Higgs particle can disintegrate into particles of dark matter, according to new model

March 4, 2015
Higgs particle can disintegrate into particles of dark matter, according to new model
A Higgs particle has been created in an LHC detector and has then disintegrated into four muons (the four red lines). According to Christoffer Petersson’s model the Higgs particle can also disintegrate into a photon and particles of dark matter. Credit: CERN

The 'Standard Model' of particle physics successfully describes the smallest constituents of matter. But the model has its limitations – it does not explain the dark matter of the universe. Christoffer Petersson, a research scientist at Chalmers University of Technology, has found a solution. His theories are now being tested at the particle physics laboratory CERN.

Physicists describe the smallest constituents of nature – elementary and forces acting between them using a set of theories known as "the Standard Model". This model was developed in the 1970s and has been very successful, particularly in predicting the existence of undiscovered particles.

In recent decades, have discovered one of the predicted particles in the Standard Model after another in their particle accelerators. The last in the series was the Higgs particle, the existence of which was confirmed by the scientists at the particle accelerator Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in 2012. This completed the Standard Model.

The problem is that there are several things the Standard Model is unable to explain, for example the that makes up a large part of the universe. Many particle physicists are therefore working on the development of new, more comprehensive models.

One of them is Christoffer Petersson, who carries out research in theoretical at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden and the Université Libre in Belgium. Together with two research colleagues he has proposed a particle model based on what is known as supersymmetry.

This model contains more than the Standard Model, including . In addition, the model gives the Higgs particle different properties than the Standard Model predicts. The model proposes that the Higgs particle can distintegrate into a photon (a particle of light) and particles of dark matter. However, these properties are quite difficult to discover – you have to look for them specifically to have a chance of finding them.

But Christoffer Petersson is fortunate – his model has met with a response at CERN. Two independent experimental stations – Atlas and CMS – at the Large Hadron Collider are now looking for the very properties of the Higgs particle his model predicts. If the properties are there, it is a clear indication that the model fits.

"It's a dream for a theorist in particle physics. LHC is the only place where the model can be tested. It's even nicer that two independent experiments are going to do it," says Christoffer Petersson.

In the first studies the volume of data was unfortunately too small for it to be possible to either confirm or reject Petersson's model.

"But we are already in full swing with new analyses in which we are testing his model in other ways and with more data. We congratulate Christoffer Petersson for having done an important job," says Zeynap Demiragli at the CMS experiment at CERN.

After being closed down for a time for an upgrade, LHC will start up again in the spring of 2015. With higher energies in the accelerator, the experiments will finally gather sufficient data to evaluate Petersson's model properly. He is on tenterhooks awaiting the results.

"If the model is found to fit, it would completely change our understanding of the fundamental building blocks of nature. If not, just the fact that they are willing to test my at CERN is great," he says.

Explore further: What's next for particle physicists, post-Higgs?

More information: Higgs decay with monophoton + MET signature from low scale supersymmetry breaking Journal of High Energy Physics. October 2012, 2012:16. link.springer.com/article/10.1007/JHEP10%282012%29016

"Search for new physics in final states with low transverse energy photon and missing transverse energy in proton-proton collisions at √s = 8 TeV." cds.cern.ch/record/1983181/files/HIG-14-024-pas

"Search for exotic Higgs-boson decays in events with at least one photon,missing transverse momentum, and two forward jets produced in √s = 8 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector." cds.cern.ch/record/1988425/files/ATLAS-CONF-2015-001

Related Stories

What's next for particle physicists, post-Higgs?

July 17, 2013

In March of last year, scientists working with the Large Hadron Collider at the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Geneva, Switzerland, identified the Higgs boson, the last elusive particle in the Standard Model ...

CERN experiments put Standard Model to stringent test

July 19, 2013

New results to be presented at the EPS-HEP conference in Stockholm, Sweden, this afternoon have put the Standard Model of particle physics to one of its most stringent tests to date. The CMS and LHCb experiments at CERN's ...

ATLAS sees Higgs boson decay to fermions

November 28, 2013

The ATLAS experiment at CERN has released preliminary results that show evidence that the Higgs boson decays to two tau particles. Taus belong to a group of subatomic particles called the fermions, which make up matter. ...

Maybe it wasn't the Higgs particle after all

November 7, 2014

Last year CERN announced the finding of a new elementary particle, the Higgs particle. But maybe it wasn't the Higgs particle, maybe it just looks like it. And maybe it is not alone.

Possible discovery in 2015 of a new particle in physics

February 15, 2015

The world's largest atom-smasher could help physicists understand mysterious dark matter in the universe, and later this year it may offer a discovery even more fascinating than the Higgs-Boson, researchers say.

Recommended for you

Invisibility cloak with photonic crystals

August 30, 2016

Almost as elusive as unicorns, finding practical materials for invisibility cloaking is challenging. Michigan Technological University researchers have new ideas how to solve that.

Researchers use quantum dots to manipulate light

August 30, 2016

Leiden physicists have manipulated light with large artificial atoms, so-called quantum dots. Before, this has only been accomplished with actual atoms. It is an important step toward light-based quantum technology. The study ...

Measuring tiny forces with light

August 25, 2016

Photons are bizarre: They have no mass, but they do have momentum. And that allows researchers to do counterintuitive things with photons, such as using light to push matter around.

49 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Z99
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2015
Who would have expected that dark matter interacts with (one of) the Higgs particle(s)? Oh, wait. That is obvious (at least, assuming that the Higgs 'gives' dark matter its mass is one obvious possibility, any different hypothesis would require many more assumptions, so the Rule of Parsimony comes into play, I think). It is good to know that LHC actually has Physics to do (in the range of energy it is capable of) and questions to answer. Otherwise, firing it up again would be a real boondoggle. The basic question is: will they find any new Physics in the LHC's energy range? This is about one possibility.
jalmy
2 / 5 (25) Mar 04, 2015
Such BS. I can't believe people fund this crap. This model is stupid for the same reason every other dark matter model is stupid. If it were right, there would be dark matter, but where is it? Where the f is the dark matter? It's nowhere. No model you will ever make will make sense of something that makes up 80% of all matter yet we cannot find a single molecule of it. Or see it, smell it, touch, taste, anything. Apparently dark matter is the new condiment. Put that sh^t on everything.
Osiris1
3.3 / 5 (9) Mar 04, 2015
Wonder if the 'good mr jalmy is chinese agent provacateur or just a luddite, or maybe a "useful fool" as told in the book: "Masters of Deceit"? Be nice if he was on the TSA's 'no fly' list.
Tangent2
5 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2015
With higher energies in the accelerator, the experiments will finally gather sufficient data to evaluate Petersson's model properly. He is on tenterhooks awaiting the results.


tenterhooks? I don't think that term has been used since the 18th century!
rufusgwarren
1 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2015
Is this some sort of "slight of head?"
that_guy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2015
Such BS. I can't believe people fund this crap. This model is stupid for the same reason every other dark matter model is stupid. If it were right, there would be dark matter, but where is it? Where the f is the dark matter? It's nowhere. ... Put that sh^t on everything.


We fund seti, which is a complete logical fallacy (We couldn't even detect an advanced civilization in the next star system over) and yet valuable scientific progress comes of it. It is the same with dark matter/energy. The lengths and ingenuity that scientists and physicists go to prove or narrow dark matter ranges help inform us about our universe in other ways and construct new ways to probe it for other data.
Stylz
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2015
@jalmy Just take your lack of knowledge and understanding outburst to a Kardashian article or something.
mbee1
2.6 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2015
I hope everybody posting is aware this is simply an artists drawing. I also hope they are aware the evidence of the Higgs is shaky in the first place.
Ken Bradshaw
3 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2015
Has it been determined whether this particle (the one that was found) creates mass or not? It would seem that that is the most important next step.
vic1248
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2015
What I find troubling is that the news don't really clarify that the 2012 Higgs Boson discovery has not been confirmed yet. It is not yet proven that what was found is a Higgs Boson without a spin—spin-0, scalar.

Basically, what was found is a new Higgs Boson particle —there are many— that exhibited similarities with the sought after Higgs Boson Particle, aka the God Particle, which is the Particle Physics Standard Model Higgs Boson Particle, scalar, spin-0—without a spin.

The data that CERN has collected since their last Higgs Boson discovery back in 2012 is massive and requires up to four years of study and analysis. And, to make things worse, they might end up needing to redo the experiment and collect data again. They have already determined that the Hadron Collider did not have enough power to simulate enough of the actual events fractions of a second after the Big Bang. That's why it was shutdown and the power capacity upgrades took place.
vic1248
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2015
Also, the "Dark Matter Hypothesis" is on the brink of obsoleteness. The Scientific Community is taking a final stab at encountering WIMPs —Weakly Interacting Massive Particles— which are hypothesized to make up Dark Matter. If scientists do not encounter WIMPs this time around, they will move on to other explanations. Also, the "Neutrino Hypothesis" —neutrino & anti-neutrino being the same particle— is facing a similar fate.

The Quantum Field Theory and the Particle Physics Standard Model are on shaky grounds without the Higgs Boson Particle (spin-0, scalar,) Dark Matter WIMPs—Weakly Interacting Massive Particles, and Neutrinos—neutrino & anti-neutrino being the same particle.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2015
What I'm excited about formalizing what dark matter is exactly.
Right now we only understand it as a mass, that can't be the only property it has, it must have deeper characteristics and who knows what value it may have.
But it does have mass and that means it has energy, I know I sound like a fringe conspiracy guy, but all energy is interchangeable, maybe dark matter could have very real uses as we uncover its properties.
Mimath224
2.3 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2015
'...Together with two research colleagues he has proposed a particle model based on what is known as supersymmetry...'
Oh thanks very much but I thought SUSY was a female name. Hell, I got it wrong again!
Listen 'C.P.' if I haven't at least had a look at the topic of Supersymmetry before this point then I shouldn't be posting here. And some susy models don't just have more particles they have basically double of the std. mod. (+ or - a bit)
'...But Christoffer Petersson is fortunate – his model has met with a response at CERN. Two independent experimental stations...'
'..."But we are already in full swing with new analyses in which we are testing his model in other ways and with more data. We congratulate Christoffer Petersson for having done an important job," says Zeynap Demiragli at the CMS experiment at CERN.'
Maybe it's just me, but doesn't that sound like that C. P.'s paper is coincidental? And of all the people at CERN to be congratulated, C. P. is chosen. ???????
theon
1 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2015
" But the model has its limitations – it does not explain the dark matter of the universe."
Nonsense, DM can not be WIMPs. This is an epicycle to a failed theory.
altizar
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2015
Welp, since we're going with imaginary stuff, I propose a theory whereby the Higgs Boson decays into candy and popcorn . . .
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2015
tenterhooks? I don't think that term has been used since the 18th century!

Yah. I had to look up that one, too.
The lengths and ingenuity that scientists and physicists go to prove or narrow dark matter ranges help inform us about our universe in other ways and construct new ways to probe it for other data.

And who knows...maybe they'll get lucky with Petterson's theory.
It is not yet proven that what was found is a Higgs Boson without a spin—spin-0, scalar.

The theories that include several Higgs bosons (with various spins) are still Higgs bosons.
Has it been determined whether this particle (the one that was found) creates mass or not?

No, but it's exactly in the 'right place'. The chances that it's something else (or a fluke in the data) are pretty slim.
indio007
3 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2015
Welp, since we're going with imaginary stuff, I propose a theory whereby the Higgs Boson decays into candy and popcorn . . .

Your theory is delicious!
indio007
1 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2015
Why has dark matter been postulated?

Was it a result of naked empirical observation? Nope.

Dark matter exists to save the THEORY of general relativity as well as to save face on nearly 5 decades of hero worship that has permeated the culture. (Einstein wasn't always popular)

The laughable thing is that general relativity is so divergent from observation that they had to break out the con found in the Emperors New Clothes.

mooster75
4.6 / 5 (13) Mar 05, 2015
Why has dark matter been postulated?

Because something is there that affects everything else. We don't know exactly what it is, but something is there. We've given that something the label "dark matter". If the label bothers you, feel free to use one of your own.
Doug_Huffman
1 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2015
Petersson's particles are described as DM which has not otherwise been well characterized, so he must be correct.

The Standard Models of particles and universes are not falsifiable, being validated technology of Quarks, quarks and gluons ALL THE WAY DOWN.
Nashingun
1 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2015
Another fake assumptions. Keep making up stories and ideas that does not have any real bearing. As of this moment no one has clear understanding of what Dark Matter is and hinting Higgs particle transforms into Dark Matter particle is a BIG BOGUS concept! BOGUS, I say again, BOGUS, FAKE insinuation. Come on, feed the people what they want to hear and what they want to swallow to get the much desired attention and interest under fake mindsets.
wduckss
1 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2015
Nothing new, already published materials
http://www.svemir...ing.html article: 6 ... The Creation continued on the eighth day .. and 17 ... Are we blind or we do not want to see the dark matter!
indio007
1 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2015

Because something is there that affects everything else. We don't know exactly what it is, but something is there. We've given that something the label "dark matter". If the label bothers you, feel free to use one of your own.

Sad attempt at a red herring.

Whether there is something there or not remains to be seen.

The reason some people believe that there is "something" there is because relativity requires it .

I mean seriously people, look at this tripe

http://science.na...k-energy
"Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing.Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property that Einstein discovered is that it is possible for more space to come into existence. "
tomallen498
1 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2015
That Higgs particle can be crossed referenced to living organisms in the body..mostly the stomach and intestines. They are parasites for a reason, and guess what they can perform materialization's. Quite frankly "chit" is a miracle in itself. Now reflected into space I'd say that parasite(tick) alway's does it's job.
roycehellion
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2015
Such BS. I can't believe people fund this crap. This model is stupid for the same reason every other dark matter model is stupid. If it were right, there would be dark matter, but where is it? Where the f is the dark matter? It's nowhere. No model you will ever make will make sense of something that makes up 80% of all matter yet we cannot find a single molecule of it. Or see it, smell it, touch, taste, anything. Apparently dark matter is the new condiment. Put that sh^t on everything.


Lets get you on plane to CERN! You know much more than every other physicist on earth after all!
reset
1 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2015
Lets get you on plane to CERN! You know much more than every other physicist on earth after all!


That is a very broad statement. Not all physicists actually believe there is a Higgs Boson or DM, I doubt he knows more than those intelligent, rational people. But clearly he knows more than the authors of this article or the creators of the model it is based on.

Now, for a new model of great scientific significance. It has just been proven that when a unicorn horn fucks a teddy bear, the offspring is a chupacabra...but with a carebear's torso. Now we just have to find it....grant money anyone?
Cg_A
1 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2015
The last time I looked, the "Standard Model" had labeled 'Higgs' as a boson. The standard model is limited in that it 'has no model' of the composition of any of the sub-atomic particles in the tables it portrays AND it has no viable explanation of something called the Photon.

In a nutshell, infinitely tiny "Massless Black Holes" in the center of every Electron, Proton, Neutron.. etc are CREATED and SUSTAINED by either a pair or trio of orbiting Photons in the same manner as binary stars produce a 'massless center of gravity' in the space between the two stars. The 'Higgs Boson' is merely a "Massless Black Hole". Homework shows the density of the "Massless Black Hole" in every Electron is 7 Orders of magnitude greater than the Sun. Once the "Massless Black Hole" is understood, the Galaxy may use one.

The Electron is a binary Soliton composed of TWO Photons orbiting a "Massless Black Hole" in the center of orbital rotation of TWO high energy Photons. E=TWO*(MC*C/2). Simple trick.
Nanowill
1 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2015
So many of the proposed "New Theories" in physics are really no more than Crackpot notions. This is another one.
Dark matter is only postulated as a particle because nobody has any other ideas, time will show the measurements are real but are not due to a "new" particle, i.e. CDM does not exist.
And Higgs, perhaps just a proton in an alpha excited state, 938 x 137 ~ 128.5GeV.
foolspoo
5 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2015
Anybody working in "dark matter" has voiced this many times nano. dark matter is a label of ignorance. the math is irrefutable...
Nanowill
1 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2015
mooster 75, you are correct, lets call it "Dark Effect", which does not imply its matter, and only indicates current ignorance.
A prediction: The CDM effect is 5.15 times that of baryonic matter assumed using Newton's gravity relation. But of course we know that relation is invalid as gravity acts via curved metrics, not "mass" in observer space-time. Observer space-time is obviously not highly curved so gravity is not an effect in that space.
Once gravity is fully understood the CDM effect will go away.
jalmy
not rated yet Mar 06, 2015
What I'm excited about formalizing what dark matter is exactly.
Right now we only understand it as a mass, that can't be the only property it has, it must have deeper characteristics and who knows what value it may have.
But it does have mass and that means it has energy, I know I sound like a fringe conspiracy guy, but all energy is interchangeable, maybe dark matter could have very real uses as we uncover its properties.


Wrong. Right now we only see a gravitational effect. So we "assume" mass, because there is no other explanation of a gravity invariant in GR. And GR cannot possibly be incomplete or incorrect.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2015
The standard model is limited in that it 'has no model' of the composition of any of the sub-atomic particles in the tables it portrays AND it has no viable explanation of something called the Photon.


Sub atomic particles aren't "made" of anything, they are about as simple of a thing possible, just charges with angular momentum and some mass. There's no reason to describe them as made of anything simpler because there is nothing observed implying that they have components.

The standard model also has a perfect explanation of the photon, it is electromagnetic radiation. What does that mean? It means energy is radiated away from electrons in the form of photons and electrons can absorb energy in the form of photons.
Photosynthesis works by absorbing photons which in turn power up electrons to drive the chemistry in plants.
Light bulbs work by letting electrons drop into a lower energy state which then fires out that energy in the form of a photon
Get it?
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2015
Sub atomic particles aren't "made" of anything, they are about as simple of a thing possible, just charges with angular momentum and some mass. There's no reason to describe them as made of anything simpler because there is nothing observed implying that they have components.

The standard model also has a perfect explanation of the photon, it is electromagnetic radiation. What does that mean? It means energy is radiated away from electrons in the form of photons and electrons can absorb energy in the form of photons.
Photosynthesis works by absorbing photons which in turn power up electrons to drive the chemistry in plants.
Light bulbs work by letting electrons drop into a lower energy state which then fires out that energy in the form of a photon
Get it?

You are quite correct, Steve. However his following 2 paragraphs indicate an interesting thought process...
Joe_Chang
Mar 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Joe_Chang
Mar 08, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2015
@GYRE

Yeah I don't know what he's talking about lol.
But I don't actually care if I taught him anything or not, they could be a 12 year old kid who just discovered the endless roads of Wikipedia and doesn't really know what they are talking about, or some conspiracy guy who will just get mad about Einstein because they are insane and think they are competing with him.

It's really I don't want someone reading their stuff and thinking they're right cause it sounds cool. "WOAH WHAT IF EVERYTHING WAS THESE SUPER COOL MASSLESS BLACK HOLES? Now just let me just screw up some algebra and my new theory will be complete for some reason"
Steve 200mph Cruiz
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2015
Wrong. Right now we only see a gravitational effect. So we "assume" mass, because there is no other explanation of a gravity invariant in GR. And GR cannot possibly be incomplete or incorrect


BUUZZZZ wrong.
Dark matter clumps together, we can map it to form images of it's shape, it is not a defuse effect everywhere across the universe like the dark energy phenomenon.
Dark matter is a localized effect that creates distinct and measurable structure which means it has mass.

The fact that it doesn't appear to interact with electromagnetism isn't a problem, not all fundamental forces interact directly. But there is some evidence that it might actually albeit weakly by decaying into photons, time will tell, but I'm sure you'll just ignore it anyways.

Just Google dark matter and go to the images to see some maps of the distribution of dark mass.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2015
@Steve,

Dark Matter halos do not exist around Elliptical galaxies, only Spirals. Elliptical galaxies create almost all the gravitational lensing we OBSERVE throughout the universe, by contrast Spiral galaxies DO NOT create gravitational lensing.

So, if there is all this clumpy DM holding Spirals together surrounded by a so-called DM halo as these Spirals rotate in excess of 200 km/s, why then don't Spirals create gravitational lensing? Must be a lot of missing gravity here compared to Elliptical galaxies rotating at a mere 2 km/s (by the way, this is observable evidence).
Steve 200mph Cruiz
5 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2015
Benni,

I'm not sure if they have dark matter in a defined halo explicitly, the giant elliptical galaxies your referring too are formed from the mergers of spiral galaxies so they do still have plenty of dark matter in them. A quarter of the universe is dark matter, there is no where you won't find it. Most lenses are created from large clusters of galaxies, not just one, and sometimes there aren't any galaxies at all, just dark matter.

All objects with mass create gravitational lenses by definition, you are just saying stuff. Einsteins original proof of relativity was taken by measuring how the positions of stars changed around the sun during a solar eclipse. Light follows space, all mass bends space, therefore all mass bends light
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2015
I'm not sure if they have dark matter in a defined halo explicitly
They don't, we know this observationally

the giant elliptical galaxies your referring too are formed from the mergers of spiral galaxies
...or for that matter even from oher Ellipticals, so there's no criteria here for DM arising only from Spirals.

Most lenses are created from large clusters of galaxies
Only Ellipticals create lensing, this is observational, the scientific method.

you are just saying stuff
No you are, I'm referring to the observational evidence. You're the one contorting observational evidence of the disparities we observe between galaxy types.

Einsteins original proof of relativity was taken by measuring how the positions of stars changed around the sun during a solar eclipse
I know, I can follow every Differential Equation in Einstein's GR, now take & apply it to lensing created by Elliptical galaxies versus lack of lensing created by Spirals.

yyz
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2015
Benni sez:

"...Spiral galaxies DO NOT create gravitational lensing."

Astrophysicists reply: "Cy 2201-3201: An Edge-on Spiral Gravitational Lens" by F.J. Castander et. al. Astrophysical Journal vol 652 pg 955-963, 2006

http://fr.arxiv.o.../0611330

I gave links to two more papers re gravitational lensing by spiral galaxies over on this thread: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Benni, I'm referring to observational evidence too. You choose to ignore it. What does that say about you?
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2015
Benni sez:

"...Spiral galaxies DO NOT create gravitational lensing."

Astrophysicists reply: "Cy 2201-3201: An Edge-on Spiral Gravitational Lens" by F.J. Castander et. al. Astrophysical Journal vol 652 pg 955-963, 2006

http://fr.arxiv.o.../0611330

Benni, I'm referring to observational evidence too. You choose to ignore it. What does that say about you?

.....and you continue to cherry pick your DM narrative.......99.9999% of gravitational lensing observed in the universe is created by Eliipticals. The reason being that Ellipticals contain the quantity of star mass that is needed to create lensing that we observe. Sure out of the entire population of Spirals you'll find a tiny percent that will suit your narrative, but among Ellipticals the percentage is vastly higher & it is always about "mass" not DM as you have deluded yourself into believing.
yyz
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2015
Benni now sez:

"...out of the entire population of Spirals you'll find a tiny percent that will suit your narrative..."

But Benni, that contradicts your earlier statements:

"...Spiral galaxies DO NOT create gravitational lensing."

"Only Ellipticals create lensing..."

"...why then don't Spirals create gravitational lensing?"

"...lack of lensing created by Spirals."

"Gravitational lensing does not occur within the vicinity of Spiral galaxies."

"...lensing does not occur because the gravitational fields associated with Spiral galaxies does not have the intensity to create lensing conditions."

"Gravitational lensing occurs only in association with more the massive Elliptical galaxies..."

So which is it? I didn't see any qualifiers in those earlier statements besides "only". At least I got you to admit that strong gravitational lensing occurs in some spiral galaxies. That's progress, I guess.



Benni
1 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2015
Jeepers yyz, until I started posting the gravitational data on Elliptical Vs. Spiral galaxies, you didn't even know about it. Or if you did, date the post for us confirming you knew about it. So here it is again, 99.999999% of observed gravitational lensing is caused by Elliptical galaxies.

You are just all bent out of shape because you have just been learning data that pokes gaping holes in the DM narrative for which you have been carrying so much water. It is my pleasure to break that water for you, have fun with the new baby.
Joe_Chang
Mar 09, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Joe_Chang
Mar 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2015
More than any other galactic class, ellipticals exhibit a tremendous range of sizes and masses. The smallest ones, dwarf ellipticals, are merely a few hundred light-years across and aren't much larger than globular clusters. The largest extend hundreds of thousands of light-years from one end to the other and dwarf our own galaxy in comparison. The most massive can contain nearly a trillion stars, or about a thousand times more than the Milky Way.
jalmy
1 / 5 (1) Mar 10, 2015
Wrong. Right now we only see a gravitational effect. So we "assume" mass, because there is no other explanation of a gravity invariant in GR. And GR cannot possibly be incomplete or incorrect


Dark matter clumps together, we can map it to form images of it's shape.
Dark matter is a localized effect that creates distinct and measurable structure which means it has mass.



Again wrong. You don't see anything. What you see is where mass "could be" based on gravitational observation. You see computer simulation models based on observations of physical movement. There is no picture of "shapes of clumped dark matter" in existence whatsoever, or any other physical evidence of any interaction of any sort with anything. In fact every single test of any theory has been negative. Check your facts son. Seriously if you believe something with 80% of the mass in existence yet has no observable interaction with light you are a GD moron. The End.
jalmy
1 / 5 (1) Mar 10, 2015
Furthermore. I think it is more likely that "dark matter" is actually the missing anti-matter in the universe. Anti-matter that has "anti-gravity". aka it would push rather than pull. I think that previous attempts of placing anti-gravity on anti-matter they still neglected to realize that it would also repel itself as well as normal matter. Making space full of anti-matter that repulsed everything would solve basically all the problems with dark matter, as well as explain where all the anti-matter went. It didn't go anywhere it is simply dispersed very similar to the gas we breathe . But it still has mass or anti-mass if you will, and it has anti-gravity. So the galaxies do no fly apart because they have hidden mass, they don't fly apart because they are being "pushed". The anti-matter predicted to be created at the big bang didn't disappear. It is still there.

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.