Scientists sense breakthroughs in dark-matter mystery

Feb 18, 2013 by Jean-Louis Santini
Image released on June 22, 2011 combines visible light exposures of galaxy cluster Abell 2744 taken by the NASA/European Southern Observatory (ESO) Hubble Space Telescope and the ESO's Very Large Telescope, with X-ray data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and a mathematical reconstruction of the location of dark matter.

For decades, the strange substance called dark matter has teased physicists, challenging conventional notions of the cosmos.

Today, though, scientists believe that with the help of multi-billion-dollar tools, they are closer than ever to piercing the mystery—and the first clues may be unveiled just weeks from now.

"We are so excited because we believe we are on the threshold of a major discovery," said Michael Turner, director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago, at an annual conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

Dark matter throws down the gauntlet to the so-called of physics.

Elegant and useful for identifying the stable of particles and forces that regulate our daily life, the Standard Model only tells part of the cosmic story.

For one thing, it does not explain gravity, although we know how to measure gravity and exploit it for our needs.

And the Standard Model has been found to account for only around four or five percent of the stuff in the Universe.

The rest is dark matter, making up 23 percent, and , an enigmatic force that appears to drive the , which accounts for around 72 or 73 percent.

"On the cosmology side we now understand that this mysterious dark matter holds together our galaxy and the rest of the Universe," said Turner.

"And the tantalizing thing on the cosmology side is that we have an airtight case that the dark matter is made of something new... there is no particle in the Standard Model that can account for dark matter."

The dark matter theory was born 80 years ago when Swiss Fritz Zwicky discovered that there was not enough mass in observable stars or galaxies to allow the force of gravity to hold them together.

According to some theorists, dark matter is fleetingly formed by exotic particles called WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) that, as their name implies, have only weak interactions with the visible matter identified under the Standard Model.

But, again, this could only be part of the picture.

"The real question is why dark matter has six times the energy that is in ordinary matter," said Lisa Randall of Harvard University.

"It could be 10 trillions times bigger... This is an intriguing sign that there is maybe some other interaction we can detect."

High-powered instruments track cosmic particles

To track these phantom particles, physicists rely on several methods and tools.

One is the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) aboard the International Space Station (ISS), which captures gamma rays coming from collisions of dark matter particles.

The first results will be published in two to three weeks, according to Samuel Ting, a Nobel laureate and professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) who is the mastermind of the two-billion-dollar project.

Ting declined to give details, only suggesting that these highly anticipated results would give humans a better idea about the nature of dark matter.

Another tool used by the scientists is the South Pole Neutrino Observatory, which tracks subatomic particles known as neutrinos, which, according to physicists, are created when dark matter passes through the Sun and interacts with protons.

Another big weapon is the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) near Geneva, the biggest particle smasher in the world.

Its power, they insist, could allow them to break-up electrons, quarks or neutrinos to uncover dark matter.

Last July, LHC physicists announced they had discovered a particle believed to be the Higgs boson, which confers mass. The Higgs was the key missing piece in the Standard Model.

"The particles are very heavy. It is one of the reasons we have made the LHC, not only to look for the Higgs boson," said Maria Spiropulu, professor of physics at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech).

Explore further: Technique for heat-assisted magnetic recording media promises improved writeability for next-generation hard drives

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Quark matter's connection with the Higgs

Aug 27, 2012

(Phys.org)—You may think you've heard everything you need to know about the origin of mass. After all, scientists colliding protons at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Europe recently presented stunning ...

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 ...

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.

Z-prime search may hurdle Higgs hunt

Aug 25, 2011

If you're bummed about humanity's biggest accelerator not producing a Higgs particle yet, maybe the latest effort to find a Z-prime will make you feel better. ...

Is the Vacuum Empty? -- the Higgs Field and the Dark Energy

May 10, 2007

The problems in understanding the true nature of the “vacuum” of space were discussed by theoretical physicist Alvaro de Rújula from CERN (the European Council for Nuclear Research) in Geneva, Switzerland, and a professor ...

Recommended for you

Cooling with molecules

16 hours ago

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 : 84

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

vacuum-mechanics
1.2 / 5 (24) Feb 18, 2013
The first results will be published in two to three weeks, according to Samuel Ting, a Nobel laureate and professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) who is the mastermind of the two-billion-dollar project.
Ting declined to give details, only suggesting that these highly anticipated results would give humans a better idea about the nature of dark matter.

While waiting for the result, maybe this physical view of the dark matter/energy could help us to visualize one possible idea…
http://www.vacuum...14〈=en
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (22) Feb 18, 2013
Another tool used by the scientists is the South Pole Neutrino Observatory, which tracks subatomic particles known as neutrinos, which, according to physicists, are created when dark matter passes through the Sun and interacts with protons.


This is very poorly written and leaves me with the impression that the author doesn't know the sun produces huge quantities of neutrinoes.
MandoZink
4.6 / 5 (7) Feb 18, 2013
** Scientists sense breakthroughs in dark-matter mystery **
"Anticipate" or "look forward to" would have been much better title choice than the perceptual "sense". I agree Maggnus, the author is not saavy.

At the least he may share my scientific optimism.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (18) Feb 18, 2013
Its power [LCH], they insist, could allow them to break-up electrons, quarks or neutrinos to uncover dark matter.


This makes it sound as if these particles are composed of dark matter. Bad wording.

Are they saying they think they can create dark matter in the LHC !!!?
JIMBO
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 18, 2013
AMS was launched w/great expectations, given Sam Ting's credentials & superhuman dedication to the project. XENON expt.has ruled out a huge % of the parameter space where most dark matter predix lie < ~10Gev. As such, I expect AMS to announce that a DM candidate in an unexpected mass region was found, which ultimately will have to be confirmed w/direct detection on Earth before a discovery can be claimed.
brt
3.1 / 5 (11) Feb 18, 2013
I don't think they found anything. There would be far more excitement if they did. Though not finding anything is of course an answer as well.
dogbert
2.7 / 5 (16) Feb 18, 2013
It its certainly possible that they will discover something, but it its unlikely that they will find a substance which was made up to provide an explanation for the fact that our models of gravity do not match our observations.
Twin
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2013
To track these phantom particles, physicists rely on several methods and tools. One is the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) aboard the International Space Station (ISS), which captures gamma rays coming from collisions of dark matter particles.


Since dark matter is an unknown (maybe substance), the above statement seems to be conjecture.
philw1776
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 18, 2013
Let's see, baryonic matter makes up less than 5 % of the universe we observe. Shocker!
Gravitational interactions in and between galaxies hint at some form of "matter" than expresses itself by gravitational force. Thats another 20 something percent. And just over a decade ago we were surprised to detect that distant galaxies, quasars, etc. are receding at unexpected accelerating velocities. This phenomena labeled Dark Energy supposedly accounts for the rest.

Pretty humbling yet impressive discoveries for late 20th century astrophysicists. This should be a very interesting century. I think there are more fun surprises ahead.
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (15) Feb 18, 2013
Today, though, scientists believe that with the help of multi-billion-dollar tools, they are closer than ever to piercing the mystery—and the first clues may be unveiled just weeks from now
I see, just another arsenic life or life on the Mars story, the main purpose of which is just to judge the investments into expensive "tools" in they eyes of publics...;-) The secretiveness at its very beginning is typical and dual to announcing of real, the more unexpected or even unwanted breakthroughs, like the cold fusion.
..the dark matter particles are very heavy. It is one of the reasons we have made the LHC, not only to look for the Higgs boson
But LHC completely failed regarding finding of WIMPS, the alleged particles of dark matter. When the theory failed at one device, why they expect its confirmation at another one?
Disproselyte
1.6 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2013
Yes, all of this leaves me so exited, hyhyhy...
Did I miss something?
HannesAlfven
2.7 / 5 (15) Feb 18, 2013
Re: ""And the tantalizing thing on the cosmology side is that we have an airtight case that the dark matter is made of something new... there is no particle in the Standard Model that can account for dark matter."

The thing is this: The gravitational constant's error bars appear to be getting *larger* over time. This, alone, is reason enough to seriously invest in elaborating the large set of MOND models which can be theorized.
GSwift7
3.5 / 5 (22) Feb 18, 2013
I agree with the prior posts. The author of the press release doesn't really seem to understand what they wrote about. It's like they are confused between the cosmological and quantum Standard Theories, amongst other oddities in the press release. The wording is very peculiar in several places.

As for the results, no matter what they are, since this is coming from MIT, it's highly likely that it isn't some BS alternative crackpot nonsense.

Almost everything you hear from MIT is solid. They do a very good job of quality control when it comes to publication.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 18, 2013
The author of the press release doesn't really seem to understand what they wrote about.
He even cannot know it because this finding was not yet published. It's just rumor about rumor.
jwillis84
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 18, 2013
Isn't it more likely to be a frame of reference problem.
Perhaps Dark Matter/Energy is merely the effect of ordinary matter on the Higgs field propagated through time.

Paths where matter once was leaves behind a foot print, or lingering eddy that echos through time. So somewhat like angular momentum, it is an effect due to previous ordinary effects over time.

Since the matter has moved on or dissipated, it appears "invisible".

I'll bet much of those satellite globular clusters left a residue in their wake and that is what is holding the galaxies together. Similar effects elsewhere in the Universe.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 18, 2013
IMO what they observed were some peaks at the mass/energy spectrum of positron annihilations, which were observed at AMS of MIT in the range 0.5 and 350 GeV, presumably 130 GeV. The similar peaks were observed with Fermi in gamma ray spectrum of Milky Way core. IMO they're not manifestations of WIMPS (i.e. SUSY particles, which the theorists usually imagine at the TeV scale), but neutrino multiplets.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (13) Feb 18, 2013
Isn't it more likely to be a frame of reference problem.


General Relativity solves that question. It's been put to test hundreds, nay, thousands of times and performed perfectly at these scales.

Newton gravitation, and Einstein's gravitation have been shown to be a constant "constant". Any suggestion that gravitation is not constant lacks any test or experiment. Even using abstract math models, an inconsistent gravitational constant falls apart at some point.

One could just as well make a case for Pink Unicorns and Leprechauns wearing Green Top Hats and Tailcoats. They can't be modeled very well either.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 18, 2013
It's been put to test hundreds, nay, thousands of times and performed perfectly at these scales.
Whole the dark matter effect is a violation of general relativity in its classical sense. After all, the dark matter is usually detected just with its gravitational lensing, which CANNOT be attributed to observable matter with using of general relativity. The total amount of dark matter is then calculated as an equivalent amount of matter, which would do the same lensing with using of general relativity - but it cannot deny the fact, that the amount of dark matter lensing violating the relativity vastly exceeds the gravitational lensing of visible matter predicted with relativity (amount of visible matter is about 4% - whereas the dark matter accounts to 26% of total gravitational lensing inside of our Universe). So we can say safely, at the cosmological scale the relativity gets violated with dark matter in order of 5.000% - it's not just some minute deviation from relativity.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 18, 2013
So we can say safely, at the cosmological scale the relativity gets violated just with dark matter in order of 1000%.


I can always be counted to make sure ya can always say that in safety.

By the By: I loved the "electron ducks on the aether waves" thingy. It brought to mind those little plastic ducks they race at the state fair. One of the better Zephryisms yet.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 18, 2013
I'm just pointing to the funny fact, that the mainstream physics proponents like to parrot the textbooks, that the amount of dark matter vastly exceeds the amount of visible matter and that the general relativity calculates this amount exactly - because they don't realize, whole this wast amount of dark matter was actually detected like the deviation from general relativity. It's funny to realize, that the naivety of naive mainstream physics proponents can be squared in this way. The religious proponents of mainstream physics believe in infallibility of mainstream theories even at the moment, when they face some 5.000% deviation - simply because they don't consider them a deviations: the mainstream physics propaganda covers it in quite consequential way. Why do you believe, Zwicky had to wait sixty years for his vindication?
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (15) Feb 18, 2013
Why do you believe, Zwicky had to wait sixty years for his vindication?


Well, Zeph, that is a hard question, considering ya are trying to tell us he HASN'T been vindicated. (Psssst, according to you he was wrong about this "dark matter" thingy.)

I think he was vindicated though, and it took so long because every model posited fell apart under scrutiny, and what was left was "dark matter". It's the only thing that fits all the observations without causing other areas of physics becoming unraveled.

It's like those electron-ducks, if ya change gravitation, then somewhere ya have have to change electromagnetics, and then when ya make that change, ya have to change thermodynamics,,,, now that ya changed those three things, you're finding yourself having to change fluid mechanics,,,,, uut ooh, now we have to change quantum mechanics,,,,

Ya see where ya have lead US? Now we have to change everything, just so ya could change one thing. A new theory must account for EVERYTHING.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 18, 2013
considering ya are trying to tell us he HASN'T been vindicated
Nope, I'm not trying to say it, because we have eighty years from this finding already. The dark matter was admitted with mainstream physics before twenty years already - but we can see, that fifty years standing period between announcing and acceptation of observations means nothing very much for conservative physics at the moment, when this finding CONTRADICTS some mainstream theory. As Planck once said, science advances one funeral at a time and the opponents of truth will never accept it, but they will simply die out.
if ya change gravitation, then somewhere ya have have to change electromagnetics
AWT doesn't change existing theories, it explains them and gives them common geometric ground of emergent particle model. After all, the things in which we should change these theories were invented already before many years (scalar waves for example).
Q-Star
2.9 / 5 (15) Feb 18, 2013
conservative physics at the moment, when this finding CONTRADICTS some mainstream theory.


Physics, and science in general should be conservative. It's how you separate the crank from the genius. If the new doesn't pass strict testing, close scrutiny, then all ya will end up with is a myriad of fantastical musings and ponderings cluttering up your science.

Conservatism is a good quality in science, the "show me how it works" aspect is our safeguard from cranks, crackpots, and opium-eaters.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 18, 2013
The AMS $2bn gadget was criticized many times due its delays and overpricing the cost of project (the MIT equipped it with superconducting magnet first and after then they realized, ISS will not be able to power its cooling) - in this light we should understand the announcement "it will not be a minor paper", despite it will be the very first preliminary study of AMS. The large spendings require large vindications.
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (15) Feb 18, 2013
Conservatism is a good quality in science
We are living in epoch when this conservatism went to far. AWT has a simple geometrical analogy for it: we are in situation of observer at the water surface who observes his neighborhood with using of water surface ripples. At the beginning these ripples are chaotic in the same way, like the observable reality in our neighborhood. But the turbulent character of water ripples gradually disappears and the ripples are spreading in well known regular circles. This is the domain of low-dimensional formal models, like the general relativity - so our observer may believe, this is the right paradigm for universal description of reality. But with increasing distance the water ripples will get scattered into underwater and the regular character of circles will disappear again. And from this moment the existing deterministic approach of mainstream physics becomes poorly conditioned and counterproductive, which leads into many false dismissals.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 18, 2013
The existing energetic and subsequent financial crisis makes the conservative approach of physics even worse because of huge overemployment of physicists from previous relatively rich era, the findings of which were fueled with relatively cheap oil. The contemporary physics becomes employment driven and physicists are even less willing to risk their personal carriers than before - the censorship of physics of previous era has transformed itself into very effective auto-censorship of all ideas and findings, which could threat the jobs and social position of contemporary physicists. We can observe sorta reinforcing effect here: the ignorance of cold fusion has brought the physicists into even ignorance. The physicists changed into taciturn freaks separated from needs of society closed in their abstract ivory towers.
rah
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 18, 2013
To sum up this article, there isn't a shred of evidence that there is such a thing as Dark Matter, but some scientists are so convinced that there is, they have assumed it into their own reality.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 18, 2013
Is there gravitational lensing and curvature of space around galaxies or not? If yes, then the dark matter EXISTS in phenomenological sense as an observable artifact. The denomination dark matter doesn't imply, it's formed with normal form of matter - it's simply a common denomination for group of observable artifacts. IMO the dark matter differs from visible matter mostly with fact, it's being formed with space-time curvatures larger, than the wavelength of light, in which we are observing it. Visible matter is formed with very tightly curved and packed space-time instead.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 18, 2013
What the AMS does is, it's looking for electron-positron traces with energy between 0.5 and 350 GeV. These particles are likely to be contributed by dark matter annihilations, if their ratio would gradually increase and then abruptly fall under consideration, that they come from all directions of the sky to avoid the influence of localized astrophysical sources. The dark matter interpretation of these observations therefore depends on the positron/electron ratio as a function of energy. It has no meaning to speculate deeper about it, until we get some actual results.
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (17) Feb 18, 2013
the findings of which were fueled with relatively cheap oil


Maybe we will find the dark matter and dark energy cheaper yet than oil,,,, in relativistic terms that is.

The contemporary physics becomes employment driven and physicists are even less willing to risk their personal carriers than before


People don't go into physics because they are altruistic, or because they are selfless, or to serve humanity,,, (or to make a lot of money), for the most part they go into it solely out of curiosity.

the ignorance of cold fusion has brought the physicists into even ignorance


Ya can't have it both ways Zeph,, either the cold fusion is ignorance or the physicists are ignorant. Zeph, when it becomes doable, someone will do it. There's no "Secret Templar Cabal" suppressing it, it's just that there is little promise in it.

Personally I'd like to see increased funding for finding the last Pink Unicorn that must be out there,, but mainstream science being what it is,,

ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 18, 2013
either the cold fusion is ignorance or the physicists are ignorant
Cold fusion was revealed during twenty years of work of pair of scientists and published in standard scientific way. Now the rest of scientific community is supposed just to publish at least THE ATTEMPT for its replication. It's really that simple - until we get the attempt for replication, it's just the mainstream science, which remains ignorant here. Every finding - not just fundamental one - requires an independent replication, but the contemporary science has no institution for replication of findings built in. If such finding is incomfortable for the rest of scientific community just at least a bit, it may wait for its replication long time. The case of cold fusion is no exception from many other cases- it's significant only with its ratio of ignorance with scientists and importance for the rest of human civilization
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 18, 2013
Personally I'd like to see increased funding for finding the last Pink Unicorn that must be out there,, but mainstream science being what it is
If the scientists would be interested about cold fusion, many of them would indeed lose their jobs in existing areas of energetic research - but as a whole they would get a huge money for realization of their wildest basic research dreams. Currently they do behave rather like parasites of human society instead. This is not supposed to mean, they're lazy in general - actually many parasites are harmful just because of their frenetic activity.
borc
1.5 / 5 (2) Feb 18, 2013
the fact that our models of gravity do not match our observations.

makes my hair stand on end.
WHY ARE THERE SO MANY THINGS I DO NOT KNOW?!

I thirst for more knowledge. Can't wait for the solution.
Q-Star
2.9 / 5 (17) Feb 18, 2013
Cold fusion was revealed during twenty years of work of pair of scientists and published in standard scientific way.


Hardly "standard scientific way",,, that is not a very highly regarded source.

Now the rest of scientific community is supposed just to publish at least THE ATTEMPT for its replication.


That is not the way it works.

It's really that simple


No it is not.

Every finding - not just fundamental one - requires an independent replication, but the contemporary science has no institution for replication of findings built in.


Yes it does require independent replication. But ya can not require that someone MUST attempt it. The experiment funding is already too tight, ya can't just test every crank experiment that gets suggested. Science budgets are tight & getting tighter.

I still want more funding for Pink Unicorn research, but the mainstream zoologists wish to remain ignorant. (But I see they are spending more on electron-ducks.)
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 18, 2013
Nima at STScl: don't modify gravity, understand it (video 85 minutes). Even the trivial LeSage shielding model of gravity is way more complex than it appears at the first look, if you take it consequentially (in particular in the sense of famous Feynman's lecture: "There is plenty of room at the bottom"). Because the matter is not compact and each level of its particles would contribute to the shielding of gravitational waves in different extent.
I still want more funding for Pink Unicorn research, but the mainstream zoologists wish to remain ignorant
Even bigfoot is considered more seriously, than the cold fusion by now. Of course, without any research we will never prove it - which is exactly, what the mainstream physicists hope in.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 18, 2013
Btw with compare to bigfoot or even pink unicorn the problem of cold fusion can be solved in way more easier way: just buy one E-Cat unit from Andrea Rossi and run it during Oprah Winfrey TV show without external source of energy. It's really as simple, as it is - and you're not even required to lurk for unicorn in mountains for it. But I'm sure, the scientists will ignore it anyway: they have simply no institution for dealing with such unexpected findings. For example Muammar Yildiz demonstrated his motor without any apparent external energy source before full room of physicists - and what did happen from this time? Absolutely nothing. So even if you would show some pink unicorn to contemporary physicists, they wouldn't analyze it further. Why? Because they needn't to do it and they don't want to do it. These two reasons are quite enough and sufficient by itself.
TheWalrus
3 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2013
Maybe this research will finally answer the lingering questions about chemtrails, 9/11, the Kennedy cover-up, Bigfoot, and HAARP.

More likely, it will make the anti-dark-matter conspiracy crackpots buy another diploma from whatever mill it is that makes them think they know better than actual physicists, who have degrees and do research with real-life equipment, and can show THEIR FARKING MATH to back up their hypotheses.

What is it about dark matter that makes people come out of the woodwork and insist--INSIST!--that all those stupid scientists don't know what they're talking about, and IF ONLY YOU WOULD LISTEN TO ME!!!???

Aahh, the Internet: where everyone has a voice--even those who shouldn't.

I'm not saying Dark Matter is necessarily right; I'm just saying I trust real scientists way more than I trust anonymous, unpublished, non-credible so-called "experts" on the Internet.

Phys.Org recently had an article debating dark matter. Its sources are far more ceredible.
theon
2.4 / 5 (14) Feb 19, 2013
Dark matter was first discussed by Kapteyn 1922 (paper in English) and quantified in the Galaxy by Oort 1932 (in English). Zwicky's first paper on it (in German) was in 1933. It is incorrect to assign dark matter to Zwicky alone, probably referring to his 1938 paper (in English). Check your sources.
GuruShabu
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 19, 2013
I don't know why people give only 1s to Valeria T. She writes the best comments here. Not only scientific but also with the proper reserve and with plenty of substance.
The article, as most about modern cosmology, is full of assumptions that are taken as they were real.
For instance, the author says:""The dark matter particles are very heavy. It is one of the reasons we have made the LHC, not only to look for the Higgs boson,""
There is no such a thing as dark matter so far.
dark matter and dark energy are just theories. Only that and make no mistake about this point. Do not jump on conclusions that have not been reached for more than 30 years.
The DM theory does not allow to say that DM do this or do that because we do not know. We cannot measure, we can only THINK about it. This is science the rest is not.
ant_oacute_nio354
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 19, 2013
A lot of money for nothing!
Job001
1.9 / 5 (12) Feb 19, 2013
Too much disrespect and name calling for good science.

http://en.wikiped...t_Gödel Gödel proved in 1931 that all assumptions taken too far result in paradox, fallacy, incompleteness, or undecidability, however you wish to describe it. I accept his proof(other proofs exist). Thus, no one way of thinking or computing shall be sufficient.

Kurt Gödel was Einsteins friend and should be everyone's friend. Science makes advances because prior assumptions must of necessity always fail in infinite regress and often in a few short steps. Kurt's proof reminds me to be less arrogant and to critically review my weak assumptions, bias, and theories.
Guy_Underbridge
3 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2013
.
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2013
It its certainly possible that they will discover something, but it its unlikely that they will find a substance which was made up to provide an explanation for the fact that our models of gravity do not match our observations.

Thank you!
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (18) Feb 19, 2013
Quoting from the article,
Elegant and useful for identifying the stable of particles and forces that regulate our daily life, the Standard Model only tells part of the cosmic story.

For one thing, it does not explain gravity, although we know how to measure gravity and exploit it for our needs.

There is no definite proof that gravity actually exists.
See http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
The only justification for dark matter / dark energy is based on the premise that gravity does exist.
brt
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2013
I agree with the prior posts. The author of the press release doesn't really seem to understand what they wrote about. It's like they are confused between the cosmological and quantum Standard Theories, amongst other oddities in the press release. The wording is very peculiar in several places.

As for the results, no matter what they are, since this is coming from MIT, it's highly likely that it isn't some BS alternative crackpot nonsense.

Almost everything you hear from MIT is solid. They do a very good job of quality control when it comes to publication.


MIT leans towards particle explanations though. Not that they would intentionally skew any results; but they would still be convinced that it is an unknown particle despite the results of AMS.
Nanowill
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 19, 2013
There is a very simple PROOF CDM does not exist but with millions of dollars in ongoing and proposed programs nobody wants to hear about it. Dollars before integrity and logic?
The proof shows the Universe mass is entirely made of normal matter, 5.40 x 10^79 protons and electrons, giving a mass density the same as measured by WMAP. This leaves no room for CDM. Observations such as galactic rotation curves are explained by MOND, which in turn is explained by quantized gravity.

What happened to the "Open minds of Physicists"? Answer: It has gone the "Wall Street", chase the dollars, ignore any evidence that might imperil funding.
But as the old saying goes, "truth will out" and time is running short for all the silly fantasies that now plague physics.
If anyone is interested I'll post the proof.
NanoWill
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 19, 2013
There is a very simple PROOF CDM does not exist...


OK, if you say so. So how do you explain the overabundance of gravity in light of the fact there is not enough baryonic matter to sustain it?

If anyone is interested I'll post the proof.


OK then, just post it & tell us where to find it.....just don't ask us to sign in first.
yash17
1 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2013
""The dark matter particles are very heavy.........." said Maria Spiropulu, professor of physics"

This expression match the expectation that dark matter is compressed atom structure matter, that is when in atoms; proton, neutron & electron get compressed to ultimate dense.
KalYunus
1 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2013
Our observations leading to the concepts of Dark Energy and Dark Matter need to be adjusted to make sense.

Everything in our galaxy is subject to the shrinkage caused by the space-time curvature arising out of the black hole that provides the gravity necessary to build the galaxy. When Edwin Hubble looked out past the Milky Way, he observed a constant recession of objects, with the result that the farther away the object is from us, the faster it is receding from us. He called this Hubble's Law. This Law is the direct observation of the galactic shrinkage that we here on Earth are experiencing.

The road to the new physics consists of promoting the concept of Hubble's Law to Galactic Shrinkage. Once we correct our model of the universe driven by a change in perspective of Galactic Shrinkage, we will produce a new model, a new physics that will lead the way to the discovery of Dark Energy and Dark Matter.
Tausch
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2013
science advances one funeral at a time - Planck


Exhumation is finite.
For theoretical physics and mathematics this is labeled resummation.

A coroner does not have to sign a death certificate in the case where eventually nothing exists.

Patience is a virtue.
rah
1 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2013
"... X-ray Observatory and a mathematical reconstruction of the location of dark matter."
and by "mathematical reconstruction" he means they just guessed and speculated without evidence. This article and the accompanying illustration is a total fraud even though it attempts to appear legitimate by quoting top tier physicists and their schools. There is nothing new in the article and certainly no new science. The title "Scientists sense breakthroughs..." is ridiculous enough, but should be re-titled "Author needs to meet deadline and fill space, makes up crap"
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 24, 2013
@rah
So the picture presented as "fact" is just a computer-generated image based on calculations assuming gravitic attraction of "dark matter" to account for light effects, similar to the assumption that "gravitational lensing" takes place. In fact, "gravitational lensing" does not account for observational facts, as per a quote from Evalyn Gates, astronomer at the University of Chicago, and the author of a book on the science of gravitational lensing, "Einstein's Telescope: The Hunt for Dark Matter and Dark Energy in the Universe (Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Powell's)".
"The model of the lens outlines the (projected 2D) mass profile of the cluster – which doesn't seem to agree with numerical simulations for clusters, assuming a standard ΛCDM cosmology. The mass concentration in the center of the cluster is higher than predicted, a result that has also been found for other massive clusters studied with gravitational lensing."
Gravity is an invented concept, IMHO it doesn't exist.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2013
Gravity is an invented concept, IMHO it doesn't exist.
This is quite interesting opinion applicable during activities like this one. But personally, I'd rather keep my private stance in this matter.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 24, 2013
In fact, "gravitational lensing" does not account for observational facts, as per a quote from Evalyn Gates, astronomer at the University of Chicago, and the author of a book on the science of gravitational lensing, "Einstein's Telescope: The Hunt for Dark Matter and Dark Energy in the Universe


She hasn't worked in Chicago for several years,, she's in Cleveland now.

"The model of the lens outlines the (projected 2D) mass profile of the cluster – which doesn't seem to agree with numerical simulations for clusters, assuming a standard ΛCDM cosmology. The mass concentration in the center of the cluster is higher than predicted, a result that has also been found for other massive clusters studied with gravitational lensing."


Ya should read her book. She teaches, uses, and endorses the process of gravitational lensing. Ya are interpreting that quote out of context.

Gravity is an invented concept,IMHO it doesn't exist.


The good doctor Gates is a fan of gravity.
Byronstein
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2013
It may be that dark matter is a superfluid type material that is so superfluid in it's behavior that it is the most superfluid thing of all(or close to it).Standing waves set up in it at the speed of light will cause rivlets to form that we know as sub atomic particles and they accumulate as atoms.In other words,...they are both the same substance.The universe would be required to have an enormous shroud of this dark matter in a somewhat aquiescent state relative to the enormously accelerated state that the atoms and particles are in to hold them in it. At some point the composite material(particles,atoms)would bend back to their origins and start remixing new galaxies all over again, and the outer shroud of the universe would still have to remain perfectly still.A universe of such nature would possibly be so large as to defy attempts to locate and map where we are in the whole scheme of things!Also trying to find the edge of the universe not be a safe thing to do!
Byronstein
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2013
If they straightened out the LHC, would they get just a little more power by using a linear approach instead of a circular one?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2013
It may be that dark matter is a superfluid type material that is so superfluid in it's behavior that it is the most superfluid thing of all(or close to it
Vacuum is apparently even more superfluous stuff - the dark matter is behaving like the fibers of viscous slime with compare to it (Bullet cluster, Gregory Laflamme instability, the rotational curves of stars and solar mantle which are rotating like single bodies, etc....).
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 24, 2013
The good doctor Gates is a fan of gravity.

Obviously, you can see that from the title of her book.
She has my total respect, having faithfully reported that observational data does not agree with the model for gravitational lensing.
All more recent findings also agree that there is something wrong with gravitational lensing, or our fundamental model of the universe, e.g
http://phys.org/n...sun.html

There are many more similar results, but the dark matter brigade blithely carry on ignoring the facts - it ain't gravity, it is refraction. Why is that when something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, some people insist it is a dragon or some other invented mythical beast. Is Occam's Razor now considered redundant?
Q-Star
3 / 5 (14) Feb 24, 2013
Obviously, you can see that from the title of her book.
She has my total respect, having faithfully reported that observational data does not agree with the model for gravitational lensing.


Surely they taught ya in that World Class university, that there are usually a dozen or more models, which all assume the same processes. Every research group uses their own or several combined. Ya should have read Gates' book, then ya would know how this works. She's a gravitational lensing proponent.

All more recent findings also agree that there is something wrong with gravitational lensing, or our fundamental model of the universe, e.g


Did they also teach that 1 out of 10 means "All"? No models ever go without revising. That's the nature of science.

How would ya calculate the motions of astronomical bodies without out using Newton or Einstein? Show me the numbers. Not gobbledegook. Calculate a simple 2 body problem without relying on "gravity". Try the moon. Bet ya can't.
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2013
For the information of anyone reading this thread who is not already familiar with Q-Star, you should be aware that he is a noxious individual with multiple aliases including brt, anti_aliasphysorg, Quinn, VendicarE, and several others. He uses these aliases to rank his own comments 5/5 and anybody who disagrees with him 1/5. Pathetic!
In his own words:-
P.S. I really do have a graduate degree from a very prestigious university. Honest. And I really do have a very good position at a major university. No, I'm not a tenured professor, but it's a good position.
Someone keeps baiting me with something to the effect "anonymous lying coward" or some such. Only a really stupid person would engage in these shenanigans with their real name, address, and personal information.

By his own admission, he reviews books without reading them, and if you can be bothered to read his comments, nowhere does he ever contribute a single original thought under any of his aliases.
More follows:-
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2013
When I asked Q-Star which institution he had "graduated" from, he replied
The one where we learned to discuss such deep and intricate topics like forces, time, and gravity. (And to insult...

and that he convened with "three Noble Laureates" while he was there.
It was a pity he didn't pay more attention to the physics aspects and less to the "insult" part of the curriculum, and he never explains why the three "Noble Laureates" all wore white coats and carried a large butterfly net.
Apparently, when he talks about these meetings, the three "Noble Laureates" were dressed all in black, and after they had left he couldn't remember what the meetings had been about, nor any of their names, but he did have an uneasy feeling it had happened several times before... Anyway, they assigned him a mission which gave a purpose to his otherwise meaningless life, which was to join websites such as this, disrupt any sensible discussions, and insult anybody who showed signs of intelligence.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 27, 2013
When I asked Q-Star which institution he had "graduated" from, he replied
The one where we learned to discuss such deep and intricate topics like forces, time, and gravity. (And to insult...

and that he convened with "three Noble Laureates" while he was there


Ya should have taken a remedial reading/writing class in the World Class university,,,, ya mixed up Nobel and Noble,,,,

No wonder ya can't sell one of those "there is no such thing as gravity books",,,,,,

Blah, Blah, Blah,,,, ya can have the last word, ya've lost your entertainment value. If ya want to talk science okay, but so far ya haven't had much more to say about science other than "there is no such thing as gravity",,,,,

I'm sorry everyone has picked on ya and abused ya so,,,,, Toot-A-Loo.

P.S. Me? Caltech, class of '79,,,,, Ph.D. Caltech '84, what about ya?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2013
P.S. Me? Caltech, class of '79,,,,, Ph.D. Caltech '84, what about ya?


What a joke! You cannot even spell "you"! Or is this how they talk at Caltech? No wonder such a lot of BS came from that mental-institution! Does one get a PhD at Caltech only after having had a frontal lobotomy? This would explain a lot. St. Andreas, PLEASE wipe them all out!!
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 27, 2013
@johanfprins
Like me, wasting your time with Q-Star/Quinn/etc.
I understand you can buy PhDs for $10 from some institutions, I was offered one from the Uni of Idlewild years ago, just had to fill in a form which they called an "examination".
At least Q-Star/Quinn/etc. isn't claiming to be a Reverend, which can also be similarly obtained. I think I must have touched a sore spot with him, he has never before been so forthcoming with his information, though whether its as "real" as his aliases is questionable. Its probably a facet of his personality disorder, schizophrenia or similar. His previous comments show he has some sort of complex about the Templars, he makes frequent fearful references to them (he studied "forces", so he probably thinks websites mentioning dark matter, dark energy, etc. are synonymous with dark forces..). However, just because he's paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get him, in fact I heard rumours that even as I write this they are closing in on him...
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2013
@ Reg Mundy,

Excellent!
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 28, 2013
@johanfprins
I'm beginning to regret pointing out the deficiences of Q-Star/Quinn/etc./etc., I have obviously hurt his feelings...
I didn't mean to really upset him, if he has a nervous breakdown he might have to be taken back to his "institution". Put yourself in his shoes, he thinks he got his PhD in 1984, nearly 30 years ago. Since then, despite professors at Caltech being two-a-penny (there are thousands of themm..) he keeps being passed over, never getting that tenured professorship despite long slavish service to the academic establishment, never questioning their assumptions, a real acolyte of their self-appointing priesthood - it would make anyone all bitter and twisted. Of course, he has no choice now, he obviously cannot cut it in the big wide world outside academia as you and I have done. You would think in all that time he could have published some paper, a book, anything original, but no!
I am starting to feel sorry for him, do you think we should lay off the jibes?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2013
I am starting to feel sorry for him, do you think we should lay off the jibes?


Let us for now lay off and give him the opportunity to behave and argue like a scientist is supposed to do (not that many mainstream scientists do); and see what happens.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2013
What a joke! You cannot even spell "you"!


Only an idiot, moron, or really stupid person would say that. According to the "big boy", the OED in 23 volumes, "ya" is just fine,,,, even this little spell checker says ya are an idiot, moron and stupid.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2013
Let us for now lay off and give him the opportunity to behave and argue like a scientist is supposed to do (not that many mainstream scientists do); and see what happens.


So that means someone will be explaining the "there is no such thing as gravity" in the next post or ten?

By the By: No need to lay off, according to a World Class university trained scientist, there is a rumour{sic} that I won't be around much longer. I posit that that rumour{sis} is about as valid as the the "there is not such thing as gravity" theory of expanding matter.
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2013
@ johan,,,

Of course, he has no choice now, he obviously cannot cut it in the big wide world outside academia as you and I have done.


How does it feel to be included in the ranks of Zephyr, Natello, Yash17, cantdrive, et al. You and the "there is not such thing as gravity" boyo?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2013
@ johan,,,

How does it feel to be included in the ranks of Zephyr, Natello, Yash17, cantdrive, et al. You and the "there is not such thing as gravity" boyo?


I am willing to discuss science with anybody no matter how scientifically illiterate he/she is. What I do expect in return is honesty and integrity. People who post under different aliases while claiming that they are experts in physics are all beneath contempt. This should not be allowed on a scientific forum. If you do have a model or theory you believe in you must post it under your own name. Reg Mundy is doing this. So whether I agree with his thesis or not, I have respect for him and not for YOU!

I will only be in a position to criticize Reg Mundy, after I have studied in FULL what he has written. Unfortunately I do not have the money to buy his book, nor the time to engross myself into a subject of which I have at present scant knowledge.

But I will defend his right to be objectively heard with all my might!
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2013
I am willing to discuss science with anybody no matter how scientifically illiterate he/she is. What I do expect in return is honesty and integrity. People who post under different aliases while claiming that they are experts in physics are all beneath contempt.


How often do ya check your pm's? From a week ago? I post under one name.

Reg Mundy is doing this.


No he is not, we've asked him dozens of times to explain his crank theory of "there is no such thing as gravity",,, he's refused to discuss it, every time he was asked.

I will only be in a position to criticize Reg Mundy, after I have studied in FULL what he has written.


Here is a sampling of his writing to get ya started.

http://phys.org/p...er/Enric Berneda/activity

http://phys.org/p...activity

http://phys.org/p...hydening Gyre/activity

http://phys.org/p...activity

http://phys.org/p...activity

He never discusses science

johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2013
How often do ya check your pm's? From a week ago? I post under one name.

I have not been checking my pm's. But you should always post only under one name: And if you criticize you should not use an alias. If you consider yourself a "peer" who can contribute, there is no need to hide behind anonymity.

No he is not, we've asked him dozens of times to explain his crank theory of "there is no such thing as gravity",,, he's refused to discuss it, every time he was asked.


Maybe you have to read his whole thesis to understand why he argues in this manner. I cannot argue this aspect and have therefore not made any posts on his science; which might well be flawed, like all physics might be. I am not willing to enter this dispute at this point, since, quite frankly, I do not have the time.

I am going to close with a stupid question: Did Einstein not also claim that there is not a force of gravity but only free motion within a curved space?
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 28, 2013
@Q-Rats
Strange list of my postings! I am not EnricBerneda, RealityCheck, WhydeningGyre, AntonKole or ALV.
I hope those innocent bystanders respond to your accusations appropriately.
I will send johan my book, third edition, as he missed the free issues originally provided. It should give him much amusement. If you in your persona as Quinn had bothered to read even the introduction (which is provided FREE on Amazon) you would know, as pointed out in the intro, it was written tongue-in-cheek, and is not necessarily my professional stance on some aspects. Some of the theories in the book have been mooted before, but the purpose of the book was to publish certain original theories without the usual "proofs", and I am now on record as their originator. Making money or convincing idiots like you to actually think about the stuff you spout by rote were never considerations.
There is an experiment in it which might get you that elusive tenured professor post you crave if you are quick!
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2013
@Q-Rats
Strange list of my postings! I am not EnricBerneda, RealityCheck, WhydeningGyre, AntonKole or ALV.


Well, Boyo, the only way that is true is if ya all when to the very same kindergarten, same schools, were roommates at the very same World Class university, and don't have any idea what the words "dates", "syntax" and "demeanor" mean.

I will send johan my book, third edition, as he missed the free issues originally provided. It should give him much amusement.


Third edition? Already? That's three editions in as many months. What's that about?

There is an experiment in it which might get you that elusive tenured professor post you crave if you are quick!


Hmmm, send me a free copy, and I'll give it go. Naaa, on second thought, don't bother, it would probably have me dismissed.
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 28, 2013
@johanfprins
Let us for now lay off and give him the opportunity to behave and argue like a scientist is supposed to do ....and see what happens.

Well, now we know what happens - he continues as before with his red-neck affectation, his "ya" this and "ya" that, his homespun backwoods philosophy, his stupidity and his insults.
I am disappointed in the Templars, I hoped they would have got him by now, and at least tarred and feathered the asshole (or is that the KKK?). Well, I suppose we must put up with him a little longer, though this website would have been immensely improved by his absence. Actually, I can't think of anything which wouldn't be improved by his absence.
I have suggested an experiment to the obnoxious little twerp which, if he decides to perform it (it could lead to a tenured professor post, or even a reserved NL place in the car park, so it will definitely tempt him!) will necessitate his residing at the South Pole for a few years (it simplifies the maths!).
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 28, 2013
And if you criticize you should not use an alias. If you consider yourself a "peer" who can contribute, there is no need to hide behind anonymity.


This is an UN-refereed public forum. There's no way that I'm going to publish identifying information on a site with this group of cranks, crackpots & weirdos viewing it. I post with ONE user name.

Maybe you have to read his whole thesis to understand why he argues in this manner. I cannot argue this aspect and have therefore not made any posts on his science,,


No one can, he hasn't presented anything here but "buy the book". I am not going to give money away until he is bold enough to give a clue as what I might be buying.

I am going to close with a stupid question: Did Einstein not also claim that there is not a force of gravity but only free motion within a curved space?


He did not use gravity as a force in GR. But only in GR, in all his other work he represented gravity as a force. The model depends on topic.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 28, 2013
Well, now we know what happens - he continues as before,,

Blah, Blah, Blah, I have nothing to say. Blah, Blah, Blah.


Well tickle me with a rusty spike. Wow, I'm truly trumped and stumped. Damn me eyes Boyo, what could I have been thinking when I dallied with ya?
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 28, 2013
@Q-Prat/anti-al/brt/Quinn/etc.
Hmmm, send me a free copy, and I'll give it go. Naaa, on second thought, don't bother, it would probably have me dismissed.

Pointless sending you a copy, as your Quinn persona already knows exactly whats in it - otherwise, how could he write such sparkling comprehensive reviews without reading it?
Anyway, you are probably right about such an experiment getting you dismissed, as it is a sensible, logical project hardly in keeping with the loony stuff that seems to occupy you and your fellow inmates. Pity, you might have got a proper job at a real uni if you had done it right, perhaps even published your first paper!
Well, as they say, when one door shuts, another one slams in your face, and I expect another golden opportunity will come your way in another 30 years or so. Hope you recognise it next time... if another 30 years of your drab pointless existence hasn't sent you completely round the bend.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 28, 2013
@Q-Prat/anti-al/brt/Quinn/etc.
Hmmm, send me a free copy, and I'll give it go. Naaa, on second thought, don't bother, it would probably have me dismissed.


Blah, Blah, Blah I'm really smart, Blah, Blah, Blah.


Can't argue with that.
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 28, 2013
@Q-Stir/antialioop/VendicarE/brt/Quinn/et al
Can't argue with that.

I get the feeling you are losing heart in our little joust.
Whats happened to the deadly wit, the vented spleen, the boiling venom of your earlier efforts?
Are you retiring hurt, got the sulks, feel I'm hitting you below the belt? Perhaps my barbs are striking a little too close to home, eh?
Well, johanfprins thinks I should lay off you, and I don't want to make a grown man cry (you are a grown man, aren't you? I will feel sorry if you turn out to be the spoilt little brat I first took you for...).
So, in your own words, Too-Ta-Loo, or whatever barbaric phrase you prefer, I will leave you alone if you behave yourself.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (12) Feb 28, 2013
@Q-Stir/antialioop/VendicarE/brt/Quinn/et al

Blah, Blah, Blah, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Blah, Blah, Blah.


Couldn't have said it better Boyo, keep up the good work.
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2013
@Q-Stir/Quinn/brt/VendicarE/etc.
Couldn't have said it better Boyo, keep up the good work.

Careful, Q-Pee, your red-neck persona is merging into your Irish persona.
This is a dangerous development, as many studies into schizophrenia show, as the end result is one composite deranged individual.
I urge you to get treatment now, otherwise it will be the straitjacket and padded cell for you rather than the more benign environment of your current institution.
theon
1 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2013
2-3 weeks? It is more than 4 weeks ago. What was to be announced so greatly?