LUX dark matter results confirmed

Feb 20, 2014
A new calibration technique fired neutrons directly into the Large Underground Xenon dark matter detector, increasing calibration accuracy by a factor of 10. Analysis based on the calibration confirms that if "low-mass" dark matter particles had passed through the detector during its initial run, Large Underground Xenon would have seen them. Credit: Matt Kapust/Sanford Underground Research Facility

(Phys.org) —A new high-accuracy calibration of the LUX (Large Underground Xenon) dark matter detector demonstrates the experiment's sensitivity to ultra-low energy events. The new analysis strongly confirms the result that low-mass dark matter particles were a no-show during the detector's initial run, which concluded last summer.

The first dark matter search results from LUX detector were announced last October. The detector proved to be exquisitely sensitive, but found no evidence of the particles during its first 90-day run, ruling out a wide range of possible models for dark . Previous experiments had detected potential signatures of with a very low mass, but LUX turned up no such signal. This latest work was focused on demonstrating the high sensitivity of LUX to potential signals in the search for those low-mass particles.

"The new calibration improved our calibration accuracy by about a factor of 10," said Rick Gaitskell, professor of physics at Brown and co-spokesperson for LUX. "It demonstrates that our first dark matter search result, which showed no sign of low-mass particles, is absolutely robust."

The results of the new analysis were presented Wednesday, Feb. 19, 2014, at the Lake Louise Winter Institute in Alberta, Canada, by James Verbus, a graduate student at Brown who led the new calibration work.

Dark matter is thought to account for about 80 percent of the mass of the universe. Though it has not yet been detected directly, its existence is a near certainty among physicists. Without the gravitational influence of dark matter, galaxies and galaxy clusters would simply fly apart into the vastness of space. It's not clear exactly what dark matter is, but the leading idea is that it consists of subatomic particles called WIMPs, short for weakly interacting massive particles. WIMPs are thought to be practically ubiquitous in the universe, but because they interact so rarely with other forms of matter, they generally pass right through the earth and everything on it without anyone knowing it.

The LUX is designed to detect those rare occasions when a WIMP does interact with other forms of matter. The detector consists of a third of a ton of supercooled xenon in a tank festooned with light sensors, each capable of detecting a single photon at a time. As WIMPs pass through the tank, they should, on very rare occasions, bump into the nucleus of a xenon atom. Those bumps cause the nucleus to recoil, creating a tiny flash of light and an ion charge, both of which are picked up by LUX sensors. The detector is more than a mile underground at the Sanford Underground Research Facility in South Dakota, where it is shielded from cosmic rays and radiation that might interfere with a potential dark matter signal.

This latest work was an entirely new way of calibrating the detector to recognize a WIMP signal.

"One of the important things we need to do is to calibrate the detector for what a WIMP-like recoil would look like," Verbus said. "You want to be able to measure your detector response for WIMP-like events."

To do that, the scientists use neutrons as a stand-in for WIMPs. The recoil created when a neutron hits the nucleus of a xenon atom is thought to be very similar to the recoil that would be created by a WIMP. To calibrate the LUX for low-mass WIMPS, the LUX team fired low-mass neutrons directly into the detector and used the detector's instruments precisely measure the characteristics of the neutron recoil. Once the researchers established exactly what a low-mass neutron recoil looks like, they went back to their data from the dark matter search to see if similar events occurred.

What makes this calibration method unique is that it was done directly inside the LUX detector. In previous xenon experiments, the neutron calibrations were done in separate test chambers instead of in the detector itself.

"Because our detector is so big and detects recoil positions so well," Verbus said, "we can just fire neutrons directly into LUX and get an absolute measurement of energy."

The LUX team used this new calibration to double-check the data from the detector's first run. Those initial results were confirmed: There were no low-mass WIMP events in the first run.

Along with the low-mass wimps, the first 90-day run of LUX ruled out a wide swath of possibilities for what dark matter could be made of. "There are literally thousands of models of particle physics lying bloodied in the gutter," Gaitskell said of the 's first results.

LUX will expand its search later this year when it begins a second, year-long run searching for new dark matter models at an even greater sensitivity.

Explore further: First results from LUX dark matter detector rule out some candidates

More information: luxdarkmatter.org/

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

China's PandaX WIMP detector set to begin operations soon

Jan 31, 2014

(Phys.org) —China's PandaX Dark Matter Experiment is in final preparations to begin operating sometime early this year, representatives for the project have told the press. Its mission is to capture evidence ...

Recommended for you

Uncovering the forbidden side of molecules

Sep 21, 2014

Researchers at the University of Basel in Switzerland have succeeded in observing the "forbidden" infrared spectrum of a charged molecule for the first time. These extremely weak spectra offer perspectives ...

How Paramecium protozoa claw their way to the top

Sep 19, 2014

The ability to swim upwards – towards the sun and food supplies – is vital for many aquatic microorganisms. Exactly how they are able to differentiate between above and below in often murky waters is ...

User comments : 104

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

matt_roadhouse
2.1 / 5 (14) Feb 20, 2014
So how can a WIMP account for 80% missing gravitation force (mass) ?

The very definition of ' not interacting ' would make it inert in gravitational calculations

We still don't even understand Gravity at the deepest level. I still feel adding an extra 80% to the universe's mass is a cop-out and nothing more to fix a broken equation/constant
Q-Star
4.6 / 5 (22) Feb 20, 2014
So how can a WIMP account for 80% missing gravitation force (mass) ?

The very definition of ' not interacting ' would make it inert in gravitational calculations

We still don't even understand Gravity at the deepest level. I still feel adding an extra 80% to the universe's mass is a cop-out and nothing more to fix a broken equation/constant


The "W" is for "weakly", not "not". Gravity is the weakest of the known forces, so by definition the interactions of the dark matter particle(s) WIMP is a perfect statement of what they are looking for.

Dark matter explains many unrelated phenomena, in an internally consistent way.I wish the people who keep saying they don't believe it could be correct, would at least offer a better explanation for all the things that dark matter explains.It's the best self-consistent mechanism available. Accept it or replace it.If you just take it out of the models, then you have raised many more and more difficult questions than dark matter resolves.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (15) Feb 20, 2014
Accept it or replace it.If you just take it out of the models, then you have raised many more and more difficult questions than dark matter resolves.


I was able to shoot holes in the Sigma relationship of galaxy mass and SMBH mass after just a few minutes of examining it, by observing that the Milky Way does not at all obey that relationship, and is off by 3 orders of magnitude.

This observation, which seems to have not been made by professional physicists, already casts doubt on the Dark Matter paradigm.

While "Something" may be happening, it does not mean that something is necessarily a massive, intangible particle.

I see no reason why more exploration into problems like these;

1, Missing Constant or variable.
2, Incomplete/over-simplified computer modelling, resulting in faulty conclusions.
3, Unknown force and/or unknown carrier entity: neither particle nor wave.

Points 1 and 2 are more likely than Dark Matter.

Point 3 is no less likely.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 20, 2014
Now just suppose, what might we consider for an unknown entity if we no longer assume we are looking for either a particle or a wave?

Are we as physicists (or lay people) so indoctrinated by what we do know that we don't the possibility of unknown things being more exotic than just minor variations of things we already know?

Try thinking about how you might describe something, of any scale, which is neither a particle nor a wave, and whether such a thing is predicted by any solution, known or unknown, to QM, relativity, string theory, whatever.

What might be needed, supposing none of those theories has a novel solution, for describing the behavior of such an entity?

Example, technically, the concept of a geometric "Ray" or "line" is actually neither particle nor wave.

A cartoon is neither particle nor wave.

While the cartoon and ray may not actually exist in reality as they are modeled, because such a concept does exist, we can't rule out that a similar reality could exists.
Q-Star
4.7 / 5 (15) Feb 20, 2014
I see no reason why more exploration into problems like these;

1, Missing Constant or variable.
2, Incomplete/over-simplified computer modelling, resulting in faulty conclusions.
3, Unknown force and/or unknown carrier entity: neither particle nor wave.


1. Would make all the science based on Newton and Einstein give us wrong answers. From the flight of projectiles here on earth to the orbits of the planets. Instead of saying Newton and Einstein are wrong, you should show what works better. So 1 fails the test of observation.

2. Computer modeling shortcomings can't discount what we observe directly. There are no better explanations for the phenomena. So 2 fails the test of observations.

3. "Unknown force and/or unknown carrier entity: neither particle nor wave". That's saying: "dark matter and dark energy is not dark matter or dark energy, it's probable really dark matter and dark energy". So 3 fails because you are suggesting replacing something with it's self.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 20, 2014
I'm not saying that anything we imagine is real.

What I'm saying is because we have the capacity to conceive of such a thing, and because we a subject to the laws of the universe, then the laws of the universe must allow for something of similar laws and behavior to exist.

Example:

While the fictional hypothetical "Anti-Gravity" might not exist, Gravity as we know it can still oppose itself. For an example, two stars can pass close by, and cause a planet to be ejected by lowering the net attraction ot it's parent star.

What does "anti-gravity" mean? Something which opposes gravity, and gravity that opposes other gravity more closely resembles the hypothesis than anything else we've found.

If we imagine a pink flying unicorned elephant, we are unlikely to find that in the real universe, but we might find something similar to that on some other planet in some distant future.

Open your mind.

Not too open, but there might be more than just the standard model.
Returners
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 20, 2014
So 1 fails the test of observation.

Not necessarily. I never said they were "wrong" in the sense like catstrophically wrong, for say local phenomena.

there are equations which start out with similar behavior to others, but then diverge over time to no longer be similar.

2. There are no better explanations for the phenomena.


I have shown that the basic assumption of treating all mass at the center produces an error of very high significance when dealing with highly symmetric orbiting systems like galaxies. Because of this, models which do not use the real n-body are subject to greatly under-estimating the gravitational force on the outer shells of such a system.

So 3 fails because you are suggesting replacing something with it's self.


No, doing no such thing.

Dark Matter is a THEORY which claims that the unknown entity is a massless, intangible particle.

Dark Energy claims that it's respective unknown is in fact "Joules,"**
Returners
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 20, 2014
**In the case of Dark Energy, the actual units of the change being described are not even equivalent to "Energy," but is actually m^3/S^2, which is quite different from kg*m^2/s^2.

So the existing Dark Energy theory, not directly related to Dark Matter, does not even produce the required units to describe the phenomenon.

What I proposed (not a specific theory, but a concept which needs to be ruled out or else explored somehow,) is not "Dark Matter," because by definition all matter is based on particles, and by definition I proposed that there MIGHT be an unknown entity which is neither particle nor wave.

Now if something exists which is neither particle nor wave, then it is not matter, and consequently is not Dark Matter.

I am not saying that such a thing necessarily exists. I am simply pointing out an alternative which seems no less likely.

How do you know there isn't something "else" producing a form of tension, pressure, horizon or other boundary to affect matter or light?!
Q-Star
4.5 / 5 (15) Feb 20, 2014
Dark Matter is a THEORY which claims that the unknown entity is a massless, intangible particle.

Dark Energy claims that it's respective unknown is in fact "Joules,"**


My mistake, it's not your fault. Someone has lied to you about what "dark matter" is claimed to be by astrophysicists and cosmologists. And "dark energy" too. Now that you know that is wrong, you might wish to go do some reading so you will at least be arguing against what the prevailing view actually is instead of what it is not.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2014
My mistake, it's not your fault. Someone has lied to you about what "dark matter" is claimed to be by astrophysicists and cosmologists. And "dark energy" too. Now that you know that is wrong, you might wish to go do some reading so you will at least be arguing against what the prevailing view actually is instead of what it is not.


Crap.

1, I wrote "massless" by accident. Sorry. I meant to write "Massive".

That ought to be obvious, but now I can't go back and change it,s o you're going to just give me a hard time about it.

Maybe you can try to be a little less condescending about it.

2, I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding Dark Energy.

Dark Energy is the theory describing the supposed substance which is causing the acceleration of the universe's expansion. If you calculate what the units ought to be for that, you'll find I'm correct.
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 20, 2014
Dark Energy is the theory describing the supposed substance which is causing the acceleration of the universe's expansion. If you calculate what the units ought to be for that, you'll find I'm correct.


Dark matter and dark energy are NOT theories. They are components of a model. As I said, if you have have a model that describes what we observe better, I'll listen.

But saying "This is wrong" without providing "Here is a better solution." is saying no more than "I don't understand what they are saying so it has to be wrong."

All that other stuff you wrote is not science. It's saying that "Anything is possible, so anything is just as likely as anything else and everything equally correct and equally wrong depending on WHO is presenting without regard to the substance of what they base their presentation on."

That's not science. It could possibly be construed as art or philosophy, but it's not science.
Returners
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 20, 2014
Q-star:

You are correct in that dark matter and dark energy are not theories, even though they are called such. You are deviating from the scientific community, btw.

Dark Energy and Dark Matter are actually hypothesis.

You see, a theory requires a substantial evidence which supports that hypothesis, and fits that hypothesis better than alternatives.

Since attempts to directly detect Dark Matter as an "unknown, massive, intangible particle," have all failed, then the hypothesis is not yet deserving of promotion to actual theory.

You don't have evidence of this (or these) particles. The only thing you have evidence for is an unknown form (or quantity) of attraction.

I have not said that anything at all could be the cause. I'm just pointing out that if you go around with blinders on and only look for what some small class of theories or hypothesis suggests, you might miss the real truth.

Science is a sub-set of philosophy, not a super-set.

Get it straight.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2014
Q-star:

You are correct in that dark matter and dark energy are not theories, even though they are called such.You are deviating from the scientific community, btw.

Dark Energy and Dark Matter are actually hypothesis.

You see, a theory requires a substantial evidence which supports that hypothesis, and fits that hypothesis better than alternatives.

Since attempts to directly detect Dark Matter as an "unknown, massive, intangible particle," have all failed, then the hypothesis is not yet deserving of promotion to actual theory.

You don't have evidence of this (or these) particles.The only thing you have evidence for is an unknown form (or quantity) of attraction.

I have not said that anything at all could be the cause. I'm just pointing out that if you go around with blinders on and only look for what some small class of theories or hypothesis suggests, you might miss the real truth.

Science is a sub-set of philosophy, not a super-set.

Get it straight.


Oh, okay. Got it.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2014
All that other stuff you wrote is not science. It's saying that "Anything is possible, so anything is just as likely as anything else and everything equally correct and equally wrong depending on WHO is presenting without regard to the substance of what they base their presentation on."


NO, I did not.

I suggested there might be unknown solutions to relativity or QM, or string theory, which do not fall into the realm of particles and waves only.

Why should all known universes, or all possible universes, be limited to particles and waves? If such is the case, can you prove it firstly through the mathematics of known physics, but also through experiment?

supposing it's determined to be non-falsifiable, okay, but then we have a problem. The problem with non-falsiable hypothesis is that they MAY be true, we just don't know how to prove it.

While that may not meet the criteria of the scientific method, as you well know, that by itself doesn't prove the statement wrong
Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2014
Oh, okay. Go


Now, on the other hand, if they detect these particles through some means, and prove that it is definitely not a known particle or wave being detected, and after some manner of other experiments prove that it has all the right properties, and that the rate of non-gravitational interaction is consistent with the miniscule amount of that DM must make, to explain why it doesn't all clump in stars and planets, THEN I'll accept it as a theory.

And, if they consistently find this over a long enough time, and nobody is ever able to show that the particle is something other than theorized particles, then we'll accept it as equal to "law," unless and until otherwise proven.

But for now, you don't have anything..
Q-Star
5 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2014
NO, I did not.

I suggested there might be unknown solutions to relativity or QM, or string theory, which do not fall into the realm of particles and waves only.

Why should all known universes, or all possible universes, be limited to particles and waves? If such is the case, can you prove it firstly through the mathematics of known physics, but also through experiment?

supposing it's determined to be non-falsifiable, okay, but then we have a problem. The problem with non-falsiable hypothesis is that they MAY be true, we just don't know how to prove it.

While that may not meet the criteria of the scientific method, as you well know, that by itself doesn't prove the statement wrong


Okay, got it.

Now ya know how I feel when those people over in the zoology dept say the things they say to me for suggesting a dedicated search for the last extant unicorn before it's too late. They can never tell me why it is impossible to find it, only that it would be fruitless.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2014
By the way, String Theory (also more correctly labelled hypothesis,) proposes non-particle, non-wave entities, such as Branes, which are these extended geometric surfaces.

the reason some physicists favor higher dimensional geometry is because the discrepancies between gravity and the other forces goes away in some of these models. Does that make the model true, or even headed in the right direction? Maybe yes, maybe no...

The key difference is String theory puts these objects outside and between universes, while I say what the heck, if such a thing can (or might) exist outside the universe, why can't such a thing exist inside the universe?

Once you make one leap, why not make the other? The second hypothesis, mine, is actually easier to test than theirs, or at least it should be.
Q-Star
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2014
But for now, you don't have anything..


I know it's not a theory or hypothesis, you don't seem to. It's only a component in various models. I know it works being in there. As opposed to all the other suggestions which don't work at all or only in very restricted applications.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2014
Okay, got it.

Now ya know how I feel when those people over in the zoology dept say the things they say to me for suggesting a dedicated search for the last extant unicorn before it's too late. They can never tell me why it is impossible to find it, only that it would be fruitless.


You've never seen a unicorn footprint though.

At least astronomers know "something" is different than just newton + einstein + QM.

Therefore the two situations are not entirely comparable.

Looking for a unicorn without having found a horn or a unique type of hoof print would be pretty stupid.

Looking for a different sub-species of horse though, well, you might easily find one of those.

So I'd say the missing entity is more like a new sub-species of horse, rather than a unicorn. Now maybe the sub-species is something we already know and has been misidentified or misunderstood, or maybe the sub-species is in fact something new. We won't know till we find it.
Q-Star
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2014
By the way,String Theory (also more correctly labelled hypothesis,) proposes non-particle, non-wave entities, such as Branes, which are these extended geometric surfaces.

the reason some physicists favor higher dimensional geometry is because the discrepancies between gravity and the other forces goes away in some of these models. Does that make the model true, or even headed in the right direction? Maybe yes, maybe no...

The key difference is String theory puts these objects outside and between universes, while I say what the heck, if such a thing can (or might) exist outside the universe, why can't such a thing exist inside the universe?

Once you make one leap, why not make the other? The second hypothesis, mine, is actually easier to test than theirs, or at least it should be.


String "theories" is still the "hot" item only in the popular press.It has ended up running into the brick wall of falsifiability. No progress for a decade.Young grad students aren't doing it, why?
Q-Star
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2014

So I'd say the missing entity is more like a new sub-species of horse, rather than a unicorn. Now maybe the sub-species is something we already know and has been misidentified or misunderstood, or maybe the sub-species is in fact something new. We won't know till we find it.


Ah ha! You mean like a new sub-species of a massive particle left over from the big bang? Can't have it both ways. Either you hunt for unicorns, or you hunt for something whose properties are consistent with equines. We can hunt for some new physics which no evidence or observation infers, or we can hunt for something that is strongly inferred by observation.

You realize you just made my argument for me, right?
Returners
2 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2014
String "theories" is still the "hot" item only in the popular press.It has ended up running into the brick wall of falsifiability. No progress for a decade.Young grad students aren't doing it,


Non falsifiable does not make something false.

yet people are quick to mock things which are not falsifiable, and which are not ridiculous or fairy tale type inconceivable or nearly inconceivable BS.

I don't think it's right to simply discard any idea that we can't imagine a way of how to disprove directly.

There has to be a way of understanding reality which is not limited to the scientific method, because we make decisions outside the scientific method all the time in order to maintain our sanity.

You do business based on faith. You make friendships and relationships based on faith. You BREAK those based on evidence and experience, but you make those based on faith, ill-placed or not, because you can't possibly know everything about the situation absolutely.
Returners
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2014

Ah ha! You mean like a new sub-species of a massive particle left over from the big bang? Can't have it both ways. Either you hunt for unicorns, or you hunt for something whose properties are consistent with equines. We can hunt for some new physics which no evidence or observation infers, or we can hunt for something that is strongly inferred by observation.

You realize you just made my argument for me, right?

No, I don't think I did. I see no reason to believe an intangible massive particle is any more likely than the existence of a different type of entity.

Something which exists between and within galaxies for billions of years without being collected into stars and black holes (tidal forces and frame dragging could still capture it over time), but has obviously not been collected by those objects, well that starts to bear resemblance to non-local entities like strings or even laws, rather than known objects or particles.
Q-Star
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2014
yet people are quick to mock things which are not falsifiable, and which are not ridiculous or fairy tale type inconceivable or nearly inconceivable BS.


I'm sorry if I sounded like I mocking string theorists. They have done the hard work to learn the maths (the most difficult in all physics), and the fundamentals they must use to constrain their theorizing. But until something is presented which is subject to falsification it is a dead end for describing reality. It's art or philosophy. You might as well call it "god of the gaps".

Unicorns are non falsifiable. Dark matter is very falsifiable. The dark matter models makes predictions, and passes. The dark matter models work well within known physics. The dark matter models are supported by various INDEPENDENT observations and lines of inference. ALL the evidence points to dark matter, it doesn't ALL point to something else.

That is why so many people are working on it, and not so much string theories.
11791
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2014
Recently, for the first time astronomers have observed huge hydrogen clouds around galaxies that were never seen before.The dark matter is ordinary matter.
Returners
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2014
You might as well call it "god of the gaps".


You are doing the same thing with dark matter:
You observe a speed discrepancy with respect to the (calculated) gravity of known mass (a calculation which cannot actually be done properly since the n-body is too complicated for any computer,) so you conclude that there must be hidden, invisible matter which almost never interacts through other forces.

ALL the evidence points to dark matter, it doesn't ALL point to something else.


Saying there is an unknown isone thing. Saying what it definitely is, well that's quite another.

I mean, if it exists, for example, why does this detector fail to find it, or anything like it for that matter?

That is why so many people are working on it, and not so much string theories.


They are working on it due to the familiarity of the alleged paradigm, which is still consistent to particles and waves, yet no dark matter detector has detected dark matter particles.
Mimath224
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2014
@11791 that article also quotes "...The speculation is that a dark-matter filament, if it exists, could provide the gravitational scaffolding upon which clouds could condense from a surrounding field of hot gas." This implies that DM could attract H
So the question is still open! Yes, there may be more hydrogen than previously thought but since we know there is a lot of it in the cosmos it is more likely that DM is not H.
Porgie
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 20, 2014
There is NO dark matter. The rest of the mass is out there, as yet undiscovered. The big bang caused large chunks to be thrown off and lurk at the edges of the universe in all directions.
Porgie
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2014
A gargantuan event like the big bang would have no trouble opening dimensional portals into which the undiscovered matter was thrown.
Q-Star
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2014
You observe a speed discrepancy with respect to the (calculated) gravity of known mass (a calculation which cannot actually be done properly since the n-body is too complicated for any computer,) so you conclude that there must be hidden, invisible matter which almost never interacts through other forces.


Not "a" speed discrepancy. The mechanics are observed on all scales and consistently. But that is only one phenomena. Lensing. Gravitational redshift. The element abundances. And the large scale structure ala CMB. All point to the same thing in exactly the same amount.

Why is a massive particle so hard to believe? What would you propose? What would work better?

Quantum physics? WIMP works.
Thermodynamics? WIMP works
General relativity? WIMP works.
Newtonian mechanics? WIMP works.
Observational astrophysics? WIMP works..
Electromagnetics? WIMP works.

What model do you suggest that works as well?


vlaaing peerd
4 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2014
A gargantuan event like the big bang would have no trouble opening dimensional portals into which the undiscovered matter was thrown.


My hyperdimensionalportalbeamgun does exactly the same, but it sounds more like your describing my bowels wreaking havoc on the toilet this morning.
Mimath224
3 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2014
@Porgie the was NO BIG BANG, well not in the sense that you seem to mean. The term was first used by Fred Hoyle who was opposed to a BB, who merely use the term 'big bang' during a BBC radio interview in 1949. Since he had only words to express the theory he opposed he struggled for a descriptive term to use. Out came 'big bang'.
How ironic that a theory a Fred Hoyle opposed would be commonly known by the name he gave it.
kochevnik
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2014
As I wrote before, dark energy will not be discovered because physics is full of fake forces. Gravity is a repulsive force of phase waves which matter shields, leading to a net non-zero force. These phase waves carry quantum and entanglement information from the event horizon of the universal black hole into the holographic projection spacetime. Atomic neuclei exist because they are tetrahedron structures strong enough to avoid crushing and instead build a standing wave, which is observed as a particle

Electricity is another joke. Electrons barely move in a wire. Instead a scalar wave develops and entangles particles along the skin of the wire

Downvote me if you must, but science supports correct predictions, of which I retain a perfect score. The information is there at the event horizon. Unfortunately one can only access the info when his brain goes into quantum coherence mode during sleep, and wakefulness is spent destroying these entanglements
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2014
So how can a WIMP account for 80% missing gravitation force (mass) ?

The very definition of ' not interacting ' would make it inert in gravitational calculations

I think you're confusing two things here: The effect of gravity is ddependent on the masses involved, only.
The probability of interaction when two particles fly past each other is defined by their effective cross sections. (Note that this is an expression of PROBABILITY and that the term 'cross section' should not be taken too literally)

Mass and effective cross section are (largely) independent of each other. So you can have something of great mass that doesn't interact in an experiment like LUX.
vlaaing peerd
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2014
there was no Big bang, physics is full of fake forces, electricity is a joke. Good we got the experts working on it right here.

Now my hyperdimensionalportalbeamgun doesn't sound so stupid anymore, ey?
marraco
not rated yet Feb 21, 2014
What if dark matter only interacts with antimatter, and that's why there is more matter than antimatter in our universe.
matt_roadhouse
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2014
I see no reason why more exploration into problems like these;

1, Missing Constant or variable.
2, Incomplete/over-simplified computer modelling, resulting in faulty conclusions.
3, Unknown force and/or unknown carrier entity: neither particle nor wave.


1. Would make all the science based on Newton and Einstein give us wrong answers. From the flight of projectiles here on earth to the orbits of the planets. Instead of saying Newton and Einstein are wrong, you should show what works better. So 1 fails the test of observation.


That has always bugged me too. Equations are extremely accurate, on Earth and for us to send projectiles to other planets. Why would what we experience and test (almost perfectly) not apply to everything else in the cosmos.

Seems we have 2 functioning different rule sets again, just like many other Physics models.
dedereu
1 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2014
I ask if the rare very strange ball lightning is related to dark matter, as rare, with interaction in strong discharges like thunderstorms. It seems as rare as 1 over more than one million.
If the dark matter is extremely rare, this could explain the nearly impossibility to detect it ?
Ball ligntning is extremely strange and rare.
The mother of my wife have seen a ball lightning passing in front of her, making perfect round holes in a wall and in a mica windows of a stove, holes impossible to reproduce by any physical methods, in particular in brittle mica.
It remains a lot to discover, but extremely difficult, too rare, not following any theory.
Bonia
Feb 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
4 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2014
The WIMPs are believed to be very massive, well distinguished and stable. IMO such a WIMPs don't exist - the dark matter is a product of density fluctuations of vacuum, which manifest itself as a CMBR noise or scalar waves of Nicola Tesla and they're of low mass, temporal and very fuzzy in their properties. In addition, the WIMPs are based on SUSY, which has been already disproved in LHC experiments. The theory which failed in one set of observations wouldn't work well in another ones.


Zeph, now you know as well as anyone that Tesla's scalar waves have taken their place beside Lodge's aether in the "Museum Of Failed Physics And Ideas That Didn't Pan Out". When are you going to leave the 19th century physics to rest in peace and come into the 21st century? 21st century science is fun and exciting, you should try it.
Bonia
Feb 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2014
Zeph, now you know as well as anyone that Tesla's scalar waves have taken their place beside Lodge's aether in the "Museum Of Failed Physics And Ideas That Didn't Pan Out". When are you going to leave the 19th century physics to rest in peace and come into the 21st century? 21st century science is fun and exciting, you should try it.
So you claim that longitudinal waves like sound don't exist? Tesla invented 60% of what you use every day. Nice to see you think that's "archaic"

Science hinges on reproducibility, not small-mindedness

there was no Big bang, physics is full of fake forces, electricity is a joke. Good we got the experts working on it right here.
Please explain how attractive forces work
Q-Star
4 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2014
Zeph, now you know as well as anyone that Tesla's scalar waves have taken their place beside Lodge's aether in the "Museum Of Failed Physics And Ideas That Didn't Pan Out". When are you going to leave the 19th century physics to rest in peace and come into the 21st century? 21st century science is fun and exciting, you should try it.
So you claim that longitudinal waves like sound don't exist? Tesla invented 60% of what you use every day. Nice to see you think that's "archaic"


Tesla was an engineer, an inventor and tinkerer. Not a physicist. His ideas about longitudinal scalar waves proved not to pan out. The parts he got correct were the ideas he acquired from others, he misapplied those ideas and they just didn't work as he constructed them.

there was no Big bang, physics is full of fake forces, electricity is a joke. Good we got the experts working on it right here.
Please explain how attractive forces work


Not my words, so no comment.
philw1776
5 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2014
Props to the writer for the clear lucid description of how they calibrated the detector by controlled targeting of xenon nuclei by low mass neutrons and observing the results.

A question for the professional astrophysicists, is DM diffuse throughout the universe or does it clump together? And if it clumps via gravitational forces why haven't we seen for example a galaxy gravitationally distorted by something vast and unseen of galactic mass or greater? For example, we see many galaxies distorted by gravitational interaction with other nearby or colliding visible galaxies of baryonic matter.
Q-Star
4 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2014
And if it clumps via gravitational forces why haven't we seen for example a galaxy gravitationally distorted by something vast and unseen of galactic mass or greater? For example, we see many galaxies distorted by gravitational interaction with other nearby or colliding visible galaxies of baryonic matter.


Since a WIMP only interacts weakly (through gravity) it can not radiate away energy the way normal matter does so it can't collapse the same way baryonic does when forming stars or other dense objects. It will clump in diffuse regions. The individual particles are gravitationally bound to the clump, but just keep whizzing around each other because there is no other interaction to slow them down, their momentum is conserved and they have no means of radiating it away or transferring it except by gravitation, which is small for the individual particles and remains within the group of particles. Normal matter sends some of it's momentum out of the system in the form of light.
Q-Star
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 22, 2014
For dark matter to collapse further it must be able to transfer some of it's gravitational potential out of the system. That is why it doesn't form "solid" or "compact" blobs or structures.

This is the reason is it is by nature hard to detect directly:

1) It doesn't produce heat or EM radiation because it doesn't experience those interactions.

2) It is extremely diffuse, a dozen orders of magnitude less dense than air, several dozen orders of magnitude less dense than the intergalactic medium.

3) It will pass right through a normal atom because it won't be influenced by the charges of normal baryons. Only very vary rarely will it make a chance direct hit on a nucleon making it observable.
Q-Star
4 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2014
2) It is extremely diffuse, a dozen orders of magnitude less dense than air, several dozen orders of magnitude less dense than the intergalactic medium.


Ooops, that should be "interstellar medium". Sorry.
philw1776
4.8 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2014
DUH! Thank you Q-Star for your excellent explanation of how WIMPS interact and why they don't "clump". Conservation of momentum with no way of interacting other than the weak force of inter particle mutual gravity. OR smashing into an occasional xenon nucleus in the detector!
baudrunner
1 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2014
And still nobody mentions Helium. Helium is actually dark matter, whether you agree or not that it is Dark Matter, it is still dark matter, and matter is energy, so it is also dark energy, whether you agree that it is or is not Dark Energy. Helium is completely inert, non-interactive, will not permit light transmission, and so on. It comprises 24% of the mass of the Universe, yet it is just about the rarest element on Earth, therefore it is found in relative abundance in space, so the claim that Dark Matter constitutes 80% of the Universe based on observations of the gravitational interaction of bodies in deep space could hold true for Dark Matter being Helium.

Evidently so far, the experiments that try to confirm the existence of Dark Matter down here are failing. Mark my words, some day all the denialists will eat their words. Dark Matter is Helium.
Q-Star
4 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2014
DUH! Thank you Q-Star for your excellent explanation of how WIMPS interact and why they don't "clump". Conservation of momentum with no way of interacting other than the weak force of inter particle mutual gravity. OR smashing into an occasional xenon nucleus in the detector!


Well don't thank me so very much,,,, it seems I still managed to mistype what I meant even after correcting it.

It should read several dozen orders of magnitude less dense than the air around us, and a dozen orders less dense than the interstellar medium.

Thanks everyone for forgoing my well deserved drubbing.
Mimath224
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2014
@baudrunner, I'm no expert here but I'm pretty sure that astronomers don't look upon DE in the way you describe. Magnetism and Gravity might be the effects of known products but JUST what is mag or grav? One sees in print 'mag...lines of force' but I'm sure at least some posters here would say this is hardly accurate or adequate. GR uses 'warped geometry' to explain grav which is definitely not 'energy' in the usual sense and again I feel sure thatother posters here have their own ideas. So DE could turn out to be something analogous...maybe it's the product of all our minds thinking about it (joke).
DM on the other hand could turn out to be form of matter we have yet to discover or as other researchers (GBT) suggest, neutral hydrogen may be in between galaxies (M31 & M33 in this regard).
Q-Star
4 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2014
And still nobody mentions Helium.

Bunch of stuff that just is not true,,,,,,,,,

Mark my words, some day all the denialists will eat their words. Dark Matter is Helium.


Helium is easy to detect spectroscopically. We see it all the time.

We use it between lens elements on microscopes and telescopes so I'm pretty it transmits. As a matter of fact, only one thing known is more transmissive than helium. Care to guess what that might be? A vacuum. That's why we use it between high grade scope lens elements

But other than that, the "Dark Matter is Helium Theory" is a fine theory indeed. Especially the part where it "doesn't transmit light" but yet we can still see the stuff behind it. It is quite a trick being non-transmissive and non-opaque at the same time.
Reg Mundy
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2014
@Q-Stir

Why is a massive particle so hard to believe? What would you propose? What would work better?

Quantum physics? WIMP works.
Thermodynamics? WIMP works
General relativity? WIMP works.
Newtonian mechanics? WIMP works.
Observational astrophysics? WIMP works..
Electromagnetics? WIMP works.

What model do you suggest that works as well?



If you had bothered to read some of the books you are so fond of denigrating you would be aware of at least one model that works BETTER!
Face it, Quinn, there ain't no Dark Matter, the only evidence for it is provided by GRAVITY, which itself does not exist as a force.
verkle
1.6 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2014
The article headline is misleading. Without reading further, it seems to postulate that DM has been found. But it is the opposite. There is not a trace of DM anywhere.

We need to completely rethink our science when considering cosmic proportions.

Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2014
The article headline is misleading. Without reading further, it seems to postulate that DM has been found. But it is the opposite. There is not a trace of DM anywhere.

We need to completely rethink our science when considering cosmic proportions.



We are awaiting your work with bated breath. Hurry now, don't keep us in suspense.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2014
@Q-Stir

Why is a massive particle so hard to believe? What would you propose? What would work better?

Quantum physics? WIMP works.
Thermodynamics? WIMP works
General relativity? WIMP works.
Newtonian mechanics? WIMP works.
Observational astrophysics? WIMP works..
Electromagnetics? WIMP works.

What model do you suggest that works as well?



If you had bothered to read some of the books you are so fond of denigrating you would be aware of at least one model that works BETTER!
Face it, Quinn, there ain't no Dark Matter, the only evidence for it is provided by GRAVITY, which itself does not exist as a force.


Okay, I'll face it. Now what? And how are the books sales going? I keep seeing that it's being cited over and over so it sounds as if it's going to be a real paradigm changer.
casualjoe
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2014
A while ago I found a guy called Gavin Wince on youtube who claimed his 'existics' equations solve all the problems currently facing physics and uses a rather nice idea of 3 space dimensions and 3 time dimensions.

I don't know enough to show why his ideas are false but I think how he has derived his 2 extra time dimensions is questionable, although things do seem to work out in a really cool and interesting way when you follow his fun logic, he should be on TV.
Mimath224
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2014
Gavin Wince also shows how there are several degrees of infinity too! In fact he sovles every problem from nothing to everything. No need for anymore articles on research because Gavin Wince has solved them. I like the bit about counting from 1 to infinity then subtracting the first few counts...always assuming one has the time to subtract while counting to infinity...and presto you can have an infinite number of infinities.
So that's what all that DM must be...all these uncountable countables gravitating together.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2014
I was able to shoot holes in the Sigma relationship of galaxy mass and SMBH mass after just a few minutes of examining it, by observing that the Milky Way does not at all obey that relationship, and is off by 3 orders of magnitude
Lrrkrr your opinion of your thinking abilities is off by 3 orders of magnitude. At least. Embarrassing really. You meant to say massless because you weren't aware that WIMPs were massive until you were told.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2014
there ain't no Dark Matter, the only evidence for it is provided by GRAVITY, which itself does not exist as a force

@reg
studies? References? Empirical data?
Is there anything that addresses this issue that is not considered pseudoscience?
And, given your admission that your book is nothing more than a philosophical argument, please leave it out as a reference as well, as that would be trolling/spamming/promoting a fallacy

Okay, I'll face it. Now what? And how are the books sales going?

@Q-Star
if any of his explanations here (found at: http://phys.org/n...ong.html ) are any indication of his book, then sales are not going well... not surprising given the nature of the writing as he has YET to provide empirical data to support his arguments for the lack of gravity and that an undergrad destroyed his arguments using high school physics/math arguments.
Q-Star
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2014
Okay, I'll face it. Now what? And how are the books sales going?

@Q-Star
if any of his explanations here (found at: http://phys.org/n...ong.html ) are any indication of his book, then sales are not going well... not surprising given the nature of the writing as he has YET to provide empirical data to support his arguments for the lack of gravity and that an undergrad destroyed his arguments using high school physics/math arguments.


I'll pass on clicking your link,I'm sure I've seen it all before. Reg & I have a history, an unpleasant history. He's a moron. His book is moronic babbling. The stuff you see here at physorg? That's what you get when you buy the book. Here in the office we took up a collection and purchased the ebook version. It's so stupid that it doesn't even have any entertainment value.

It's mostly rambling on about "Reg & his growth & path to what he is today & blah, blah, blah." The science in it is ALL misconceptions.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2014
I'll pass on clicking your link,I'm sure I've seen it all before...
It's mostly rambling on about "Reg & his growth & path to what he is today & blah, blah, blah." The science in it is ALL misconceptions.

@Q-Star
yeah... that is what I figured.

You REALLY SHOULD review it on-line at amazon, and make sure you add in there your education and expertise which lends weight to the review. Given that he is so adamant about pushing such garbage here, it should be known to anyone who buys the book that it is the equivalent of purchasing someone else's used TP in the hope of finding a gold tooth!

The professors where my daughter go to school are using his arguments here to show how pseudosciences attempt their obfuscations and how any stupidity can be published and called science given the lack of public awareness/comprehension of the sciences

according to my daughter, they are having a field day tearing apart his arguments
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2014
@Q-Star
yeah... that is what I figured.

You REALLY SHOULD review it on-line at amazon, and make sure you add in there your education and expertise which lends weight to the review. Given that he is so adamant about pushing such garbage here, it should be known to anyone who buys the book that it is the equivalent of purchasing someone else's used TP in the hope of finding a gold tooth!


It has two reviews (last time I looked). One he insists is mine (it's not), it's a fair review. And one written by a sock puppet (a puppet from here and other sites he uses to talk about his book.) which is so obviously a sock puppet that it actually does the opposite of what he intends. "Jack the Marine" or "Marine Corps Jacks" or something like that, maybe "Manitoba Jack", whatever.

He is so hopelessly stupid it would be funny if it were not a real person somewhere..
kochevnik
2 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2014
The professors where my daughter go to school are using his arguments here to show how pseudosciences attempt their obfuscations and how any stupidity can be published and called science given the lack of public awareness/comprehension of the sciences
This article just tore apart your beloved dark matter. Your over-compensation is obvious
Bonia
Feb 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2014
This article just tore apart your beloved dark matter. Your over-compensation is obvious

@kochevnik
if you would take a few seconds to actually read what I wrote, you would see that the comment you quoted had nothing to do with dark matter.
problems with comprehension?
Given that WIMP's
interact so rarely with other forms of matter, they generally pass right through the earth and everything on it without anyone knowing it

&
The LUX is designed to detect those rare occasions when a WIMP does interact with other forms of matter

and given that
the scientists use neutrons as a stand-in for WIMPs

for calibration
then I will say that
Along with the low-mass wimps, the first 90-day run of LUX ruled out a wide swath of possibilities for what dark matter could be made of.

and agree with Gaitskell here:
"There are literally thousands of models of particle physics lying bloodied in the gutter," Gaitskell said

it has more time
I await more empirical data
baudrunner
1.2 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2014
@Mimath224: by your reasoning, if neutral hydrogen can be DM then certainly we shouldn't rule out Helium.

@Q-star: A vacuum is superior to Helium for that purpose, but Helium has the characteristics that make it favorable for it too. The vacuum doesn't itself permit light propagation, that is the task of the particles in the transmitting medium, in this case the glass to glass particles. Helium does the trick because it displaces any contaminating elements between the lenses, and the glass to glass principle works here too, since Helium is not involved in absorption/emission scenario of photonic wave propagation. You have answered your own questions, in a way.

I still maintain that Helium is the best candidate for DM, because the sheer volume of it in space has the gravitational potential that the investigators are searching for.
Q-Star
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2014
@Q-star: A vacuum is superior to Helium for that purpose, but Helium has the characteristics that make it favorable for it too. The vacuum doesn't itself permit light propagation, that is the task of the particles in the transmitting medium, in this case the glass to glass particles. Helium does the trick because it displaces any contaminating elements between the lenses, and the glass to glass principle works here too, since Helium is not involved in absorption/emission scenario of photonic wave propagation. You have answered your own questions, in a way.


No, I didn't have any questions. But ya should have a couple about why we use helium to separate lens elements and why it's better than a vacuum. Ya should also ask a question or two about helium's properties concerning absorption, emission, and transmission,,, why ya ask? Well I'll tell ya, ya got just about everything wrong, so ya would be better off asking questions or reading rather than trying to answer them.
Q-Star
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2014
I still maintain that Helium is the best candidate for DM, because the sheer volume of it in space has the gravitational potential that the investigators are searching for.


Great theory. But it still begs the question,,,, Why do ya think helium is dark? It's not. Especially in the amounts needed to be the dark matter. Other than that,,,,,, yeppers, a dumb idea.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2014

@Q-Star
if any of his explanations here (found at: http://phys.org/n...ong.html ) are any indication of his book, then sales are not going well... not surprising given the nature of the writing as he has YET to provide empirical data to support his arguments for the lack of gravity and that an undergrad destroyed his arguments using high school physics/math arguments.


I'll pass on clicking your link,I'm sure I've seen it all before. Reg & I have a history, an unpleasant history. He's a moron. His book is moronic babbling. The stuff you see here at physorg? That's what you get when you buy the book. Here in the office we took up a collection and purchased the ebook version.
It's mostly rambling on about "Reg & his growth & path to what he is today & blah, blah, blah." The science in it is ALL misconceptions

Glad you enjoyed it! Perhaps you could name ONE misconception and logically disprove it?
Reg Mundy
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
an undergrad destroyed his arguments using high school physics/math arguments.

If you had bothered to read the argument properly and understood the "problem" you would have realised that I answered it correctly and furbrain completely cocked it up, even though it was his "problem".
You really should get your brain fixed...
verkle
2 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2014
We are awaiting your work with bated breath. Hurry now, don't keep us in suspense.


I will humbly declare that what I don't know is immense.
I believe that we still know <1% of what's out there.
Wish I could give you a better report. Sorry.

Benni
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2014
So far we know by calculation that the gravity field of our sun is almost exactly what we expect if it were 100% baryonic matter, that is to say there is no dark matter component to its mass. If it should be discovered this is the case for every star in our galaxy, discussions about the "dark matter" hypotheses will undergo a crises stage.

The need to explain the most extreme gravitational lensing in the absence of "dark matter" may result in a new hypothesis being born, that of "serial lensing". What is "serial lensing"? I don't know, I just sort of made it up, like so much other stuff that gets batted around here by mostly novice participants, me included when it comes to astro-physics .
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy...fixed

@reg
understood it just fine
still nothing wrong with my brain.
I wasn't the one claiming every gravity well was a black hole, like you did.
I was able to understand why you could not explain orbits.
I was able to understand that your mass dependent conjectures about expansion are still dependent upon gravity even though your claims say there is no gravity...
just like your claims about expansion should show a testable result that cannot be seen!
and lastly... I fully understood that YOU ALREADY ADMITTED it was more a philosophy and had no real basis in reality, as well as having NO MATHS as a foundation upon which to rest, and therefore it WAS NOT A THEORY, HYPOTHESIS OR ANYTHING ELSE
I understood a lot just fine...

now... regale us with your explanations about how it relates to dark matter, LUX results and the above article!
Mimath224
4.7 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2014
@Benni, not sure thats correct thinking from the particular to the general in one swoop. You may be right but what if we in the DM along with the Sun? Maybe we can't see the woods for trees eh?
alexandru_grecu
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2014
Hi, could you please let us know what is the difference between low mass neutrons and the neutrons we all have in the nuclei of our bodies or the one produced in nuclear reactors/neutron sources. Do they make you thinner? Or is it low energy neutrons...which actually would interact as WIMPs are supposed to?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2014
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2014
there was no Big bang, physics is full of fake forces, electricity is a joke. Good we got the experts working on it right here.


Please explain how attractive forces work


I was just reciting some crackpot comments here in a semi-sarcastic manner.
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2014

Perhaps you could name ONE misconception and logically disprove it?


How about I just skip the whole book? based solely on your comments I see no reason you have anything to add anything to actual science.
philw1776
5 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2014
So far we know by calculation that the gravity field of our sun is almost exactly what we expect if it were 100% baryonic matter, that is to say there is no dark matter component to its mass. If it should be discovered this is the case for every star in our galaxy, discussions about the "dark matter" hypotheses will undergo a crises stage.


Read Q-star's responses to my similar question. The density of DM may be very diffuse but galactic environs are so large such that the mass of DM integrated over the volume surrounding say the Milky Way can be huge. DM also doesn't concentrate in objects like the sun because it has no EM interaction with baryonic matter so it tends not to be "captured". The gravitational attraction of one moving particle to another is tiny.
kochevnik
2.5 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2014
Please explain how attractive forces work
I was just reciting some crackpot comments here in a semi-sarcastic manner.
So you can't explain attractive forces, yet you claim some wisdom about basic physics? Don't you agree that makes YOU the crackpot? You can't even describe a reproducible explanation for something so elementary. Asking questions is the basis of science, not being a pompous ass
baudrunner
1 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2014
Just to dispel any further skepticism on the probability that Helium is DM, I have read challenges to the idea by the likes of those who write stuff like, "if that were true (that Helium is inert to the propagation of light), then how can we see anything - wouldn't the Helium block all the light behind it?". That's just an inane argument. I need to send them back to Physics 101, "Everything is mostly empty space. If the nucleus of an atom were the size of a golf ball, then the outermost electron shell would be about 12 km away." 'nuff said.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
I was able to understand why you could not explain orbits.

I can explain orbits just fine, thank you. Its just that your brain can't grasp or visualise the explanation. As its laid out in the book, perhaps Q-Stir would logically dismember it for you, and save you reading it and getting a headache.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2014
@Cap'n Grumpy
I was able to understand why you could not explain orbits.

I can explain orbits just fine, thank you. Its just that your brain can't grasp or visualise the explanation. As its laid out in the book, perhaps Q-Stir would logically dismember it for you, and save you reading it and getting a headache.


I can't dismember what's not in there. To predict orbits ya need stuff that ties mass, distances, times, speeds and motion together. None of that is in there. You can visualize all ya want, but ya can't get a satellite into the proper orbit without that fun stuff, a way to figure out exactly where it's going to be in the next few minutes as it applies to the thing's mass and the mass of the thing it's to go around.

Other than that, it's very useful and is sure to change the world of physics as we know it.

So if you were to write a volume II, and promise that ya would include that sort of stuff, I might even buy that one too.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2014
I can explain orbits just fine, thank you. Its just that your brain can't grasp or visualise the explanation

@reg
first attempt was
I ain't gonna spend hours doing it here. Read a f******g book

then
you should understand why I don't try to explain a whole philosophy here which needs to cover "orbits" blah blah blah.

then you tangentially added
There is more mass in the Earth, therefore more acceleration at its surface. But remember, the number of atoms remains the same

as though that explained everything.
you NEVER DID actually explain orbits so either you hallucinated it and expect us to psychically receive it or you cannot explain it and expect us to shell out good money for your used toilet paper pseudoscience.
given your claim that
gravity didn't exist until Newton invented it!

purchase of book= stupid waste of good money/time

I will trust Q-Star: its not in there and I dont need to waste my time/money
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2014
Captain Stumpy...now, now. Give the poor fella a chance I'm sure Reg has the simplest one worked out to satisfaction, you know (rv^2)/K = 1 (for two well known astro bodies)...go on Reg to show 'em
alexandru_grecu
2 / 5 (1) Feb 25, 2014
@Captain Stumpy: Thanks, I've already learnt enough about neutrons in school. I was just pointing the fact that it's unusual to write "low mass neutrons" unless one explains what low means.
My other point is that, as a junior scientist, I'm very much annoyed by media material about science which are not clearly verified by experts who are willing and given the responsibility of checking the correctness of the content. This is why people start thinking the web if full of bs and push their governments to cut funding on research and condemn the future generations to become cattle lead by a moronic bureaucratic class...
Regarding DM, my personal outsider opinion is that it is an oversold concept released by bureacrats and backed-up for survival reasons by scientist, because it sounds cooler than telling the large public that it is extremely difficult to explain what we observe in the Universe. What about all neutrinos that were ever produced in subnuclear an nuclear processes?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2014
What about all neutrinos that were ever produced in subnuclear an nuclear processes?

Neutrinos don't work as (the main part of) DM because of the way it seems to clump.

Regarding DM, my personal outsider opinion ... because it sounds cooler than telling the large public

It's not a 'cool sounding name'. It is just a placeholder for an effect we know must exist. 'Dark', because we can't see it, and 'matter' because it seems to have a gravitational effect. Dopn't interprete hype into something where there is none.
I'm very much annoyed by media material about science which are not clearly verified by experts who are willing and given the responsibility of checking the correctness of the content.

Don't go to the media for your information then, Go to the source (the papers). Without that you'll not grasp what it's all about. No amount of science journalism blurb is going to achieve that.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2014
@Q-Stir

I can't dismember what's not in there. To predict orbits ya need stuff that ties mass, distances, times, speeds and motion together. None of that is in there. You can visualize all ya want, but ya can't get a satellite into the proper orbit without that fun stuff, a way to figure out exactly where it's going to be in the next few minutes as it applies to the thing's mass and the mass of the thing it's to go around.

Other than that, it's very useful and is sure to change the world of physics as we know it.

So if you were to write a volume II, and promise that ya would include that sort of stuff, I might even buy that one too.

The explanation for elliptical orbits is in Third Edition, which one did you buy?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2014
@Captain Stumpy: Thanks, I've already learnt enough about neutrons in school. I was just pointing the fact that it's unusual to write "low mass neutrons" unless one explains what low means... My other point is that, as a junior scientist, I'm very much annoyed by media material
Youre a 'junior scientist' and you don't know how to educate yourself? Is this like a junior birdman then?
http://youtu.be/JizuHg_c7Ng

-Here try this in google :
"low mass neutron" -star -stars
Q-Star
5 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2014
@Q-Stir

I can't dismember what's not in there. To predict orbits ya need stuff that ties mass, distances, times, speeds and motion together. None of that is in there. You can visualize all ya want, but ya can't get a satellite into the proper orbit without that fun stuff, a way to figure out exactly where it's going to be in the next few minutes as it applies to the thing's mass and the mass of the thing it's to go around.

Other than that, it's very useful and is sure to change the world of physics as we know it.

So if you were to write a volume II, and promise that ya would include that sort of stuff, I might even buy that one too.

The explanation for elliptical orbits is in Third Edition, which one did you buy?


That's the one, but it lacks any means of computing the dynamics. It is a word salad "way of looking at it". So for the purpose of predicting, measuring, and relating, it's not very useful. Even without than that, it's sure to earn you a Nobel.
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2014
@Q-Stir

The explanation for elliptical orbits is in Third Edition, which one did you buy?


That's the one, but it lacks any means of computing the dynamics. It is a word salad "way of looking at it". So for the purpose of predicting, measuring, and relating, it's not very useful. Even without than that, it's sure to earn you a Nobel.

Can you compute the dynamics? Suggest a method? If you can, you will get full credit, and that Nobel could be yours! Even that coveted tenured professorship, perhaps!
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2014
@Q-Stir

Can you compute the dynamics? Suggest a method? If you can, you will get full credit, and that Nobel could be yours!


Of course I can. But I stand on the shoulders of giants. Kepler, Newton and Einstein. You can not get a Nobel by repeating the works of others. But you are the one with the better idea, so the onus is on you to show that method of predicting the dynamics is more practical and useful than theirs.

If your "new paradigm" is not more practical or useful, then it's philosophical gobbledygook not physics. Without the maths and quantitative predicting powers it is not really of great interest to me. Ya might try selling it as new-agey metaphysics.

Even that coveted tenured professorship, perhaps!


Ya must have me mixed up with someone else. I love my present working relationship. I would NEVER trade it in for something like mere "tenure", I would have to give up too much of what I enjoy and take on things I don't have a taste for.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2014
@Q-star
We use it between lens elements on microscopes and telescopes so I'm pretty it transmits.
It transmits that you're pretty to YOU. But how can we detect it spectroscopically if there are no spectral emission or absorption data from Helium to support your wild claim? We are looking for something that we cannot see right? Anybody who points to a diagram and claims that it represents that data is a pseudo-scientist, to be sure. I repeat, Helium is inert to the propagation of visible light waves in the optical spectrum. If you disagree, then you are not qualified to post comments on the subject. (I'm throwing out plenty of bait here - I must be bored, but I am still right)
Q-Star
5 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2014
It transmits that you're pretty to YOU. But how can we detect it spectroscopically if there are no spectral emission or absorption data from Helium to support your wild claim?


ALL baryonic matter radiates light as long as it's temperature is greater than zero kelvins. Helium was discovered through it's spectral lines BEFORE it was found to exist on Earth. If the helium was there in the quantities ya claim, we'd see it in emission or absorption lines.

I repeat, Helium is inert to the propagation of visible light waves in the optical spectrum. If you disagree, then you are not qualified to post comments on the subject. (I'm throwing out plenty of bait here - I must be bored, but I am still right)


Hoo there boyo. Ya're the one who made the wild claim that helium doesn't transmit light not me. I'M the one who said light propagates through helium almost as well in a vacuum, not ya. So if ya are bored and want to argue, make up your mind what it is ya want to argue.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2014
(I'm throwing out plenty of bait here - I must be bored, but I am still right)


Helium doesn't transmit light. Helium is "inert" (whatever that means) to visible light. Helium is black when it's in a balloon. Helium in lenses is there to remove impurities. Helium is opaque. Helium is invisible. Helium has no spectral emissions or absorptions.

Pick one line of foolishness and stick with it, and I'll argue with ya. Ya have made everyone of those statements and they are all contradictory. So I'm thinking ya are bored and trolling.

Toot-A-Loo.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2014
Q-Star I guess just a short for 'chem inert' under normal (Earth) conditions (Neon being no. 1 inert) but you knew anyway but does Reg?
I tend to agree with you.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but if memory serves the He spectrum was thought to be Sodium until it was also seen in another line from the Sun where it was later discovered on Earth. So I must admit that I'm not sure when others say He lacks a spectrum. I thought that apart from terrestrial helium most astro He was in the plasma state and has a yellow band spectrum. With all that astro radiation I can't see that He would remain undetected. The other point is that while astro gases might not emit in the narrow visible band they do outside that. Then there is also the spin-flip transition which helps in detection.

Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2014
Q-Star I guess just a short for 'chem inert' under normal (Earth) conditions (Neon being no. 1 inert) but you knew anyway but does Reg?


I have no idea what Reg knows, he refuses to tell anything other than "you'll have to buy my book". We took up a collection in here, for a buck apeice we bought his book just for yucks, because he's been touting and hawking here for over a year I think. It's like I said below, it's rambling musing that seems to be a kind of memoir "my path through life to enlightenment", no science or maths. It's the sort of thing a founder of a new "cult" would produce to gobbledygook recruit new members.

As to the Helium man,,,

(I'm throwing out plenty of bait here - I must be bored, but I am still right)


,,, about says it all. Garden variety troll. He's been using "Helium" as trolling bait for a couple of months now. He's got other trolling bait he tosses out from time to time also.

Yeppers, I know chemistry. Him? I suppose he likes "inert".
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2014
Thanks Q-Star. See your point about Reg. I guess I don't like to think posters will do kind of thing...your 'cult' idea would explain the 'why' too...Ha I thought I knew better...not a very good judge am I! Oh well live & learn eh?
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2014
@Q-Star
After many exchanges with you over a long period, you suddenly shut up when you had read the book, presumably because you could not refute the contents. From then on, you would see our universe in a different light, not with your old certainties. You are now out of your comfort zone, and standing in the path of the maelstrom with me. You know that current theories fail to explain many facets of our universe. You now know there are alternative philosophies equally valid with Newton/Einstein subject to exactly the same facts and proof of validity, but without "inventing" gravity, Dark matter, et al. Welcome to the "real" world. One day you will thank me for opening your mind.
By the way, you will have recognised the diagram at http://phys.org/n...ass.html as being the mechanism by which all matter is created according to my theory.
Rimino
Feb 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2014
@Q-Star
After many exchanges with you over a long period, you suddenly shut up when you had read the book, presumably because you could not refute the contents. From then on, you would see our universe in a different light, not with your old certainties.


I haven't refuted the contents because there's nothing in there useful. It's a word salad without means to apply it.

You are now out of your comfort zone, and standing in the path of the maelstrom with me. You know that current theories fail to explain many facets of our universe.


Maelstrom? That's why science is interesting. (I'm very comfortable with that.)

You now know there are alternative philosophies equally valid with Newton/Einstein subject to exactly the same facts and proof of validity, but without "inventing" gravity,


Until ya add a practical framework, that's all it is, philosophy, but it's not useful in the progress of science. Newton's & Einstein's inventions are useful. Yours? Not so much.

Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2014
@Q-Star

You now know there are alternative philosophies equally valid with Newton/Einstein subject to exactly the same facts and proof of validity, but without "inventing" gravity,


Until ya add a practical framework, that's all it is, philosophy, but it's not useful in the progress of science. Newton's & Einstein's inventions are useful. Yours? Not so much.

I know, I'm working on it, but it's very difficult. Perhaps I should have waited 'til I'd got the calc sorted out, but I had to get into print before the results of experiments like LUX got out, Gravity Wave detection, etc., and everybody will come to the same conclusions that I came to long ago.....
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2014
@Reg Mundy...sorry but you seem to be a bit late and since you've been working on it '...long ago...' maybe it's time to call it 'a day'.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2014
So how can a WIMP account for 80% missing gravitation force (mass) ?

Just means there are a LOT of WIMPS out there(in space) that we do not yet have the means to observe.

The very definition of ' not interacting ' would make it inert in gravitational calculations

Look at the acronym - WEAKLY interacting massive particles.
We still don't even understand Gravity at the deepest level. I still feel adding an extra 80% to the universe's mass is a cop-out and nothing more to fix a broken equation/constant

What percentage of the observable Universe is matter and what percentage is 'empty' space?
Would mean empty space (the infra-structure, if you will) has a VERY tiny mass/energy, but still there.
Damn.... aether... And mass is the wave...
Reg Mundy
1 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2014
@Mimath224
@Reg Mundy...sorry but you seem to be a bit late and since you've been working on it '...long ago...' maybe it's time to call it 'a day'.

Interesting...you are saying you have seen the theories in the book previously. Would you mind telling me where?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2014
@Mimath224
Interesting...you are saying you have seen the theories in the book previously. Would you mind telling me where?

@Reg
I dont know about your BOOK... but if your arguments here ( http://phys.org/n...ong.html ) are any indication of what is INSIDE your book...

plus given the lack of endorsement from Q-Star (saying what we can see for ourselves on the link above, anyway) then your book is worth about as much as used toilet paper to a diarrhoeic (or anyone else, for that matter)
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2014
@Reg Ha, no I'm not playing your game! my comment was based on your own admission.
@Whydening Gyre I thought 'known' WIMPS had been exluded from DM...perhaps I'm out of date...or do you refer to some recent update something more massive than Higgs particle?