A possible signal from dark matter?

Aug 12, 2014
An X-ray image of the hot gas in the central region of the Perseus Cluster of galaxies, taken by the Chandra X-ray Observatory. The Perseus Cluster is one of the most massive objects in the Universe with thousands of galaxies immersed in an enormous cloud of superheated gas. The image shows enormous bright loops, ripples, and jet-like streaks throughout the cluster. Astronomers may have detected an emission line from a form of dark matter, the sterile neutrino, in the spectrum of galaxy clusters like Perseus. Credit: Chandra/NASA/ESA

(Phys.org) —Galaxies are often found in groups or clusters, the largest known aggregations of matter and dark matter. The Milky Way, for example, is a member of the "Local Group" of about three dozen galaxies, including the Andromeda Galaxy located about 2 million light-years away. Very large clusters can contain thousands of galaxies, all bound together by gravity. The closest large cluster of galaxies to us, the Virgo Cluster with about 2000 members, is about 50 million light-years away.

The space between galaxies is not empty. It is filled with hot intergalactic gas whose temperature is of order ten million kelvin, or even higher. The gas is enriched with heavy elements that escape from the galaxies and accumulate in the intracluster medium over billions of years of galactic and stellar evolution. These intracluster gas elements can be detected from their emission lines in X-ray, and include oxygen, neon, magnesium, silicon, sulfur, argon, calcium, iron, nickel, and even chromium and manganese.

The relative abundances of these elements contain valuable information on the rate of supernovae in the different types of in the clusters since supernovae make and/or disburse them into the gas. Therefore it came as something of a surprise when CfA astronomers and their colleagues discovered a faint line corresponding to no known element. Esra Bulbul, Adam Foster, Randall Smith, Scott Randall and their team were studying the averaged X-ray spectrum of a set of seventy-three clusters (including Virgo) looking for emission lines too faint to be seen in any single one when they uncovered a line with no known match in a particular spectral interval not expected to have any features.

The scientists propose a tantalizing suggestion: the line is the result of the decay of a putative, long-sought-after dark matter particle, the so-called sterile neutrino. It had been suggested that the hot X-ray emitting in a galaxy might be a good place to look for dark matter signatures, and if the sterile neutrino result is confirmed it would mark a breakthrough in research (it is of course possible that it is a statistical or other error). Recent unpublished results from another group tend to support the detection of this feature; the team suggests that observations with the planned Japanese Astro-H X-ray mission in 2015 will be critical to confirm and resolve the nature of this line.

Explore further: Mysterious X-ray signal intrigues astronomers

More information: "Detection of an Unidentified Emission Line in the Stacked X-Ray Spectrum of Galaxy Clusters," Esra Bulbul, Maxim Markevitch, Adam Foster, Randall K. Smith, Michael Loewenstein, and Scott W. Randall, ApJ 789, 13, 2014.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Mysterious X-ray signal intrigues astronomers

Jun 24, 2014

(Phys.org) —A mysterious X-ray signal has been found in a detailed study of galaxy clusters using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory and ESA's XMM-Newton. One intriguing possibility is that the X-rays are ...

Glimmer of light in the search for dark matter

Feb 27, 2014

The Leiden astrophysicist Alexey Boyarsky and his fellow researchers may have identified a trace of dark matter that could signify a new particle: the sterile neutrino. A research group in Harvard reported ...

For galaxies, having neighbors matters

Jun 10, 2014

Where galaxies live has an enormous effect on how they form stars, a puzzle that a new Canadian study is helping to solve. "To understand how galaxies evolve, we need to study the link between stars and gas, ...

XMM-Newton reveals cosmic collision in the Bullet Group

Jun 09, 2014

(Phys.org) —Despite the large distances between them, galaxies rarely exist in isolation. They are mostly found in large assemblies known as groups and clusters. Groups are the smallest gatherings, containing ...

A super cluster of galaxies

Aug 28, 2012

(Phys.org)—Most galaxies lie in clusters, groupings of several to many thousands of galaxies. Our Milky Way galaxy itself is a member of the "Local Group," a band of about fifty galaxies whose other large ...

Recommended for you

Kepler proves it can still find planets

21 hours ago

To paraphrase Mark Twain, the report of the Kepler spacecraft's death was greatly exaggerated. Despite a malfunction that ended its primary mission in May 2013, Kepler is still alive and working. The evidence ...

User comments : 99

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

wasp171
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 12, 2014
There is no such a thing as "dark matter".
Ohhh, I forgot!
It makes 90% of the universe...
Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (10) Aug 12, 2014
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it - Unseen matter?
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (8) Aug 12, 2014
@Whydening Gyre. the reason it's called "dark" is because it's unseen (or better: doesn't interact with light). Add's a little spooky ambiance to it too.

nope.., definitely think dark is the right word.

I didn't see any reason to specifically assume the found spectral lines correspond to sterile neutrino's. Shouldn't they try to confirm it isn't corresponding with some new "normal" matter first?
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (23) Aug 12, 2014
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it - Unseen matter?


Imaginary matter might be even more appropriate.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2014
It was dubbed dark meter because light mass ratios didn't explain the virialised mass of clusters. So the reasonless hypothesis was that the matter had a lower light mass ratio than expected, it was darker matter.
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 12, 2014
I didn't see any reason to specifically assume the found spectral lines correspond to sterile neutrino's. Shouldn't they try to confirm it isn't corresponding with some new "normal" matter first?

I'm sure someone is hard at work doing that.

And - I think "Fairy Dust" was already trademarked/copyrighted by Disney, so... :-)
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
yep, I'm sure someone is. But how the article mentions it, it comes across as "hey we found something...well, then it MUST be the missing matter in the universe" without any explanation in that the spectral lines even remotely hint to it.

There's got to be more than the "hey we found something".
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2014
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it - Unseen matter?


Imaginary matter might be even more appropriate.


Imagine that, imaginary matter, yet it causes quite some real gravity. Disney was spot on, it's fairy dust after all.
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Transparent matter would be the most accurate term
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2014
Transparent matter would be the most accurate term

Good.
I sense that some may construe my attempts at wry humour as an indication I do not believe in "transparent" matter. Au contraire.
I just like to "thought experiment" as to it's possible source.

Here's an idea.
Space is FILLED with photons. Much of which we don't see, due to the lack of absorption/re-emission material (matter). It's that absorption/re-emission process of all those photons that actually generates the "dark matter" effect...
Comments?
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 12, 2014
Transparent matter would be the most accurate term

Good.
I sense that some may construe my attempts at wry humour as an indication I do not believe in "transparent" matter. Au contraire.
I just like to "thought experiment" as to it's possible source.

Here's an idea.
Space is FILLED with photons. Much of which we don't see, due to the lack of absorption/re-emission material (matter). It's that absorption/re-emission process of all those photons that actually generates the "dark matter" effect...
Comments?


OK, give this a try: There is a lot of gravity in the universe to be accounted for that cannot be explained by the current composition we can view in our telescopes. Energy fields (photons) carry away gravity when radioactive material decays, therefore energy fields merely being transformed mass (relativistic mass) have an associated force field of gravity or gravitational lensing cannot occur. Is there enough transformed mass to account for all the excess gravity?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (16) Aug 12, 2014
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it - Unseen matter?


Imaginary matter might be even more appropriate.


Unicorn farts indeed. Or is it leprechaun burps.
shavera
5 / 5 (11) Aug 12, 2014
Space is FILLED with photons. Much of which we don't see, due to the lack of absorption/re-emission material (matter).


Pretty easily accounted for in GR actually. Doesn't answer the question. Also wouldn't address lensing in the bullet cluster either.
no fate
1 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2014
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call it - Unseen matter?


Only if it is actually matter WG.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
Pretty easily accounted for in GR actually.


How so? Not disputing you here, just curious where in GR you draw this conclusion.
shavera
5 / 5 (10) Aug 12, 2014
Well for FLRW we include the radiation energy explicitly, if you are doing something like whole-universe solutions. For finer grained stuff, like galaxies, as I mention, the bullet cluster just automatically puts a hole in it.

But if you did wish to be precise, you'd use the luminosity of the galaxy to approximate the amount of energy in "thermal" photons within the galaxy, and then calculate the mass of that system of photons. (which is left as an exercise to the reader :p)
jmlvu
5 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
This was mentioned in two other articles and it is unclear who made the discovery,Harvard or the Leiden University. Is this going to be one of those pissing matches where one group scoops the others results and gets a Nobel prize like Watson and Crick did.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2014
Good.
I sense that some may construe my attempts at wry humour as an indication I do not believe in "transparent" matter. Au contraire.
I just like to "thought experiment" as to it's possible source.

Here's an idea.
Space is FILLED with photons. Much of which we don't see, due to the lack of absorption/re-emission material (matter). It's that absorption/re-emission process of all those photons that actually generates the "dark matter" effect...
Comments?


OK, give this a try: There is a lot ...for all the excess gravity?

Sorry, Benni. I asked for comments on my idea, not for any additional ideas..:-)
jmlvu
5 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2014
PS: Ersa Bulba is hot https://www.cfa.h...ome.html
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2014
PS: Ersa Bulba is hot https://www.cfa.h...ome.html

LOL. You appear to be correct on that one...:-)
yyz
5 / 5 (10) Aug 12, 2014
While this article discuses the discovery of a ~3.5 keV line in the stacked X-ray spectra of 73 galaxy clusters( http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 ), mention should be made of the detection of this line in x-ray spectra of the Andromeda galaxy(M31) and the Perseus galaxy cluster by an independent group of researchers( http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119 ).

A couple of new papers on this subject have been posted on arXiv recently. The first uses very deep x-ray spectra of the center of our galaxy, the Milky Way, to find evidence for a similar 3.5 keV line: http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.2503

This result contradicts a previous study (using shallower Chandra data) that found no evidence for such a line in the Galactic Center: http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7943

The second paper, interestingly enough, finds no evidence for a line in the Galactic Center or M 31 and finds the observed line in galaxy cluster spectra can be explained naturally: http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.1699

Clarification awaits Astro-H.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Mond theory does seem to cover the bulk of the issue of dark matter plus, if we are able to add electric & magnetic field effects over astronomical scales arithmetically with MOND we may well cover a high percentile of the imponderables...

http://en.wikiped...iki/MOND
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2014
Here's an idea.
Space is FILLED with photons. Much of which we don't see, due to the lack of absorption/re-emission material (matter). It's that absorption/re-emission process of all those photons that actually generates the "dark matter" effect...
Comments?


OK, give this a try: There is a lot ...for all the excess gravity?

Sorry, Benni. I asked for comments on my idea, not for any additional ideas..:-)


OK, look at it in the light of Conservation of Energy....absorption of photons by an atom will briefly add gravity to an atom above that which was initially present prior to an atom absorbing the photon, if a photon is re-emitted then gravity will be lost to the atom accordingly. So what has this got to do with "dark matter"? You're the one who brought it up.......make the point.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
OK, look at it in the light of Conservation of Energy....absorption of photons by an atom will briefly add gravity to an atom above that which was initially present prior to an atom absorbing the photon, if a photon is re-emitted then gravity will be lost to the atom accordingly. So what has this got to do with "dark matter"? You're the one who brought it up.......make the point.

Thanks for helping me put it into a better light...:-)
There is a tiniest lag time between absorption and emission. For all those brief period there is a added gravity. Multiply that by the almost infinite number of absorptions and re-emissions going on at any time and - guess what?
Yup....
It's why we can't see it fixed in any one time, cuz it's constantly there, then not there. All we see is the "effect" - gravity..
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2014
Space is FILLED with photons. Much of which we don't see, due to the lack of absorption/re-emission material (matter). It's that absorption/re-emission process of all those photons that actually generates the "dark matter" effect...
Comments?

Notice I said - dark matter "EFFECT".
Guess you could say - transient gravity.
Toiea
1 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2014
IMO the gamma rays are product of CMBR interactions with neutrinos produced from black hole jet evaporation. In another words, this gamma ray signal is of very similar origin, like the "inexplainable" gamma ray lobes observed in our Milky Way. The contemporary physicists believe in existence of WIMPs (due to misinterpretation of SUSY theory and hope in saving of string theory with it) and they don't believe in black hole evaporation (due to their blind adherence on general relativity models) - so that they're misinterpreting even these observations, which leads into self-inforcing avalanche-like group-think effects. What they observe instead is the evidence of black hole evaporation, not dark matter.
Psilly_T
5 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2014
wow i love the comments on this page for once. not too much crying about "NO I'M RIGHT YOU'RE DUMB AND LIE BLAH BLAH" Can't wait to get to the bottom of this!! ~waits til deathbed disappointed~
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2014
There is a tiniest lag time between absorption and emission. For all those brief period there is a added gravity. Multiply that by the almost infinite number of absorptions and re-emissions going on at any time and - guess what?
Yup....
It's why we can't see it fixed in any one time, cuz it's constantly there, then not there. All we see is the "effect" - gravity..


I clearly see the point you're making, "integrating time lags" resulting in an additive force of gravity during the course of the time period in which absorbed photons cause atoms to transition to another energy state or transform to mass.

I would point out too, that there is a lot of energy we know to exist above the present capability of spectroscopy equipment to measure, this is in the frequency range above gamma rays. I work with gamma ray spectroscopy equipment in our lab, & every time we replace scintillation detector equipment with newer technology we can measure higher frequencies than previously.

Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (12) Aug 12, 2014
I work with gamma ray spectroscopy equipment in our lab,


@ Hey Bennie-Skippy where you at Cher?

I saw one of those, it was down at the Toyz-R-Us store in Algers or maybe Metairie.. Do you have the Mattel one? Or the Fisher-Price one? The Fisher-Price one is the one that has the big pink add-subtract thing with the big purple buttons on it so you can play with the different equations and the little green plastic telescope for watching the semi-circle-universes. It uses the four C size batteries, that one.

I was going to buy him for the Little-Ira-Skippy but he was already 7 or 6 years old when I saw it and said he didn't want him.
DeliriousNeuron
Aug 12, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (12) Aug 12, 2014
Aunt Ira....eat shit and die!


Why you use the ugly words on me Cher? I never use them for you no. Are you always in the bad mood? Or just when you have that silly looking pointy cap on your head?
Benni
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 12, 2014
..........I see the anti-science pro vulgarity voters are back.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2014
.....Yep, there's Ira pushing the button for the first pro vulgarity vote.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (10) Aug 12, 2014
..........I see the anti-science pro vulgarity voters are back.


Yeah, he really shouldn't be using the bad words on me. I never use the ugly words on anybody no. So there is no need for that sort language. Especially since there might the the little Skippys and Skippettes come around to read up on something for their homework..

So Bennie-Skippy where you at Cher, you still not going to show us about those different equations? Not even the easy one?
Uncle Ira
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 12, 2014
.....Yep, there's Ira pushing the button for the first pro vulgarity vote.


I voted no good karma points Skippy. Are you having trouble with your eyes.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 12, 2014
I see four posts in less than an hour from the leader of the pro vulgarity voters, and not one word about science. When vulgarity is all you know, I guess there is nothing else you can talk about.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2014


I clearly see the point you're making, "integrating time lags" resulting in an additive force of gravity during the course of the time period in which absorbed photons cause atoms to transition to another energy state or transform to mass.

Atoms can only transition to a higher or lower energy state(eg - mass value), they cannot "transform" to mass inasmuch they are already baryonic and therefore already "massive"....(ish)...
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2014
@Benni (@Whydening Gyre) I am not sure what I should understand on this article. I thought 'sterile neutrinos' were, as yet, hypothetical fermions (or heavy leptons) with unknown mass but with a possible mass range 10^10+ GeV or much,much less. Benni, with your g-ray spectroscopy experience what, or perhaps where, would you expect to find any spectral line?
Perhaps I expect too much, but isn't it possible that the conclusion in the article is a bit premature?
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2014
I am not sure what I should understand on this article. I thought 'sterile neutrinos' were, as yet, hypothetical fermions (or heavy leptons) with unknown mass but with a possible mass range 10^10+ GeV or much,much less.
The mass range that you are refferring to is for a WIMP, not for a sterile neutrino. Read this interresting blog from Adam Falkowski (Jester): http://resonaance...ter.html
Urgelt
5 / 5 (6) Aug 13, 2014
shavera wrote, "you'd use the luminosity of the galaxy to approximate the amount of energy in "thermal" photons within the galaxy, and then calculate the mass of that system of photons. (which is left as an exercise to the reader :p)"

*Calculates furiously*

42!

Now if we just understood the question... :P
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2014
*Calculates furiously*

42!

Now if we just understood the question... :P
Thank you Deep Thought ;-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Aug 13, 2014
Perhaps I expect too much, but isn't it possible that the conclusion in the article is a bit premature?

Not just possible, but probable. The point of presenting an article on unknown stuff is to create an aura of mystery, so that readers (and commenters, in this case) wildly speculate (re - imagine) on a whole spectrum of stuff...
It's just - fun...:-)
yep
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2014
It seems Dr. Randell Mills has got a pretty good answer for the dark matter question.
http://www.blackl...ats-new/
Confirmation of hydrogen existing below the accepted ground state, labeled as hydrinos.
Pretty awesome plasma to photovoltaic conversion energy generators.
Looks like the rugs getting pulled out from under hydrocarbons. Can not happen quick enough!
fourinfinities
not rated yet Aug 13, 2014
Don't dentists use x-rays @ 3.5 kev?
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2014
@Yep
At least when Urgelt makes a joke he is funny... Try a little harder if you want to make us laugh.
theon
1.5 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2014
Lovely post, only for trolls. Not even the energy of the line mentioned. Yes, feed the trolls, don't care about educated people.
yep
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2014
100 billion watts per liter could create quite a few X-rays.
I have been following the progress for at least seven years and it does not seem like a joke.
http://www.blackl...ht-cell/
That fact it may rewrite some 19th century math getting your panties in a bunch is very funny.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2014
@TechnoCreed

I am not sure what I should understand on this article. I thought 'sterile neutrinos' were, as yet, hypothetical fermions (or heavy leptons) with unknown mass but with a possible mass range 10^10+ GeV or much,much less.
The mass range that you are refferring to is for a WIMP, not for a sterile neutrino. Read this interresting blog from Adam Falkowski (Jester): http://resonaance...ter.html


Thanks for that. However a 2009 paper byAlexey Boyarsky, Oleg Ruchayskiy and Mikhail Shaposhnikov suggests SN from supernova 1987A with mass in the range of 10^2Kev. 2 heavier SN are mentioned @ 150Mev to 100Gev. My earler post was a very general range where SN might exist amongst other yet undiscovered particles.
I am a layman, however, and have no working knowledge on the topic.
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 13, 2014
yep seems, like others, to have been misled
.. Dr. Randell Mills has got a pretty good answer for the dark matter question.
Confirmation of hydrogen existing below the accepted ground state, labeled as hydrinos.
Pretty awesome plasma to photovoltaic conversion..
Ha !

Please:-

1. What experiment 'confirms' H below ground state & what validation/repeat ?
2. What maths indicates the required property of a 'catalyst' ?
3. How is it a catalyst "forces" the H electron to go below the ground state ?
4. Why do BLP choose a high energy thermite reaction to mask their hydrino energy ?
....(ie. Aluminium, copper oxide & copper hydroxide)
5. Why is there zero validation of a repeat cycle with reactants ?
6. Why is there no analysis of the reaction products ?
7. How are PV cells available that can withstand 50000 x sunlight ?
8. Where is potential chemical energy of source identified ?

Some without Science training also 'feel' a video has more weight than a signed proper validation report !
tadchem
not rated yet Aug 13, 2014
What is the energy of these mystery X-rays in Rydberg units?
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2014


I clearly see the point you're making, "integrating time lags" resulting in an additive force of gravity during the course of the time period in which absorbed photons cause atoms to transition to another energy state or transform to mass.

Atoms can only transition to a higher or lower energy state(eg - mass value), they cannot "transform" to mass inasmuch they are already baryonic and therefore already "massive"....(ish)...

I was talking about the the "photons" (energy) transforming to mass........
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2014
Benni, with your g-ray spectroscopy experience what, or perhaps where, would you expect to find any spectral line?


I have never thought about it. I think I'll look back on some new spectrographs & compare older spectrographs to newer ones for periods when we've transitioned to newer scintillation detectors having higher frequency detection capability, who knows, maybe I'll come across something interesting but I think not likely.

George_Rajna
Aug 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2014
1.?
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?
5. ?
6. ?
7. ?
8. ?
Some without Science training also 'feel' a video has more weight than a signed proper validation blah
Mikey the troll has repeatedly been directed to exactly where the answers to his questions can be found. Undoubtedly he has even seen some of these answers.

But he continues to ask the same questions over and over,
1. implying that they are very smart questions that have never occurred to anybody else
2. that they have not been answered already and
3. are therefore incapable of being answered.

-None of which are true. The answers, true or not, can be found on mills' BLP website.

But this is what trolls do isnt it? They dont care about answers, only about posturing and inciting and similar such fucking around. Isnt that right mikey? Having fun?

Some fairly intelligent critical discussion on the subject can be found here
http://www.e-catw...-posted/

-where trolls are routinely banned.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2014
@Benni also read another article which mentions 'missing uv light' with regard to recent galaxy formation and DM. Any ideas if this is connected to SN's?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2014
Atoms can only transition to a higher or lower energy state(eg - mass value), they cannot "transform" to mass inasmuch they are already baryonic and therefore already "massive"....(ish)...

I was talking about the the "photons" (energy) transforming to mass........

Boson to fermion to baryon cascade?
Needs massive amounts of other interactions to make that happen... and the ratio's have to be exact. Managing all that would be a statistical probability nightmare, unless there was a specific "path", with a specific "beat", that all the interacting "particles" are following relative to each other...

yep
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2014
The Z-pinch Morphology of supernova 1987 A and Electric Stars
http://ieeexplore...=4287093
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2014
Boson to fermion to baryon cascade?
Needs massive amounts of other interactions to make that happen... and the ratio's have to be exact. Managing all that would be a statistical probability nightmare, unless there was a specific "path", with a specific "beat", that all the interacting "particles" are following relative to each other...


I like to study Feynman diagrams of interactions of conversions of energy to mass inside particle accelerators. But you're right, the conversions of energy to mass are a statistical nightmare & even more so outside the use of cyclotrons in the stellar universe from what I hear from Astrophysicists, however this is not the purpose of our gamma ray spectroscopy lab.

Converting gamma rays to mass inside particle accelerators can only be done at a specific energy level within proximity of a specific heavy nucleus or transformation can never occur, at least so far as we know.

Taking all these things into account, I do follow your conjectures.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2014
@Benni also read another article which mentions 'missing uv light' with regard to recent galaxy formation and DM. Any ideas if this is connected to SN's?


I read that article too, seems like it was a couple months ago. I've yet to see something like a Feynman diagram to show how UV can be converted to mass (sterile neutrinos), only gamma rays as I pointed out to WG just above, if you've seen a Feynman postulating it, please direct me to it.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2014
It's interesting to note that some people believe in all powerful supernatural beings, but love to point derision at a fairly solid hypothesis based in reality, most especially articles like this which are lending some observational evidence to such. It definitely lends credence to the notion that first comes worldview, then comes belief or disbelief. Even Einstein who had a scientific worldview had a difficult time accepting quantum mechanics because it flew in the face of his worldview.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Aug 14, 2014
Converting gamma rays to mass inside particle accelerators can only be done at a specific energy level within proximity of a specific heavy nucleus or transformation can never occur, at least so far as we know.

Taking all these things into account, I do follow your conjectures.

I've been told photons do not interact with eachother. What if they did when it is a massive amount of them in a given space? With varying intensities? A collection (a set) of Anything will assume its own quantum identity. IF they only get to fermion stage before returning to boson, there would be some (maybe only minor, don't know) gravitational effect, eh?
TheNox
not rated yet Aug 15, 2014
Am I missing something?
"The space between galaxies is not empty. It is filled with hot intergalactic gas whose temperature is of order ten million kelvin, or even higher."
Really? So.. is it really like that? Intergalactic space is as hot as the sun?
Or are there only specific finite regions that are filled with this hot gas?
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2014
I've been told photons do not interact with each other. What if they did when it is a massive amount of them in a given space? With varying intensities? A collection (a set) of Anything will assume its own quantum identity. IF they only get to fermion stage before returning to boson, there would be some (maybe only minor, don't know) gravitational effect, eh?


Quantum electrodynamics is the best way for me to understand how photons transform to mass, this is why I gravitate (no pun intended) to Feynman diagrams. What goes on at the macro-level seems to be much different than what goes on at the atomic, & smaller levels, where gravity is not a force factor.

But as you suggest, an extreme concentration of energy flux could have local gravitational consequences, hence the appearance of lensing around certain intergalactic structures & not others. Maybe there are local concentrations of black holes creating these conditions of extreme gravity, eventually "entropy" wins out.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2014
@TheNox, nope you're not missing anything. That's what I read too. One thing you can be bloody sure about, and that is that it's pretty cold out there in intergalactic space, where the density of matter is in the order of one hydrogen atom per cubic centimeter.

We know that the behavior of matter at the quantum, or atomic scale, does not always follow the laws of physics here in the macro world. We can draw similar conclusions about the observed behavior of matter on the colossal scale, viewed from staggering distances away. I'm sure that if we were to place ourselves at those locations that things would look pretty normal and behave in predictable ways. But not from where we're sitting. That lends those observations to some fantastic theorizing, IMO.
Mimath224
3 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2014
@Benni 'if you've seen a Feynman postulating it, please direct me to it.' Ha, I was going to ask you the same thing.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2014
@ Mirmath-Skippy.

I might maybe got this all wrong, because I'm not the real scientist. But I think I found a picture like what you are talking about. Half way down there is a Feynman-Skippy picture of two photons colliding together to make the fermion things like you are maybe talking about.

I'm not sure if I am posting the linkum right so if it doesn't work, it's the wiki-Skippy's article about two photon physics, that you can find on the google.

http://en.wikiped..._physics
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2014
@Benni 'if you've seen a Feynman postulating it, please direct me to it.' Ha, I was going to ask you the same thing.


@WG, MiMath

Looking through some Feynman diagrams that we often refer to in the spectroscopy lab manual, I came across what I was thinking about with regard to electron/positron production (WG's fermion suggestion). When a photon at 1 mev (that's a gamma ray) passes by a heavy nucleus & if in ideal proximity to a heavy nucleus, electron pair production can occur.

So what exactly constitutes a "heavy nucleus" ? And why must it be a heavy nucleus? The Feynman I'm referring to shows a nucleus of many protons & neutrons, I could count about 20 dots in the 2 dimensional diagram, so if it's to scale there must be a volume of at least 100 protons & neutrons, something really heavy, maybe uranium, the Feynman doesn't note the element. The Feynman does not indicate the photon is absorbed by the heavy nucleus, this being the case there is a true transformation.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2014
.........continuing from above: the Feynman does not offer a clue as to the function of the heavy nucleus in this transformation. There must be some weakly interacting nuclear forces generated by the heavy nucleus at a specific energy level & proximity which create the conditions of photon transformation into fermions (electron/positron in this case).
Mimath224
not rated yet Aug 15, 2014
@Benni, I don't profess to know much about Fey. diagrams but it was these that helped in my personal view that the most fundamental of all was the photon, e.g. g-ray 'decays' into e+ & e- and e+ & e- into g-ray. Of course, I realise that this is a simplistic view of 'particles', including neutrinos, but it also helps my understanding of the dual nature of particles. The next question I would ask is; what is the 'rule' that governs photons to 'combine' in a certain formation to produce fundamental & stable particles, such as neutrinos? Ha, my layman characteristic being revealed.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2014
Quantum electrodynamics is the best way for me to understand how photons transform to mass, this is why I gravitate (no pun intended) to Feynman diagrams. What goes on at the macro-level seems to be much different than what goes on at the atomic, & smaller levels, where gravity is not a force factor.

But as you suggest, an extreme concentration of energy flux could have local gravitational consequences, hence the appearance of lensing around certain intergalactic structures & not others. Maybe there are local concentrations of black holes creating these conditions of extreme gravity, eventually "entropy" wins out.
Probably worth mentioning the concept of a kugelblitz: a black hole made of energy, not matter. Here: http://en.wikiped...ysics%29
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2014
.........continuing from above: the Feynman does not offer a clue as to the function of the heavy nucleus in this transformation. There must be some weakly interacting nuclear forces generated by the heavy nucleus at a specific energy level & proximity which create the conditions of photon transformation into fermions (electron/positron in this case).
It's from the Schwinger effect, from the strong positive electric field near the nucleus; thus, the larger the nucleus the more likely a pair production is, provided the photon carries enough energy.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2014
@Benni, I don't profess to know much about Fey. diagrams but it was these that helped in my personal view that the most fundamental of all was the photon, e.g. g-ray 'decays' into e+ & e- and e+ & e- into g-ray.


Yep, Fey diagrams are a nice study, easier to follow than radioactive decay chains & associated equations if you don't care that much about a lot of details.

"e.g. g-ray 'decays' into e+ & e- and e+ & e- into g-ray"

Just want to point out to you here that the g-ray does not "decay" into fermions (e+, e-), but "transforms".

The next question I would ask is; what is the 'rule' that governs photons to 'combine' in a certain formation to produce fundamental & stable particles, such as neutrinos?


Never looked at anything about photons transforming into neutrinos. As one who is a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer, I only concern myself with the practical applications of nuclear physics, not its hypotheticals, but like you I find it fun to muse about.

Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2014
.........continuing from above: the Feynman does not offer a clue as to the function of the heavy nucleus in this transformation. There must be some weakly interacting nuclear forces generated by the heavy nucleus at a specific energy level & proximity which create the conditions of photon transformation into fermions (electron/positron in this case).


It's from the Schwinger effect, from the strong positive electric field near the nucleus; thus, the larger the nucleus the more likely a pair production is, provided the photon carries enough energy.


.........makes perfect sense to me. Would you speculate if there is UV transformation that occurs during the process of photo-synthesis? Looks to me like UV photons provide the energy for chemical bonding but not actual transformation, although I've seen others who say there is transformation.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2014
UV photons can't make positron/electron pairs by themselves (even by the Schwinger effect). They don't have enough energy. You need twice 0.511 MeV, the mass/energy of an electron or a positron, or 1.022 MeV. UV ranges from 6.19921 eV to 247.968 eV, from 200 nm to 5 nm wavelengths, more or less; so it's from a million to ten thousand times too small. IIRC that 200 nm is a bit high; light goes to around 300 nm or so at the top (violet/indigo) of the visible spectrum, and technically anything beyond that is UV.

You may find this useful: http://www.calcto...f_photon

Of course I also saw the energy in the last column from that Wiki article, but I prefer to DIY. I'm funny that way. :D

You can also see that gammas extend up to a bit over the energy needed; but it's within 18% or so of the top of the gamma. (That one I did in my head. Sue me.;) )
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2014
Never looked at anything about photons transforming into neutrinos. As one who is a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer, I only concern myself with the practical applications of nuclear physics, not its hypotheticals, but like you I find it fun to muse about.
The neutrino mass is very low, if not nonexistent (there is good evidence for neutrinos carrying some mass, but not much; when they were originally discovered they were thought to be massless. Late findings indicate that they almost certainly have some slight mass but cosmological constraints dictate that it be minimal). This paper: http://arxiv.org/.../0602155 indicates that the maximum intrinsic mass of all three neutrinos must add up to less than 0.3 eV to a bit over 0.6 eV so as you can see it is very, very small; from the previously linked Wiki article you can see that's somewhere in the near infrared.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 16, 2014
LOL, Hi RC! Or is that Zephir?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)

Oh my!....
LOL, Hi RC! Or is that Zephir?
...you throw out unsupported and patently wrong 'impression' like that, and expect people here to believe you are any sort of objective observer/scientist?

And you just downvote with the Uncle Ira bot leading the way, and you expect people here to believe you haven't already lost all credibility?

Mate, you are obviously far gone and gullible/led by 'gang/herd' mentality/tactics to be anything but a 'bot-sock' gang 'parrot' and fellow traveler....as ANTI-science as it gets.

You've just about put your reputation as a 'scientist' down into the gutter as far as it can get. Get it out of there, quick!...else....

Good luck with that 'mindless stooge and gangmember' way of 'doing science discourse', "Da Schneib"! Bye for now. :)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2014
No science agaIn, RC.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
No science agaIn, RC.
So, what was the 'science content' in YOUR post:
LOL, Hi RC! Or is that Zephir?


Mate, if you're going to demonstrate yourself as a hypocrite, as well as 'Uncle Ira' BOT-'friend' playing games against proper science ethics/fairness/objectivity in ratings pages, then your own credibility is NIL.

Wake up to yourself, Schneib; you are just giving all religious/political/crank crazies and deniers AMMUNITION to question the impartiality/objectivity/integrity of so-called 'mainstream science and scientists', which YOU/mod-troll gang tactics making a MOCKERY of with HYPOCRITICAL 'personality cult' lies and half-truth agendas/attacks like that.

Stop giving ammunition to the REAL enemies of science and humanity, "Da Schneib", ok?

Stop continuing hypocritical 'personality cult' and 'no-science' posts, ok?

Oh, and just what is it about "Withdrawn from detailed science discussion to avoid risks from plagiarists." you silly trolls not 'get'. :)
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2014
UV photons can't make positron/electron pairs by themselves (even by the Schwinger effect). They don't have enough energy. You need twice 0.511 MeV, the mass/energy of an electron or a positron, or 1.022 MeV.


I understand UV photons cannot transform to mass via electron pair production, which is why I brought up the chemical bonding that occurs during photo-synthesis, I've seen suggestions there is energy transformation in addition to chemical bonding, but I've never seen a Feynman to describe how it occurs.

By what other means can energy transformation occur is what I've often wondered & is also what Mimath & WG are wondering about as well. It only makes sense that if energy transformation can occur at a specifically identified energy level, as with electron pair production, then we need to consider there must be other yet unidentified means by which this occurs. I have a hunch there are myriads of means by which energy transforms, we just don't know how to discover them.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2014
@Benni, Ha yes 'transforms..' is what I meant...the old grey matter getting older eh? Many years ago a friend and I considered these 'fundamental transformations' but not in a serious way. His math was much better than mine but I was studying Logic at the time. In a kind of thought experiement we would look at the problem in various ways (Logical Positivist, Modal and many valued Logics etc.) and what we ended up with, if memory serves, was 2 systems of photon combinations. 1) photons bound up in concentric spheres each moving in a different direction and the 'rotations' would determine the properties of the particle. The number of layers of the spherical paths would determine the type of particle. 2) was similar but the 'photonic arrangement' was also twisted but this required at least 4D. We never came up with a 'testable' rule of how photons would combine so it was nothing more than a bit of fun in our spare time. Ha, probably more related to S.String Theory.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2014
Photosynthesis works by one light photon stripping one lightly-bound electron from one molecule of chlorophyll. This is then used to strip the hydrogen atoms from two molecules of water; this happens in quick succession, and the oxygen atoms mate up into dioxygen molecules (the standard form of oxygen in the atmosphere). There is no transformation of the photons required; their energy winds up in the transformation of ADP into ATP by ATP synthase using the energy gradient created by the unmatched protons in the nuclei of the chlorophyll molecules, inj the process giving them back their electrons, and in the reduction (using the hydrogen stripped from the water molecules) of NADP to NADPH. So the photons create two energy gradients by stripping electrons from chlorophyll, and the plant uses each gradient to make energy for itself, both as sugars and other carbohydrates made using the NADPH, and as ATP, the standard source of energy for all cells. And that's where the energy goes.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2014
RC, I'm not responding to anything you write except science. If you choose to respond to my comments that don't have any science in them, that's your problem, not mine. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Aug 16, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
RC, I'm not responding to anything you write except science.
But you keep making non-science as well as personality-cult lying/half-truth-promulgating innuendo posts, but haven't indicated you understand WHY I defend against same whenever they occur, because the ANTI-science-ETHICS troll-bot-sock gang 'tactics' cannot be left to succeed IF 'science' is what you profess to 'want'.

If you choose to respond to my comments that don't have any science in them, that's your problem, not mine.
Defending against non-science/personality-cult 'tactics' is NOT any 'problem' at all, it is a DUTY to science/justice. It is the PRINCIPLE of the thing. Period.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,....
"People in glass houses..." :)

So, step away from 'stooging' for 'Uncle Ira' et al 'hobgoblin of little minds gang' I PROVED by EXPERIMENT were LYING; 'suckering' you/other unwary newbies into anti-science-ethics bot-sock 'site sabotage rings'. Bye! :)
Uncle Ira
4.8 / 5 (6) Aug 17, 2014
@ Really-Skippy. I'm not really a scientist like you aren't either. But I've been trying to do this experiment about the mental conditions of weird peoples on the interweb. So far I got lots datas and numbers but don't know what they are telling. Maybe you could take some time off of your withdrawing from science discussing and help me figure out what the numbers are telling me.

This what I find from the last 90 days on the physorg.

Really-Skippy makes 687 postums and 613 about Ira-Skippy. And only 148 of all of the 687 postums are about science. And most of them are about how nobody but Really-Skippy knows how to do diligent reading.

613 are about Ira-Skippy.

Ira-Skippy makes 134 postums and 23 are about Really-Skippy. And 82 of them are about science.

23 are about Really-Skippy because he brought up my name and I answered. 24 if you count this one but it is about the experiment I'm working on so it should go in the About-Science groupings.

Now Really-Skippy I am not the scientist like you aren't either. So if it would not be too much trouble for you would explain just what the heck is going on here?

Benni
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2014
Many years ago a friend and I considered these 'fundamental transformations' but not in a serious way.


@MiMath,

I follow what you're trying to reason through a process of "Logic", it's essentially why I conjecture there must be transformations by other than transformation of g-ray into electron pair production in a particle accelerator, that there are many more ways yet to be discovered how "transformation" is accomplished.

It was Einstein's earnest belief that there is no fundamental difference between energy & mass, he thought of them both being exactly the same, hence was coined the term "relativistic mass" as another description for energy. I don't know if Einstein coined that term or somebody else, but it certainly is an appropriate way of describing energy considering the gravitational fields carried by "dark energy".

Speculation about pure energy (photonic) black holes where particles do not exist sounds like where you are going. Maybe GRBs can create them.



Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2014
Now Really-Skippy I am not the scientist like you aren't either. So if it would not be too much trouble for you would explain just what the heck is going on here?
@Ira
a very interesting and cogent post!
You've just single-handedly proven that he has a crush on you and that he has trolled this site more than offered ANY scientific or even topic related posts!

GREAT JOB, IRA! you should be proud... this is pretty much something that can be read, researched, validated and PROVEN... therefore, what you have here is EMPIRICAL DATA proving a point.

THANKS FOR SHARING... I think I will share this with some other people as well!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2014
Hey Forum,
Ain't it touching when bot operator keeps 'in touch' and 'converses/praises' his bot?

Pity that bot-sock was PERMA-banned from sciforum!

Poor CapS-Ira.

And "they" don't tell you how many posts were in response to Captain Hysterical Hypocrite, asking him to STOP making silly 'challenges' and lying/half-truth posts!

Nor do they tell you Uncle Ira just LIED again about its posts.

I'd withdrawn and stopped addressing that bot-sock-duo...BUT...still 'it' and 'its' operator kept making numerous lying/half-truth/disparaging 'third party' references to me, so triggering further responses in defense!

And if it hadn't been for recent attempts to 'sucker' Schneib with lies/half-truths in an attempt to get him to join their mod-sock-bot-troll 'gang' I would hardly have had to post at all now!

So much for the farcical Selectively-Biased-Half-Stats CapLyingStupid-IraDumbBot Duo's 'method' for doing 'stats/research'. Shades of BICEP2 'exercise'!

Hilarious, if it wasn't so sad. :{
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2014
@Benni, Yes agreed but I think my thoughts were perhaps far too wide in that 100's of particles were possible and that's why some 'rule' of transformation was necessary. Perhaps something like extended Pauli Exclusion. We never kept our 'scribbles'...pity. Thanks for your interest. Maybe you'll discover those transformations you have in mind as your ideas develop...best of luck in the future.

Benni
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2014
........thanks Mimath, you've been a pleasure to exchange ideas with.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2014
@Benni just one more thing I thought of. My friend, who was from India and studying in England, was trying to apply Line Integrals first on a open curve which then became a closed curve. The resulting area in between 2 planes represented (I think) the area of influence of the photon. After that he 'lost me' ha!
11791
Aug 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
swordsman
1 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2014
" ...80% of the universe is dark matter." Well, 80% of the universe is hydrogen. Is hydrogen dark matter? I don't think so.

All of the dark matter theories are lacking in substantial evidence and more on supposition and unsupported conjecture. Most of the comments above are also gobbledygook.
Watebba
1 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2014
Dark matter lensing is already proven well. The total amount of dark matter is calculated just from this lensing, i.e. it may not correspond the amount of detectable dark matter particles, which are responsible for it. In AWT most of lensing is caused with temporal and relatively large vacuum fluctuations, which cannot be isolated/detected in form of individual particles. They can be still considered as a matter according to principle, the matter is formed just with space-time curvatures - no matter how big or stable these curvatures are. The fact the density fluctuations aren't permanent doesn't imply, they cannot have permanent effects in similar way, like the density fluctuations of our atmosphere (they contribute to lensing and blue color of Earth atmosphere, despite they're very short-living and cannot be isolated in individual form).
TechnoCreed
4 / 5 (4) Aug 18, 2014
@Zephir
Dark matter lensing has not been proven, it has been observed and no lensing has ever been observed in voids.
yyz
5 / 5 (7) Aug 18, 2014
"...no lensing has ever been observed in voids."

TC, while this is certainly true for individual voids, recent work using stacked images of voids has found a (admittedly small) weak lensing signal associated with voids:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.2045

http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1834

Incidentally, studies looking into the feasibility of using weak lensing to examine cosmic voids go back to the late '90s:

http://adsabs.har...09..465A

Toiea
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2014
Dark matter lensing has not been proven, it has been observed and no lensing has ever been observed in voids
So it has been proven with observations and the fact no lensing has ever been observed in voids contradicts anything - it just means, no dark matter is here (actually it's not even quite correct - even the voids exhibit a weak distribution of dark matter, so you're doubly confused).

... I see, yyz has already said it here.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2014
Toiea made an odd, one might say unsupportable claim with
.. even the voids exhibit a weak distribution of dark matter..
Not getting your language or is there some evidence not yet in the public domain - is it on physorg ?

How can voids "exhibit" - ie "Show" or "Display" any sort of distribution of dark matter ?

By adding 'distribution' then are you saying some places have it & some don't - ie So there is
a density of such dispersion ie an actual metric of distribution ?

I thought dark matter was still dark & has no exhibition 'properties' ?

There may be any number of explanations of lensing but, to claim "voids exhibit" is an odd claim.

Please clarify your language & the experiments supporting your claim ?
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2014
@yyz
Beware! Object in the... are closer than they appear ;-)

Optic in a nutshell: If a massive object creates a converging lens, it is only logical that the peripheral mass around a void creates a focal point at the center of it and it is going to be a diverging optical effect. I am saying diverging optical effect because talking about lensing in this case only creates confusion. To prevent that, scholars are talking about anti-lensing. http://sydney.edu...id=10821

I am going to read your linked papers in the next few days to see if I have to correct my understanding. I shall comeback to you if so.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2014
Here's an Artist's postulation;
"Dark matter" is fermion (with 1/2 spin). What causes the spin? Bosons (photons) and other fermions, even the occasional baryon (it's pretty devoid of actual matter out there in space).
Anyway, the closer these fermions are to an EM generating source, the more of them are spinning. Since it's only half spin, it tells me they are receiving the kinetic energy on one side of spin and releasing it on the other. Since we are looking from the generating side, we don't see the release of it (the reason our immediate area of the galaxy appears to be devoid of it). But someone in a galaxy far, far way - would. We don't see it around us is because of our reference point as the source.
Ok. That was todays "thought experiment"...
Toiea
1 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2014
To prevent that, scholars are talking about anti-lensing
Unfortunately you just misread the article. The center of voids do behave like the concave lens as well and it makes the objects behind it bigger and brighter in the same way, like the gravitational lens. AWT explanation is, it's an evidence of mirror matter of negative gravitational charge, i.e. the finely dispersed "missing" antimatter, which gets repelled with all massive bodies, so it does concentrate at free space between them. You may imagine, every particle of antimatter is formed with some empty aether bubble rich of scalar waves, which is surrounded with wall rich of transverse waves. When these bubbles are getting smaller, then tension and density of their walls increases and it occasionally overweights the interior - therefore the common antiparticles are massive in the same way, like particles. Only these most lightweight ones manifest their negative gravity significantly.
Toiea
2 / 5 (4) Aug 21, 2014
As the easy to follow analogy of that effect at the water surface may serve the behavior of transverse waves which are getting scattered around islands (gravitational field) and the underwater tsunami waves, which manifest itself like the underwater current at somewhat larger distance (dark matter). But types of waves deform the water surface, so that they contribute to its lensing. The presence of islands is shielding the surface waves, but it attenuates these underwater ones (tsunamis), which will therefore concentrate at the free areas between islands.

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.