Scientists report hint of dark matter in first results from $2 billion cosmic ray detector (Update 4)

Apr 03, 2013
This undated file image provided by the European Space Agency ESA on Wednesday April 3, 2013 shows the International Space Station in the sunlight. A $2 billion cosmic ray detector on the International Space Station has found the footprint of something that could be dark matter, the mysterious substance that is believed to hold the cosmos together but has never been directly observed, scientists say. But the first results from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, known by its acronym AMS, are almost as enigmatic as dark matter itself. They show evidence of new physics phenomena that could be the strange and unknown dark matter or could be energy that originates from pulsars, scientists at the European particle physics laboratory near Geneva announced Wednesday April 3, 2013. (AP Photo/NASA/European Space Agency ESA. Keystone)

It is one of the cosmos' most mysterious unsolved cases: dark matter. It is supposedly what holds the universe together. We can't see it, but scientists are pretty sure it's out there.

Led by a dogged, Nobel Prize-winning gumshoe who has spent 18 years on the case, scientists put a $2 billion detector aboard the International Space Station to try to track down the stuff. And after two years, the first evidence came in Wednesday: tantalizing cosmic footprints that seem to have been left by dark matter.

But the evidence isn't enough to declare the case closed. The footprints could have come from another, more conventional suspect: a pulsar, or a rotating, radiation-emitting star.

The Sam Spade in the investigation, physicist and Nobel laureate Sam Ting of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said he expects a more definitive answer in a matter of months. He confidently promised: "There is no question we're going to solve this problem."

"It's a tantalizing hint," said California Institute of Technology physicist Sean Carroll, who was not part of the team. "It's a sign of something." But he can't quite say what that something is. It doesn't eliminate the other suspect, pulsars, he added.

The results from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, or AMS, are significant because dark matter is thought to make up about a quarter of all the matter in the universe.

In this July 25, 2012 file picture Director general of CERN Rolf-Dieter Heuer, left, Nobel laureate and AMS spokesperson Samuel C.C. Ting, right, and Mark Kelly, NASA astronaut and commander of mission STS-134, center, brief the media at the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) Payload Operations and Command Center (POCC) at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Meyrin near Geneva, Switzerland. A US $2 billion experiment on the International Space Station is on the verge of explaining one of the more mysterious building blocks of the universe: The dark matter that helps hold the cosmos together. An international team of scientists says the cosmic ray detector has found the first hint of dark matter, which has never yet been directly observed. The team said Wednesday its first results from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, flown into space two years ago, show evidence of a new physics phenomena that could be the strange and unknown matter. Nobel-winning physicist Samuel Ting, who leads the team at the European particle physics laboratory near Geneva, says he expects a more conclusive answer within months. The findings are based on an excess of positrons positively charged subatomic particles. (AP Photo/Keystone/Martial Trezzini,File)

"We live in a sea of dark matter," said Michael Salamon, who runs the AMS program for the U.S. Energy Department. Unraveling the mystery of dark matter could help scientists better understand the composition of our universe and, more particularly, what holds galaxies together.

Ting announced the findings in Geneva at the European Organization for Nuclear Research, the particle physics laboratory known as CERN.

The 7-ton detector with a 3-foot magnet ring at its core was sent into space in 2011 in a shuttle mission commanded by astronaut Mark Kelly while his wife, then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, was recovering from a gunshot wound to the head. The device is transmitting its data to CERN, where it is being analyzed.

In this undated picture made available by NASA, a technician examines the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer at Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Fla.. The cosmic ray detector was mounted on the International Space Station, searched the universe and shall help to explain how everything came to be. CERN , the European Organization for Nuclear Research, released first results of the experiment Wednesday April 3, 2013. (AP Photo/NASA, Glenn Benson)

For 80 years scientists have theorized the existence of dark matter but have never actually observed it directly. They have looked for it in accelerators that smash particles together at high speed. No luck. They've looked deep underground with special detectors. Again no luck.

Then there's a third way: looking in space for the results of rare dark matter collisions. If particles of dark matter crash and annihilate each other, they should leave a footprint of positrons—the anti-matter version of electrons—at high energy levels. That's what Ting and AMS are looking for.

They found some. But they could also be signs of pulsars, Ting and others concede. What's key is the curve of the plot of those positrons. If the curve is one shape, it points to dark matter. If it's another, it points to pulsars. Ting said they should know the curve—and the suspect—soon.

This undated image shows an artist's concept of the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, rounded module at left, installed on the International Space Station provided by NASA. The cosmic ray detector searched the universe and shall help to explain how everything came to be. CERN , the European Organization for Nuclear Research, released first results of the experiment Wednesday April 3, 2013. (AP Photo/NASA)

The instrument will be measuring cosmic rays, where the footprints are found, until 2020 or so.

Other scientists praised the results and looked forward to more.

"This is an 80-year-old detective story and we are getting close to the end," said University of Chicago physicist Michael Turner, one of the giants in the field of dark matter. "This is a tantalizing clue and further results from AMS could finish the story."


CERN announcement is below:

The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) Collaboration announces the publication of its first physics result in Physical Review Letters. The AMS Experiment is the most powerful and sensitive particle physics spectrometer ever deployed in space. As seen in Figure 1, AMS is located on the exterior of the International Space Station (ISS) and since its installation on 19 May 2011 it has measured over 30 billion cosmic rays at energies up to trillions of electron volts. Its permanent magnet and array of precision particle detectors collect and identify charged cosmic rays passing through AMS from the far reaches of space. Over its long duration mission on the ISS, AMS will record signals from 16 billion cosmic rays every year and transmit them to Earth for analysis by the AMS Collaboration. This is the first of many physics results to be reported.

Figure 1: From its vantage point ~260 miles (~400 km) above the Earth, the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) collects data from primordial cosmic rays that traverse the detector.

In the initial 18 month period of space operations, from 19 May 2011 to 10 December 2012, AMS analyzed 25 billion primary cosmic ray events. Of these, an unprecedented number, 6.8 million, were unambiguously identified as electrons and their antimatter counterpart, positrons. The 6.8 million particles observed in the energy range 0.5 to 350 GeV are the subject of the precision study reported in this first paper.

Electrons and positrons are identified by the accurate and redundant measurements provided by the various AMS instruments against a large background of protons. Positrons are clearly distinguished from this background through the robust rejection power of AMS of more than one in one million.

Currently, the total number of positrons identified by AMS, in excess of 400,000, is the largest number of energetic antimatter particles directly measured and analyzed from space. The present paper can be summarized as follows:

AMS has measured the positron fraction (ratio of the positron flux to the combined flux of positrons and electrons) in the energy range 0.5 to 350 GeV. We have observed that from 0.5 to 10 GeV, the fraction decreases with increasing energy. The fraction then increases steadily between 10 GeV to ~250 GeV. Yet the slope (rate of growth) of the positron fraction decreases by an order of magnitude from 20 to 250 GeV. At energies above 250 GeV, the spectrum appears to flatten but to study the behavior above 250 GeV requires more statistics – the data reported represents ~10% of the total expected. The positron fraction spectrum exhibits no structure nor time dependence. The positron to electron ratio shows no anisotropy indicating the energetic positrons are not coming from a preferred direction in space. Together, these features show evidence of a new physics phenomena.

Figure 2 illustrates the AMS data presented in the first publication.

Figure 2: The positron fraction measured by AMS demonstrates excellent agreement with the model described below. Even with the high statistics, 6.8 million events, and accuracy of AMS, the fraction shows no fine structure.

The exact shape of the spectrum, as shown in Figure 2, extended to higher energies, will ultimately determine whether this spectrum originates from the collision of dark matter particles or from pulsars in the galaxy. The high level of accuracy of this data shows that AMS will soon resolve this issue.

Over the last few decades there has been much interest on the positron fraction from primary cosmic rays by both particle physicists and astrophysicists. The underlying reason for this interest is that by measuring the ratio between positrons and electrons and by studying the behavior of any excess across the energy spectrum, a better understanding of the origin of dark matter and other physics phenomena can be obtained.

The first AMS result has been analyzed using several phenomenological models, one of which is described in the paper and included in Figure 2. This model, with diffuse electron and positron components and a common source component, fits the AMS data surprisingly well. This agreement indicates that the positron fraction spectrum is consistent with electron positron fluxes each of which is the sum of its diffuse spectrum and a single energetic common source. In other words, a significant portion of the high‐energy electrons and positrons originate from a common source.

AMS is a magnetic spectrometer with the ability to explore new physics because of its precision, statistics, energy range, capability to identify different particles and nuclei and its long duration in space. As shown in Figure 3, the accuracy of AMS and the high statistics available distinguish the reported positron fraction spectrum from earlier experiments.

Figure 3: A comparison of AMS results with recent published measurements.

It is expected that hundreds of billions of cosmic rays will be measured by AMS throughout the lifetime of the Space Station. The volume of raw data requires a massive analysis effort. The parameters of each signal collected are meticulously reconstructed, characterized and archived before they undergo analysis by multiple independent groups of AMS physicists thus ensuring the accuracy of the physics results.

With its magnet and precision particle detectors, high accuracy and statistics, the first result of AMS, based on only ~10% of the total data expected, is clearly distinguished from earlier experiments (see References).

Background of AMS

The first publication from the AMS Experiment is a major milestone for the AMS international collaboration. Hundreds of scientists, engineers, technicians and students from all over the world have worked together for over 18 years to make AMS a reality. The collaboration represents 16 countries from Europe, Asia and North America (Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Romania, Russia, Turkey, China, Korea, Taiwan, Mexico and the United States) under the leadership of Nobel Laureate Samuel Ting of M.I.T. The collaboration continues to work closely with the excellent NASA AMS Project Management team from Johnson Space Center as it has throughout the entire process.

AMS is a U.S. Department of Energy sponsored particle physics experiment on the ISS under a DOE‐NASA Implementing Arrangement. AMS was constructed at universities and research institutes around the world and assembled at the European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland. It was transported to the Kennedy Space Center in August 2010 onboard a special C‐5M transport aircraft of the U.S. Air Force Air Mobility Command. AMS was launched by NASA to the ISS as the primary payload onboard the final mission of space shuttle Endeavour (STS‐134) on 16 May 2011. The crew of STS‐134, Greg Johnson, Mike Fincke, Greg Chamitoff, Drew Feustel, Roberto Vittori under the command of Mark Kelly, successfully deployed AMS as an external attachment on the U.S. ISS National Laboratory on 19 May 2011. Once installed, AMS was powered up and immediately began collecting data from primary sources in space and these were transmitted to the AMS Payload Operations Control Center (POCC). The POCC is located at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland.

Once AMS became operational, the first task for the AMS Collaboration was to ensure that all instruments and systems performed as designed and as tested on the ground. The AMS detector, with its multiple redundancies, has proven to perform flawlessly in space. Over the last 22 months in flight, AMS collaborators have gained invaluable operational experience in running a precision spectrometer in space and mitigating the hazardous conditions to which AMS is exposed as it orbits the Earth every 90 minutes. These are conditions that are not encountered by ground‐based accelerator experiments or satellite‐based experiments and require constant vigilance in order to avoid irreparable damage. These include the extreme thermal variations caused by solar effects and the re‐positioning of ISS onboard radiators and solar arrays. In addition, the AMS operators regularly transmit software updates from the AMS POCC at CERN to the AMS computers in space in order to match the regular upgrades of the ISS software and hardware.

With the wealth of data emitted by primary cosmic rays passing through AMS, the Collaboration will also explore other topics such as the precision measurements of the boron to carbon ratio, nuclei and antimatter nuclei, and antiprotons, precision measurements of the helium flux, proton flux and photons, as well as the search for new physics and astrophysics phenomena such as strangelets.

The AMS Collaboration will provide new, accurate information over the lifetime of the Space Station as the AMS detector continues its mission to explore new physics phenomena in the cosmos.

References

TS93: R. Golden et al., Astrophys. J. 457 (1996) L103.

Wizard/CAPRICE: M. Boezio et al., Adv. Sp. Res. 27‐4 (2001) 669.

HEAT: J. J. Beatty et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 241102; M. A. DuVernois et al., Astrophys. J. 559 (2001) 296.

AMS‐01: M. Aguilar et al., Phys. Lett. B 646 (2007) 145.

PAMELA: P. Picozza, Proc. of the 4th International Conference on Particle and Fundamental Physics in Space, Geneva, 5‐7 Nov. 2012, to be published. The value in the highest energy bin is the 90 % confidence level lower limit. We are grateful to Professor Picozza for providing us with accurate information on the PAMELA experiment. Note: 1) The data are obtained directly from the absolute fluxes of electrons and positrons, gotten independently. 2) The reported errors contain not only statistical errors, but also a portion of the systematics. 3) The data shown have been collected between June 2006 and January 2010. They represent an average of the solar modulation. O. Adriani et al.,Astropart. Phys. 34 (2010) 1; O. Adriani et al., Nature 458 (2009) 607.

Fermi‐LAT: M. Ackermann et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 011103.

Explore further: Biology meets geometry: Describing geometry of common cellular structure

More information: The data published in the journal Physical Review Letters comes from 25 billion cosmic ray events compiled since the AMS arrived at the orbiting outpost aboard the space shuttle Endeavour's final flight in 2011.

Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer: ams.nasa.gov/ , www.ams02.org/

4.7 /5 (35 votes)

Related Stories

AMS is ready to discover the particle universe

May 20, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- The largest and most complex scientific instrument yet to be fitted to the International Space Station was installed today. Taken into space by the Space Shuttle, the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer ...

New Endeavour for an MIT experiment

May 25, 2011

Space Shuttle Endeavour’s final mission, launched May 16, has successfully delivered MIT researchers’ Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) — an instrument designed to use the unique environment ...

Shuttle brings big-bucks magnet to space station

May 18, 2011

(AP) -- A mammoth cosmic ray detector arrived at the International Space Station on Wednesday, a $2 billion experiment that will search the invisible universe and help explain how everything came to be.

Recommended for you

A new generation of storage—ring

13 hours ago

A bright synchrotron source that emits over a wide part of the electromagnetic spectrum from the infrared to hard X-rays is currently being built in Lund, Sweden. The MAX IV facility presents a range of technical ...

Universe may face a darker future

17 hours ago

New research offers a novel insight into the nature of dark matter and dark energy and what the future of our Universe might be.

High-intensity sound waves may aid regenerative medicine

Oct 30, 2014

Researchers at the University of Washington have developed a way to use sound to create cellular scaffolding for tissue engineering, a unique approach that could help overcome one of regenerative medicine's ...

Formula could shed light on global climate change

Oct 30, 2014

Wright State University researchers have discovered a formula that accurately predicts the rate at which soil develops from the surface to the underlying rock, a breakthrough that could answer questions about ...

User comments : 205

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rubberman
1.3 / 5 (23) Apr 03, 2013
Well....if it does exist, logic would stand to reason that you cant spend billions of years absorbing photons and still be undetectable in the EM spectrum....first I have heard of DM being tied to positrons though.
axemaster
4.6 / 5 (19) Apr 03, 2013
Dark matter doesn't absorb photons.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (15) Apr 03, 2013
Pretty exciting, if it turns out to be true. Stay tuned!
brt
3.9 / 5 (18) Apr 03, 2013
Well....if it does exist, logic would stand to reason that you cant spend billions of years absorbing photons and still be undetectable in the EM spectrum....first I have heard of DM being tied to positrons though.


don't pretend like you know anything about Dark Matter or physics.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (21) Apr 03, 2013
Well....if it does exist, logic would stand to reason that you cant spend billions of years absorbing photons and still be undetectable in the EM spectrum....first I have heard of DM being tied to positrons though.


I don't understand the "positron" connection either. Maybe someone would chime in an help me with that.

But where do ya get the "billions of years absorbing photons" from? It makes it sound like collecting a big bag of photons, which are just sitting around waiting to do something. Photons are not "permanent" particles, they are ephemeral particles(some like to call them virtual particles but I personally think they are real, not virtual) they get absorbed (cease to exist) and sometimes remitted (created anew).
brt
3.8 / 5 (18) Apr 03, 2013

The current trendy theory's model shows that dark matter annihilation in the center of the milky way should give off an overabundance of antimatter in the form of positrons. So it is a bit misleading, dark matter hasn't been detected, the most popular model is just getting a little bit of credibility. Kind of like how we didn't detect an actual Higgs Boson, just the particles that decay from it according to the model.
Q-Star
4 / 5 (21) Apr 03, 2013

The current trendy theory's model shows that dark matter annihilation in the center of the milky way should give off an overabundance of antimatter in the form of positrons. So it is a bit misleading, dark matter hasn't been detected, the most popular model is just getting a little bit of credibility. Kind of like how we didn't detect an actual Higgs Boson, just the particles that decay from it according to the model.


Thanks, it was a bit confusing. Until ya pointed out that relationship.
DingleBerry
1.5 / 5 (16) Apr 03, 2013
Dark matter doesn't absorb photons.

Dark matter absorbs and emits dark photons.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (18) Apr 03, 2013
WIMP research suffered with failures during last three years (including LHC) - so now it needs to find SOMETHING at any price. The same is valid about string theorists and supersymmetrists. IMO this artifact is real, but it can be explained with common neutrinos.
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (24) Apr 03, 2013
If Dark Matter is self-annihilating, then why is there so much of it allegedly still hanging around?

There's allegedly four times more than all ordinary matter and anti-matter combined.

Why not kablooie with a universe full of positrons which would then annihilate all the electrons and still have so many extra positrons around?

After all if it gives off positrons, the positron is only like 1/1007th the mass of a proton, so for there to be 4 times the Dark Matter mass as orinary matter, then you'd need like 4000 positrons for every proton or neutron among ordinary matter.

Why are there allegedly galactic scale clouds of this self-annihilating Dark Matter everywhere, yet they have not annihilated themselves?!

Lies.
GSwift7
3.9 / 5 (14) Apr 03, 2013
After all if it gives off positrons, the positron is only like 1/1007th the mass of a proton, so for there to be 4 times the Dark Matter mass as orinary matter, then you'd need like 4000 positrons for every proton or neutron among ordinary matter


That's not true unless you have some reason to assume a one to one ratio of positrons per DM annihilation. Radioactive decay gives of many nutrinos as it decays. Matter emits many photons as it cools. There's no reason to assume a one to one ratio of positrons per DM particle.

As they get more data on the positrons, we should be able to infer quite a bit from the total energy of the positrons over time. If you take the average energy of each positron along with the max and min of the positrons over a long enough period of time, you should be able to place limits on the mass and collision rates of their source. Given enough info, we might even try to map them with a pupose-built observatory like Planck.
GSwift7
4.1 / 5 (17) Apr 03, 2013
Why are there allegedly galactic scale clouds of this self-annihilating Dark Matter everywhere, yet they have not annihilated themselves?!


Once we know a bit more about it, we may be able to answer those questions. A really good unknown doesn't invalidate anything. Your question is a good one, but you seem to be saying that something about this situation makes it impossible, though you know nothing about it. We are seeing a real observation. Something is causing it. I'm sure you're right and all those dummies at CERN have absolutely zero evidence to support their theory. Since you already know, you should have written them a letter and saved us all 2 billion dollars!! Or... I have a better idea: Let's listen to them and see if there's a way to test their theory. Then let's do that. If it tests out to be correct, then we can all have a big dark matter party.
Mike_Bailey
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2013
Forgive my ignorance as I am no specialist, if we can collect or detect latent positrons zipping around up there, couldnt we collide them with electrons and have a matter/animatter reaction and use that energy to power engines and life support indefinitely?
Roy A
1 / 5 (9) Apr 03, 2013
All plasma of neutrons, protons and electrons are composed of matter, dark matter (transition matter) and anti-matter (principal matter); composed of dynamic magnetic fields and gravitational fields(interacting magnetic fields). According to M.T.Keshe. Allas it's not just under your nose but actually in you nose to!
GSwift7
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 03, 2013
Forgive my ignorance as I am no specialist, if we can collect or detect latent positrons zipping around up there, couldnt we collide them with electrons and have a matter/animatter reaction and use that energy to power engines and life support indefinitely?


If you've ever had a PET scan at the hospital, then you've had electron-positron annhilation used inside you. The energy of an electron-positron annihilation is very small, and the product of that annihilation is usually a gamma ray photon, which you aren't going to have much luck extracting energy from. Also, positrons and electrons do not alway annihilate when they interact. There are rules of conservation that dictate whether and how they will annihilate. Try the wiki page:

http://en.wikiped...hilation
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (13) Apr 03, 2013
If Dark Matter is self-annihilating, then why is there so much of it allegedly still hanging around?

Because it interacts very rarely. (That's why it's called WIMP - weakly interacting massive particles)
You are falsely assuming that dark matter reacts/interacts at the same rate that ordinary matter does.

if we can collect or detect latent positrons zipping around up there, couldnt we collide them with electrons and have a matter/animatter reaction and use that energy to power engines and life support indefinitely?

Far too few of them around. The AMS has intercepted 400000 since mid 2011. Which very roughly comes out as 10E-14kg of annihilated mass ...or about 1000Joule (enough to power a 100W light bulb for ten seconds)
casualjoe
5 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2013
Forgive my ignorance as I am no specialist, if we can collect or detect latent positrons zipping around up there, couldnt we collide them with electrons and have a matter/animatter reaction and use that energy to power engines and life support indefinitely?

The physicists at CERN may be able to carry out your wishes in the near future, they are working on the LHeC which will be colliding electrons, maybe ask them to stick a few positrons in there for you and see how it goes.
DarkWingDuck
1.2 / 5 (17) Apr 03, 2013
NOT POSITRONS: positronium

positronium is what they're detecting. positronium is created, the postitron gets suck into a blackhole and the electron escapes creating matter as we know it. The collapse of positronium produces an annihilation spectrum.

If they ever figure it out, they'll find that the current model of gravity is wrong.
Efbeeye
5 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2013
Can anyone tell me if the $2B cost of AMS includes transportation, and, payload launch, and, installation expenditures? Or, is that figure just the initial construction price tag?
Also, I'm unable to remember the cost/kilo of Space Shuttle cargo; any help there?
VENDItardE
1 / 5 (9) Apr 03, 2013
But they could also be signs of pulsars, Ting and others concede
yep
1.9 / 5 (18) Apr 04, 2013
Priori science going nowhere really fast, finding lots of nothing everywhere. Surprise!
theon
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 04, 2013
What an appalling hyping on dark matter. There is not any new clear structure in the data, that would hint at DM. In Figure 3 one sees that the results were highly expected from Fermi and Pamela, be it that the rise at the high end is smaller. So why have those results not already been proving DM? Moreover, like any Cold Dark Matter, this would be a disaster for the Galaxy. It would not explain the water present in the Moon stone. http://phys.org/n...oon.html
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 04, 2013
Cool, dark matter! Just what the cosmology doctor ordered.

It is nice that they got rid of the Fermi-LAT tentative peak, because an isotropic source of particle/antiparticles from DM annihilation diffusing in from the whole halo is consistent with expectations. And if the energies drop off at ~ 500 GeV, the source could be a ~ TeV supersymmetric WIMP, which resolves the hiearchy problem of standard particles one way or other. (I.e. why the field particle masses are so low relative to the Planck energy of quantum particles.)
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 04, 2013
@rubberman: Don't try to get physics then. Neutrinos are undetectable in the EM spectrum. In fact, they are a minuscule part of DM, albeit barely approximating some of the cold DM (CDM) of standard cosmology as they are light (so too energetically hot).

Positrons would come from electron-positron pair production in some models of DM where the DM particles would be their own anti-particles. Especially the supersymmetric particle model. (So called "WIMPs", weakly interacting massive particles, akin to how neutrinos are only weakly interacting.)

@DingleBerry: Dingleberry is your name, dingleberry is your mind. There are no "dark" photons. If there are supersymmetric particles the "photino" photon must be massive, perhaps the very least mass WIMP we seem to see.

@Valeria: No, WMAP and Planck gets the amount of neutrinos from the CMB and from the standard cosmology both, and neutrinos (standard matter) isn't enough. We have known that for nearly 10 years now.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2013
@Lurker: As you can see, the amount of positrons need only be ~ 10 % of the electron flux. DM becomes a cold halo because they are a) only weakly interacting (so no EM bound bodies) and b) massive (so relatively few). They annihilate seldom because of the same reasons.

@Mike: Not much of a flux. But CR et cetera positrons are collected by the van Allen belts, and there are ideas of collecting minute amounts of that for interstellar drives. Very expensive (but worth it for missions if doable), and not nearly enough to power much on Earth.

@DWD: Not positronium (bound *very shortlived* electron-positron exotic atom pairs), but positrons. See the article.

@Efbeeye: Likely total cost. Cheap for a large scale particle experiment.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 04, 2013
@theon: It is the AMS precision, so you can see the expected drop off of a WIMP signature not seen previously, that makes the difference.

No hype, they are very straightforward with the result. You are the one hyping "hype".

@natello: I was joking. The article describes the observational status, it is consistent with the DM that is the main hypothesis for any positron excess anyway. Pulsars are less likely to result in such a steady diffuse flux component. (See the many experiments that give roughly the same excess.)

As for standard cosmology being "based on assumption of initial singularity", that is wrong. The class of big bang models suggest that,and it would make life simpler for theorists looking to bind all parameters in a fundamental theory. But the standard cosmology starts with a phase of inflation. Inflation is past-timelike-incomplete, you run into singularities if you go backward, but not necessarily *a* singularity.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 04, 2013
[cont]

As for the rest, you are confused and in the end blathering, so I'll only respond to the initial Gish gallop:

Already existing physics suggest new physics as always, and until experiments can reject the theories they are what we want to look at. Experiments without theory is as fruitless as theory without experiments.

Some of that is now observed, say scalar fields (Higgs field and perhaps an inflaton field), and the WIMP is what AMS suggest.
Reg Mundy
1.5 / 5 (17) Apr 04, 2013
Here we are again, another "proof" that DM exists, except that it doesn't. As far as I know, the only "evidence" for the existence of DM is that the laws of gravity as stated by Newton and Einstein don't work on a "universe" scale without it. Can anybody point me towards any actual "proof" that DM exists? Surely the scientific community could easily perform a relatively simple experiment which proves that gravity as we perceive it is an illusion.
Benni
2.2 / 5 (12) Apr 04, 2013
Can anybody point me towards any actual "proof" that DM exists? Surely the scientific community could easily perform a relatively simple experiment which proves that gravity as we perceive it is an illusion.


The effects of gravity that exceeds the quantity of visible baryonic matter is the only evidence we have. The concept of "dark matter" is only a model, just as the "big bang" is only a model as the best explanation for what we observe.

If in the future we discover we have in the present been over measuring gravity, then we may find the DM hypothesis dropped, but so far it doesn't appear as if that will happen.
Reg Mundy
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 04, 2013
@Benni
So DM is only model of best explanation for "gravity" to be true?
Does the converse apply, that "gravity" is only a model of best explanation for DM to exist? So we have a "model" to substantiate a "model". Surely the "best" explanation is to question the fundamental "model" in the first place, i.e. does "gravity" exist? As far as I know, there is no actual proof that it does (please don't quote the Cavendish experiment, which merely measured the force necessary to accelerate the lead spheres away from each other to maintain the relative separation as the spheres expanded, and demonstrates no "attractive force" at all.) Unless you know different.....
rubberman
1 / 5 (11) Apr 04, 2013

don't pretend like you know anything about Dark Matter or physics.


Well, when it is proven to exist, I can study it's ACTUAL properties...just like you. But until that happens we're all pretending arent we?

I know considerably less about physics the way it is taught in school than most here, instead I research what I am curious about. Fortunately this approach makes the bullshit contradictions REALLY easy to spot (for those not bound by faith). For instance WRT this particular article: How is it logical to assume that 2 particles with no EM signature would annihilate into 2 which have one? (cite physics law that applies to normal matter...apply it here?)

My favorite ones though, it only reacts gravitationally with normal matter...yet not only does it remain dispersed, but in such a fashion as to speed up stellar motion at the OUTER portion of the ecliptic plane so that observation matches theory....but we will look for EM evidence of it from the core...flawless.
GSwift7
3.8 / 5 (13) Apr 04, 2013
The class of big bang models suggest that,and it would make life simpler for theorists looking to bind all parameters in a fundamental theory. But the standard cosmology starts with a phase of inflation. Inflation is past-timelike-incomplete, you run into singularities if you go backward, but not necessarily *a* singularity


I'd like to second all of what Torbjorn_Larrson has been saying, but especially the quoted portion here.

This is an important distinction between whether the equations actually describe something real, or whether they 'blow up' at this point. Einstien fought very strongly against some of his equations being taken literally, though we have since proven some of the effects implied by the math are real. The term "singularity" merely describes cases where the equations for GR produce an infinity in either the numerator or denominator in any part of the equation. Whether this represents reality is an open question.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (9) Apr 04, 2013
Zephyr, seriously must you pollute every article touching on DM with your rambling, non-coherent musings and Gish gallop? Fleetfoot spent some considerable time pointing out (yet again) why your mumbo-jumbo BS is wrong, yet here you are in the very next article babbling like some bloody idiot about the very things you have been told (and told, and told) is wrong.

A naked prophet standing in an empty field pontificating to his flock about the grandeur of his multi-hued robe.

Another example of you're inability to understand the difference between thinking you know something and actually knowing something.
brt
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 04, 2013
@ rubberman

I'm not referring to the existence of Dark Matter, I'm referring to you. You obviously know nothing about physics but try to word your comments as though you do. Don't pretend you know anything deeper than what you watch on "through the wormhole with morgan freeman" or "nova"...if that. Don't pretend that you "study" like a physicist or physics student actually studies. You read popular articles online that give the bare concept and often times screw THAT up.
brt
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 04, 2013
@Benni

please don't be lured into that troll's trap. It's an endless and idiotic play on semantics by one of the countless physics trolls who know next to nothing about the subject.
brt
3.7 / 5 (12) Apr 04, 2013
here, this is for everyone on here who doesn't know how to read...

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

http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

Nobody said anything even remotely close to claiming that we have proof of dark matter. Please read these articles before going straight to the comments section to post some ignorant crackpot gibberish.
DarkWingDuck
1 / 5 (12) Apr 04, 2013
It truly saddens me that a good part of physics is cult science.
DarkWingDuck
1 / 5 (9) Apr 04, 2013
NOT POSITRONS: positronium

Positronum is a natural product of energetic bodies and to confuse the annihilation of the positronium from the pair production due to vaccuum polarization creating vitual particles is ridiculous.

Hawking radiation depends on this process.
rubberman
1 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2013
"don't pretend like you know anything about Dark Matter or physics"- Brt

" I'm not referring to the existence of Dark Matter, I'm referring to you." - brt

Then you shouldn't have mentioned DM at all the first time there Bert. I freely admitted in my second post I didn't study physics the way a student would, definitely not the math. Again I never claimed to. Past that if you disagree with something in my second post, don't be shy, spit it out. I find most of your posts about as enlightening as your last one...and that link, whew! I'm on the edge of my seat here.
brt
3 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2013
@ rubberman

If you don't know math, then you don't know physics. That's my point here it is in quotes...

"you have no idea what you're talking about. You know nothing about physics. You are playing physicist like a 5 year old child plays doctor. Your comments reflect you MASSIVE ignorance of both physics AND math. You are delusional in your attempts to try to play it off as though you just 'aren't familiar with the math'...but you've got the rest of it. Which is equivalent to saying you've got that whole driving thing down, except how to use the steering wheel."

You can't even follow the oversimplified news blurbs on the site you comment on or else you would know what positrons have to do with detecting dark matter, as the link I provided tells you in the most simplistic way possible so that any dimwitted moron can understand.

was that clear enough?
DarkWingDuck
1 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2013
The math says pulsars can create positronium. We can see pulsars.
DarkHorse66
3 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2013
@Torbjorn L:
Dark matter doesn't absorb photons.

Dark matter absorbs and emits dark photons.

@DingleBerry: Dingleberry is your name, dingleberry is your mind. There are no "dark" photons. If there are supersymmetric particles the "photino" photon must be massive, perhaps the very least mass WIMP we seem to see.

I agree that DingleBerry's interpretation is pure &utter nonsense.I'd be a bit careful though,about making a blanket statement ruling out the possility of existence of dark photons. If you google 'dark photons',you will find that it has already been theorised about,for a #of years &that there are even articles about serious research surrounding this possibility. Here are some eg's:
http://nuclear.unh.edu/HPS/
http://www.fnal.g...-25.html
http://www.newsci...ter.html
That last might help fill in details to refute DB's expl'n.
Cheers, DH66
DarkHorse66
1 / 5 (1) Apr 05, 2013
DarkHorse66
4 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2013
Dark matter doesn't absorb photons.

Dark matter absorbs and emits dark photons.

@DB Absorption/emission. What you are describing, is a mechanism known as 'radiation'. Read the link to see how it works:
http://en.wikiped...adiation
The whole point of the mystery surrounding DM &DE is that this is exactly what DM & DE does NOT do. It does NOT radiate.
-and that is why they CANNOT detect it directly, especially from a distance. That would be a direct form of evidence.
When you are looking for effects on, or creation/destruction of, that this mystery something might have produced, you are looking for indirect evidence and have to INFER properties and behaviours that way. That is what all the fuss with the positrons is about. They are indirect evidence.
Best Regards, DH66
rubberman
1 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2013
@Brt- Math is not the vehicle for "knowing physics" so your point is, well, pointless....just like your berating of what you THINK I understand. Math is a tool, the main language used in science, but not the only one. Your blind arrogance is typical of someone who doesn't think because they "know". You play physicist like a robot that can only follow it's programming....totally useless in a situation it isn't programmed to deal with.

The article you linked is pure crap. Did you write it?

"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..."

"neutrinos, which, according to physicists, are created when dark matter passes through the Sun and interacts with protons"

You can't even see when ascribed properties or "facts" are contradictory because the math can make them appear possible, which makes you slightly dumber than a dimwitted moron...clearly.
brt
1.8 / 5 (6) Apr 05, 2013
@ rubberman

I don't believe dark matter is a particle phenomenon. I don't ascribe the observed phenomenon of dark matter to "cold" dark matter. I think it's a modification of gravity. I know that my viewpoint is not well received by physicists. This is further proof that you are an idiot.

My dislike of you isn't with your opinion of dark matter; it's with you pretending that you are even remotely close to understanding physics or math at the same level of a physicist or even a high school physics student. I disagree with the current trendy theories of dark matter, but I understand that they are the only other possibility and I can understand the models provided. You don't understand any of it. You are a loser trying to escape reality. Have a good day and don't get your apron dirty.
brt
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2013
to clarify, my objections are scientific. Your objections are because you lack the ability to conceptualize the fundamental concepts in particle physics and field theory among other things.

but of course that has nothing to do with my comments about you; you're just attempting to steer the conversation in that direction in order to avoid the fact that you are completely ignorant of the fundamental concepts of physics, yet you somehow magically understand the higher theories built on those fundamental concepts...we should also not even attempt to find out whether they are right or wrong with AMS and other experiments, we should just leave it open to discussion; brilliant.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2013
I know that my viewpoint is not well received by physicists.

I think you misunderstand physicists. At the scales of force interchange (EM, gravity, strong and weak nuclear interaction) the relevant 'particles' (photon, graviton, gluon, W/Z boson) are just concepts to describe an exchange of a quantum of energy.
We currently think all these are quantized (for the graviton that remains yet to be seen/demonstrated).

This does NOT mean that physicists subscribe to a 'particle' type view. Any of these can be modelled with (quantized) fields just as well. The quantized nature observed with these forces just lends itself to talk about interactions with 'force carriers'.

Example: You can use a quantized Higgs field or a quantum thereof which you may call the Higgs boson. Both give you the same result. Neither of which requires a 'particle' view.

Note1: all forces require a wave-particle view, though
Note2: wave-particle is NOT the same as "wave and particle".
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2013
Similarly with dark matter. We know that something we cannot yet detect distorts space out there - and since we currently only know of matter being able to be able to effect that knid of distortion we model it as 'matter-like' and call it 'dark matter'. This does not mean that anyone (least of all physicits) are already locked into a particle type explanation.

"Dark matter" is just a label. Might as well have called it "There be dragons here" for now. Same difference.
rubberman
1 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2013
Your reading comprehension is actually worse than I thought it was.

I don't care what your beliefs are and they only prove that you are an idiot, not me. As for your scientific objections,you might try naming one...so far all you have done is point out that YOU feel there is only one proper means of scientific education and I don't have it. As for your belief that DM is a gravity modification, good luck with that...you should inform the world of how gravity actually works, they are dying to know.

So Bert, why don't you gather up Ernie and the rubber ducky and head on back to Sesame street. Oscar's trash can is full of gravity theories, yours should fit in nicely.

The loser who researches for a hobby finds it sad, but funny that there is an even bigger one who has studied 80 years of science,as a career apparently, and still thinks he can make the wrong answer right by modifying it. I hope you enjoy your tail when you finally catch it dipshit.
brt
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2013
You are borderline mentally handicapped.
DingleBerry
1 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2013
@DB Absorption/emission. What you are describing, is a mechanism known as 'radiation'.
Yes, radiation is also a good term to use.

See Wikipedia under:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Stimulated_and_spontaneous_emission

"Dark Photon (DP)" was meant as a generalized term like DM and DE.
brt
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2013
@ antialias-Phys

I'm referring to the overwhelming support for WIMPS by the entire physics community. At the present, I would say 90% of physicists trying to solve dark matter are on board with dark matter being WIMPS. 5% of the remaining 10% are outcasts, the other 5% are supporters of MOND or some variant of MOND. They do seem to be pretty locked in to the idea, so much so that I can think of several multibillion$ projects aimed solely at finding WIMPS. But no seriously funded attempts at determining the validity of MOND.
rubberman
1 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2013
You are borderline mentally handicapped.


You're clearly much further along.
brt
2.3 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2013
rubberman,

Every comment you make just proves my point further. Your comments are scientific evidence that you might be on the border between mental retardation and idiocy. Therefore, my comment has a basis. You're comment is solely because you're angry that I've so clearly burned you by calling you out on your ignorant pubescent behavior. If you're angry, just remember: you'll still be a loser after every pathetic attempt to claw your way back at me after I've driven home the fact that you're a dolt, and I'll be reassured that I'm better than you by attending to my life doing what you're too stupid to do. sweet dreams.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (16) Apr 05, 2013
Try to imagine,,,,,

Blah, blah, blah,,,,



Zephyr, I tried, I mean I really tried hard to imagine that. But I just couldn't imagine it. (I'll try again later.)
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2013
Blind waterstrider now Zeph? But I liked the quantum duck paddling on the water ripples :(.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Apr 05, 2013
@ brt - "over whelming support" is a poor description, as it leaves the impression that the theory is being cheered on or somesuch. There has been a ton of study done on the subject, and currently the theory of WIMPs has the most observational support. Most other theories have fallen by the wayside because they do not match observations.

MOND is one such theory. It was looked at really closely for a time, and a lot of time and money was spent on observations to try and confirm or deny the theory. While it did match a number of observations, some very well, it also did not match other observations. In order to succeed, it has to match them all. The theory is not dead (unlike EU for eg) but it is on life support.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2013
I'm referring to the overwhelming support for WIMPS by the entire physics community.

The term WIMP is a standin label (just like 'dark matter' is a standin lable). That it has the term 'particle' in there doesn't really mean we're necessarily talking particles in the usual sense.
Particularly since they don't seem to interact with photons...which is pretty basic for particles as we usually know them.

If they would interact via absorption/emission we'd see spectral lines (because absorption/emission is quantized in particles as we know them)
GSwift7
1 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2013
The term WIMP is a standin label (just like 'dark matter' is a standin lable). That it has the term 'particle' in there doesn't really mean we're necessarily talking particles in the usual sense.
Particularly since they don't seem to interact with photons...which is pretty basic for particles as we usually know them


Yeah, the difference between particle and wave is somewhat arbitrary in some cases.

If they would interact via absorption/emission we'd see spectral lines (because absorption/emission is quantized in particles as we know them)


What about cases where you get negative refractive indexes, as in cloaking metamaterials? Do you think that would be an exception? I guess that doesn't count as absorption/emmision?
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 05, 2013
The whole point of the mystery surrounding DM &DE is that this is exactly what DM & DE does NOT do. It does NOT radiate.
-and that is why they CANNOT detect it directly.... and have to INFER properties and behaviours that way.
Best Regards, DH66


You're only half right. The property inherent to "energy" is the frequency of the photon. We can't detect "dark energy" only because we do not have sensitive enough instrumentation for doing so.

In our lab facility part of what I do is Gamma Ray Spectroscopy with sodium iodide & other such similar scintillation detectors to detect the highst end frequencies & we've yet to find a maximum limit at the high end of the EM spectrum, this is because the more sensitive we make our instrumentation, the more of the high end EM band we can detect, same at the low end.

Just because the word "dark" precedes "energy" that doesn't preclude it from being "photonic", it must be or it isn't energy, it's something else.

Best Regards, Benni
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (13) Apr 05, 2013
The whole point of the mystery surrounding DM &DE is that this is exactly what DM & DE does NOT do. It does NOT radiate.
-and that is why they CANNOT detect it directly.... and have to INFER properties and behaviours that way.
Best Regards, DH66


You're only half right. The property inherent to "energy" is the frequency of the photon. We can't detect "dark energy" only because we do not have sensitive enough instrumentation for doing so.

Just because the word "dark" precedes "energy" that doesn't preclude it from being "photonic", it must be or it isn't energy, it's something else.

Best Regards, Benni


But all forms energy don't manifest in photons,,,,, right?
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2013
What about cases where you get negative refractive indexes, as in cloaking metamaterials?

Since the negative refractive index of metamaterials are a property of a (highly organized and very specifically tailored) macroscopic structure and not of the elements themselves which make up these metamaterials I don't see how one could get that to work with dark matter.

Unless you are willing to stipulate that dark matter is designed/constructed by aliens (and that on truly galactic scales...and I don't mean that as 'galaxy-wide' but really as 'galaxy-size' scales...but then we wouldn't need dark matter. ordinary matter arranged in metamaterial structures would do the trick. But currently we know of no structure that doesn't interact at ALL frequencies - which is what dark matter seems to do)
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2013
Metamaterials are closely related to dark matter, because they're foamy in the same way, like the dark matter is foamy. The neutrinos which are forming DM have character of bubbles with thick walls, which exhibit both positive, both negative refraction index at the same moment (their net gravitational lensing is still positive though). The metamaterials do behave in similar way due the Kronig-Kramers equations.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (14) Apr 05, 2013
Metamaterials are closely related to dark matter, because they're foamy in the same way, like the dark matter is foamy.


"Foamy" ya say? How do ya know the dark matter is "foamy"? For that matter, how do ya know that metamaterials are "foamy". And finally, (I may probably regret this one) how does one determine whether something is "foamy" or not so "foamy"?

Pssst, none of those brilliantly insightful analogies please. Explain the "foam" in regular "mainstream" physics terms so even I can understand it,,, who knows, maybe I will cite it so ya can collect a little money.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2013
how do ya know that metamaterials are "foamy"
It's explained in the articles linked above. The metamaterial is essentially material with strong negative index of refraction. Such a material indeed cannot be prepared for whole light spectrum, because we cannot do the bubbles in vacuum. But we can do the bubbles in matter which already has a positive refractive index and for narrow range of wavelength we can get the negative differential index of refraction. We can observe this effect as a secondary rainbow during heavy rain.
How do ya know the dark matter is "foamy"
In AWT the cold dark matter is formed with shielding of shielding of gravitational waves with nearby massive objects, i.e. it's sorta dual effect to gravity. From this model the fibrous character of cold dark mater follows.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Apr 05, 2013
Explain the "foam" in regular "mainstream" physics terms so even I can understand it
The foam is material, where positive curvature of space-time is balanced with negative one. In such material the Stokes dispersion is complemented with anti-Stokes dispersion, so that this material becomes strongly absorbing/dispersive for certain range of wavelengths.
DarkWingDuck
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 05, 2013
As Richard Feynman noted, 'The first principle
is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person
to fool.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2013
I'm thinking in context of implications only, not tautologies. We are living in gradient driven reality, so that every concept must have some reasoning, which is a consequence of some another logic, etc. People are gregarious creatures by their very nature, so they always tend to support the opinion of majority instinctively - no matter whether it's true or not. So I can understand, that you don't agree with me - but until you present your actual reasons for it, I'm just forced to ignore it.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2013
maybe I will cite it so ya can collect a little money
This is impossible, because I'm not accepting any money at public. Currently it's rather difficult to find some support for AWT concepts in mainstream physic. But at the beginning of the last century the Austrian/Czech physicist Ernst Max proposed a hypothesis, that the inertia of massive bodies is a result of all massive objects in the Universe. This hypothesis has been widely rejected, because it implied a superluminal action at distance, but recently A. Carati demonstrated the same for dark matter too, just with opposite sign. Maybe it will inspire you for deeper thinking about it.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 05, 2013
The whole point of the mystery surrounding DM &DE is that this is exactly what DM & DE does NOT do. It does NOT radiate.
-and that is why they CANNOT detect it directly.... and have to INFER properties and behaviours that way.
Best Regards, DH66


You're only half right. The property inherent to "energy" is the frequency of the photon. We can't detect "dark energy" only because we do not have sensitive enough instrumentation for doing so.

Just because the word "dark" precedes "energy" that doesn't preclude it from being "photonic", it must be or it isn't energy, it's something else.

Best Regards, Benni


But all forms energy don't manifest in photons,,,,, right?


Wrong....all "energy" is photonic. It's the wavelengths we are unable to detect with instrumentation that is "dark" energy, and that is most of the EM spectrum. The more sensitive we make scintillation detectors, the more we realize the EM spectrum must be longer at both the low & high ends.
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
@Benni
There are some old sayings in Physics that remain true throughout the ages. I'll repeat a couple of them here for the benefit of "newcomers" to Physics like brt, Q-prat, etc., who think they know it all.
"Great big fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, and little fleas have lesser fleas, and so, ad infinitum..."
Similarly, "Great big whorls have little whirls that feed on their velocity, and little whirls have lesser whirls, and so on to viscosity....".
No matter how far you go upscale or downscale, particles will always be formed of lesser particles, waves will always be combinations of lesser waves...
At least you have recognised this. Join the club...
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2013
Great big fleas have little fleas...
Great big whorls have little whirls...
No matter how far you go upscale or downscale...

And you honestly don't see a problem with such baseless, linear extrapoltion ad infinitum? Woha, dude. You should start taking logic/philosophy 101 before trying to comment on science.
(Or maybe just open a window and look outside and not see what you WANT to see - but what is really there)

Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 06, 2013
@Benni

"Great big fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, and little fleas have lesser fleas, and so, ad infinitum..."
Similarly, "Great big whorls have little whirls that feed on their velocity, and little whirls have lesser whirls, and so on to viscosity....".
No matter how far you go upscale or downscale, particles will always be formed of lesser particles, waves will always be combinations of lesser waves...
At least you have recognised this. Join the club...


There is no "ad infinitum" inside this stellar island we call the "Universe". So, no, I don't recognize your stated conclusion, thus disqualifying me for membership in your club because I don't believe the Universe is in "perpetual motion".

The EM spectrum can be no longer than the widest point of the quasi-spherical Universe. Each end of the EM spectrum at the highest & lowest frequency endpoints will lengthen only as the Universe expands in size, no more.

brt
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2013
@Benni

good to hear.

The guy lacks understanding of some of the basic pillars of nature. This is where math is so important. There are some fundamental concepts in field theory that require a person to know math because there is no other possible way to explain those concepts. Reg is one of the countless psychopaths who think science is a place to escape to. Maybe it was "Fringe" or maybe science has its crazies just like religion.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
..there are some fundamental concepts in field theory that require a person to know math because there is no other possible way to explain those concepts
If you ridicule the "ducks and ripples" analogies following from Couder experiments and others - then yes. But IMO such an ignorance is just a manifestation of fear from lost of informational monopoly, social credit and - money. The teaching of math at universities is simply too lucrative business for uncovering the fact, that many fundamental concepts of physics have their intuitive explanation. In some cases this negativism goes even deeper, because many models and analogies of AWT clearly show, that the physicists are wasting the public money in self-organized ignorance just to prolong their safe jobs.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
The guy lacks understanding of some of the basic pillars of nature. This is where math is so important
The math is just a tool of functional regression, i.e. description - not understanding. You're like the guy, who points to the parabola drawn on the table while repeating: "This is why the understanding of parabola is important - for understanding of gravity!".

It's apparent nonsense - ever whole century of research and pile of equations didn't move us closer to the understanding, what the gravity, electromagnetic field or electron are. We have just mapped their mutual connections numerically - no less, no more. But the physicts avoids to admit it openly for not to lose their social credit and respect from development of nuclear weapons before seventy years. They're behaving like medieval shamans, who are guarding their incompetence with various complex magical rituals and numerology.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2013
They're behaving like medieval shamans, who are guarding their incompetence with various complex magical rituals and numerology.


This from you??? The naked prophet standing in an empty field preaching to his flock about the grandeur of his multi-hued robe says this about MATHEMATICIANS? Wow, what a delusional fool.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (14) Apr 06, 2013
Wrong....all "energy" is photonic. It's the wavelengths we are unable to detect with instrumentation that is "dark" energy, and that is most of the EM spectrum. The more sensitive we make scintillation detectors, the more we realize the EM spectrum must be longer at both the low & high ends.


How is vacuum energy "photonic"? How is gravitational potential energy "photonic"? What about translational energy due to momentum "photonic"?

Not all forms of energy radiate or absorb photons. Ya are limiting yourself to the energy of electrons at the atomic or molecular level. There are a whole universe full of energies which have nothing to do with electromagnetics.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2013
I'd add that power in nuclear forces isn't photonic.

(Though what we call nuclear fission is actually not 'nuclear' power from the nuclear forces but electrostatic power from protons in unstable nuclei pushing themselves apart. The nuclear force is a NEGATIVE contribution to the power of nuclear powerplants as it wants to keep the nucleus together. It just is called 'nuclear power' because it's associated with stuff happening to atomic nuclei.
Neither is fusion true 'nuclear force'-power when you think about it. We haven't yet tapped nuclear forces for power at all.)
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
Wrong....all "energy" is photonic. It's the wavelengths we are unable to detect with instrumentation that is "dark" energy, and that is most of the EM spectrum. The more sensitive we make scintillation detectors, the more we realize the EM spectrum must be longer at both the low & high ends.


How is vacuum energy "photonic"? How is gravitational potential energy "photonic"? What about translational energy due to momentum "photonic"?


What makes you think any of these are "energy" apart from electromagnetism (photons)....they are not....the above described are conditions that result in the release of energy (photons), nothing more.

Not all forms of energy radiate or absorb photons. Ya are limiting yourself to the energy of electrons at the atomic or molecular level. There are a whole universe full of energies which have nothing to do with electromagnetics.


OK, give me some more examples of these universes of energies you say exists.

Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
I'd add that power in nuclear forces isn't photonic.

(Though what we call nuclear fission is actually not 'nuclear' power from the nuclear forces but electrostatic power from protons in unstable nuclei pushing themselves apart. The nuclear force is a NEGATIVE contribution to the power of nuclear powerplants as it wants to keep the nucleus together. It just is called 'nuclear power' because it's associated with stuff happening to atomic nuclei.
Neither is fusion true 'nuclear force'-power when you think about it. We haven't yet tapped nuclear forces for power at all.)


Via the application of electro-magnetism (photons), we overcome the nuclear forces that hold atoms together, heat is required to do this using thermal neutrons to split the nucleus in a reactor overcoming those forces which hold an atomic nucleus together.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
The positron to electron ratio shows no anisotropy indicating the energetic positrons are not coming from a preferred direction in space. Together, these features show evidence of a new physics phenomena.

Not necessarily, it may show that double layers with their inherent electric fields which can readily accelerate particles to energies in excess of 10^20 electron volts are present throughout the cosmos. No new physics or invented matter needed, just a better understanding of the physics we know by the people charged with studying it.
Niklas
not rated yet Apr 07, 2013
WIMP research suffered with failures during last three years (including LHC) - so now it needs to find SOMETHING at any price. The same is valid about string theorists and supersymmetrists. IMO this artifact is real, but it can be explained with common neutrinos.


Perhaps this IS your something for the WIMPs. Furthermore DAMA/NaI could also be seeing a direct DM-signal... WIMP research isn't suffering!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2013
Perhaps but I don't think, that some independent WIMPs particle exist. The photinos are neutrinos and the gluinos are whole atom nuclei. The SUSY theory is essentially relevant, but it predicts existing already known particles - not something which doesn't exist yet.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2013
I'd add that power in nuclear forces isn't photonic.

We haven't yet tapped nuclear forces for power at all.)


Nuclear forces can't be tapped for "power" because it isn't energy which is defined by E=mc*2. If it can't be defined by E=mc*2, it isn't energy. We know the nuclear force(s) holding atomic nuclei together is not electromagnetism (photons), therefore E=mc*2 can't be used to extract a calculation to calculate energy of "nuclear force", only the photonic energy that is derived from overcoming the nuclear forces is what E=mc*2 is applicable to, never the nuclear binding force itself, all because these binding forces can't be utilized for application of "work".

The fact that there is only one energy equation is the mathematical proof there is only one kind of energy. Just look at the two components of the equation "mc*2". The c*2 is a constant for the speed at which electromagnetism (photons) propagates, thereby defining all energy as photons, never anything else.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 07, 2013
OK, give me some more examples of these universes of energies you say exists.

Water flowing down a hill? Nothing photonic about it - yet water on highz elevations contains a lot of potential energy able to do a lot of work.

If it can't be defined by E=mc*2, it isn't energy.

Erm. OK, if you use a definition of energy that no one else in the world uses then this conversation is pointless.

Look up the word 'energy' and how it's defined. Then come back.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 07, 2013
A fun thing to contemplate when musing over the subject of "energy" and how it is graphed in textbooks & on the internet.

EM graphs are scaled way out of proportion to the actual range of the known detectable spectrum. For example, looking at an EM spectrum graph, the greatest portion of the graph is dedicated to showing the position of visible light with short tails depicting the low & high frequency ends, thus giving the impression that most of the EM spectrum exists in the range of visible light.

A proportional scale of visible light to the entire known EM spectrum would be an eye opener for most people.

On the page of a textbook visible light is given a one to four inch spread on the graph. In reality,if the known spectrum on each side of the visible light portion were drawn in a true range in proportion to that 1-4 inch range represents, the "known" EM spectrum would span the continental United States. Then we come to what is beyond the "known" range, this is "dark energy".
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2013
OK, give me some more examples of these universes of energies you say exists.


If it can't be defined by E=mc*2, it isn't energy.


Erm. OK, if you use a definition of energy that no one else in the world uses then this conversation is pointless.


I use the only calculation available for the definition of energy, if you don't understand it, then it's because your background in science is so weak that it's beyond you. If you know another calculation, I'd be happy to see it, after all it's all about the math isn't it?

Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2013
@Benni
There is no "ad infinitum" inside this stellar island we call the "Universe". So, no, I don't recognize your stated conclusion, thus disqualifying me for membership in your club because I don't believe the Universe is in "perpetual motion". The EM spectrum can be no longer than the widest point of the quasi-spherical Universe. Each end of the EM spectrum at the highest & lowest frequency endpoints will lengthen only as the Universe expands in size, no more.

Sorry to bring you back to this one, Benni, but your very use of the word "island" implies that the "universe" we perceive isn't the be-all and end-all of everything - neither upscale or downscale. But there is no denying the logic of your reasoning if your basic tenets are accepted as true - I do not accept them, I believe there is much more to the universe than we "perceive" but that's only my opinion.
Meanwhile, you would do best to ignore the crap generated by brt/Q-Star (the same asshole).
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2013
@Benni


There is no "ad infinitum" inside this stellar island we call the "Universe"....I don't believe the Universe is in "perpetual motion".


Sorry to bring you back to this one, Benni, but your very use of the word "island" implies that the "universe" we perceive isn't the be-all and end-all of everything - neither upscale or downscale.


I use the term "stellar island" because beyond its' boundaries I believe are other universes, how they may be similar or different there will probably never be a way for our technology to uncover, & wormholes won't get you there.

I believe there is much more to the universe than we "perceive" but that's only my opinion.


I won't disagree with you there. In case you didn't know it, the "redshift integral" used to set up all the redshift calculators you see on the internet has a fundamental flaw, correct the flaw of that assumed "limit" of 13.66 Gyrs & the universe becomes a lot bigger than is commonly assumed.

antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2013
I use the only calculation available for the definition of energy,

Erm. I think you weren't paying attention in high school physics course, then. There's at least half a dozen or so more.
The matter energy conversion denoted by the Einstein equation is just one (of many) energy types.
Energy can be stored in all kinds of ways, from chemical bonds, to moving masses to masses inside gravitational fields, positioning of nuclear particles realzive to each other and even quark bonding forces.

That you can convert all of them because they all come out to be energy doesn't mean that E equals m c squared is the ONLY one that is out there (or that this somehow means all energy is 'photonic')
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 07, 2013
I use the only calculation available for the definition of energy,


The matter energy conversion denoted by the Einstein equation is just one (of many) energy types.


Then put the other "types" list up damn it, this Electrical/Nuclear Engineer would like to see what he's been missing out on!

Energy can be stored in all kinds of ways,


No it can't, it has only one method of storage, MASS, just what E=mc*2 says. If you know other ways of storage, list them.

from chemical bonds, to moving masses to masses inside gravitational fields, positioning of nuclear particles realzive to each other and even quark bonding forces.


Yeah, all are MASS, except for quark bonding forces which is not energy.

That you can convert all of them because they all come out to be energy doesn't mean that E equals m c squared is the ONLY one that is out there (or that this somehow means all energy is 'photonic')


This is psycho-babble..You're totally clueless.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (14) Apr 07, 2013
I use the only calculation available for the definition of energy,
Then put the other "types" list up damn it, this Electrical/Nuclear Engineer would like to see what he's been missing out on!
Two differently charged bodies is a stored energy, not dependent on the mass.

No it can't, it has only one method of storage, MASS, just what E=mc*2 says. If you know other ways of storage, list them.
A vacuum is stored energy that is independent of mass.

from chemical bonds, to moving masses to masses inside gravitational fields, positioning of nuclear particles realzive to each other and even quark bonding forces.


Yeah, all are MASS, except for quark bonding forces which is not energy.

This is psycho-babble.


Ya moved the goalpost, ya pulled it up & set it down in the middle of a baseball diamond.

Ya began by stating that all energy was manifest in photons,now ya are saying that all energy is mass dependent. E=mc^2 is an equivalence expression not definition
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2013
Two differently charged bodies is a stored energy, not dependent on the mass.


Then you can't "store" it if there is no MASS......! You are as clueless about Chemistry 101 as Ant Phy is.

Hey you two guys, during a summer session at your local college, take a course in Chem 101, take a final exam, pass it, get a final grade then come back here & maybe then maybe you'll be man enough to admit why all your postings about Energy & Mass have been nothing but total psycho-babble.

I only have time enough to post to this site on weekends, so you & Ant Phy can have the rest of the daytime hours for the coming week to trip all over yourselves in your "perpetual motion" universe, If I get time in a couple days, I'll look in to see how much more foolish you've made yourselves to appear before those of us who really do know what MASS & ENERGY is.



Reg Mundy
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2013
@Benni
Here's a comment from anti-alias-physorg on 6th March 2013 regarding a comet entering a planetary atmosphere:-
@antialias_physorg The slowing force acts on a surface, while the momentum (and hence the velocity) goes with the volume.

and here's my response to it:-
"No it doesn't go with the volume, it goes with the mass. Dumkopf!"
This should give you some indication of the level of understanding of physics you are dealing with when swapping comments with AA, Q-twit, brat, etc.
DarkHorse66
1 / 5 (1) Apr 08, 2013
I do have a different question about energy and mass; I am unsure if a satisfactory answer exists for this one and am curious. Even in my Modern Physics class, this never really got answered. Here goes: Energy/photon particles are massless. But if they enter/become a part of an object with mass, the mass of that object does increase. Where does this increase (of mass) come from? After all, the actual additional E-particle is itself massless. How is this interpreted to occur?
Cheers, DH66
brt
1 / 5 (1) Apr 08, 2013
@ Benni

I'm staying out of that argument. but I will say that Reg has a distaste for me because I burned him just like I burned rubberman for being complete ignoramuses while pretending to know everything there is to know about science. He's convinced that no more than 1 single person would think he's a complete dumbass who is too stupid to tell a good lie. Me and Q-star are the only people who can't resist tearing in to him when he says something so outrageously false and/or brain dead.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 08, 2013
Energy/photon particles are massless. But if they enter/become a part of an object with mass, the mass of that object does increase. Where does this increase (of mass) come from?

Well, that's one of the things we'll try to find out when we start looking at the Higgs field.
One possibility would be that more energy means more interaction with the Higgs field - which would result in more mass.
axemaster
5 / 5 (1) Apr 08, 2013
It's always so interesting to watch people attack each other, totally convinced that they're right.

By the way, Antialias is correct... and I hope Benni's claim of being a nuclear/electrical engineer isn't true, because it scares me a little.

EDIT: I can't resist mentioning a funny quote from one of my physics professors a few years ago. I was wondering if I should be a physicist or an engineer, and he said "Engineers come from the hind end of science". Needless to say I made the right decision!
Reg Mundy
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2013
@brt
No, no, brt, I haven't got a distaste for you 'cos you think you burned me, you couldn't burn anybody if you had a box of matches and a can of gasoline... I have a distaste for you 'cos you are an asshole, that's all.
Reg Mundy
1.8 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2013
@axemaster
A scientist found a way of bestowing consciousness on all the different parts of his body. At first, all was OK, but then there was an argument about who was in charge. The brain said he made all the decisions, it should be him. The eyes said they could see where to go, the ears said they knew what was going on around about, the legs said they carried everybody around, the hands said they did all the useful work. They all claimed they should be in charge. Then the backside said he should be in charge. All the other parts laughed. The backside said "Right, I'm going on strike!". None of the other parts cared, and carried on arguing. After a week, the brain was fevered, the eyes were crossed, the hands were shaking, the ears were ringing and the knees were knocking together. They had to give in, and accept that the backside was in charge.
So, you might think you are one of the gods, but the engineers run the show..
Just thought I would elevate the quality of this thread...
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (11) Apr 08, 2013
@axemaster

Blah, blah, blah,,,,,

So, you might think you are one of the gods, but the engineers run the show..
Just thought I would elevate the quality of this thread...


Reggie, there ya are, & looking so much like yourself sure. How's the book tour going? Will ya be coming to a city near me soon? (Psst, we've several world class universities in the area, & I'm sure ya would draw a large crowd.)

By the By: If ya don't mind me asking,,,, I see today that ya have a new fan,,,, he's posting ya with nothing but fives, & me with nothing but ones,,, Could ya give me some tips on what I might do to win him over? It's not fair that ya only have one lite posting ya ones, while I have to suffer two lites posting me ones.

Not that the ratings mean anything to me, but I was quite surprised to log on & find that "someone" thought so highly of ya. They joined today it seems, & boyo that kid can read. He somehow read four months of your, ah your, ah,, well, wisdom(?).

axemaster
5 / 5 (1) Apr 08, 2013
Wow, that is pretty blatant. Looks like he's been downrating everyone who ever criticized him, going back a long while.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2013
Wow, that is pretty blatant. Looks like he's been downrating everyone who ever criticized him, going back a long while.

It's really sort of funny and also sort of sad to see how pathetic that is.
Just report his sockpuppet(s) to the mods via an email (I just did), and he'll be banned and all his ratings removed. So all his hours of effort will be for nothing in the end.

Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2013
@AA,Q-rat,brat,etc.
You will find to your surprise that I do not have any aliases whatsoever, and am delighted to see the course you are pursuing.
So far, Q-Star has accused me of being Enric Berneda, RealityCheck, Whydening Gyre, Anton Kole, and ALV (all on Feb 28th in "Scientists sense breakthrough in dark matter mystery"), and brt has accused me of being johanfprins (Feb 13th in "New study furthers Einstein theory") - johanfprins, of all people! Probably the only person who has any integrity on this site, who publishes his credentials and contact details for all to see and verify! I was flattered, but I guess johan was infuriated!
And one last point, AA, poking fun at you and your associated saddos is no great effort, I quite enjoy it, especially when you squirm about and shout for the moderator, "Please, Sir, that nasty Reg Mundy is not playing fair! He calls me an asshole!". Like they say, AA, the truth will out, and I trust the moderators will examine Q-Star(VendicarE, brt, etc.)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2013
It's sort of funny. On a internet forum where we're all anonymous, you feel the need to make up an anonymous alias to hide your posting alias in order to vote.

That's just another level down the yellow-belly scale.

You are a very sad human being.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2013
I do have a different question about energy and mass; I am unsure if a satisfactory answer exists for this one and am curious. Even in my Modern Physics class, this never really got answered. Here goes: Energy/photon particles are massless. But if they enter/become a part of an object with mass, the mass of that object does increase.


Where does this increase (of mass) come from? After all, the actual additional E-particle is itself massless. How is this interpreted to occur? DH66


It comes from the photon's "rest mass equivalence". The rest mass of a photon is 0, since a photon cannot be at rest in any frame of reference. However, the total "relativistic" mass is not zero. From E=mc*2, we see a photon's mass is proportional to its energy: m=E/c*2. EM energy fields (photons) can be bent by gravity to create gravitational lensing, thus proving energy is not massless, this is why an atom will increase in mass when an orbital electron absorbs a photon.

Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 09, 2013
@AA,Q-rat,brat,etc.

Blah, blah, blah,,,



Reggie, ya forgot to tell me how the book tour is going. And I still want to know if ya will be doing a book signing in a town near me?

As for all the rest of that blah,,,, Is that a theory subject to falsification? Or is it just back of the envelope musing? (The including me with those smart people on the list of major miscreants I mean.)
GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2013
Benni:

this is why an atom will increase in mass when an orbital electron absorbs a photon.


That's not exactly correct.

The material which absorbs the photon can increase in mass, but only under certain conditions. In most cases, it will simply increase the kinetic energy of the atom (temperature). In order for a photon to increase the mass of a nucleus, the photon must have enough energy to creat both a positive and negative pair. This is an enormous amount of energy for a single photon to have.

To say that a photon actually has mass is useful in math, to simplify the transfer of momentum calculation, but math also tells us that you can't accelerate any mass to the speed of light.

photons) can be bent by gravity to create gravitational lensing, thus proving energy is not massless


Only in quantum theory. In GR, it's space that bends. The photon travels in a straight line through bent space. Time will tell (pun alert!) which is correct, if either.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2013
Benni:

The material which absorbs the photon can increase in mass


Yep, that's what I said...puts us on the same page.... so far.

it will simply increase the kinetic energy of the atom (temperature). In order for a photon to increase the mass of a nucleus, the photon must have enough energy to creat both a positive and negative pair. This is an enormous amount of energy for a single photon to have.


Depends on the wavelength as to whether the atom will even absorb the photon.

To say that a photon actually has mass is useful in math


Really? Then explain all the gravity that's been associated with DE, can't have gravity if mass is absent from the equation. Gravity can't bend something that has no mass. My 2nd semester physics book plainly explains "rest mass equivalence".

but math also tells us that you can't accelerate any mass to the speed of light.


Where did I mention anything about accelerating mass to light speed? Produce the quote...
GSwift7
3 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2013
Gravity can't bend something that has no mass. My 2nd semester physics book plainly explains "rest mass equivalence".


As I said, that depends on whether you are talking about QT or GR. QT treats gravity as an actual force, and actual forces can only accelerate something with mass. In GR, gravity isn't a force. Neither of the two theories are completely self-consistent, since they both lead to impossible infinite solutions in certain situations.

Where did I mention anything about accelerating mass to light speed?


A photon is light. If you claim that it actually has mass, then you have mass moving at the speed of light. Rest mass is only an analytical tool created so that we can talk about how photons act. This 'mass' does not need to actually have an analogue in the real world, and is fundamentally different than the meaning of the term 'mass' as used in GR theory.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2013
Gravity can't bend something that has no mass. My 2nd semester physics book plainly explains "rest mass equivalence".


Where did I mention anything about accelerating mass to light speed?


So answer the question......I'm still waiting.

A photon is light.


Really? Only light? What about the remainder of the EM spectrum...you know, like 99.999999999999999999999999999% of it.

If you claim that it actually has mass, then you have mass moving at the speed of light.


I can't tell if you're trying to reword my mention of "relativistic mass" or what exactly the point is you're trying to make here.

Rest mass is only an analytical tool created so that we can talk about how photons act. This 'mass' does not need to actually have an analogue in the real world, and is fundamentally different than the meaning of the term 'mass' as used in GR theory.


I can't decipher this, give it another try......after all I'm just a "hind-science" guy.
GSwift7
2.8 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2013
Really? Only light? What about the remainder of the EM spectrum...you know, like 99.999999999999999999999999999% of it


um, do you think that light is restricted to visible light? UV, IR, X-ray, gamma ray, etc. are all photons of different wavelength. Magnetism isn't photons.

So answer the question......I'm still waiting


If you claim that photons have real mass, and that gravity acts on them because of this, then you are claiming that mass is moving and has been accelerated to the speed of light. Here's what you said:

EM energy fields (photons) can be bent by gravity to create gravitational lensing, thus proving energy is not massless, this is why an atom will increase in mass when an orbital electron absorbs a photon


There are a lot of things wrong with that. First an 'EM energy field' is not a photon. Second, gravity doesn't bend light because photons have mass. Third, a photon increases atomic mass when it creates a particle, not when absorbed.
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2013
Benni, you seem to be confused about photons, electromagnetic fields, energy and charge. These terms are not interchangeable.

A photon is light. All light is photons and all photons are light. This is how we define them. Light can be many photons or just one by itself. The frequency of that photon determines whether it is visible or other type of light, but it's still light and it's a photon.

An EM field is an entirely different thing. A field, any type of field, is defined as a difference in potential over a distance. A photon is not a field and no field is made of photons. A photon striking an object and generating electrons to drive a current will create an EM field, but that's the work of the electrons moving, not the photons themselves. Maxwell's equations describe the interactions of electricity and magnetism.

Rest mass of a photon comes from Quantum theory. This idea does not cross over into general relativity. Those two theories do not agree. You can't combine them.
Elder1
1 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2013
I am interested in the apparent sine wave in the ascending data curve. It is also vaguely visible in the Fermi data as well. I am surprised it wasn't mentioned.
Elder1
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 09, 2013
Quantum theory and Relativity are not in disagreement. The theories do not intersect. Photons have relativistic mass but no rest mass.

Photon do have an EM field. In fact, that is their composition. A photon is an electromagnetic wave. What it does not have is charge. Even so, the EM field does interact with matter and does carry momentum due to its relativistic mass. The wavelength of the photon EM field is directly proportional to its energy and therefor its "colour" even if it is a kilometre long. As the wavelength decreases a photon begins to take on the properties of a particle. That is the basis for the stated wave/particle duality property of photons. The shorter the wavelength the more it acts as a particle and the less it seems to act as an EM wave. It is in the visible spectrum where that duality is most apparent. Below it EM physics dominates and above it particle physics rules.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 09, 2013
I am interested in the apparent sine wave in the ascending data curve. It is also vaguely visible in the Fermi data as well. I am surprised it wasn't mentioned.


Not much to be interested in, the curve is exponential (nonlinear) on both axes. "Apparent" is the correct word, it is not worth mentioning, it doesn't mean anything.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 09, 2013
Quantum theory and Relativity are not in disagreement.The theories do not intersect.Photons have relativistic mass but no rest mass.

Photon do have an EM field. In fact, that is their composition.A photon is an electromagnetic wave. What it does not have is charge. Even so, the EM field does interact with matter and does carry momentum due to its relativistic mass. The wavelength of the photon EM field is directly proportional to its energy and therefor its "colour" even if it is a kilometre long. As the wavelength decreases a photon begins to take on the properties of a particle. That is the basis for the stated wave/particle duality property of photons. The shorter the wavelength the more it acts as a particle and the less it seems to act as an EM wave. It is in the visible spectrum where that duality is most apparent. Below it EM physics dominates and above it particle physics rules.


Go back & make sure of your basic terminology & definitions. Then basic QM & S&GR.
Elder1
1 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2013
Not much to be interested in, the curve is exponential (nonlinear) on both axes. "Apparent" is the correct word, it is not worth mentioning, it doesn't mean anything.


It is logarithmic, not exponential. And, the apparent sine wave does have meaning since it reflects some phenomenon. Whether it matters to the experiment is a different question.

Go back & make sure of your basic terminology & definitions. Then basic QM & S&GR.


Time for you to study basic physics.
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 09, 2013
@Q-Star
..he's posting ya with nothing but fives, & me with nothing but ones, Could ya give me some tips on what I might do to win him over?

Certainly! You could try making some logical answers instead of your usual tripe interspersed with insults to distract the scientific argument. I could give you a lot more tips, but in the end they all come down to your ceasing to be an asshole, and I don't think you are capable of that.
You constantly make the claim
Not that the ratings mean anything to me..

but "methinks thou protesteth too much", asshole. You do care,and that's why you rate yourself 5s thru your many aliases whilst accusing me of it!Like I've said on many a previous occasion, Pathetic!
Meanwhile, I would like to assure you that I have had nothing to do with your imminent performance review and impending dismissal due to your incompetence. I did warn you about upsetting the Illuminati/Templar combo. Console yourself that you can go back to "Caltech" or wherever.
Elder1
1 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2013
@ Q star

QT treats gravity as an actual force, and actual forces can only accelerate something with mass.


Quantum theory doesn't deal with gravity at all. You appear to be making this up as you go along.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 09, 2013
@Q-Star

Blah, blah, blah,,


Well then, I guess ya told me what's what. BUT, ya still haven't told me how the book tour is going. And whether or not ya are coming to a city near me. I would love to see your act live.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2013
@GSwift7
A photon is light. If you claim that it actually has mass, then you have mass moving at the speed of light.

Now that's a really interesting observation. We know that light travels slower thru a medium such as glass, water, etc., so to measure the actual speed of light we would have to do so in a perfect vacuum. A perfect vacuum is impossible to achieve, it is certainly not present in interstellar space, so the speed of light we measure is actually a tiny bit less than the "real maximum speed c". And guess what, a photon does have a tiny, tiny bit of mass. Maybe, just maybe, Benni has a point....
P.S. AA, Q-Star, brt, etc., please ignore this post, it is meant to be serious, so not within your sphere of competence. (LOL, Sphere! Should have said microdot...)
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 09, 2013
Not much to be interested in, the curve is exponential (nonlinear) on both axes. "Apparent" is the correct word, it is not worth mentioning, it doesn't mean anything.


It is logarithmic, not exponential. And, the apparent sine wave does have meaning since it reflects some phenomenon. Whether it matters to the experiment is a different question.


It's exponential, as in 10^0, 10^1, 10^2, 10^3,,,, and it reflects nothing more than ya are seeing "something" there that is really not there because the graphing thing is giving ya trouble.

Go back & make sure of your basic terminology & definitions. Then basic QM & S&GR.


Time for you to study basic physics.


Thank ya for the suggestion, I will be sure to do that,,, and advise anyone reading your comments to do the same, because just about everything ya wrote about photons was incorrect.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2013
A photon is light. All light is photons and all photons are light. This is how we define them. Light can be many photons or just one by itself. The frequency of that photon determines whether it is visible or other type of light, but it's still light and it's a photon.


So, in your world, the remainder of the EM spectrum is not "photons"?

ENERGY = PHOTONS = ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM
This is the position of my physics book. Are you having a problem with it?

An EM field is an entirely different thing


I never mentioned anything about an "EM field", just EM spectrum.

I've also never mentioned anything about ACCELERATING mass to speed of light, you continue to make statements implying that I have said things you can't quote me for.

axemaster
5 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2013
It is logarithmic, not exponential. And, the apparent sine wave does have meaning since it reflects some phenomenon. Whether it matters to the experiment is a different question.

I would point out that since the observed variation is well within the error bars, it's far more likely to be random variation. So exp/log scales and so on are irrelevant.
Elder1
1.3 / 5 (4) Apr 09, 2013
It's exponential, as in 10^0, 10^1, 10^2, 10^3,,,, and it reflects nothing more than ya are seeing "something" there that is really not there because the graphing thing is giving ya trouble.

That isn't what defines an exponential graph. You clearly don't know the difference.

I would point out that since the observed variation is well within the error bars, it's far more likely to be random variation. So exp/log scales and so on are irrelevant.


Random variation does not produce sine curves, especially not on two different experiments. Data within the error bars is likely just error if it also appears random. This does not.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 09, 2013
It's exponential, as in 10^0, 10^1, 10^2, 10^3,,,, and it reflects nothing more than ya are seeing "something" there that is really not there because the graphing thing is giving ya trouble.

That isn't what defines an exponential graph. You clearly don't know the difference.


Clearly. Carry on, I'll sit in the back and keep quiet and let my betters teach me something.

I would point out that since the observed variation is well within the error bars, it's far more likely to be random variation. So exp/log scales and so on are irrelevant.


Random variation does not produce sine curves, especially not on two different experiments. Data within the error bars is likely just error if it also appears random. This does not.


Could ya deign to instruct me on how ya are getting a "sine" curve from the data?
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 09, 2013
It's exponential, as in 10^0, 10^1, 10^2, 10^3,,,, and it reflects nothing more than ya are seeing "something" there that is really not there because the graphing thing is giving ya trouble.

That isn't what defines an exponential graph. You clearly don't know the difference.


Had to go back and make sure I didn't mistype something. I didn't. I said the axes of the graph were exponential, not that the graph was exponential. Ha,
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 09, 2013
Quantum theory and Relativity are not in disagreement.


Ya have a TOE?

As the wavelength decreases a photon begins to take on the properties of a particle.


Particle-wave duality have nothing to do with wavelength.

That is the basis for the stated wave/particle duality property of photons.


Ya should have read the book instead of just looking at the pictures.

The shorter the wavelength the more it acts as a particle and the less it seems to act as an EM wave. It is in the visible spectrum where that duality is most apparent. Below it EM physics dominates and above it particle physics rules.


A photon of the shortest wavelength will show the exact same particle-wave duality as the longest wavelength photon. It only depends on how ya observe the photon.

Pssst, Elder One, Einstein won a Nobel Prize for a paper he wrote over a hundred years for this very thing. Ya are a science illiterate,,,, now ya got to find another person to "play" with. Again.
brt
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 09, 2013
reg, I love how much I'm getting under your skin and making your blood pressure jump through the roof. You're an angry old man, and it's pathetically sad, so I don't know why it entertains me so much. I guess I'm just a bad person.

Here...

http://medicalxpr...ely.html
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2013
reg mundy can't be serious. No way anyone who understands it well enough to say such BS would actually believe it. He's just trolling. He's just baiting us all to see if we will be stupid enough to try to respond.

Nice.

Teh internets are serious business. :)

Right?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2013
@GSwift7
Of course I'm serious! Where in my comment do you find anything that isn't fact? The real value of c is a theoretical concept that nothing in our universe, not even a photon, can achieve. Of course, it gets pretty close to it, but a miss is as good as a mile.
Meanwhile, in the post immediately before yours, brt has already responded in his usual way, not a single logical argument, fact, theory, or anything useful, just more mindless insults 'cos he hasn't got anything to say. What a moron!
Reg Mundy
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 10, 2013
@Q-Star/brt
I see that you, as Q-Star, have reverted to being brt since Elder1 burnt you with this:-
@ Q star

QT treats gravity as an actual force, and actual forces can only accelerate something with mass.


Quantum theory doesn't deal with gravity at all. You appear to be making this up as you go along.

You even dissed him with a 1/5(1)!
You really are an asshole!
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2013
Of course I'm serious! Where in my comment do you find anything that isn't fact? The real value of c is a theoretical concept that nothing in our universe, not even a photon, can achieve.


lol, that's funny.

BTW though, you've confused quotes from different people in that last post.

I was the one who said that QT treats gravity as an actual force. They coined the term graviton as the force carrier for it. Here's the wiki, though I personally do not favor this concept:

http://en.wikiped...Graviton

You really are an asshole!


Nah, I kinda like him.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (11) Apr 10, 2013
BTW though, you've confused quotes from different people in that last post.


Naaaa, he didn't confuse the quotes. Ya, brt, antialias, VendicarE, me, gwawd, are all one person who has one purpose in life: To make sure the world doesn't realize the genius of one idiot who posts the same gobbledegook under a dozen different usernames.

He's a Zephyr wannabe, but Zeph is light years ahead of him. I like Zephyr,,, and even though I think Zeph is mixed up on many things, Zephyr is sincere, honest and intelligent. This other guy? He's none of these things. He's just an angry idiot.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2013
Here's a quote from Q-Star only 18 hours ago on this thread:-
Carry on, I'll sit in the back and keep quiet and let my betters teach me something.

When I read it, I had a brief feeling of joy that the asshole was going to shut up and learn something, but no!
He followed it immediately with two full posts of BS, and then a few insults as brt. His word is worthless, and carries as much weight as his fictitious Ph.D. he claims from Caltech (30 years ago! Poor old fart, he has done nothing since then, except to claim he is "nearly" a tenured professor!). He's gone on to pour more and more BS into this thread, without a single logical contribution. All he does under his many aliases is attack anybody with any sense and completely fail to logically refute anything. C'mon, Q-Star, tell me logically where the error is in my comment about c. Betcha you can't.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Apr 10, 2013
Zephyr is sincere, honest and intelligent.

Erm...You must be talking about a different Zeph than the one I am aware of.
Sincere...Ok, I'll give him that. But honest? A guy who has so many sockpuppets that he loses track when he's debating with himself? And intelligent? While subscribing to every conspiracy theory on the planet and then some? Seriously?
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 10, 2013
He followed it immediately with two full posts of BS, and then a few insults as brt.
We are two different people. If ya knew how to read ya see we differ on a very fundamental aspect of physics.

he has done nothing since then, except to claim he is "nearly" a tenured professor!).
I never claimed to be "nearly" tenured professor. It would be hard for ya to make that mistake because I never claimed to be a professor of any sort.

All he does under his many aliases is attack anybody with any sense and completely fail to logically refute anything.
It must be "many aliases". It is just impossible that more than one person would realize ya are a moron, AND have the temerity to point it out.

C'mon, Q-Star, tell me logically where the error is in my comment about c. Betcha you can't.
Your uneducated assumption that the speed of light has not been measured sufficiently precisely to know what it is in a vacuum.

Think "density" of the medium, not "perfect vacuum".
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2013
Zephyr is sincere, honest and intelligent.

Erm...You must be talking about a different Zeph than the one I am aware of.
Sincere...Ok, I'll give him that. But honest? A guy who has so many sockpuppets that he loses track when he's debating with himself?


But he NEVER denies the puppets. Occasionally he'll forget one or two, but never denies them.

And intelligent? While subscribing to every conspiracy theory on the planet and then some? Seriously?


Intelligent? Yes. But intelligence is not necessarily indicative of mental health.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2013
This other guy? He's none of these things. He's just an angry idiot.


Yeah, I wonder why he is so emotional over the comments on some obscure science news site? I haven't looked at my comment ratings in ages. Does he give a bunch of 1's to everybody who argues against him?

I noticed him starting to go over the edge back when he said this:
I see that you, as Q-Star, have reverted to being brt since Elder1 burnt you with this


The first time I realized anyone would want to have multiple accounts on a site like this I was amazed. The degree of sociopathic problems that implies is kinda scary. And worrying whether someone else is using multiple accounts might be even more paranoid and disturbing than the guy who is using multiple accounts.

Why on earth would anyone care?

As for zephyr, I've come accross his handle on other forums while doing google searches for stuff, and he's always banned. You're right though. He never gets offensive or rude. Just out of date
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Apr 10, 2013
Intelligent? Yes. But intelligence is not necessarily indicative of mental health.

I dunno. I equate intelligence with the ability to reason (i.e. draw logical conclusions from basic premises and ALSO be able to spot when such conclusions aren't warranted.)
And I think he doesn't have that to any degree which I would attribute to an intelligent person.

The sockpuppetry is dishonest - and also massively against the rules of this site.
(and yes: I'm fairly sure he has denied in the past that he used sockpuppets.)
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2013
@ GSwift,

Careful what ya say, ya'll find yourself on that list of me. AA, brt, gwawd, et al. (Actually I'm flattered that he would mistake me for any of them, would be honored if ya made the list also.)
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2013

(and yes: I'm fairly sure he has denied in the past that he used sockpuppets.)


I must defend him. I actually asked him more than once why he used several different usernames. He was quite forthright and told me he does it to keep track of which computer he is using. No, that didn't make any sense to me, but he did acknowledge the several usernames.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2013
...simpler description of reality. But I don't think, such a personal properties are relevant to matter of fact discussions at PhysOrg...Even well informed people can excel here, even if they're not extraordinarily blahblah
Hey jigga look:

"For an analogy, the supergravity description is like treating water as a continuous, incompressible fluid. This is effective for describing long-distance effects such as waves and currents, but inadequate to understand short-distance/high-energy phenomena such as evaporation, for which a description of the underlying molecules is needed. What, then, are the underlying degrees of freedom of M-theory?"

-Like WATER, see? One question - does aether evaporate? I think we're getting close-

"Humans are on the cusp of discovering how the universe works on its biggest and smallest scales, Stephen Hawking"

-And Ive already told you all how humanity works.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2013
Careful what ya say, ya'll find yourself on that list of me


lol, I actually typed that I was surprised he hadn't accused me of being you, then deleted that part.

I don't get accused of multiple accounts much, maybe because my profile actually has my real name, location and a photo. I have been accused of working for the oil industry, over in the climate section though.

Yeah, you, antialias, thermodynamics, a few others and I are all mostly on the same page. However, I'm prety sure I'm not you or any of them. Most of all, I hope I'm not actually the infamous lite. If I do have multiple personalities, I hope I'm someone cool.

One question: does anyone know wtf otto is talking about?
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2013
One question: does anyone know wtf otto is talking about?


Most of the time I can follow him with no problem, and often agree with his take on things, but in this case I think he is "communing" with Zephyr so he could be talking about most anything.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2013
the supergravity description is like treating water as a continuous, incompressible fluid
It definitely isn't. IMO the supergravity is the extension of gravity to higher number of dimensions with SUSY model. It's a field theory that combines the principles of supersymmetry and general relativity.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2013
the supergravity description is like treating water as a continuous, incompressible fluid
It definitely isn't. IMO the supergravity is the extension of gravity to higher number of dimensions with SUSY model. It's a field theory that combines the principles of supersymmetry and general relativity.
I knew you would say this very thing yes.

By the way google the quote for the context.
Elder1
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2013
Particle-wave duality have nothing to do with wavelength.


You really do not have a clue.
Elder1
1 / 5 (2) Apr 10, 2013
BTW, I don't have any axe to grind with anybody on this site. The reason I joined and posted on this thread was simply because of the shovels full of BS being dumped here. I am quickly learning who really does know something about science and physics in particular. It is extremely obvious that Q-Star is not on that list.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2013
@Q-Star
Interesting, your quote:-
Your uneducated assumption that the speed of light has not been measured sufficiently precisely to know what it is in a vacuum. Think "density" of the medium, not "perfect vacuum".

Why would anybody think "density of the medium"? In a perfect vacuum, there is no "medium" to be dense at all (I use the word "dense" in the normal way, not as it applies to you). I state that c has not been measured in a perfect vacuum, and that light in our universe can never attain the full theoretical value of c as every cubic centimetre in our universe is packed with whizzing particles, gamma rays, neutrinos, etc., and a perfect vacuum cannot be obtained. You come back with drivel. Can you not answer a simple question, and tell me where the logic is wrong?
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 11, 2013
@Q-Star
Interesting, your quote:-
Your uneducated assumption that the speed of light has not been measured sufficiently precisely to know what it is in a vacuum. Think "density" of the medium, not "perfect vacuum".

Why would anybody think "density of the medium"? Blah, blah, blah


Because the density of the medium has a direct bearing on the measurement of c. How does c through water compare with the "ideal" c? How does c through air compare with the "ideal" c? How does c through the space between, say Mars and the low earth orbit compare with "ideal" c? See where this might be going?

,,light in our universe can never attain the full theoretical value of c as every cubic centimetre in our universe is packed with whizzing particles, gamma rays, neutrinos, etc.,


But the measured values have gotten exactly close to it down to 30 orders of magnitude. (Even though your "every cm^3 is packed with" is very wrong.)

Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 11, 2013
Particle-wave duality have nothing to do with wavelength.


You really do not have a clue.


Might I ask for ya to help with me with that?
GSwift7
2 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2013
Can you not answer a simple question, and tell me where the logic is wrong?


Try reading the following page on vacuum energy. It's not a bad place to start, though it doesn't go into very much detail. You'll need to follow a bunch of the embedded links if you are really interested in understanding it.

http://en.wikiped...m_energy

After reading it, I think it would be better if you answer your own question regarding what is wrong with your logic. I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm interested in starting a more constructive dialogue. I'll give you a hint of what you should be looking for in the wiki page though: There's more than one interpretation of what vacuum energy means. Let me know what you find.
Reg Mundy
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2013
@Q-Star
Because the density of the medium has a direct bearing on the measurement of c. How does c through water compare with the "ideal" c? How does c through air compare with the "ideal" c? How does c through the space between, say Mars and the low earth orbit compare with "ideal" c? See where this might be going?

I point out that the velocity of photons varies depending on the medium thru which they are passing, and that as a perfect vacuum is unobtainable in our universe, theoretical c cannot be attained, and you come back with this exact argument as the answer to my question. Are you incapable of following simple logic? This is the question I asked YOU, you cretin!
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2013
@GSwift7
Hey, that's almost a sensible response! Are you sure you are on the right website? You are a bit like the guy standing in the middle of a battlefield waving a white flag for a truce, its just a question of which side will shoot you first!
For what its worth, WIKI has a high percentage of rubbish plus a lot of contributions by know-it-alls who regurgitate the "official" line they have been spoon-fed by the scientific establishment over the years. The attraction of sites like this is the opportunity to float alternative theories, especially ones where the establishment line is patently and obviously wrong, e.g. age of the universe, the big bang, gravity gravitons gravitinos gravity waves and gravitational lensing, dark matter, and practically everything else that Q-Star and his cronies defend with such venom and lack of logic. Benni's suggestion that photons have mass is a case in point. Great fun, so please don't be offended by my lack of gratitude for your considered answer.
GSwift7
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2013
For what its worth, WIKI has a high percentage of rubbish plus a lot of contributions by know-it-alls who regurgitate the "official" line


lol.

Yes, you always have to watch what is on wiki. When linking to a wiki page, I try to point out when they have errors. The page on metric expansion is a good example of a wiki page with errors.

As for your paranoid delusions about mainstream conspiracies to suppress all the really good alternative theories, ???. You're right, but it's really all an alien invasion plot. As long as WE can keep you away from cold fusion, WE will dominate you. lol
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2013
For what its worth, WIKI has a high percentage of rubbish

Think again.

Comparison between wikipedia and encyclopedia britannica - as assessed by a study from Nature magazine:
http://news.cnet....332.html

(One caveat is that you may not cite wikipedia articles in scientific publications, since the entries are open for change...which may render a quote inaccurate)
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2013
@GSwift7 @Ant-physiognomy
Didn't mean to give the impression I am anti-WIKI, far from it, I support it. But it restricts itself to what it thinks (or its contributors think) as "fact". Fact is what the majority of people believe, not what is true. This is especially so with history, principally written by the victors. There is no representation for unpopular views - check out Professor Brian Ford's theories on dinosaurs and the polemic directed at him by the establishment. See if you can find any reference to a simple experiment which disproves F=GMm/RR (the ONLY basis for believing in Dark Matter!).
Let me know how you get on....
brt
5 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2013
holy shit, I can't believe there are people still commenting on this.

Just an FYI; if you are a physicist(someone with an actual physics degree) addicted to commenting on this site, then you have failed and need to find a different profession if you haven't already done so...unless you're stuck in a hospital after surgery, or something like that.

that's something that seriously annoys me when reading these crazy replies; that people think they are actually conversing with successful physicists.

Another thing is that it's pretty obvious to spot those who know nothing about math or science when they bash on established math and science fields. Here's a hint, you hate it because it's over your head; that's how you justify your ignorance. "It's all BS because it makes no sense"...to you, yes. It amazes me the defense mechanisms of these geriatric brits.
brt
not rated yet Apr 11, 2013
@GSwift7 @Ant-physiognomy
Didn't mean to give the impression I am anti-WIKI, far from it, I support it. But it restricts itself to what it thinks (or its contributors think) as "fact". Fact is what the majority of people believe, not what is true. This is especially so with history, principally written by the victors. There is no representation for unpopular views - check out Professor Brian Ford's theories on dinosaurs and the polemic directed at him by the establishment. See if you can find any reference to a simple experiment which disproves F=GMm/RR (the ONLY basis for believing in Dark Matter!).
Let me know how you get on....


you sir, are an idiot. and a conspiracy nut; though they are one in the same.
Q-Star
4 / 5 (8) Apr 11, 2013
@GSwift7 @Ant-physiognomy
Didn't mean to give the impression I am anti-WIKI, far from it, I support it.


Of course ya do, and it shows:

WIKI has a high percentage of rubbish


But while ya are supporting it:

There is no representation for unpopular views - check out Professor Brian Ford's theories on dinosaurs and the polemic directed at him by the establishment.


The man is an entertainer. He is no "professor", he never even completed his coursework.

See if you can find any reference to a simple experiment which disproves F=GMm/RR (the ONLY basis for believing in Dark Matter!).
Let me know how you get on....


It would be impossible to "find any reference to a simple experiment which disproves F=GMm/RR" or it's GR expansion, since there is not a single one to find.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2013
Astonishing! Such co-ordination by Q-Star and brt. After a long absence, they both come back together! Don't tell me, they are both in the same institution and get "activity sessions" at the same time! Perhaps they even share the same cell? Take turns on the same computer? No, I've got it! They share the same BODY! They are two facets of a schizophrenic!
I wondered, 'cos Q-Star said
Carry on, I'll sit in the back and keep quiet and let my betters teach me something.

then carried on as if he hadn't said it. He has his personalities mixed up!
Just when we seemed to be getting a few sensible posts on this thread, here he comes again with his stupid insults and complete lack of anything worthwhile. Take another tablet, Q-Star/brt, and go back to sleep....
axemaster
5 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2013
Just an FYI; if you are a physicist(someone with an actual physics degree) addicted to commenting on this site, then you have failed and need to find a different profession if you haven't already done so...unless you're stuck in a hospital after surgery, or something like that.

that's something that seriously annoys me when reading these crazy replies; that people think they are actually conversing with successful physicists.

Hey there! I'm 9 months out of college and I'm teaching physics at MIT, so I think I'm pretty successful so far. Granted, I'm not addicted to this site... I just browse occasionally for science news and amuse myself reading the comments section.

EDIT: I know I'm going to regret saying this, but... Reg Mundy, you're kind of a dumbass.
brt
5 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2013


That's allowable too. I'm just sayin', we're not secretly conversing with Ed Witten or Steven Weinberg. I keep coming back because the false realities these people create for themselves is amazing. I have a new found desire for less gun control with the knowledge that these people are out there.
Q-Star
4 / 5 (8) Apr 11, 2013
I saw that brt left a comment and could not resist a chance to fuel the delusions of conspiracy and persecution.

Anyhoo,

Hey there! I'm 9 months out of college and I'm teaching physics at MIT, so I think I'm pretty successful so far.


Kudos, your posts here are consistent with that. I think ya are successful too,, That is an accomplishment to be proud of.

EDIT: I know I'm going to regret saying this, but... Reg Mundy, you're kind of a dumbass.


Ut ooh, ya might find yourself on the list of me's. (Not to worry, it's a pretty good group to be in, excluding me of course, antialias, brt, gawed, GSwift, et al.) But at least he's amusing in how serious he takes it all.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2013
@axemaster
Reg Mundy, you're kind of a dumbass.[/q}
That's a bit mild, axemaster. Its almost a compliment after some of the things I have been called. You need a few lessons in "insulting", Q-Star actually studied it as a subject at Caltech he told me in a previous thread - glad he studied something, it certainly wasn't physics..
Anyway, my post was:-
the velocity of photons varies depending on the medium thru which they are passing, and that as a perfect vacuum is unobtainable in our universe, theoretical c cannot be attained
which was in support of the theory that photons have mass and travel at slightly less than c in our universe. Perhaps you would like to deploy your vast knowledge of physics and shiny new qualifications in making some sort of logical response to this rather than join the mud slinging? I'm sure your students would be most impressed if you can do it.
PS Best not to boast about your career to-date, Q-twit/brat is a passed-over PhD and will be very jealous.
ValeriaT
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2013
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2013
@Q-Star
Ut ooh, ya might find yourself on the list of me's. (Not to worry, it's a pretty good group to be in, excluding me of course, antialias, brt, gawed, GSwift, et al.)

Hang on, Q-pee, that's a bit rich! You accused me of being gawad not so long ago. I just looked in the mirror, and I'm not that ugly... And as for GSwift7 and ant-physiognomy, they have occasional flashes of sanity and could never be in your list of saddos. In any case, you left out lots of your other aliases such as VendicarE, Quinn, etc. Do try to be more consistent, it makes it so much more fun.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2013
A further quirk in the AMS results suggests if a fraction of dark matter particles interact with each other, they would combine into atom-like structures and eventually collapse into a spinning disc.The resulting shadow Milky Way could be spinning right along with the visible one, or it could end up tilted at a slight angle.
axemaster
5 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2013
Perhaps you would like to deploy your vast knowledge of physics and shiny new qualifications in making some sort of logical response to this rather than join the mud slinging?

I haven't paid a lot of attention to this argument, so I'm not sure of the context for the speed of light discussion. However I would point out the following:

- the speed of light can be calculated by c^2=1/(e*u). Since Maxwell's Equations are relativistically invariant, this works in all frames of reference.

- in space (i.e. high vacuum) light is slowed through absorption, rather than EM coupling with atoms in a lattice. This means that the slowing is a statistical process where the mean scattering length is extremely long. Thus if you measured the velocity of photons passing through a volume, you'd find that most of them traveled at exactly c, and a few traveled slower due to smacking into things. This is even more true considering that the universe is highly ionized and transparent to most radiation.
axemaster
5 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2013
After thinking a bit more, I'd like to add this as well:

- the electromagnetic force has an infinite range only because the photon mass is zero. This is because the force is carried by virtual photons, and if they had nonzero mass, the field strength would decay faster than 1/r^2 with distance. If this were the case, shell theorem would no longer apply, meaning that a nonzero photon mass would be very easy to detect. Similarly, Gauss's Law would fail since the divergence of the electric field in an empty sphere wouldn't be zero.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2013
@Q-Star
It would be impossible to "find any reference to a simple experiment which disproves F=GMm/RR" or it's GR expansion, since there is not a single one to find.

You missed out the last two words, which should have been "in WIKI".
There are several, including the one in my book with which you should be familiar since you so kindly reviewed it. Perhaps you could point out the logic flaw?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2013
@axemaster
You've completely spoilt this thread! A thoughtful, sensible answer like this is beyond the comprehension of Q-Star and his cronies, and you will have frightened them off. I'll still pick a few arguments with you, though.
if you measured the velocity of photons passing through a volume, you'd find that most of them traveled at exactly c

Anybody actually proved this experimentally? Don't believe its true..
the electromagnetic force has an infinite range

Hmmm, so does "gravity", which means that every lump of mass is the centre of its own black hole...surely all such forces are eventually negated/peter-out due to quantum effects.
the force is carried by virtual photons

Yeah, right....like gravity is carried by gravitons, etc.
the universe is highly ionized and transparent to most radiation

Any correlation between size of associated "carrier" particle and degree of transparency? Maybe not totally transparent to anything, just a question of degree.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2013
@axemaster
This is because the force is carried by virtual photons, and if they had nonzero mass, the field strength would decay faster than 1/r^2 with distance. If this were the case, shell theorem would no longer apply

You will have gathered by my previous posts that I believe the theory deriving gravitational force is incorrect, and therefore shell theory does not apply.
Incidentally, experimental proofs of EM field strength decay do not preclude photons having a very small mass, it could fall inside the measurement margins of error.
casualjoe
not rated yet Apr 12, 2013
If a photon had mass, gravitational lensing effects would look like rainbows, but no.
DarkHorse66
3 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2013
If a photon had mass, gravitational lensing effects would look like rainbows, but no.

here's a site that might be worth exploring on this topic for an additional explanation (including the 'related links' section):
http://physics.st...fraction
and gravitational lens:
https://en.wikipe...nal_lens
Cheers, DH66
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2013
@casualjoe @DH66
The amount of chromatic aberration is wholly dependent on the density of the refracting medium, so the very thin density of any "gas" involved in "refractive rather than gravitational" lensing would mean a very small amount of chromatic aberration, generally written off as defects in our telescope optics. The angle of refraction is very small.
Here, try this for another opinion:-
http://www.qfizik...tion.pdf
Its not just me who has doubts about Newton/Einstein!
casualjoe
5 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2013
Actually they look like the rainbows, but at different (very short-wavelenght) portion of spectrum, than you may expect - because the mass of photon is tiny.


Yes but the distances are very large, we would see that blue light curved more than red light, but we don't we see white light. As someone who has also tried to disprove Einstein (obsessively!) I have come to realise that the leading theories are way more interesting and logical than i first thought.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2013
After thinking a bit more, I'd like to add this as well:

- the electromagnetic force has an infinite range

What do you mean by "range"?

only because the photon mass is zero.


SO in my 2nd semester physics book there is discussion about "relativistic mass" & "rest mass equivalence". You teach it?

This is because the force is carried by virtual photons

What's a "virtual photon"? Does it have a place on the EM Spectrum?

and if they had nonzero mass, the field strength would decay faster than 1/r^2 with distance
Because if the mass was real?

If this were the case, shell theorem would no longer apply, meaning that a nonzero photon mass would be very easy to detect. Similarly, Gauss's Law would fail since the divergence of the electric field in an empty sphere wouldn't be zero.


I see the point you're trying to make here, but remember, the "shell theorem" is just that.
axemaster
5 / 5 (3) Apr 12, 2013
Benni, it's OK. You don't have to puff out your chest and snort at "virtual photons" and "shell theorems" to try and score points. Just go and do your engineering.
axemaster
5 / 5 (3) Apr 12, 2013
Yes, I am trolling a bit. I'm actually a very nice guy in real life. But seriously, every objection you raised is something you could just type into google. References exist so people like you don't have to waste my time.

http://en.wikiped...eraction
http://en.wikiped...articles
http://en.wikiped..._carrier
http://en.wikiped...onductor
http://en.wikiped...day_cage
http://en.wikiped..._theorem
http://en.wikiped...%27s_law
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2013
Yes, I am trolling a bit. I'm actually a very nice guy in real life. But seriously, every objection you raised is something you could just type into google. References exist so people like you don't have to waste my time.


I didn't raise any objections, I was trying to be one of your physics students asking the good professor questions of the type that would come up in general classroom discussion.

MIT huh? I'll do some checking, I know some MIT alumni, presuming "MIT" stands for Massachusetts Institute of Technology?

axemaster
5 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2013
It does. And sorry if I read too much into it.

And just so you know, I'm not interested in anybody on the internets finding out who I am. So if you try to find out, I'll just respond with "no, that's not me" regardless.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2013
It does. And sorry if I read too much into it.

And just so you know, I'm not interested in anybody on the internets finding out who I am. So if you try to find out, I'll just respond with "no, that's not me" regardless.


A word of advice, use a respective tone with any professional form of communique when you engage your colleagues. Above all don't descend into the name calling routine so prevalent here.

I've already had an MIT alumni look at your post. I can choose to know who you are before the weekend is over, and if in fact you are a real person at MIT. I'll do you this courtesy, if I choose to know your name, it will go no further.
axemaster
5 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2013
A word of advice, use a respective tone with any professional form of communique when you engage your colleagues. Above all don't descend into the name calling routine so prevalent here.

I've already had an MIT alumni look at your post. I can choose to know who you are before the weekend is over, and if in fact you are a real person at MIT. I'll do you this courtesy, if I choose to know your name, it will go no further.

Well, that's thoroughly creepy.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2013
I've already had an MIT alumni look at your post. I can choose to know who you are before the weekend is over, and if in fact you are a real person at MIT.

I think it's time for a stalker alert. That guy seriously needs to get a life (and a sense of proper human behaviour).
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Apr 13, 2013
I've already had an MIT alumni look at your post. I can choose to know who you are before the weekend is over, and if in fact you are a real person at MIT.

I think it's time for a stalker alert. That guy seriously needs to get a life (and a sense of proper human behaviour).


Desist from the diatribes, name calling & uncivil pretentious characterizations. Then no one will ever care will they?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (7) Apr 14, 2013
@axemaster
Interesting choice of reference articles on WIKI.
The force-carrier one is particularly amusing.
It states categorically that the Higgs Bosun gives mass to fundamental particles.
This is exactly the kind of unsubstantiated establishment trash that I have to attack. There is NO proof whatsoever that the Higgs Bosun gives mass, any more so than any other particle, and there is a great deal of "evidence" that it doesn't.
Similarly with your other references, nearly all regurgitation of the "official" line without any actual proof.
Presenting theories as proven fact is more akin to religion than science. I find the common acceptance of the existence of Dark Matter a particular example of this, where there is absolutely no sign of its existence anywhere, and the only "proof" of its existence is based on the accepted "law" of gravity - yet nobody questions this law (except me and a few other people also labelled as cranks!).
casualjoe
5 / 5 (1) Apr 14, 2013
yet nobody questions this law


You're joking right?
http://einstein.s...dex.html
Reg Mundy
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2013
@Benni
I've already had an MIT alumni look at your post. I can choose to know who you are before the weekend is over, and if in fact you are a real person at MIT.

This isn't a good idea, Benni. There are some serious nutters on this site, like Q-Star/brt/etc., and most people wouldn't want them knowing their real IDs. I know who they are, and so do the Illuminati/Templar combo (according to Q-Star, who thinks they are after him...).
I don't mind people knowing who I am, so here's a picture so you will know who is knocking on your door...
https://docs.goog...=sharing
brt
not rated yet Apr 14, 2013
Benni,

you're completely full of shit. If you bothered me and asked me to "identify" this guy who says he's from MIT; I'd tell you to get lost and never bother me with such an idiotically trivial problem ever again. But you don't know anyone from MIT. So c'mon, cut the bullshit.

Reg,

Why is it always the "nutters" claiming everyone else is crazy? The only way you carry on in your delusional fantasy is by claiming me and everyone else who thinks you're experiencing dementia must be the same person under different names. I wouldn't be surprised at all if you actually did that while claiming everyone else was doing it. You will never be validated. Give up. If I was identified as being someone who converses with most of the people who comment on these articles, I'd be embarrassed; which is why I don't want anyone knowing who I am. And they don't/won't because while some of you losers think you're Steven Seagal, you're really just Drunk Uncle.
axemaster
5 / 5 (1) Apr 15, 2013
Hahaha, I love the way you put that brt.

If I was identified as being someone who converses with most of the people who comment on these articles, I'd be embarrassed; which is why I don't want anyone knowing who I am.

For me it's more that I don't want any of the crazies on this forum knowing who I am, because then I'd feel like I have to look over my shoulder or something. Plus since I'm listed on the MIT directory, if people found out who I am, I'm sure my email would start filling up with garbage.
Elder1
1 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2013
The forces all have infinite range as long as you accept that at infinite range they become infinitely small (or weak). In other words, at infinity the electromagnetic force = zero. Of course this brings up the same problem present in Relativity and QT, normalizing infinities.

Remember the mass/energy equivalence formula? Energy has mass. Photons have energy until they stop when they cease to exist and the energy is transferred to something else along with the mass equivalence and therefor the momentum. If reflected only some of the energy/momentum is transferred with the reflected photon being lower in energy and wavelength.

Look up "mass defect"

"Highly ionized" and "transparent" is an oxymoron.

As for the speed of light in a vacuum, it is not the absolute limit. If the possible oscillation of the electromagnetic field of a photon is restricted in 3 space it can then slightly exceed the "limit" See the "Casimir Effect" discussed elsewhere on this site.
DarkHorse66
1.5 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2013
@Reg Mundy, @casualjoe, et al: there are plenty of people who have SOME kind of doubts about Einstein. I have to admit to feeling that something is 'off' somewhere too... But as an undergrad student who is doing 'modern physics' as we speak, I am trying to better my understanding first. I am of the opinion that the only way to be in a proper position to pick holes in something, is to get well-aquainted with it first. Having said all that, if you google 'einstein and errors', you will come up with quite a few results. Here is one that seems sound; it does appear to have a quite rigourous mathematical basis. I would highly recommend that you work through that (1 1page) to verify what the author is claiming:
http://www.physic...peed.htm
The embedded links will lead you to the mathy-bits.
I'd also be interested in (serious)thoughts on this one(problem with Einstein & GPS):
http://www.comple...ChR.html
Cheers, DH66
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Apr 15, 2013
@DH66
A word of advice, which, being free, has no value to you whatsoever.
As an undergrad, it is necessary to simply absorb the lore handed down by your academic "betters" and regurgitate it parrot-wise for their benefit in order to gain your degree. After some years, when you have proved yourself as a loyal acolyte and become a well-respected physicist, you may then start to THINK, and perhaps question the fundamental "laws of nature" on which your understanding of the universe is built. You may come up with alternative interpretations of the way things actually work! (Ever wondered why so many atheist physicists suddenly start believing in God? That's one way out of the problem...). When you do reach your moment of epiphany, either keep it to yourself or publish it under a false name, as you will be subjected to a barrage of abuse by the establishment attack-dogs, and assholes such as brt who only ever post insults, never anything useful. Meanwhile keep your head down and work hard.
DarkHorse66
not rated yet Apr 15, 2013
@Reg
Toeing the line and regurgitating. Trying to understand the stuff that is being taught. That is the principle which I already operate under. You may have noticed that most of my questions are aimed at precisely that.Unfortunately, one can't build understanding, without thinking about the material at hand & the ways it fits (or is supposed to) together. What's worse, is that I HAVE to question my understandings more thoroughly than the average bear, because if I don't, I find myself having insuffient understanding of the matter at hand, or worse, the wrong understanding. That comes from having Asperger's Syndrome, ADHD(non-medicatable)& a raft of accompanying learning disorders. As for having my own theory that I am working, yes I do, but unlike so many, I am not trumpeting it around, nor am I trying to make others swallow it. If anything, I quietly use it to focus attention on details of my studies, that might have gone under the radar instead(very easy for someone like me)...cont
DarkHorse66
2 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2013
cont....much better that way, don't you think? And yes, one day (which is still a while away, I can only handle part-time uni) I will publish. Under my own name too. However, relativity(there is only one INTERPRETATIONAL point that I question about it) will only be one portion of it. It will be a larger paper & will cover both the 'very large' & the 'very small'. In fact Einstein is one of my heros, but I don't believe in hero-worship. Even they are not without flaws. The only reason that I put those links up, was to show both the mathematical fundamental weakness (if the author is correct, Einstein fudged his maths..)& to see what you guys might have to say about it. (but an open-minded intelligent discussion tends to be a hit-n-miss affair on this site)Anyway, enough about my personal circs. I appreciate the advice & am doing my best to do well, despite everything.
Best Regards,DH66
PS My lecturer in modern physics is an 'absolute' believer in relativity.Kind of a funny irony.... ;)
casualjoe
5 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2013
DH66

Questioning the mainstream view has always been part of science, and now science is amazingly good at predicting things, GPS is pertty accurate.

Questioning is healthy, setting your own goals of finding the correct evidence to prove/disprove any doubts you have is a great way to learn, good fun too.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2013
@casualjoe
Questioning the mainstream view has always been part of science
Well, at least I might escape being burnt at the stake, then!
now science is amazingly good at predicting things
Yes, it is, from the point of view of modelling - not so good at explaining "how" or "why" though!
Questioning is healthy, setting your own goals of finding the correct evidence to prove/disprove any doubts you have is a great way to learn, good fun too.

Can't argue with that, much as I dislike agreeing with you. For DH66 and his fellow pilgrims, keeping an open mind augurs well for the future of physics.
Elder1
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2013
There is plenty of room to question both the Standard Model and Relativity. Both QM and GR SR are incomplete theories. Don't forget that a Theory is a hypothesis that is confirmed to accurately describe what it purports to describe and has predictive power as well. What we have now are two theories that do not cross over. That is why both are incomplete. "Incomplete" is not just an adjective, it is the correct definition of the state of the theories. Incompleteness is not an error. Newtons theory of gravity is also incomplete but it is still used to navigate spacecraft. Failing to describe relativity does not make it wrong. There is plenty of room to add to the existing theories. Will we develop a TOE? Hard to say. I suspect not.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2013
@Elder1
Will we develop a TOE? Hard to say. I suspect not.

Well, I think everyone who has a possible TOE should put up his/her ideas for consideration, otherwise we will never progress past the present unsatisfactory situation. It doesn't matter about the howls of derision from the likes of Q-Star/brt/etc., people should consider new theories and new aspects of old ones with an open mind, and refute them with logic, not insults.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2013
CDMS suggests a WIMP mass of 8.6GeV; AMS-02 indicates 300GeV or more; and we also have the Weniger line at Fermi which would imply a WIMP mass around 130−150GeV. These numbers are apparently inconsistent with each other and probably all artifacts, which have nothing to do with WIMPS.


Yes Zephyr, they are apparently inconsistent with each other. But they are 1) Made with a limited numbers of observations. 2) And may reflect that may possibly be several particles in the "WIMP" family. All the "normal" particles have "normal" playmates (several types of quarks, several types of leptons),,, should the possibility that the "WIMPs" have several "WIMPy" playmates be considered also?

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

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