair, the reason there's no acceleration of an EM wave is a little beyond most high school studies. Although it can be reasoned out using only the topics covered in a HS physics class, I think it requires mastery of several basic concepts in order to understand how to reason it out. Unfortunately, this is beyond the level of most HS physics students. I would expect the average STEM college freshman to be at this level though.


What you say is entirely correct. In the "high school physics" thing, I was referring to the fact that the other poster was assuming:

1) c is a variable quantity.
2) That acceleration is the same as speed.
3) That Einstein for some reason thought that a dimensionless number (Phi) was the better quantity for the speed of light.
4) That everyone would agree that the speed of light in a vacuum changes from time to time.
5) That the meaning of relativity as used in physics means, everything is relative as used in philosophy.
6) Etc.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2013
The difference between a true particle and a true wave is a very interesting topic though. This is the very heart of the disconnect between General Relativity and Quantum Theory. I suppose that a QT student might tell you that a photon MUST accelerate, because they tend to treat a photon as a particle with zero mass. I'm not a QT guru but as I understand it, I guess they might say the acceleration happens in the time span of a single Planck unit of time? But then again, they would also say that the actual location of the photon is spread out over time and space, so the exact rate of acceleration is an average and impossible to know with exact precision?

In the context of dark matter theory, I don't think it is useful to view electromagnetism as a particle effect, with actual particles that transmit force. I think this is one of those concepts that works in math but doesn't have a real world analog.
GSwift7
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2013
Heck, in the world of Quantum Theory, the speed of light is, as they say in Pirates of the Carribbean, "More of a guideline than an actual rule". Since the actual location and speed of a photon is an average, then at any given time and place the speed could be a bit above or below the speed of light?

Ouch, QT makes my brain hurt.

Hopefully we will eventually replace QT with something that is properly localized and nonprobabilistic.

It doesn't take much reasoning to demolish the theory proposed here in the original article, if you trust General Relativity. Conversely, in order to have a gravity particle/antiparticle you have to throw out the entire theory of GR. The two ideas cannot co-exist. So, since many aspects of GR are observable and testable with extremely high precision (but not proven), and gravity particles aren't... hmmmmmm.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2013
In the context of dark matter theory, I don't think it is useful to view electromagnetism as a particle effect, with actual particles that transmit force. I think this is one of those concepts that works in math but doesn't have a real world analog.


I think the same, the field attributes should hold when dealing with macro distances. Field or particle, it appears that neither interacts with the dark matter.

But as for a photon (as a particle) even at the planck scale, most observational evidence is that it just appears at c, and leaves at c. The maths CAN give something else, but as yet that can not be observed, so the preponderance of the evidence doesn't favor one idea over the other.

Einstein's field equations allowed for a positive or a negative or a flat curved universe, it took a few decades to observe which it was. So maybe in a few more years we'll have the tools to resolve some of open questions in quantum theory as applied to planck scale phenomena.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2013
Ouch, QT makes my brain hurt.


I commiserate with ya.

Hopefully we will eventually replace QT with something that is properly localized and nonprobabilistic.


If they fund some big enough toys.

It doesn't take much reasoning to demolish the theory proposed here in the original article, if you trust General Relativity.


I do, and haven't seen compelling evidence not to trust it.

Conversely, in order to have a gravity particle/antiparticle you have to throw out the entire theory of GR.


If we found that the graviton was it's own antiparticle, as with the photon, would that resolve that paradox?

If I were issued an extra hundred years of life expectancy, physics would still be large a field to study and know every area in detail. It's why I have little confidence in any "ToE" that is testable and all encompassing, being found in our lifetime.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2013
I already explained it with dense aether model. The vacuum is behaving like the elastic foam, which gets more dense under shaking


Uh hu. Right. Got it.

You better calm down before you pee yourself. I prefer the model where we are part of an atom in a marble in the pocket of a giant kid. And every atom in our Universe is actually a tiny little Universe of its own. It explains EVERYTHING!! OMFG if figured it all out.

And I can prove it because LxWxH=V.

:|

To QStar re 1-6

I nearly fell out of my chair laughing. Nice. I wonder if these people (if it's not actually just one guy with a bunch of accounts) ever go back and read their own posts and realize how totally f'd up they are?

Once in a while there's a good question/comment on here, but they get flooded out by all the nonsense made-up stuff. It's like "oh, I have a new theory of physics. I thought about it in the bath last night". Wow.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2013
It's like "oh, I have a new theory of physics. I thought about it in the bath last night". Wow.


Szilard or Archimedes,wannabes, I suppose.

When I read some of the comments I picture: A person who can say "bonjour" (but can't spell it) and "qui" (and spell it we) but feel they have much to contribute in helping to explain the finer nuances of 17th Century French literature.

Who needs basics and fundamentals any way? They are a wasteful use of your time. Mechanics? Thermodynamics? Electromagnetism? Quantum mechanics? Algebra? Calculus?,,, why be so quaint and provincial,,,, let's just go straight to the point,,, A THEORY OF EVERYTHING (that even a kindergartener can understand), the other is stuff is just a distraction.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2013
If we found that the graviton was it's own antiparticle, as with the photon, would that resolve that paradox?


That's a good one to talk about. I dont think so. I don't buy that explanation for a photon either though. It could be seen as elegant proof that photons are not a particle, and should not be treated as one. QT has a bunch of special exceptions to accommodate photons, like giving them temporary mass to conserve momentum or just pretending like conservation wasn't violated because it only happened for a very short time. Whatever. Yeah, and pigs can fly as long as they only do so for a little while.

I'd say that as soon as you start making exceptions for a fundamental interaction that is a key part of just about every particle-particle interaction, doesn't that sound like a show-stopper? It's like, oh photons, yeah they're a problem, but look over here. I get the right answer in the end, so don't worry about that elephant over there.
GSwift7
2 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2013
When I read some of the comments I picture: A person who can say "bonjour" (but can't spell it) and "qui" (and spell it we) but feel they have much to contribute in helping to explain the finer nuances of 17th Century French literature


Yeah, and not only do they talk when they should be listening, they will passionately argue that it's really spelled "we", and anyone who spells it 'the mainstream way' is just a conspirator or a dupe. Then they'll post a link to some stupid axriv article which they usually don't understand, and claim that it proves their point.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 29, 2013
That's a good one to talk about. I dont think so. I don't buy that explanation for a photon either though. It could be seen as elegant proof that photons are not a particle, and should not be treated as one. QT has a bunch of special exceptions to accommodate photons, like giving them temporary mass to conserve momentum or just pretending like conservation wasn't violated because it only happened for a very short time. Whatever. Yeah, and pigs can fly as long as they only do so for a little while.


I'm left with a longing to "know" also. So, until they start funding some bigger experiments for the guys who are doing work in that area, we are stuck using one model in this work and another model in that work. Particle model? Or field model? At least we have two good models to work with for the time being.

I'm sure someone working in quantum theory and particle theory would not be so "let them eat cake" about it as I am. (But they can count on my vocal support for funding.)
tkjtkj
5 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2013
Re: Verkle:
"Give me some proof of dark matter, and I will believe. Until then, I include it in the world of fantasy."

Sadly for your position, 'science' is not 'all encompassed by proofs'. As you almost suggest: it includes a lil thing called 'observations' .. to which you seem blind.
Would you recognize one if you saw it.. if you saw the CCD/plates showing the ever-outward motion of galaxies what would you say?? "its not science, hence the building of the 'scopes was foolish wasting of money'??? Apparently for you Galileo was not doing science until he had proof?? then, all of a a sudden, his work became 'science'??
Your views do not merely border on silliness but are the essence of it...
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2013
As far as we know, the only thing that attains that speed is the photon. A massless particle which comes into existence at that speed, and goes out of existence at that speed. The only other particle that may have that property is the "theoretical" graviton.


Photons are assigned "rest mass equivalence". This is because when mass has been transformed to energy, the remaining mass is lighter in weight, therefore has less gravity, it has less gravity because an exiting photon has carried it away. Therefore it has been surmised that "gravity" moves at the speed of electro-magnetism (light speed if you please)& remains with the photon until the photon is absorbed within the electron shell of another atom causing an electron orbital (or orbital pair)to move to a higher energy level, adding weight & gravity to the affected atom.

This is not what I learned in high school physics, I'd never heard of "rest mass equivalence" until well into my first nuclear physics course in college.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 29, 2013
This is not what I learned in high school physics, I'd never heard of "rest mass equivalence" until well into my first nuclear physics course in college.


How long has it been since you took high school physics? I am married to a high school physics and chemistry teacher. She has taught basic standard model particle physics, relativity and modern physics to her students for over a decade now. In public high schools. No, not on the level taught in universities but the foundations yes.

By the By: We are both very active proponents of the "Physics First" movement for public education. It is our belief that physics should be the first science taught to the youth, all the others should be built on the first principles learned from physics and math.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2013
This is not what I learned in high school physics, I'd never heard of "rest mass equivalence" until well into my first nuclear physics course in college.


How long has it been since you took high school physics? I am married to a high school physics and chemistry teacher. She has taught basic standard model particle physics, relativity and modern physics to her students for over a decade now. In public high schools. No, not on the level taught in universities but the foundations yes.


I was referring to your statement that the "photon is a massless particle", a high school physics statement, taught by high school physics teachers.

Q-Star
2.9 / 5 (15) Jan 29, 2013
I was referring to your statement that the "photon is a massless particle", a high school physics statement, taught by high school physics teachers.


The photon is taught by high school physics teachers as a massless particle. When they are learning that the speed of light is the universe's speed limit. They even teach them why it is thought to be the speed limit. And much more. Teach them the Maxwell's field equations? No. Teach them Einstein's field equations? No, but they learn real physics and real calculus. In high school. How long has it been since you took high school physics?

I learned what E = mc^2 was while in public school. And was taught what the c in the equation was. I finished high school in 1971. But regardless, I know that my wife teaches it today, and more. In a regular run-of-the-mill local typical public high school. And it's nothing special or new,,,,,
Q-Star
3 / 5 (16) Jan 29, 2013
This is not what I learned in high school physics, I'd never heard of "rest mass equivalence" until well into my first nuclear physics course in college


Here is a representative sample of what high school kids have available:

http://www.phy.il...bus.html

http://www.scienc...urse.htm

Or you can Google "high school physics" you'll get hundreds of hits, and many pdf files of curriculum, subject matter, descriptions of the material.

Sometimes it's easier to Google first and THEN act as if the person you are responding to is fibbing. More often or not it will save you from having your claims about your own level of educations and expertise exposed as just so much,,,,,,

If you are going to pretend to know something, why not use Google before you push the SEND button? It's an easy thing to do, and will save you a lot of embarrassment.

Maggnus
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2013
If you are going to pretend to know something, why not use Google before you push the SEND button? It's an easy thing to do, and will save you a lot of embarrassment.


Good advice for a number of posters on this thread.
Maggnus
1 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2013
Yeah, and not only do they talk when they should be listening, they will passionately argue that it's really spelled "we", and anyone who spells it 'the mainstream way' is just a conspirator or a dupe. Then they'll post a link to some stupid axriv article which they usually don't understand, and claim that it proves their point.


Omg that is a great analogy :). If there were sigs on this site I would use that as mine.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2013
I was referring to your statement that the "photon is a massless particle", a high school physics statement, taught by high school physics teachers.


The photon is taught by high school physics teachers as a massless particle. When they are learning that the speed of light is the universe's speed limit. They even teach them why it is thought to be the speed limit. And much more. Teach them the Maxwell's field equations? No. Teach them Einstein's field equations? No, but they learn real physics and real calculus. In high school. How long has it been since you took high school physics?


.....just wanted to see what you knew of the content of HS physics which I already knew to be absent of discussions of "rest mass equivalence of photons". It still appears to me that you didn't know about it until I pointed it out to you. It's become obvious to me that it's only been in the last 48 hours that you've learned there is such a topic as "rest mass equivalence".
Disproselyte
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 30, 2013
What is it that makes some still talk seriously about a TOE, when there is so much to learn of a less elusive theory: generalised GR or Scale Relativity. Still expecting the first referenced constructive argument. Pride and prejudice still determines the members of the gang. Big peer is watching your double talk.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (14) Jan 30, 2013
The photon is taught by high school physics teachers as a massless particle. When they are learning that the speed of light is the universe's speed limit. They even teach them why it is thought to be the speed limit. And much more. Teach them the Maxwell's field equations? No. Teach them Einstein's field equations? No, but they learn real physics and real calculus. In high school.


.....just wanted to see what you knew of the content of HS physics which I already knew to be absent of discussions of "rest mass equivalence of photons". It still appears to me that you didn't know about it until I pointed it out to you. It's become obvious to me that it's only been in the last 48 hours that you've learned there is such a topic as "rest mass equivalence".


Let's see if I understand. "Even though I was wrong, I was really right because I want to insert the words "blah, blah blah" even-though that those words have nothing to do with your original comment." Right?
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (7) Feb 02, 2013


By the By: We are both very active proponents of the "Physics First" movement for public education. It is our belief that physics should be the first science taught to the youth, all the others should be built on the first principles learned from physics and math.

By the by; CRITICAL THINKING is the goal. The subjects we are taught are simply the tools to that end.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 02, 2013
By the by; CRITICAL THINKING is the goal. The subjects we are taught are simply the tools to that end.


Fond of silly sophistry still? Can ya not find a place to play word games on? (By the By: That one is about as inane as the "bigger picture" one.)
DavidW
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2013
By the by; CRITICAL THINKING is the goal. The subjects we are taught are simply the tools to that end.


The goal must be to do the most good. Anything less is an excuse to do harm.
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (6) Feb 03, 2013
Fond of silly sophistry still? Can ya not find a place to play word games on? (By the By: That one is about as inane as the "bigger picture" one.)

Probably not as fond as you are of pointing out perceptual inanities.
However... If your "comfortable position" is instructor at UNC and you half as persistant in that as you are on here - hats off to ya. Means my mothers tax dollars are not being wasted (if you aren't on Phys.org during working hours, of course) and my nephew and friend's year of foreign studies should be productive (providing they have a class you teach).
If not, you are just a poseur whose talents are being wasted on counter productive "gobbledy-gook".
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 03, 2013
If your "comfortable position" is instructor at UNC and you half as persistant in that as you are on here - hats off to ya.


Close but no seagar for ya.

Means my mothers tax dollars are not being wasted (if you aren't on Phys.org during working hours, of course) and my nephew and friend's year of foreign studies should be productive (providing they have a class you teach).


I would never waste your mother's tax dollars. Are your nephew and friend taking any classes in undergraduate intro physics or statics & dynamics? If they don't have that annoying feature of distracting the class with their "Theory of Everything" because they don't need the fundamentals they could benefit.

If not, you are just a poseur whose talents are being wasted on counter productive "gobbledy-gook".


Do not fret over much, I enjoy gobbledygook as much as anyone. Some gobbledygook is productive as an example of what to watch out for.
Reg Mundy
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 28, 2013
@Whydening_Gyre
You are wasting your time arguing with Q-Star/anti_aliasphysorg/brt/VendicarE/all-the rest-of his aliases.
He isn't at UNC. You can see more about him on his other posts, e.g. http://phys.org/n...ery.html
I advise you to ignore his redneck affectation, his "ya" this and "ya" that, his homespun backwoods philosophy - he has a totally closed mind on anything that doesn't agree with the academic establishment view.
Anyway, he might not be with us much longer if certain rumours turn out to be true....
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 28, 2013
He isn't at UNC. You can see more about him on his other posts, e.g. http://phys.org/n...ery.html


Well aren't ya the one with the inside "scoop".

I advise you to ignore his redneck affectation, his "ya" this and "ya" that, his homespun backwoods philosophy - he has a totally closed mind on anything that doesn't agree with the academic establishment view.


Didn't they teach ya anything at the World Class university? Ya is regional colloquial for YOU in the west of Ireland.

Anyway, he might not be with us much longer if certain rumours turn out to be true....


Can't spell rumors? Oh me,,, preserve us if the rumours{sis} be true.

Socks talking to socks,,,,
ValeriaT
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 28, 2013
You are wasting your time arguing with Q-Star/anti_aliasphysorg/brt/VendicarE/all-the rest-of his aliases.

Actually each response is what feeds these trolls. These guys have no own ideas, so if you will not react to them, they will become quiet gradually. Their only motivation is (anti)social interaction. Just ignore them like the inert gases.
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2013
@Q-Star/antialias_physorg/brt/VendicarE/Quinn/all-the rest-of-your-aliases
Well aren't ya the one with the inside "scoop".

Well, I need a "scoop" when dealing with your "poop".
Rumours? You are so fond of quoting the OED, look it up, and get your facts right.
You might also look up "twerp" as well, so you know what to say when you look in a mirror.
And by the way, in the West of Ireland it is "yer" not "ya".
Finally,GBYHIABOS.
DavidW
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2013
People with an "unrestrained undisciplined randomly focused mind" are basically useless
- antialias_physorg

There you go trying to place yourself above the truth again.
You are going to have to come to terms with the truth or fight the truth the rest of your life.

The truth says all life is important. You attempt to speak as the truth itself. You will find your humility and yourself among those you call "useless".
antialias_physorg
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2013
The truth says all life is important.

Where exactly doe it say that? Other than in your mind?

Don't you see that it's a tautological definition if X defines ITSELF as being important. What kind of information is that supposed to convey?

It's the same as saying "I am king, chosen by god". Therefore I must be a king chosen by god?
That's not logic - that's just wishful thinking.

You will find your humility and yourself among those you call "useless".

Oh they are useful. People each have their strengths and weaknesses. But some just don't have a strength in the brain department. It's THERE (i.e. in the matter of getting humanity ahead in terms of knowledge) that they're usless.

But there are other areas which humanity needs to survive. And there they, no doubt, have their uses.
DavidW
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2013
The truth says all life is important.

Where exactly doe it say that? Other than in your mind?


The truth tells everyone this through observation in the same way it tells us we are alive. Life comes before thought.

antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2013
The truth tells everyone this through observation in the same way it tells us we are alive

OK, I'll call "pseudo-spiritual psycho-babble BS" on this one.

Now stop bing evasive and start using that logic you claim to possess: Define EXACTLY where that truth is written down and derived from.
What EXACT observations do you have to make your claims.

"Self evident" truths don't cut it as an argument. Because such "self evident" truths have been used for everything from manifest destiny to racial superiority and claims of one religion (any) being the 'true' one while all others being false.

This is a science site. Use scientific argument or suffer derision.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2013
Hi Dave,

You're just play acting you know that? 'I will talk poetry with an attitude and have some fun, and maybe some people will like me.' This requires little thought and has little to do with living. I bet Koresh and Jim jones were just as crammed. You have nothing to offer.
DavidW
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 11, 2013
Funny how that works. You describe your own words.

You state the word true all the time in your posts and then when another uses it correctly, you choose to argue.

You said some people were useless. Then you asked how life was important.

Life being important is a self-evident truth. I put words to describe the obvious observation.

You instead claim that stating a self-evident truth has no meaning.

A self-evident truth does have meaning and is the response to your lie and attempt to place yourself above the truth by stating others are useless.

Kneel before our Master. There is no escape.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2013
You state the word true all the time in your posts and then when another uses it correctly, you choose to argue.
Blah? More poetry. You're talking with yourself. No wait-

"I realized I was god when one time I was praying and I realized I was talking to myself." -jack, The Ruling Class

-The character was insane. Instead of wasting our time why don't you go talk to a mirror?