MOND used to predict key property in Andromeda's satellites

Feb 14, 2013

Using modified laws of gravity, researchers from Case Western Reserve University and Weizmann Institute of Science closely predicted a key property measured in faint dwarf galaxies that are satellites of the nearby giant spiral galaxy Andromeda.

The predicted property in this study is the velocity dispersion, which is the average velocity of objects within a galaxy relative to each other. Astronomers can use velocity dispersion to determine the accelerations of objects within the galaxy and, roughly, the mass of a galaxy, and vice-versa.

To calculate the velocity dispersion for each , the researchers utilized Modified Newtonian Dynamics, MOND for short, which is a hypothesis that attempts to resolve what appears to be an insufficient amount of mass in needed to support their orbital speeds.

MOND suggests that, under a certain condition, Newton's must be altered. That hypothesis is less widely accepted than the hypothesis that all galaxies contain unseen that provides needed mass.

"MOND comes out surprisingly well in this new test," said Stacy McGaugh, astronomy professor at Case Western Reserve. "If we're right about dark matter, this shouldn't happen."

McGaugh teamed with Mordehai Milgrom, the father of MOND and professor of physics and astrophysics at Weizmann Institute in Israel. Their study, "Andromeda Dwarfs in the Light of MOND" will be published in the .

Astronomers and physicists need some way to explain why galaxies rotate faster than predicted by the law of gravity without flying apart. That spurred researchers to theorize that dark matter, first assumed by Dutch astronomer Jan Oort in 1932, is gathered in and around galaxies, adding the mass needed to hold galaxies together.

Dissatisfied with that hypothesis, Milgrom offered MOND, which says that Newton's force law must be tweaked at low acceleration, eleven orders of magnitude lower than what we feel on the surface of the Earth. Acceleration above that threshold is linearly proportional to the force of gravity—as Newton's law states—but below the threshold, is not, he posits. When the force law is tweaked under that limitation, the modification can resolve the mass discrepancy.

Early in his career, McGaugh believed in dark matter. But, over time, he's found the hypothesis comes up short in a number of aspects while he's found increasing evidence that supports MOND.

In this paper, researchers tested MOND with dwarf spheroidal galaxies. These very low-surface brightness galaxies are satellites of larger galaxies. By the standards of galaxies they are tiny, containing only a few hundred thousand stars.

"These dwarfs are spread exceedingly thin. Their light is spread over hundreds to thousands of light-years. These systems pose a strong test of MOND because their low stellar density predicts low accelerations," McGaugh said.

McGaugh and Milgrom used the luminosity of the galaxies, an indicator of stellar mass, and MOND to make their calculations and predict the velocity dispersions of 17 faint galaxies. In 16 cases, the predictions closely matched the velocity dispersions measured by others. In the last case, the data from independent observers differed from one another.

"Many predictions were bang on," McGaugh said. "Typically, the better the data, the better the agreement."

The scientists also used MOND to predict velocity dispersions for 10 more faint dwarf galaxies in Andromeda. They are awaiting measurements to refute or verify this prediction.

Explore further: Fermi satellite detects gamma-rays from exploding novae

More information: arxiv.org/abs/1301.0822

Related Stories

SLoWPoKES

May 16, 2011

The Sloan Low-mass Wide Pairs of Kinematically Equivalent Stars (SLoWPoKES) catalog was recently announced, containing 1,342 common proper motion pairs (i.e. binaries) – which are all low mass stars in the ...

Team Shines Cosmic Light on Missing Ordinary Matter

Jan 07, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- An international team of scientists, led by University of Maryland astronomer Stacy McGaugh, has found that individual galactic objects have less ordinary matter, relative to dark matter, than does the Universe ...

Missing Milky Way dark matter

Nov 09, 2010

Although dark matter is inherently difficult to observe, an understanding of its properties (even if not its nature) allows astronomers to predict where its effects should be felt. The current understanding ...

Recommended for you

Fermi satellite detects gamma-rays from exploding novae

Jul 31, 2014

The Universe is home to a variety of exotic objects and beautiful phenomena, some of which can generate almost inconceivable amounts of energy. ASU Regents' Professor Sumner Starrfield is part of a team that ...

Image: Hubble serves a slice of stars

Jul 31, 2014

The thin, glowing streak slicing across this image cuts a lonely figure, with only a few foreground stars and galaxies in the distant background for company.

User comments : 110

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

verkle
3.4 / 5 (15) Feb 14, 2013
Finally, a serious article on PHYSORG that discusses MOND. Congratulations! And yes, we should study this hypothesis seriously. I find it to be more scientific that trying to create "matter" that has never been observed.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (10) Feb 14, 2013
LaViolette's model has a physical explanation for MOND. Otherwise, it mimics the MOND math model. LaViolette used the predicted blue shift within galaxies to predict the Pioneer anomaly. The predicted discrepancy is too small to measure in an Earthbound laboratory. So it must not exist, right????
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (18) Feb 14, 2013
MOND & TeVeS are worth studying more, But not to the exclusion of the models which work better.

At least it is based on scientific principles rather than the gobbledegook of EU, aether, and personal least favorite, Plasma Cosmology.

And at least it offers predictions which can be tested, unlike the gobbledegook of EU, aether, and personal least favorite, Plasma Cosmology.

Here come the "dark matter zombie slayers",,,, this ought to be a good one.
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (18) Feb 14, 2013
LaViolette used the predicted blue shift within galaxies to predict the Pioneer anomaly.


Pssst, the Pioneer anomaly was resolved several years ago. Didn't ya get the memo to quit usually that as a talking point?

By the By: Which model was it that LaViolette used to predict and discover the alien lifeforms using pulsars to camouflage their radio beacons? It was him that uncovered that wasn't?
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 14, 2013
Sounds promising. With the planned dark matter telescopes we'll get more tests that differentiate between the alternate theories.

11 orders of magnitude lower than 1g is one hell of a hurdle, though, for getting a direct test going. But I'd not be surprised if someone managed it sooner or later.

Here come the "dark matter zombie slayers"

When's it opening? Gotta see that movie.
Q-Star
4.1 / 5 (17) Feb 14, 2013
Sounds promising. With the planned dark matter telescopes we'll get more tests that differentiate between the alternate theories.


Man after my own heart,,,, More telescopes!

11 orders of magnitude lower than 1g is one hell of a hurdle, though, for getting a direct test going. But I'd not be surprised if someone managed it sooner or later.


A very high hurdle indeed. I'm willing to be convinced, but as of yet no one has shown me any compelling evidence that fundamental constants vary over scale, time, distance or location. Call it a gut feeling, but I don't think that is the way to explore.

Here come the "dark matter zombie slayers"

When's it opening? Gotta see that movie.


The one featuring LaViolette has opened for previews.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (18) Feb 14, 2013
At least it is based on scientific principles rather than the gobbledegook of EU, aether, and personal least favorite, Plasma Cosmology. And at least it offers predictions which can be tested, unlike the gobbledegook of EU, aether, and personal least favorite, Plasma Cosmology.


Yeah, those silly plasma scientists and their spurious belief that the Universe which consists almost entirely of plasma would actually behave as one would expect plasma to behave based upon volumes of EMPIRICAL laboratory research and computer simulations. I don't blame you though, the behaviors and mathematics of plasma interactions are far too complex for the theoreticians to grasp in their simpleton minds. MOND, dark matter, dark energy, and any number of other "fudge factors" invented to save a failed theory, yet somehow many claim it's the most successful, the "dark ages" of science continues.....

Q-Star
4 / 5 (14) Feb 14, 2013
Yeah, those silly plasma scientists and their spurious belief that the Universe which consists almost entirely of plasma would actually behave as one would expect plasma to behave based upon volumes of EMPIRICAL laboratory research and computer simulations. I don't blame you though, the behaviors and mathematics of plasma interactions are far too complex for the theoreticians to grasp in their simpleton minds. MOND, dark matter, dark energy, and any number of other "fudge factors" invented to save a failed theory, yet somehow many claim it's the most successful, the "dark ages" of science continues


Not that I expect it anytime soon, but one day ya will provide us some sort of description of how these things really work? If ya understand all these things, couldn't ya at explain it to us? Without the philosophical gems & links to papers ya don't understand. Explain the phenomena in your very own words.

It's never enough to say it is wrong. Why and what IS right are necessary.
dogbert
3.1 / 5 (20) Feb 14, 2013
I am glad to see an article which seriously considers MOND.

MOND can actually be tested, unlike dark matter which is created to match each observation.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 14, 2013
Without the philosophical gems & links to papers ya don't understand. Explain the phenomena in your very own words.


Why would you want to read a peer-reviewed paper when you could have my opinion on the interpretation of well researched phenomenon. I guess the claims made by the author of this article has more veracity than the scientists who produced the research. Why did this author even include a link to a "paper" when he could have explained the phenomenon "in his own words"?

Which phenomenon should I explain? Irving Langmuir decided to call it plasma because of it's almost life-like and self organizing behavior. Due to the electrical nature of plasma, the most fundamental aspect of plasma, which makes up in excess 99% of the Universe, is that it behaves and reacts based upon powerful electromagnetic and electrodynamic properties, and gravity can be largely ignored in it's effect on said plasma. This is not my opinion, this is based upon empirical research.
Q-Star
4 / 5 (13) Feb 14, 2013
Which phenomenon should I explain? Irving Langmuir decided to call it plasma because of it's almost life-like and self organizing behavior.


Would ya explain what effect that, say, gravity has on plasma?

Due to the electrical nature of plasma, the most fundamental aspect of plasma, which makes up in excess 99% of the Universe, is that it behaves and reacts based upon powerful electromagnetic and electrodynamic properties,


What is the fundamental driver that causes these properties to manifest?

and gravity can be largely ignored in it's effect on said plasma.


So the kinetic and thermal energy that creates the conditions necessary for the maintenance of the plasma state could do what they without gravitational energy? Electrical or magnetic phenomena require something to keep the electrons and protons from getting back together, as they are wont to do. Gravity can play no major role in that? Who would have thunk it? To quote Galileo, "yet it moves".
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2013
I'm willing to be convinced, but as of yet no one has shown me any compelling evidence that fundamental constants vary over scale

I could see it if it were discrete at that level and there were some sort of local exclusion principle. Anywho...we'll know if someone does an experiment.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 14, 2013
Would ya explain what effect that, say, gravity has on plasma?

Do particle physicists need to determine the gravitational effect of the constituent parts of an atom to determine the behaviors of said atoms? No, the effects of gravity are up to 39 orders of magnitude WEAKER than EM, it can essentially be ignored. The same can be said of the effect of gravity on plasma.

What is the fundamental driver that causes these properties to manifest?

The electromagnetic and electrodynamic interaction of the individual and/or group of charged particles. The physics of plasma behavior is scalable, also based upon empirical evidence, so that which is observable to individual particles can be extrapolated over many orders of magnitude.

Q-Star
4.1 / 5 (14) Feb 14, 2013
No, the effects of gravity are up to 39 orders of magnitude WEAKER than EM, it can essentially be ignored.


But all gravity is attractive. But when dealing with the EM force, it is not so. Every electron will find himself a proton, and then there is no net force. EM pulls sometimes and pushes sometimes, that's why gravity has greater net over distance.

The electromagnetic and electrodynamic interaction of the individual and/or group of charged particles. The physics of plasma behavior is scalable,


Why have not all the electrons and protons mated up to become neutral by now? Where do they find the energy necessary to stay apart and do their EM and plasma thing?

What fuels the universe's generator? What keeps things going in non-uniform motion?

Working with plasma in the lab isn't like working with plasma in the universe. Lab plasma YOU have to provide the creating forces. Universe's plasma has GRAVITY to keep it going, otherwise, it would eventually neutralize.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (15) Feb 14, 2013
So the kinetic and thermal energy that creates the conditions necessary for the maintenance of the plasma state could do what they without gravitational energy? Electrical or magnetic phenomena require something to keep the electrons and protons from getting back together, as they are wont to do.

You are under the assumption that the plasma state is not the fundamental state of matter in our Universe, being that over 99% of the observable Universe is in the plasma state, why do you believe that "gravitational energy" is needed to maintain this state? Electrical and magnetic properties explain both the attraction and repulsion of electrons and protons, what does gravity have to do with that? Are you suggesting that the orbit of an electron is driven by gravity and not an electrodynamic one?
Q-Star
4.1 / 5 (13) Feb 14, 2013
being that over 99% of the observable Universe is in the plasma state, why do you believe that "gravitational energy" is needed to maintain this state? Electrical and magnetic properties explain both the attraction and repulsion of electrons and protons, what does gravity have to do with that?


EM properties explain why electrons repulse other electrons, and why protons do the same. EM properties explain why electrons and protons attract each other.

Given that the attractive force between electrons & protons is as ya say, about 40 orders of magnitude greater than gravity, it gravity wasn't doing anything, couldn't they have overcome gravity, come together to be net neutral?

So in the laboratory, where do ya get your plasma from to experiment with? Do ya snatch the excess out of the aether? Or do ya use something external to the system to generate it? Trace the source all the way back to the Sun, and ya'll find gravity as the biggest player.

cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (16) Feb 14, 2013
Universe's plasma has GRAVITY to keep it going, otherwise, it would eventually neutralize.

Wow, that gravity is magical, not only does it explain the movement of everything, as long as it can be modified and if 75% of the Universe is invisible, it's mere presence is also the reason plasma still exists. Amazing!
Q-Star
3.8 / 5 (13) Feb 14, 2013
Wow, that gravity is magical, not only does it explain the movement of everything, as long as it can be modified and 75% of the Universe is invisible, it's mere presence is also the reason plasma still exists. Amazing!


So explain why it is plasma? What mechanism keeps this 99.9999% of everything it the universe from becoming net neutral? The force that is 39 orders of magnitude greater than gravity is being overcome by something? What keeps 99.9999% of all the electrons in the universe from joining up with the 99.9999% of all the protons in the universe? What's coming between them?

cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 14, 2013
So explain why it is plasma? What mechanism keeps this 99.9999% of everything it the universe from becoming net neutral? The force that is 39 orders of magnitude greater than gravity is being overcome by something? What keeps 99.9999% of all the electrons in the universe from joining up with the 99.9999% of all the protons in the universe?

Good question. Why does gravity fit the bill? How does the relatively weak attractive force (gravity) determine why an electron and ion do not pair up to "cancel out"? How does the attractive force of gravity explain why ions are accelerating away from the Sun?

Do you understand there are various ways particles can interact in a plasma? Such as two streams of ions moving in opposite directions will repel. But you thought that like charges attract, not necessarily. It's obvious your grasp on the many intricacies of plasma interactions is feeble at best. I can see why you think so little of PC, you've failed to think at all.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 14, 2013
Good question. Why does gravity fit the bill? How does the relatively weak attractive force (gravity) determine why an electron and ion do not pair up to "cancel out"? How does the attractive force of gravity explain why ions are accelerating away from the Sun?


Ya want the easy version or the hard? Okay, the easy version.

See, gravity has this penchant for getting things to move together. Following so far? Good,,,, so whenever something moves, close to, near, or through something else, it will usually cause things to heat up, a lot. The faster and closer they are, the hotter they will get,, sometimes REALLY hot, as in the Sun.

Still with me? Good. Now when these things get hot, they like to start jiggling and dancing about, sometimes fast enough that the electrons escape the great EM force of attraction and leave some ions behind.

Gravity can cause things to move really, really close together, and move there really, really fast, which makes them really, really hot.

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2013
..at least it is based on scientific principles rather than the gobbledegook of EU, aether, and personal least favorite, Plasma Cosmology.
The typical for "scientific principles" is, they introduce new ad-hoced parameters to fit the observations for to keep existing equations working, but without deeper explanation. It's so-called epicycle approach: it fits unexpected phenomena with unexplained parameters. But the question is: why the hell the stars around galaxies at low accelerations shouldn't follow the Newton law? Just because we are observing, that motion of stars doesn't follow the Newton law? It's just a circular reasoning.

Despite these gnoseological problems, the MOND theory suffers with another rather technical problems, like the failure of explanation of dragging effects of dark matter (Bullet cluster), Allais effects and another shielding effects predicted with dense aether model. It leads into spherical geometry of dark matter around massive objects, not fibers.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Feb 14, 2013
We should realize, how the MOND is actually working. From the observations of stars moving around multiple galaxies prof. Milgrom concluded, there exists lowest natural limit for acceleration, which is new empirical natural constant a0 ≈ 10−10 m/s2. Now this natural constant is used again for... voila: for estimation of motion of stars around Andromeda galaxy. Why the result shouldn't fit the observations well, if it uses the constant based on exactly the same observations?

It's typical circular reasoning - actually a numerical regression of observations, the main power/disadvantage of which is, it reduced all deviations from Newtonian laws into single new constant. I'm willing to call it a progress in human understanding of dark matter - but in this case such a progress is still very incremental. The physics should be more than just fitting of unexplained phenomena with unexplained constants. All the rest is just a stamps collection.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Feb 14, 2013
The main problem of MOND model is, it reduces all dark matter effects into acceleration/force field effects, but it neglects the another phenomena, namely the gravitational lensing. But the dark matter today is detected mostly with its gravitational lensing, as it's not transparent invisible force effect only. Being empirical, MOND doesn't explain, why the minimal deceleration is very close to product of light speed and Hubble constant. And it fails most of observations, which don't deal with rotational curves of galaxies, on which MOND theory is based. It means, that MOND cannot predict nothing too more, than just the observations, on which it's itself based (like this one in the above article) - which is typical for tautological theories, which don't bring deeper insights into physical situation - only regression curve.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 14, 2013
The main problem of MOND model is, it reduces all dark matter effects into acceleration/force field effects, but it neglects the another phenomena, namely the gravitational lensing.


MOND posits that gravitation is stronger than Newtonian dynamics predicts. Galaxies hold stars which Newtonian dynamics predicts should exit the galaxy. In the same manner, gravitational lensing must be stronger than Newtonian dynamics predicts.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 14, 2013
Hi Q-Star, cantdrive85. Sorry I haven't had time to post. Very busy still. Briefly....
Q-Star said to cantdrive85:
Would ya explain what effect that, say, gravity has on plasma?

cantdrive85 said to Q-Star:
...over 99% of the observable Universe is in the plasma state...
Timely reminders: The universal 'field' is ALL ENERGY-SPACE fundamentally; Quantum-chaos perturbations in said energy-space creates energy-soliton features (photons); that 'field' of energy itself is quantum-chaos'd into matter-mass soliton features (electrons/protons/plasma) it is ALL DRIVEN by the energy-space MOTIONS and interactive EXCHANGES of energy-space 'packets' (photonic soliton features) at various energy/space SCALES and LOCAL DYNAMICS which at quantum scale is OBSERVED even at practically 'absolute zero states' of localized 'matter-mass' features.

Point? Both matter & gravity are EMERGENT from the chaotic energy-space quantum vacuum dynamics, neither are fundamental/drivers. Bye! :)
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 14, 2013
FYI all genuine PhysOrg members/readers. The username "lite" is a botnet operator/product testing his cross-forums programs for infiltrating and then hacking/spamming/fishing using the members details. Beware the malware the bot is still trying to install here and at other forums/sites. Do not reveal anything personal AT ALL on your 'profile' or in your posts (even if the bot's 'sockpuppet' usernames 'dare you' to reveal such by pretending to be 'only confirming your credentials/competency etc etc".

Your best course of action is to TOTALLY IGNORE his activities in the profile and other areas....and DON'T click on any 'links' from his 'sockpuppet' agent provocateur 'usernames'! Don't say you haven't been warned! :)
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 14, 2013
Hi Q-Star,, Sorry I haven't had time to post. Very busy still.


Ya have not been missed, your "family" did ya proud in your "absence".

Timely reminders: The universal 'field' is ALL ENERGY-SPACE fundamentally; Quantum-chaos perturbations in said energy-space creates energy-soliton features (photons); that 'field' of energy itself is quantum-chaos'd into matter-mass soliton features (electrons/protons/plasma) it is ALL DRIVEN by the energy-space MOTIONS and interactive EXCHANGES of energy-space 'packets' (photonic soliton features) at various energy/space SCALES and LOCAL DYNAMICS which at quantum scale is OBSERVED even at practically 'absolute zero states' of localized 'matter-mass' features.


Glad to see that Zeph has left an impression on ya.

Both matter & gravity are EMERGENT from the chaotic energy-space quantum vacuum dynamics, neither are fundamental/drivers.


So I see that ya have been studying the Vacuum Mechanical Universe guy along with Zephyr.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 14, 2013
FYI all genuine PhysOrg members/readers. The username "lite" is a botnet operator/product testing his cross-forums programs for infiltrating and then hacking/spamming/fishing using the members details. Beware the malware the bot is still trying to install here and at other forums/sites. Do not reveal anything personal AT ALL on your 'profile' or in your posts (even if the bot's 'sockpuppet' usernames 'dare you' to reveal such by pretending to be 'only confirming your credentials/competency etc etc".

Your best course of action is to TOTALLY IGNORE his activities in the profile and other areas....and DON'T click on any 'links' from his 'sockpuppet' agent provocateur 'usernames'! Don't say you haven't been warned! :)


Ya are the only ONE who seems to worry much over lite. (All of ya.)
dav_daddy
3 / 5 (8) Feb 14, 2013
Do these EU/aether/plasma cultists ever just answer a question?

SJ tried like 5 times to get some clarification on your theories and every single time his question was answered with a question. Are your "theories" really so weak and baseless you can't answer a simple question?

If you don't know the answer to a question why not admit such and go research or ask someone for clarification? All your crowd ever does is answer with a question, insult the questioner, and when you do answer its always with either a bunch of flowery words being misused to begin and hold no scientific relevance at all in the best case. Other times you guys just plain made up words that have no meaning in English, Latin, or any other human language.

Btw over on UT a couple of your brethren admitted that their "theory" would be debunked if Voyager 1 isn't zapped by some plasma/aether/EU/ghost of Huggy Buggy before 2015. Would you care to also publicly endorse that as well?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Feb 15, 2013
would be debunked if Voyager 1 isn't zapped
Two spacecrafts (Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11) were launched in 1972 and 1973. The radio measurements of the position seem to show that there is a universal unexpected contribution to the acceleration towards the Sun whose magnitude is roughly a=Hc = (8 - 1) x 10^{-10} meters/second^2 - it is the Hubble constant multiplied by the speed of light, plus minus roughly ten percent. Not quite accidentally it's the same acceleration as the critical acceleration used with MOND theories that replace dark matter. It points to the similar origin of anomalous deceleration, expansion of universe and the scattering of light with CMBR noise, which is the common source of both former phenomena in dense aether model.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 15, 2013
Intuitively speaking, the distance of Pioneer spaceprobes from Earth appears smaller just by the distance, in which the Universe would expand during traveling of light from spaceprobes to Earth. Why the hell such a beautiful coincidence isn't presented as an evidence of omnidirectional space-time expansion, when the Big Bang theory relies on such an expansion so much? Well, the problem is, in Big Bang cosmology the galaxies seem not to expand (even worse, the do appear shrinking instead) - which is usually explained with gravitational forces, which resist the omnidirectional space expansion and which keep the galaxies together. So that the solar system cannot expand, or the above explanation will not be valid anymore - which would mean, that the Pioneer anomaly is just a coincidence. Well, or it isn't, if we consider, that in dense aether model the space-time doesn't really expand - just the wavelength of light dilates with distance..
dav_daddy
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 15, 2013
Pioneer anomaly was due to the heat of the electronics if I'm not mistaken
dav_daddy
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 15, 2013
I may have to go dig up the post but the jist was that they were going to hit the electro-plasmonic barrier and be reduced to atoms before 2015.

Heck even if it happens in 2017-20 (IMO about as likely as my giving birth) but I have been wrong in the past..
VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2013
"LaViolette's model" - Tuxford

Is non-science nonsense.

If you can't tell the difference between science and idiocy, you shouldn't be posting comments.

brt
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2013
I understand the desire to have dark matter be explained by an undiscovered particle. When you look at those promoting that idea, they are mostly particle physicists or particle cosmologists. They enjoy the idea that dark matter WIMPS could be the answer in a similar fashion that quantum mechanics came about as a necessity of observation and not theory.

I agree with MOND being a far better explanation, but I also think that there is no reason why both MOND and WIMPS can't both be responsible for Dark Matter.

The difference in opinion depends on which side of the unification divide you take: quantum mechanics, or relativity.
Mumrah
not rated yet Feb 15, 2013
People may be interested to know that Dragan Hajdukovic derived something approximating the MOND constant based on gravitational polarisation of the vacuum (see equation 11).

http://arxiv.org/...0847.pdf
rubberman
1 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2013
Wow, that gravity is magical, not only does it explain the movement of everything, as long as it can be modified and 75% of the Universe is invisible, it's mere presence is also the reason plasma still exists. Amazing!


So explain why it is plasma? What mechanism keeps this 99.9999% of everything it the universe from becoming net neutral? The force that is 39 orders of magnitude greater than gravity is being overcome by something? What keeps 99.9999% of all the electrons in the universe from joining up with the 99.9999% of all the protons in the universe? What's coming between them?



Charge. (polarity)

It is directly responsible for the gravitational effect (in the form of induced magnetism)

http://phys.org/n...lds.html

Think about it folks, if 2 carbon atoms are going to join, shouldn't the electron clouds around each nucleus repel each other? Yes, so what overcomes THAT repulsive force? Polarity.
rubberman
1 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2013
Even an electron as a point source of negative energy has to have postive/negative "hemispheres", otherwise the field that binds the electrons energy couldn't exist, and there would be nothing to stop the electrons orbiting a nucleus from directly contacting it...same with protons, neutrons...higgs bosons. How do you think photons "adhere" to each other to form a "beam"? Even as a quanta of energy, the fact that photons exist and are measurable means they have a bi-polar magentic field component. (also evidenced by the fact that they are effected by EM fields) Without polarity, there wouldn't be gravity.
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 15, 2013
if 2 carbon atoms are going to join, shouldn't the electron clouds around each nucleus repel each other?

Nope. Because the external field of a carbon atom is zero (Field strength is determined by the volume integral over the charges. And since there are as many positive as negative charges in a carbon atom...)

Even an electron as a point source of negative energy

An electron is a point source of (negative) charge - not energy.
And given current knowledge it does not seem to be subdivided further (as opposed to the neutron/proton where you have three quarks, each)
here would be nothing to stop the electrons orbiting a nucleus from directly contacting it

Exclusion principles and Heisenberg uncertainty. If you were to confine the electrons closer to the nucleus (less delta x) you'd add uncertainty in momentum (more delta v) which would cause it to leave with a higher probability. Hence the shapes of the orbitals with zero probability at the nucleus.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (7) Feb 15, 2013
"LaViolette's model" - Tuxford

Is non-science nonsense.

If you can't tell the difference between science and idiocy, you shouldn't be posting comments.



Another intellectual egomaniac strikes again! Don't you have something useful to do?
rubberman
1 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2013
"An electron is a point source of (negative) charge - not energy."

The origin of the photon is counter intuitive to the above statement, as a matter of fact completely refutes it.

Nope. Because the external field of a carbon atom is zero (Field strength is determined by the volume integral over the charges. And since there are as many positive as negative charges in a carbon atom...)

You may want to rethink this answer AP, otherwise please explain how negative "charges" get close enough to each other to bond independant of any "external" field. Unless, you are willing to except polarity as a variable....

Heisenberg uncertainty....I remember reading something about a value of zero and the logic behind this principle falling apart because of it, I'll have to find the book so I can reference.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2013
You may want to rethink this answer AP, otherwise please explain how negative "charges" get close enough to each other to bond independant of any "external" field. Unless, you are willing to except polarity as a variable....

There are other forces besides electrical ones (gravity, weak and strong nuclear force)
Positively charged protons can stick around very closely (even though their positive charges repel them enormously) because the strong nuclear force is stronger at short ranges than the electromagnetic force.
rubberman
1 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2013
None of those forces exist outside the nucleus(except "gravity")and aren't responsible for atomic bonding....a strictly negative charge cannot produce covalent bonding either...polarity is the only thing left.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Feb 15, 2013
There are other forces besides electrical ones (gravity, weak and strong nuclear force)
Positively charged protons can stick around very closely (even though their positive charges repel them enormously) because the strong nuclear force is stronger at short ranges than the electromagnetic force.

"For two protons, the electrostatic force of repulsion between them is 1.2x10^36 times the force of their gravitational attraction. The electrostatic repulsion between two electrons is 4.2x10^42 times their gravitational attraction. For one proton and one electron, the electrostatic force of attraction between them is 2.2x10^39 times the force of their gravitational attraction." Don Scott- The Electric Sky (TES)

Seems as if the electrostatic attraction of a proton and an electron is equivalent to the strong force, the strong force is very likely a variation of the EM force.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2013
Dragan Hajdukovic derived something approximating the MOND constant based on gravitational polarisation of the vacuum
Both MOND, both Hajdukovic theory suffer with existence of so-called dark galaxies, i.e. the areas of dark matter without presence of any gravity field of observable matter. Such an artifacts shouldn't exist in both theories. But Hajdukovic theory appears more advanced and less ad-hoced, than the Milgrom's theory for me. MOND has wider observational support instead, because it's nearly thirty years old already.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2013
Pioneer anomaly was due to the heat of the electronics if I'm not mistaken
Many people including mine don't agree with this interpretation, as the deceleration curve of spaceprobes doesn't fit the decay speed of plutonium, which is source of that heat. The anomalous deceleration fits well just the product of Hubble constant and speed of light which is the critical deceleration of MOND theory - such a coincidence isn't accidental IMO. This anomaly manifest itself with flyby anomalies of another spaceprobes, which aren't source of heat at all. In addition, the explanation based on heat radiation doesn't account to the blue shift of Pioneer maser. The dependence of dark matter effects to the wavelength of light in which they're observed belongs into important predictions of light scattering model of AWT.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 15, 2013
a strictly negative charge cannot produce covalent bonding either

But an atom is not 'a strictly negative charge', is it? There ARE the protons in the nucleus. And their POSITIVE charge keeps the electrons around.
The atom is -by and large- electrically neutral. And so is a molecule after the bonding.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Feb 15, 2013
Seems as if the electrostatic attraction of a proton and an electron is equivalent to the strong force, the strong force is very likely a variation of the EM force.

I think you skipped a few niggling facts:

1)The strong nuclear force is 100 times stronger than the electromagnetic force
2) The stong nuclear force does NOT vary with the inverse square of the distance (unlike the electromagnetic force)
3) The strong nuclear force also works on NEUTRAL objects
4) It's not mediated by the photon

So no: it doesn't look like EM and it doesn't act like EM. it's not EM. it is different in EVERY respect. So why would you think that it is 'likely' a variation of the EM force? Where is anything that indicates this is likely?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2013
MOND posits that gravitation is stronger than Newtonian dynamics predicts ... MOND says that Newton's gravity force law must be tweaked at low accelerations. Acceleration above that threshold is linearly proportional to the force of gravity as Newton's law states — but below the threshold, is not.
This doesn't say anything about strength of gravity force, just about acceleration, i.e. observed motion of bodies. Even if the gravity force would be responsible for different acceleration of bodies, I don't see any reason, which would make the gravity is stronger for low accelerations.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2013
Milgrom himself provided several mutually inconsistent interpretations of his theory, one being a modification of Newton's second law of motion. However, this proposed interpretation is inconsistent with conservation of momentum and it doesn't lead in anomalous lensing effects. A second interpretation requires that the acceleration due to gravitational force not depend simply upon the mass m, but upon the form m/μ(a/a0). Again, no result in gravitational lensing.
rubberman
1 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2013
a strictly negative charge cannot produce covalent bonding either

But an atom is not 'a strictly negative charge', is it? There ARE the protons in the nucleus. And their POSITIVE charge keeps the electrons around.
The atom is -by and large- electrically neutral. And so is a molecule after the bonding.


The portion of the atom doing the bonding is by your words, negative charge. An atom as a whole I agree, is electrically neutral in reference to the balance of electrons and protons. Since we are dealing with electron "orbitals" for covalent bonding, we are dealing with 2 negative charges NOT repelling each other, and you have already said there is no external field for an atom so the positive nuclei can't be what holds the orbitals in place, otherwise as soon as an electron was on the "outside" of the other electron in it's orbit, the two SHOULD repel and break the bond...but they don't...so there has to be an aspect of polarity which allows continued interaction.
rubberman
1 / 5 (7) Feb 15, 2013
Also, if electrons were completely negative in charge, this would make every photon negative in charge...I can think of alot of issues if that were the case.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 15, 2013
Also, if electrons were completely negative in charge, this would make every photon negative in charge...


What? Could ya explain what ya mean with a few more words, I think I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2013
We should realize, that the MOND theory was postulated in 1983, when no gravitational lensing effects of dark matter were known - only velocity data. It modified Newtonian theory, not the general relativity. The gravitational lensing was therefore artificially fitted later to this theory with assumption, that system whose dynamics is described by MOND will have a lensing signal identical to the equivalent Newtoinan dark matter distribution.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2013
Pioneer anomaly was due to the heat of the electronics if I'm not mistaken
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028073.700-mundane-explanation-for-bizarre-pioneer-anomaly.html including mine don't agree with this interpretation, as the deceleration curve of spaceprobes doesn't fit the decay speed of plutonium, which is source of that heat.


They were able to recover data from much earlier in the program. When that was included, the decay did fit the half-life, that was what clinched the analysis.

In addition, the explanation based on heat radiation doesn't account to the blue shift of Pioneer maser.


What do you mean? It is precisely the blue shift of the transponded signal which decays with the plutonium half-life.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 15, 2013
Hi Q-Star.
Ya have not been missed, your "family" did ya proud in your "absence". Glad to see that Zeph has left an impression on ya. So I see that ya have been studying the Vacuum Mechanical Universe guy along with Zephyr.
Was just indicating I had not been 'ignoring' you; 'missed' or not is immaterial. Your "family" innuendo silly. I am lone, independent researcher. I read/listen fairly to all perspectives (including yours!, and Zephyr's and others). Doesn't mean I'm automatically 'on board' in every particular. :) A truly objective, thoughtful, effective scientist can read/understand others whether or not they agree. You're true scientist are you not? Try it. :) Mainstream science effectively back full circle to collection of 'fundamental fields' of all sorts ('aethers' in everything but names). WIMPS, HIggs, Higgs-like, E-M 'field', Gravitational 'field' etc etc. Your unheeding dismissals sound more hollow given this mainstream trend. Bye! :)
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2013
, this would make every photon negative in charge

Whut? That makes no sense.

Since we are dealing with electron "orbitals" for covalent bonding, we are dealing with 2 negative charges NOT repelling each other,

Electrons do repel each other like protons repel each other - but since they're repulsion is balanced by attraction from the other I'm not really seeing where your problem is understanding this.

Electrons are in motion (well, they have a probability distribution - they're not exactly a 'particle'. Like any other thing at that range they're wave/particle.) They don't get in each other's way (see: Pauli exclusion principle).
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 15, 2013
Your unheeding dismissals sound more hollow given this mainstream trend.


Of course, well then, let the gobbledegook flow. (Did ya really intend to imply ya are a scientist? If so, what is your discipline?)

Anyhoo, carry right on with wisdom, insight and profound understanding,,, I'm sure that there might at least one or two people who are smart enough to profit from your tutoring.

Meself? I'm a qualified idiot, moron, criminal, annoymous fool,,,, a very smart genius (in the Einstein, Feynman, Heisenberg, Dirac class,, I know, because he told me so) has recently told that I am the absolute stupidest poster that has ever posted here. So I'll just sit in the back of the room and give ya the floor (maybe, just maybe, some of it might sink into me thick but empty head.)

Share some of that learning that can only be had in OZ please. If that is too much trouble, maybe ya could write it down in a book that I probably won't buy, but might hear about.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2013
From antialias_physorg:
There are other forces besides electrical ones (gravity, weak and strong nuclear force)
Positively charged protons can stick around very closely (even though their positive charges repel them enormously) because the strong nuclear force is stronger at short ranges than the electromagnetic force.


Response to a_s from rubberman:
....Polarity is the only thing left


Well observed, rubberman. The Hydrogen Atom is a highly REACTIVE 'species' because of its strong POLARITY due to unequal charge distribution, hence why Hydrogen Atoms TRONGLY BOND to other Hydrogen Atoms to form MOLECULAR Hydrogen.

Just because an atom is 'neutral overall', it is NOT SO at all moments, obviously....just as there are polar/non-polar molecules (eg, Ammonia/Co2 respectively).

Well observed, rubberman. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 16, 2013
Hi Q-Star.
Of course, well then, let the gobbledegook flow.
You mean like above 'gobbledegook' by antialias_physorg ignoring 'polarity' of 'supposedly neutral' Atomic Hydrogen proton-electron? :)
Did ya really intend to imply ya are a scientist? If so, what is your discipline?
Personalizing discussions makes your self-assumed 'authority status' a little 'ersatz'. I was an in-house 'problem-solver/trouble-shooter' for various employers for most of my working life. It required broad CROSS-disciplinary knowledge and quick study/understanding to come up with solutions which 'external consultants' couldn't accomplish idespite months and many thousands of $$$.
Meself? I'm a qualified idiot, moron, criminal, annoymous fool,,,,
You would know yourself best. :)
Share some of that learning... ...maybe ya could write it down in a book ...
Have you already forgotten that Complete ToE of mine which you alluded to some weeks back? Not a good sign. :)

Bye!
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2013
Hi Q-Star.

Blah, Blah, Blah,


Hi back to ya and I sure learned a lot from that, I'm trying and I'm taking notes,,,, could ya explain a little more about those polarized atoms with no net charge? I'm a little fuzzy on that one.

Bye


Yeah, righty-roo, bye to ya also.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 16, 2013
Hi back to ya and I sure learned a lot from that, I'm trying and I'm taking notes,,,, could ya explain a little more about those polarized atoms with no net charge? I'm a little fuzzy on that one.


So you ignore when its you and your 'side' that makes demonstrably 'crank' and/or incorrect assertions, and instead keep 'personalizing' and 'trivializing' as a diversion instead of acknowledging the point/correction. And you pretend not to be able to 'wiki' that info which falsifies a-p's assertion there? Your 'authority' status is sounding more 'ersatz' with each diversion/troll post you make like that.

Not good for your scientific reputation/authority, is it?

Yeah, righty-roo, bye to ya also.
And denial and trivialization is not scientific either. You could do with some 're-training' as a PROPER scientist, mate! But that's up to you, depending on what your agenda here and in life is; ersatz troll or true scientist.

Yeah, blah blah back at ya, mate. :)
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 16, 2013
So you ignore when its you and your 'side' that makes demonstrably 'crank' and/or incorrect assertions, and instead keep 'personalizing' and 'trivializing' as a diversion instead of acknowledging the point/correction.


I don't have a side. I asked for ya to tell more, that I was a little fuzzy on the issue ya were commenting on.

And you pretend not to be able to 'wiki' that info which falsifies a-p's assertion there?


I pretended nothing, one way or the other. If ya want to argue with "a-p" over something he said, argue with him, I'm not qualified to serve as his proxy.

Not good for scientific reputation/authority, is it?


My reputation isn't on the line. My authority doesn't extend beyond me house and yard, all's well in that area.

And denial and trivialization is not scientific either. You could do with some 're-training' as a PROPER scientist, mate!


I told ya yesterday I was going to sit in the back of the class & let ya teach me. Ya have the floor
vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (3) Feb 16, 2013
MOND suggests that, under a certain condition, Newton's law of gravity must be altered. That hypothesis is less widely accepted than the hypothesis that all galaxies contain unseen dark matter that provides needed mass.

How about Einstein general relativity (which is more accurate law of gravity), could it be modified to solve the dark matter problem (and also included dark energy)? This paper may give the physical view….
http://www.vacuum...=7〈=en
rubberman
1 / 5 (4) Feb 16, 2013
Ok, if photons are energy loosed from electrons, if electrons are only negative in polarity, then that energy would also be negative in polarity. But it isnt....without dual polarity present in the electron this wouldnt be possible.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2013
I don't have a side.
Your 'personalizing' without engaging on-point belies your claim to not have a side.
I pretended nothing, one way or the other. If ya want to argue with "a-p" over something he said, argue with him, I'm not qualified....
I wasn't arguing with a_p; I was responding to your uncalled-for snide remark "ok, then let the gobbledegook flow" by turning it around on you....complete with example of a-p 'gobbledegook' as referenced.
My reputation isn't on the line. My authority doesn't extend beyond me house and yard, all's well in that area.
Yet you open your big mouth declaiming to know better while not even understanding points presented by others? Way to go!
I told ya yesterday I was going to sit in the back of the class & let ya teach me. Ya have the floor
Yet you keep making personal disparaging remarks all the while not knowing what you are talking about. Go re-read the basics; then catch up with latest scientific literature. Others do it! :)
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 17, 2013
Yet you keep making personal disparaging remarks all the while not knowing what you are talking about. Go re-read the basics; then catch up with latest scientific literature. Others do :)


I'm still waiting for ya to help me catch with the latest. Not that I don't know what I'm talking about, I don't know what ya are talking about. I'm listening if ya want to help me with that. So teach me some physics, I already know ya think I'm a miscreant and ignorant, so we can skip that part, teach me some science.

Why can't I just sit in the back and listen? I'm trying to be quiet, but ya are making it difficult.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2013
then that energy would also be negative in polarity.

Conservation of charge. If photons were negative in charge then the electron that emitted it would suddenly become neutral (and be instantly emitted from the atom/molecule it is part of because the attractive force towards the proton would instantly cease)

Your 'theory' does not match observation - so it's not a good theory.
rubberman
1 / 5 (3) Feb 17, 2013
That isnt a theory dude....its called deductive reasoning. YOU were the one who said an electron is a strictly negative charge, as the source of photonic energy is the electron, please describe how a photon isnt also strictly negative in charge. If you are correct about electrons they would have to be.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2013
I think you're a bit confised about what a photon is
Thid might help.
http://en.wikiped...i/Photon

Then you are confused about what an electron is.
This might help:
http://en.wikiped...Electron

Then you are confised qabout what electromagnetic foce is.
This might help:
http://weburbanis...nd-more/

(Hint: Pay close attentian that to parst that speak of electromagnetic oscillations when referring to photons)

And after reading all that it will become abundantly clear to you that your interpretation of what electrons/photons are doesn't work at all.

rubberman
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2013
Hmmm. Given my career that is akin to me telling u that you are confused about what a patella is...but ok. If u wish to continue under the assumption that a source of energy can loose an energy packet with different properties than those itself posseses, thats your call. It is the same as saying a splash of Wine came from a pot of water. As far as understanding what a photon is and how they are generated...been working with this in some fashion for over 20 years. I have linked a video regarding "photon physics" in other threads that i cant right now from my phone, called the primer fields 3. Perhaps you could gleen a better understanding of how they work and why.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2013
It's very simple. If a photon DID carry a (negative) charge you could deflect it by passing it by a negatively charged plate. You could defelct it the other way by passing it by a positively charged plate.

If a photon did carry away a negative charge then a hot piece of metal - left on its own - would slowly turn into a positively charged clump of metal (sinfce all the photons emitted carry negative charge)

However, NONE of this is observed.
(Note that the charge of the photon has been measured to be zero)

been working with this in some fashion for over 20 years

Operating light switches doesn't count.
Given my career

Pray tell what is your career?

My career is: Master of sciences (electrical engineering, university degree), THEN a PhD in human biology.

So yeah...I know a tiny bit about electromagnetic fields.

It's all nice and dandy for you to have theories - but they must mesh with observation or else they're worthless.

RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2013
I'm still waiting for ya to help me catch with the latest. Not that I don't know what I'm talking about, I don't know what ya are talking about. I'm listening if ya want to help me with that. So teach me some physics, I already know ya think I'm a miscreant and ignorant, so we can skip that part, teach me some science.


Many have tried, but you keep making yourself obnoxious/irrelevant with your mindless personalizations in lieu of listening properly to what others have presented for fair discussion but you never discuss thus. You have not what it takes. Sorry. :)
Why can't I just sit in the back and listen? I'm trying to be quiet,...
You typed that with a straight face! :lol:
I'm still waiting for ya to help me catch with the latest.... I'm listening...
Do the work yourself now, since you haven't been listening all along. Besides, my Complete ToE will be out soon, so you can catch up all at once then. Why spoil the surprises? Bye! :)
rubberman
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 17, 2013
So, going back to my original assertion as to why photons dont carry charge from early in the thread given where it is they are assumed to originate, you can logically answer the question you have sidestepped that l have asked 3 times since you made your original statement about charge of an electron. I will phrase it as simply as i can this time: How is the energy of a photon different than the energy it is supposed to propegate from? You challenged my theory on electron energy on the basis that they are only negative...yet are to the point of adhoc remarks with regards to photon polarity and how they generate. I'm not saying photons ARE negative in polarity, i'm saying that if physics dictate the electron as its source i would like your masters in electrical engineering to explain how YOU think neutral energy can spring from a negative source....as i said, wine from water. For the last 10 years i gave been explaining to electrical engineers how they messed up a spec...
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2013
How is the energy of a photon different than the energy it is supposed to propegate from?

What does that even mean. Can you rephrase that in english?

If you mean: how can a photon have different properties than the thing it emanates from: if it didn't it wouldn't be a photon but an electron, now, wouldn't if?

The photon carries ENERGY away. The electron CHARGE has nothing to do with the electron's ENERGY. CHARGE is something hat causes a POTENTIAL. You get a potential energy IF and ONLY IF that potential is placed in another (potential) field with which it interacts (like an EXTERNAL electric field)

There is no such thing as 'neutral' and 'non-neutral' energy - because you're confused on what is and isn't energy.

For the last 10 years i gave been explaining to electrical engineers how they messed up a spec...

And they've been laughing in your face for all those years because of your state of confusion.

What was your profession again?
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2013
Many have tried, but you keep making yourself obnoxious/irrelevant with your mindless personalizations in lieu of listening properly to what others have presented for fair discussion but you never discuss thus. You have not what it takes. Sorry. :)


Now that was scientific, thanks. To us stupid unscientific sorts, that sounds like a "Blah, Blah, Blalh", could ya expand on that a little?

I'm still waiting for ya to help me catch with the latest.... I'm listening...
Do the work yourself now, since you haven't been listening all along. Besides, my Complete ToE will be out soon, so you can catch up all at once then. Why spoil the surprises? Bye! :)

Oh, I'm getting the impression that your profound scientific understanding is secret, esoteric and only for the few elect. But feel free to tell us some little thing that we might find understandable.

Now, since all ya want to do is discuss science in a free and open environment, I'll let ya continue with it.

Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2013
I will phrase it as simply as i can this time: How is the energy of a photon different than the energy it is supposed to propegate from? You challenged my theory on electron energy on the basis that they are only negative...yet are to the point of adhoc remarks with regards to photon polarity and how they generate. I'm not saying photons ARE negative in polarity, i'm saying that if physics dictate the electron as its source


I, for one, am still a little uncertain exactly what you mean.

When you say that the photon has "negative" energy, negative in reference to what? My understanding of the photon is that it is:

A particle with zero rest mass.
A particle which is it's own anti-particle.
A particle without charge.
A particle who's energy is defined only by it's frequency.

If I am mistaken, could you explain how a photon from a proton - proton collision is different from a proton emitted from an electron's shift in energy level? How would one be different than the other?
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2013
could you explain how a photon from a proton - proton collision is different from a proton emitted from an electron's shift in energy level?


That should be: different from a PHOTON emitted from an electron's shift,,,,

Pardon the typo.
rubberman
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2013
Well, casting aside all laws and rules....i cannot rationally assume that a quantum of energy from an electron or proton doesnt have the same energetic properties as its source. If photons didnt carry charge they would not be effected by EM fields. If an electron wave didnt carry some energy of positive polarity it couldnt generate a field to bind its own energy and the waveform would collapse. Someone who understands EM fields should know this. You cant "induce" magnetic properties unless the body in which they are being induced is capable of it happening...since all matter is capable of magnetic properties. All energy must be capable of being either polarity.....
rubberman
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2013
Evidence to support this (again casting aside pertinent laws and applying logic in their place) would be the degrade in the distance of an electron orbital from the nucleus when it looses a photon...the photon is neutral polarity, for this to be so the electron would have to pass this trait along causing it to lose some positive polarity... Orbit degrades.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2013
Evidence to support this (again casting aside pertinent laws and applying logic in their place) would be the degrade in the distance of an electron orbital from the nucleus when it looses a photon...the photon is neutral polarity, for this to be so the electron would have to pass this trait along causing it to lose some positive polarity... Orbit degrades.


I just don't see it. So if an electron emits a photon, it somehow gives some of it's charge to the photon? How? Does the electron's charge become reduced by that amount? How could charge or energy be conserved in such a case?

Sorry, I need a much lengthy description of what you are proposing. Or at least a brief statement on how one might measure the charge on the photon in question? How one photon might be distinguished from another without reference to it's frequency?

This is totally new physics you are proposing here.
rubberman
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2013
"and they have been laughing in your face"

Only the ones so sure they know that they refuse to think. Dumbass. An electron IS energy, which YOU said was negatively charged. A photon IS energy which YOU said was neutral...none of which i sisagreed with. Then you make a statement that there is no such thing as neutral and non neutral wnerfy
rubberman
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2013
Ha. Damn phone. That is " disagree with" and neutral "energy".
Q-Star
3 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2013
@ rubberman,,

Am I missing something in the back and forth you and a-p are having with "charge" and "energy"?

If you are saying that the photon carries away some of the electron's energy, then I agree, energy is a conserved quantity, the electron's "energy" goes up and down, during the process of absorbing or emitting a photon.

If you are saying the photon carries away some the electron's charge, then I vehemently disagree. The electron's charge remains the same, -1 e. When an electron absorbs a photon, the charge is still -1 e. Charge is conserved, in an electron it is always -1 e.

If this were not the case, then with today's technology it would be easy to construct a device to sort out the photons reaching us according to whether they were produced by proton-proton collisions, proton-neutron collisions, or emitted by an electron. Attaching a simple voltmeter to a telescope mirror should do it.
rubberman
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2013
I realize this Q. I'll PM you tomorrow from a computer. I wouldnt call it new though...just objective. In this case i asked myself the question AP lovingly asked in his last post...but the answer i come to is that the photon, as the product of an electron MUST have received all of its intrinsic properties from itsparent electron....if one of those properties is neutrality, both /- polarity, this had to have also come from the electron. PM you more tomorrow.

Sorry for the disagreement AP. My current profession is an electrical purchasing agent for a very specialized construction company. 10 years ago i was working with electrical engineers doing lighting design specification and industrial automation specializing in sensor application. No PHD...but if i hadone i may have wound up blindly following laws and rules without questioning their validity or interpretation. Also sorry for the dumbass remark but you had it coming after the light switch crack.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2013
An electron IS energy, which YOU said was negatively charged.

Erm, no.

An electron has various forms of energy (kinetic energy, energy equivalent to it's mass via E equals mc squared, it has electric potential energy/electristatic potential energy IF and ONLY IF it resides in a time variable or static electrical field)

An electron has a charge. A charge alone is not energy in any way. Charge is measured in Coulomb.
(1 Coulomb is an Ampere second which is NOT a unit of energy).

Then you make a statement that there is no such thing as neutral and non neutral wnerfy

Correct. A photon is charge-neutral and has energy according to its frequency (a photon is an electromagnetic oscillation. Read that again: oscillation. I tried to appraise you of that term earlier, remember? You refused to look it up.)
rubberman
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 18, 2013
A photons frequency directly correlates to the EM field that it generates...the longer the wavelength, the larger the field. Q...the video i linked to you not only shows how this works, but describes why it HAS to be this way. AP all matter/energy is an oscillation it isnt dependant on the quantity of energy present. You both cited the law of conservation of charge. Neutral is not a lack of charge, its a balanced one.oIf both werent present, matter/energy couldnt be induced to exhibit one or the other. Nor could a fiels be generated to keep that energy bound
Q-Star
3 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2013
A photons frequency directly correlates to the EM field that it generates...the longer the wavelength, the larger the field. Q...the video i linked to you not only shows how this works, but describes why it HAS to be this way. AP all matter/energy is an oscillation it isnt dependant on the quantity of energy present. You both cited the law of conservation of charge. Neutral is not a lack of charge, its a balanced one.oIf both werent present, matter/energy couldnt be induced to exhibit one or the other. Nor could a fiels be generated to keep that energy bound


But what I was asking for clarification of was your assertion that an electron imparts a negative "charge" on the photon it emits. This is what I was calling totally "new" physics. For the last hundred years the photon, as part of it's very definition, carries no charge. It is pure energy. It is it's own anti-particle.

Unless I am still miss understanding the back and forth of you guys use of "charge" & "energy"??
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2013
A photons frequency directly correlates to the EM field that it generates...the longer the wavelength, the larger the field.

all matter/energy is an oscillation it isnt dependant on the quantity of energy present.

Erm...don't these two sentences contradict each other in every aspect?

...and I do remember asking you (repeatedly) what your training/specialty/occupation was (since you started boasting about it)...care to answer?
rubberman
1 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2013
No they dont. Your reading comprehension needs work. My training in sensor application came directly from omron as it was their systems i was working with. The lighting was both osram and GE. Osram for technical properties and GE for color and wavelength application. Guys...i gotta go. Q, i'll PM ya tomorrow on why an electron DOESN'T impart a negative charge on a photon. I just reread the thread and dont see where i said it did...just several posts trying to explain the only way it is physically possible for it not to....this way it doesnt have to be its own antiparticle.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (8) Feb 18, 2013
Q, i'll PM ya tomorrow on why an electron DOESN'T impart a negative charge on a photon. I just reread the thread and dont see where i said it did...just several posts trying to explain the only way it is physically possible for it not to....this way it doesnt have to be its own antiparticle.


If you say the electron DOESN'T give the photon a negative charge,,,, I agree. But you did distinctly say that it did, and that is what I was questioning.

By the By: If the photon is NOT it's own anti-particle, you are positing some very radical changes to the Standard Model, even more radical than the Higgs boson and the graviton,,,,, It would be identifying an entirely new particle which no model or experiment has hinted at.

It would require extraordinary evidence. An anti-photon would be a sure Nobel winner.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2013
i'll PM ya tomorrow on why an electron DOESN'T impart a negative charge on a photon.

Any particular reason why you're afraid to post this openly? I'm sure there are more people interested.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2013
I found this to be an interesting read:
"Why the Universe needs Dark Matter (and not MOND) in one graph"
http://scienceblo...e-graph/
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2013
Hi Q-Star.
Now that was scientific, thanks. To us stupid unscientific sorts, that sounds like a "Blah, Blah, Blalh", could ya expand on that a little?
You made a hash of the quotes, didn't you? Very 'scientific/correct' of you, hey? Why would anyone waste time trying to explain to you if you just 'understand/hear' blah blah due to biased/prejudiced reading?
Oh, I'm getting the impression that your profound scientific understanding is secret, esoteric and only for the few elect. But feel free to tell us some little thing that we might find understandable.
I've said all I had to say on my perspectives on the various discussions/points. If you haven't been paying attention, your problem, yes? And since my Complete ToE will be out soon, why risk others plagiarizing my work now?
Now, since all ya want to do is discuss science in a free and open environment, I'll let ya continue...
I like to read free and open discourse BY OTHERS too. You do not; obviously. Bye! :)
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Feb 18, 2013
In dense aether model the dark matter is represented with wide spectrum of phenomena - from long-distance shielding effects which manifest itself like the dark matter fibers between galaxies over the compact clouds and lensing effects (where MOND, TeVeS and similar theories work quite well) to the dragging effects of cohesive system of particles (Bullet cluster), which cannot be described without special particle interactions and fluid/plasma models.

So that we recognize very subtle radiative form of dark matter, less subtle field form, which behaves like curvature of space-time - and finally the heavy particle form of dark matter - they all occur together and interact mutually. A theory based on single special paradigm can never reliably describe such a mixture in its entirety - we can only design partial theories, which will remain focused to particular aspects of dark matter behavior.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2013
WARNING TO FORUM AT LARGE:
Back in the old physorg (before split into phyforum and physorg) there was a professional troll/spammer who had a BOT PROGRAM which made regular AUTOMATIC FEEDBACK which 'downgraded' posters on a PRE-PROGRAMMED LIST basis. Eventually the moderator responded to the obvious farce and DISABLED FEEDBACK PAGE/FUNCTION because they could not stop the BOT RATER PROGRAM. The present username' "LITE" is a version of that SAME PROGRAMMED BOT which automatically downgrades based on a LIST of posters TARGETED for skewing their ratings page.

PHYSORG MANAGEMENT:

You might consider disabling the POSTER/POST RATINGS function for the same reasons the old physorg-physforum did. Just a suggestion to help prevent the site becoming a laughing stock because it's EASY PREY to BOTS and SPAMMING/FISCHING abusers of the site's members/resources. Good luck! :)
lengould100
1 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2013
If the ratings meant anything, I'd be tempted to take the time to downrate EVERYONE who even MENTIONS plasma, or EU. Ignore them and they should eventually go away.

Back on topic, I've suggested MOND makes more sense than dark matter here before, and gotten badly stomped. Ouch! Anyway, it's good to see some mainstream astronemers actually THINKING about the possibility of subtle modifications to newtonian gravity rather than dreaming up some undetectable form of matter.

This about John Moffat's theory as of 1995 - "STVG has been used successfully to explain galaxy rotation curves,[3] the mass profiles of galaxy clusters,[4] gravitational lensing in the Bullet Cluster,[5] and cosmological observations[6] without the need for dark matter. On a smaller scale, in the solar system, STVG predicts no observable deviation from general relativity.[7] The theory may also offer an explanation for the origin of inertia."
http://en.wikiped..._gravity
lengould100
1 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2013
Here's some documentation on STVG. http://www.johnwm...ers.html
Q-Star
3 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2013
Hi Q-Star.
Now that was scientific, thanks. To us stupid unscientific sorts, that sounds like a "Blah, Blah, Blalh", could ya expand on that a little?


Blah, Blah, and Blah,,,

You made a hash of the quotes, didn't you? Very 'scientific/correct' of you, hey?


Hey, yeah, I am trying. Wow, all that scientifical stuff is starting to sink in. Thanks.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2013
Back on topic, I've suggested MOND makes more sense than dark matter here before, and gotten badly stomped. Ouch! Anyway, it's good to see some mainstream astronemers actually THINKING about the possibility of subtle modifications to newtonian gravity rather than dreaming up some undetectable form of matter.


They aren't "mainstream astronemers" [sic], Milgrom is the one who invented MOND in the first place and Gaugh has been working with him for some time.

Note that MOND only differs from Newton's Laws at very low accelerations, hence it must make the same prediction for bending of starlight as Newtonian theory. That is wrong by a factor of 2 and the GR prediction has been checked many times so MOND is known to be wrong. Do a search for "MOND" on this page as well from 2 years ago, this is nothing new:

http://scienceblo...ond-and/
lengould100
1 / 5 (1) Feb 19, 2013
I know MOND has errors, I meant to suggest evaluating STVG via the links I've provided, or read further on the work of John Moffat (originated MOG, which is what I meant to refer to instead of MOND, lately revised to STVG).
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2013
Note that MOND only differs from Newton's Laws at very low accelerations, hence it must make the same prediction for bending of starlight as Newtonian theory.

Actually no modification of Newtonian theory will lead into bending of light and gravitational lensing. In Newtonian theory the space-time is always flat and the light propagates with infinite speed through it - end of story. The gravitational lensing in MOND is actually based on application of MOND model to the relativistic lensing, which I do perceive a controversial approach, because general relativity itself depends on UNMODIFIED Newton theory. The stress energy tensor is derived withing Einstein's equations with introduction of UNMODIFIED Newton gravity law - simply because it's simplest way, how to introduce gravitational constant into theory. The more rigorous approach would be based on implicit application of general relativity in its derivation - but it would do the general relativity unsolvable analytically.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
Hi Q-Star.
Hey, yeah, I am trying. Wow, all that scientifical stuff is starting to sink in. Thanks.


Hehe, you've always been 'trying', hey? :)

And are you sure there is anything between your ears for "all that scientific stuff" to "sink in" into? :)

Nevertheless, you're welcome. :)

I am busy with finalizing/publishing my Complete ToE, as you know. But never fear, I shall continue to read through PhysOrg with interest to see just how well you are keeping your solemn promise to "go sit at the back of the class and just shut up and listen" to others openly discussing without that particular brand of 'odoriferous personalizing noise' which you have been generating all along while not paying attention to the grown ups discussing science issues/points for your edification. :)

Cheers and see ya round, Q-Star! It was fun. No hard feelings. :)
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2013
Hi Q-Star.
Hey, yeah, I am trying. Wow, all that scientifical stuff is starting to sink in. Thanks.


Hehe, you've always been 'trying', hey? :)

Blah, Blah, blah,,,,,



That must be the Modern Blah Physics,,,, but I'm sure if ya keep helping me,,, I'll learn a little something. Man, oh man, this honest science debating is fun,,,, tell me more.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2013
'odoriferous personalizing noise'


And ya told me ya knew something about science.... Not odoriferous, didn't they teach anything in that world class school? It's "malodorous personalizing noise". Maybe they didn't have world class writing classes, only world class physics classes,,,

Anyhoo, I'm still enjoying all this science your are exposing me to.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2013
That must be the Modern Blah Physics,,,, but I'm sure if ya keep helping me,,, I'll learn a little something. Man, oh man, this honest science debating is fun,,,, tell me more.


You'll just have to wait and see, won't you, since you haven't been paying attention all along. :)

And ya told me ya knew something about science.... Not odoriferous, didn't they teach anything in that world class school? It's "malodorous personalizing noise". Maybe they didn't have world class writing classes, only world class physics classes,,,

Anyhoo, I'm still enjoying all this science your are exposing me to.

I was being uncommital about your 'personalizing noise'. I used "oderiferous" advisedly; as in "carrying a scent/fragrance", and leaving it to you/others to judge the 'kind' of odor your 'odoriferous personalizing noise' carried with it.

But you, yourself, now termed it "malodorous", so explicitly characterizing your 'noise' as carrying a "bad" odor.

You know yourself best! :)
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2013
Blah Scientific Blah,,,

You'll just have to wait and see, won't you, since you haven't been paying attention all along. :)

Blah and more Scientific Blah.


All this honest scientific discussion sure is fun, thanks for talking (browbeating) me into it. Yeppers ya were right-a-roo. Ya sure are taking me to school.

Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2013
I know MOND has errors, I meant to suggest evaluating STVG ...


Ah OK, that's quite different, it's so similar to GR that it becomes difficult to distinguish them, the difference is almost reduced to philosophical.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2013
In Newtonian theory the space-time is always flat and the light propagates with infinite speed through it - end of story.


Rubbish, Newton's Law of gravity says nothing about the speed of light at all. It generates an acceleration which is independent of mass hence predicts an amount of bending, however, it is half that predicted by GR.

.. general relativity itself depends on UNMODIFIED Newton theory. The stress energy tensor is derived withing Einstein's equations with introduction of UNMODIFIED Newton gravity law - simply because it's simplest way, how to introduce gravitational constant into theory.


Rubbish again, G is merely a scaling factor, essentially converting units. Newton's Law played no part in the derivation, it is recovered independently as an approximation to the Schwarzschild Metric.
lengould100
1 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2013
it's so similar to GR that it becomes difficult to distinguish them, the difference is almost reduced to philosophical.


Well.... If I understand GR, it requires postulating a huge amount of mysterious and as yet undetected dark matter to explain the behaviour of eg. galaxy rotation, galaxy clusters and gravitational lensing, whereas STVG does not.