From MACHOs to WIMPs—meet the top five candidates for 'dark matter'

December 15, 2015 by Johar Ashfaque, The Conversation
Astronomers believe that the dark blue ring in this image must be mysterious dark matter. Credit: NASA/ESA/wikimedia

When we look out at the universe – even with the most powerful of telescopes – we can only see a fraction of the matter we know must be there. In fact, for every gram's worth of atoms in the universe, there is at least five times more invisible material called "dark matter". So far scientists have failed to detect it, despite spending decades searching.

The reason we know it exists is because of the gravitational pull of galaxy clusters and other phenomena we observe. The matter we can see in a cluster isn't enough to hold it together by gravity alone, meaning some additional invisible or obscure matter must be present. But we have no idea what it is – it could be made up of new, yet undiscovered particles.

There are four fundamental forces that a could interact with. There is the strong force that binds together the ; the weak force which governs the decay of particles such as radioactivity; an electromagnetic force that mediates the force between charged particles; and the gravitational force which governs gravitational interaction. To observe matter in space we need it to interact via the electromagnetic force, as this involves the release of light or other electromagnetic radiation that a telescope can register.

There are quite a few candidates already – each with its own particular way of interacting. However, some theories are more likely to be successful than others. Here are the five candidates for particles that I think have the best chance.

1. The WIMP

The weakly interacting massive particle, or WIMP, is a that looks promising. It would be completely different from the type of matter we know and would interact via the , which would explain why they are largely invisible in space. Roughly 100,000 of these would pass through every square centimetre of the Earth each second, interacting only via the and gravity with surrounding matter.

If WIMPs exist, mathematical modelling shows there must be about five times more of these than normal matter, which coincides with the abundance of dark matter that we observe in the universe. This means we should be able to detect them through their collisions as this would cause the charged particles on Earth to recoil, producing light that we can observe in experiments such as XENON100.

From MACHOs to WIMPs—meet the top five candidates for 'dark matter'
No sign of Kaluza yet. Image Editor/Flickr, CC BY

WIMPs have been the subject of a lot of extensive research, especially beyond the Standard Model of physics, which independently predicted that such a particle must exist – a coincidence dubbed the "WIMP miracle".

2. The axion

Axions are low-mass, slow-moving particles that don't have a charge and only interact weakly with other matter which makes them difficult – but but not impossible – to detect. Only axions of a specific mass would be able to explain the invisible nature of dark matter – if they are any lighter or heavier we would be able to see them. And if axions do exist they would be able to decay into a pair of light particle (photons), which means we could detect them by looking for such pairs. Experiments including the Axion Dark Matter Experiment is currently looking for axions in this way.

3. The MACHO

MACHO stands for "massive astrophysical compact halo object" and was one of the first proposed candidates for dark matter. These objects, including neutron stars, and brown and white dwarfs, are composed of . So how could they be invisible? The reason is that they emit very little to no light.

One way to observe them is by monitoring the brightness of distant stars. As light rays bend when they pass close to a massive object, light from a distant source may be focused by a closer object to produce a sudden brightening of the distant object. This effect, known as gravitational lensing, depends on how much matter, both normal and dark, is in a galaxy – we can use it to calculate the amount of matter lurking around. However, we now know it is unlikely that enough of these dark bodies could accumulate to make up the vast amount of dark matter that exists.

4. The Kaluza-Klein particle

The Kaluza-Klein theory is built around the existence of an invisible "fifth dimension" curled up in space, in addition to the three spatial dimensions we know (height, width, depth), and time. This theory, a precursor to string theory, predicts the existence of a particle that could be a dark matter particle, which would have the same mass as 550 to 650 protons (these make up the atomic nucleus together with neutrons).

This kind of particle could interact both via electromagnetism and gravity. However, as it is curled up in a dimension we can't see, we wouldn't observe it by just by looking at the sky. Luckily, the particle should be is easy to look for in experiments as it should decay into particles we can measure – into neutrinos and photons. However, powerful particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider are yet to detect it.

5. The gravitino

Theories combining general relativity and "supersymmetry" predict the existence of a particle called the gravitino. Supersymmetry, which is a successful theory explaining a lot of observations in physics, states that all "boson" – such as the photon (light particle)– have a "superpartner", the photino, with a property called "spin" (a type of angular momentum) that differs by a half-integer. The gravitino would be the superpartner of the hypothetical "graviton", thought to mediate the force of gravitation. And in some models of supergravity where the gravitino is very light, it could account for .

Explore further: Physicist suggests new experiments could make or break axion as dark matter theory

Related Stories

CAST explores the dark side of the universe

September 21, 2015

Over the next 10 days, CERN's Axion Solar Telescope (CAST) will receive the Sun's rays. The Sun's course is visible from the window in the CAST experimental hall just twice a year, in March and September. The scientists will ...

Dark matter dominates in nearby dwarf galaxy

November 18, 2015

Dark matter is called "dark" for a good reason. Although they outnumber particles of regular matter by more than a factor of 10, particles of dark matter are elusive. Their existence is inferred by their gravitational influence ...

Recommended for you

Engineers discover a high-speed nano-avalanche

August 24, 2016

Charles McLaren, a doctoral student in materials science and engineering at Lehigh University, arrived last fall for his semester of research at the University of Marburg in Germany with his language skills significantly ...

Understanding nature's patterns with plasmas

August 23, 2016

Patterns abound in nature, from zebra stripes and leopard spots to honeycombs and bands of clouds. Somehow, these patterns form and organize all by themselves. To better understand how, researchers have now created a new ...

Stretchy supercapacitors power wearable electronics

August 23, 2016

A future of soft robots that wash your dishes or smart T-shirts that power your cell phone may depend on the development of stretchy power sources. But traditional batteries are thick and rigid—not ideal properties for ...

NIST's compact gyroscope may turn heads

August 23, 2016

Shrink rays may exist only in science fiction, but similar effects are at work in the real world at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

93 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NoStrings
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 15, 2015
Out of these hypotheses only one - the MACHO - has a chance to be a real possibility. There are many other hypotheses not mentioned. I personally wouldn't mind more experimentation in area of testing presence or absence of the additional components of gravitational interaction - there are many mathematical hypotheses along these lines. Unfortunately it is about impossible to make any telling experiment relative Modified Gravity hypotheses this close to our Sun gravitational distortion.
What is completely not worth any time pondering - that is anything derived from the string 'hypothesis', or better put is, a multitude of string hypotheses approximately equal in number to number of Linux forks. As well known, string 'hypothesis' confirms everything for whatever imaginary universe it would be, but predicts nothing for our universe.
baudrunner
1.7 / 5 (18) Dec 15, 2015
What a bunch of bogus theorizing. Even to the point of including a supersymmetry/general relativity relationship to invent a gravitino (first time I ever have heard of a gravitino) is just too much. M theory is untestable, and should be left alone in real science because it is just mathematical game playing.

Helium makes up 24% of the universe and most of it is found in stars and the interstellar medium. Being inert to photonic wave propagation, yet still effecting gravitational influence. Include all those dark bodies of normal matter and you have DM. Heck, we are discovering dark bodies in our very own solar system that we didn't know were there. Interstellar and intergalactic space is populated with these objects, and we just don't know how many are there, because we cannot see them. It is more sensible and much more practical to assume that they are what we are calling dark matter.
baudrunner
1.8 / 5 (18) Dec 15, 2015
I have a problem with physicists inventing and stubbornly maintaining that those exotic particles that they can't find exist, then spending billions of taxpayer dollars to try and prove it. It's just sad that practical science has been relegated to the status of remedial science.
SuperThunder
3.8 / 5 (18) Dec 15, 2015
It would be completely different from the type of matter we know and would interact via the electromagnetic force, which would explain why they are largely invisible in space.

Is this a typo?

(first time I ever have heard of a gravitino)

How? Is this your first experience with particle physics?

SuperThunder
3.9 / 5 (22) Dec 15, 2015
I have a problem with physicists inventing and stubbornly maintaining that those exotic particles that they can't find exist, then spending billions of taxpayer dollars

Oh yeah, stopped right there.

Money grubbing is an emotional lashing out response exhibited in the majority of science denier rhetoric on this site. If I were an alien anthropologist, I'd swear it was the only human religion, and the opposite of rationality. The correlation is amazing.
arom
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 15, 2015
There are quite a few candidates already – each with its own particular way of interacting. However, some theories are more likely to be successful than others. Here are the five candidates for particles that I think have the best chance.
1. The WIMP…2. The axion...3. The MACHO…4. The Kaluza-Klein particle…5. The gravitino….


Where is the dark energy (that could interpret as mass) which is the largest part in the universe, where is the Higgs field (that give rise to Higgs particles) which pervades everywhere in the universe? Maybe this is the true part which manifest as the dark matter…
http://www.vacuum...14〈=en

liquidspacetime
2.3 / 5 (13) Dec 15, 2015
Dark matter is now understood to fill the space unoccupied by particles of matter. Particles of matter move through and displace the dark matter.

'The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided'
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3802

"the emerging picture of the dark matter halo of the Milky Way is dominantly lopsided in nature."

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the dark matter, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.

Particles of matter move through and displace the dark matter. A moving particle has an associated wave in the dark matter.

There is evidence of the dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.
jim_xanara
2.6 / 5 (10) Dec 16, 2015
Put your pongobongo puppet away, jerk.
jljenkins
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 16, 2015

baudrunner 1.8 /5 (5) Dec 15, 2015
I have a problem with


I have a problem with some poor tree, slaving away to produce oxygen for your benefit.

Cut 'im loose, girl! You're too good for his likes.
bschott
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2015
I have a problem with physicists inventing and stubbornly maintaining that those exotic particles that they can't find exist, then spending billions of taxpayer dollars to try and prove it. It's just sad that practical science has been relegated to the status of remedial science.


Indeed. It has reached the point where conversing with supporters of particle physics and DM theories is like visiting an Alzheimers convention.

5 different proposals, all for "matter" that either doesn't exist, or simply cannot be an undetectable candidate for it.

Money grubbing is an emotional lashing out response exhibited in the majority of science denier rhetoric on this site.


LMAO. The only people "denying" science are the ones who support testing theories that lead to blatant dead ends. Refusal to shift a fundamental view in the face of a mountain of EVIDENCE against it is denialism. Stating that something is waste of resources when it clearly is...thats just observation.

liquidspacetime
2.3 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2015
Stating that something is waste of resources when it clearly is...thats just observation.


It's been over 30 years and hundreds of millions of dollars spent and there is zero evidence of a particulate, weakly interacting dark matter.

Do you think in a thousand years and trillions upon trillions of dollars spent they'll figure out that a particulate, weakly interacting dark matter is incorrect, or do you expect them to keep digging forever?

Matter interacts with dark matter. Matter moves through and displaces the dark matter.

We already have evidence of dark matter. It's what waves in terms of wave-particle duality.

We have evidence of dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves.
bschott
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2015
We have evidence of dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves.


That is why I pointed out in another thread where you posted something similar that you had just described a magnetic field. I am not saying there is "nothing" there. It is the refusal to acknowledge the nature of what is there that leads to a search for "particles" where there aren't any.
liquidspacetime
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2015
It is the refusal to acknowledge the nature of what is there that leads to a search for "particles" where there aren't any.


Wave-particle duality is a moving particle *and* its associated wave in the dark matter.

Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the dark matter that passes through both.
bschott
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2015
It is the refusal to acknowledge the nature of what is there that leads to a search for "particles" where there aren't any.


Wave-particle duality is a moving particle *and* its associated wave in the dark matter.

Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the dark matter that passes through both.


Dude, you actually have this. Just let go of DM as a particle.

Watch this:

http://www.youtub...6ikj1G-s

Like I said, you just described a magnetic field.
liquidspacetime
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2015


Dude, you actually have this. Just let go of DM as a particle.

Watch this:

http://www.youtub...6ikj1G-s

Like I said, you just described a magnetic field.


Dude, I'm not saying dark matter is the particle of wave-particle duality. I'm saying it is the dark matter that waves in terms of wave-particle duality.

Particles of matter are condensations of the dark matter. Particles of matter exist in, move through and displace the dark matter.

In a double slit experiment it is the dark matter that waves.
my2cts
3 / 5 (10) Dec 18, 2015

5 different proposals, all for "matter" that either doesn't exist, or simply cannot be an undetectable candidate for it.

If you can prove that these 5 candidates are all impossible, you have a point.
But you haven't, because you can't. You are just a waste of decent ASCII.

theories that lead to blatant dead ends.

Again if you had proof you would be the man. But you haven't.
Refusal to shift a fundamental view in the face of a mountain of EVIDENCE against it is denialism. Stating that something is waste of resources when it clearly is...thats just observation.

Shift where? Again you don't know.
You are whining, but you know nothing.
Empty talk.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2015
It is the refusal to acknowledge the nature of what is there

So what's the secret? What is there ?
You don't know.
I warn you, stars are oblivious to EM forces.
bschott
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2015
If you can prove that these 5 candidates are all impossible, you have a point.


LMAO...small change...tsk tsk. My proof is that there is not a single viable sample of DM in any form that you, as a mainstream supporter can show us to validate any theoretical properties it has been assigned.

Once again, the completely thoughtless request to prove something does not exist.

Prove it does or just keep talking....whatever.

theories that lead to blatant dead ends

Again if you had proof you would be the man. But you haven't


Are you for real? Do you really want me to prove that thus far, every single theory about how to detect DM has failed to do so? Therefore every theory involving DM cannot be proven...do you know what a dead end is?

Shift where? Again you don't know.

I warn you, stars are oblivious to EM forces.


You just proved you are less intelligent than anyone else who posts here....including that Ira guy.


bschott
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2015
I warn you, stars are oblivious to EM forces.


Name one observation we make regarding solar activity that isn't related to magnetic fields you shmuck.

I can't believe you just said that.....LMAO
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2015
"schmuck"
Thanks, I would get scared if you liked me. Your interpersonal communication is as bad as your physics. No surprises there.
Now show me how an external magnetic force helps to hold the sun in its orbit about Sgr A*.
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2015
If you can prove that these 5 candidates are all impossible, you have a point.


LMAO...small change...tsk tsk. My proof is that there is not a single viable sample of DM in any form that you, as a mainstream supporter can show us to validate any theoretical properties it has been assigned.

That does not constitute a proof.
Once again, the completely thoughtless request to prove something does not exist.

Not really. The request is to prove that these hypotheses can not explain very significant observations.
blatant dead ends

proof . .. you haven't

Do you really want me to prove that thus far, every single theory about how to detect DM has failed to do so?

So far.
stars are oblivious to EM forces.

You just proved you are less intelligent than anyone else who posts here....including that Ira guy.

Less intelligent by the EU crank standards you subscribe to. So be it.
bschott
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2015
"schmuck"
Thanks, I would get scared if you liked me. Your interpersonal communication is as bad as your physics.


From the guy who just said

I warn you, stars are oblivious to EM forces.


Well done small change...well done. Clearly you are qualified to judge someones understanding of physics.

Now show me how an external magnetic force helps to hold the sun in its orbit about Sgr A*.


Wow...what a surprising back pedal/ reword. So you want to know how I think magnetic fields do what you think DM does via gravity..

A demonstration of how magnetic fields can hold an object at a fixed point relative to an object or as part of a structure?

Go look in the mirror and think about why you are not flying apart. Remember to think about quantum distance scales, how far the valence electrons are from the nuclei in your bodies atomic structure.

bschott
3 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2015
Less intelligent by the EU crank standards you subscribe to. So be it.


That the EU model involves magnetic fields and plasma shows they are closer to the right track than gravity and made up bullshit. The similarity stops there.

So far.


Not so good....


Not really. The request is to prove that these hypotheses can not explain very significant observations.


You have 5 hypothesis, all of which carry situational validity...none of which fit all observations. So to prove they are wrong I will not apply the ones that fit the situations which support the hypothesis and instead, apply ones that I know don't.

I will have then used the mainstream tactic against itself, almost as successfully as the whole curved light, red shift thing supporting the infallible GR theory...as long as I can pick the situations where the effect is happening and support it with math....while disregarding all of the instances where it should be observed but is not.
my2cts
3 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2015
"schmuck"
Thanks, I would get scared if you liked me. Your interpersonal communication is as bad as your physics.


From the guy who just said

I warn you, stars are oblivious to EM forces.


Well done small change...well done. Clearly you are qualified to judge someones understanding of physics.

Now show me how an external magnetic force helps to hold the sun in its orbit about Sgr A*.


Wow...what a surprising back pedal/ reword. So you want to know how I think magnetic fields do what you think DM does via gravity..

A demonstration of how magnetic fields can hold an object at a fixed point relative to an object or as part of a structure?

Go look in the mirror

Now there's a fine answer that will convince that you have a better theory.
Are you actually skilled to makie your point ?
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2015
[Go look in the mirror and think about why you are not flying apart. Remember to think about quantum distance scales, how far the valence electrons are from the nuclei in your bodies atomic structure.


I just did and I concluded that I am not a magnet. Electric forces hold my atoms
together, strong interactions hold my nuclei together and Pauli's mysterious principle prevents them from collapsing.
Not a trace of magnetism involved.
So what IS the magnetic contribution to stellar dynamics ?
After all your insults and arrogant statements about scientists,
it's your turn to advance a theory.
my2cts
3 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2015
BS, you are the Uber Dunning Kuger.
The Dunning Kruger King !
Wait that's Benni. No, indio.
Why, you are The Three Amigos in the wild wild land of physics.
my2cts
3 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2015
KAP55
1 / 5 (1) Dec 20, 2015
They missed the #1 possibility: there is no dark matter, and MOND is true.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2015
They missed the #1 possibility: there is no dark matter, and MOND is true.

You are aware that in almost all variants of MOND still require some form of dark matter (and in the ones that don't there's quite a bit of handwaving going on)?
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2015
Less intelligent by the EU crank standards you subscribe to. So be it.

bschott doesn't prescribe to the EU principles (nor the principles set forth by Maxwell, Orsted, Ampere, or EM theory as the EU does), he prefers to rely on magic bowls. Never has an explanation been offered as to how his magic bowls become magnetized without the use of electricity to magnetize them. I pointed out immediately after he released these videos how his magic bowls replicate the pinching mechanism of a plasma focus, sadly he prefers relying on magic.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2015
BTW, there is another far more likely resolution to this question. Very cold, very dark electrodynamically active baryonic nanodust. This fractal condensed matter likely forms rigid Universal Skeletal Structures on cosmological scales.

http://www.cosmol...hkin.pdf
bschott
3 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2015
bschott doesn't prescribe to the EU principles


Correct.

Never has an explanation been offered as to how his magic bowls become magnetized without the use of electricity to magnetize them


As with most who have issues with comprehension, you translate what is said into what you want to have been said then attempt to argue from that stance, you are like Captain Dumpy with more understanding of physics but still supporting dead end science.

after he released these videos how his magic bowls replicate the pinching mechanism


Not my vids sparky.

On the quantum level we already know that stable SA particles are circulations of energy which "carry" charge. The video's simply suggest that if you alter the magnetic moment to that of a bowl shape field as opposed to a "bar" magnet, you can demonstrate replicatable physics in a plasma chamber and actually create structures in plasma that match observations.

You can't, and never will.

bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2015
far more likely resolution to this question. Very cold, very dark electrodynamically active baryonic nanodust. This fractal condensed matter likely forms rigid Universal Skeletal Structures on cosmological scales.


DM is more likely than whatever this is supposed to suggest.

I pointed out... how his magic bowls replicate the pinching mechanism of a plasma focus,


If the EU theory is that the sun is a sustained pinch, it would be very easy to replicate this effect if you are correct about the fundamental basis of EU...so do it. Lapoint demonstrated how to create maintained plasmoids of varying structure which match astronomical observations, several of which the mainstream still cannot explain with their models.

When I suggest that a mainstream theory is wrong, I can explain why because I can point out something we don't observe that we should if it is correct.

You repeat the same rhetoric that would be easy to experimentally validate, if it was correct.



bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2015
Electric forces hold my atoms
together


OK, describe precisely how this works, or provide one example of "electric forces" binding anything together without magnetism.

You say stupid things.
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2015
Go look in the mirror and think about why you are not flying apart. Remember to think about quantum distance scales, how far the valence electrons are from the nuclei in your bodies atomic structure.

bschott, we don't fly apart (or implode, for that matter) because energy levels at the quantum level are discrete. Bound electrons can only change energy levels by absorbing or emitting photons that match the energy gaps between the current energy level, and the "desired" energy level. You do not need magnetism to explain this effect, just the Schrodinger equation, and the fact that a nucleus provides a potential well.
bschott
3 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2015
@The Furlong - The example was for

A demonstration of how magnetic fields can hold an object at a fixed point relative to an object or as part of a structure?


A bound electron is held at it's position in the structure due to magnetic fields. Quantum energy levels being discreet has nothing to do with why I used it as an example. I brought up scale because of the distance from the nucleus at that scale.

Not discussing quantum energy values.

thefurlong
5 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2015
A bound electron is held at it's position in the structure due to magnetic fields.

No, that would be the Coulomb force. (Actually, the Electric potential).

Magnetism does play a role in that spin governs the statistics that electrons follow, leading to the Pauli Exclusion prinicple, which restricts a maximum of 2 electrons per orbital, but Magnetism is not what holds an electron to a nucleus. It is simply a matter of energy levels.
Not discussing quantum energy values.

Well, no, you aren't because you are wrong. As usual.
bschott
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2015
Well, no, you aren't because you are wrong. As usual.


but Magnetism is not what holds an electron to a nucleus. It is simply a matter of energy levels.


LMAO....OK. Protons and electrons are attracted to each other and bind not due to charge...but energy levels...

I think you just out stupided small change. I didn't think it was possible but that is unprecedented.

Thank you and God bless.

thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2015
LMAO....OK. Protons and electrons are attracted to each other and bind not due to charge...but energy levels...

I didn't say this. I said that the Coulomb force, binds them to each other, and discrete energy levels hold them there.
I think you just out stupided small change. I didn't think it was possible but that is unprecedented.

I think you can't understand basic English.
bschott
3 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2015
Coulombs law is a product of the mainstream inability to separate electricity and magnetism, this is why it is used to derive gauss. Hence why I asked small change for one example of electricity binding anything together without magnetism. There is no "binding current"...ever.
bschott
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2015
I think you can't understand basic English.


Then speak it moron, this is what you said:

but Magnetism is not what holds an electron to a nucleus. It is simply a matter of energy levels.


There is only one way to interpret this....how I did. Just admit it was a dumbass thing to say...or keep talking.

Can't wait.
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2015
Coulombs law is a product of the mainstream inability

Oh, yes, the indefatigable, "My personal belief trumps established scientific fact, even though I have no evidence for it." strategy. Go on...
[Ahem, as I was saying] Coulombs law is a product of the mainstream inability to separate electricity and magnetism, this is why it is used to derive gauss.

Holy Crap! Gauss was derived? Which Gauss are you talking about? Carl? Johan?

Here, I was thinking one could only derive equations and formulas, but you've gone and derived an entire human being! No wonder you have such confidence!
Hence why I asked small change for one example of electricity binding anything together without magnetism.

By the way, you DO know that magnetic forces are interchangeable, right? That depending on your local inertial frame, magnetism will appear as electricity, and vice-versa? What you're saying is like saying that scientists can't distinguish between EM waves and light.
thefurlong
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2015
There is only one way to interpret this....how I did. Just admit it was a dumbass thing to say...or keep talking.

Can't wait.

...
Or...you could use inductive reasoning, and combine the fact that I wrote
No, that would be the Coulomb force. (Actually, the Electric potential).

earlier with
but Magnetism is not what holds an electron to a nucleus. It is simply a matter of energy levels.

to infer that I meant that the Coulomb force combined with energy levels is why atomic matter is stable. Of course, that would require an astonishing amount of short term memory, the likes of which the world has never see--err what were we talking about again?
bschott
3 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2015
Pardon me, I messed up in my lingo and should have said "Gauss law".

See how that is done when one fucks up?

Back to how Protons and electrons mate up....without magnetism according to you....or did you fuck up?

By the way, you DO know that magnetic forces are interchangeable, right?


There is only one magnetic force, if you are trying to claim that it is interchangeable with electricity then you have a lot of phenomena to explain with regards to missing electricity.

I know you were taught this in school, so I can't fault you. I can just name them if you are unsure of examples where there is magnetism without electricity.

What I am actually saying is that you (and scientists who think like you) cannot understand that you can have magnetism without electricity, but not the other way around. Otherwise you would not believe there is interchangeability between the two.

Or do you have light bulbs that work off a magnetic field?
bschott
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2015
There is only one way to interpret this....how I did. Just admit it was a dumbass thing to say...or keep talking.

Can't wait.

...
Or...you could use inductive reasoning, and combine the fact that I wrote
No, that would be the Coulomb force. (Actually, the Electric potential).

earlier with
but Magnetism is not what holds an electron to a nucleus. It is simply a matter of energy levels.

to infer that I meant that the Coulomb force combined with energy levels is why atomic matter is stable. Of course, that would require an astonishing amount of short term memory, the likes of which the world has never see--err what were we talking about again?


So people need to infer what you are saying although speaking directly to you because you can't actually say what you mean....gotcha. Sounds exhausting.

Why are opposite charges attracted to each other again? Energy levels?

Please infer a response.
cantdrive85
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2015
furlong, you can refer to the statement I made above regarding bschott.

bschott doesn't prescribe to the EU principles (nor the principles set forth by Maxwell, Orsted, Ampere, or EM theory

Bschott has a stiffy for magnetism, only magnetism, and nothing but magnetism. He believes as that LaPoint fool does that magnetism is an intrinsic property of matter and that it goes all the way up, and down without the pesky electro part. He prefers magic as the explanation even if it flies in the face of 200+ years of science that is primarily responsible of the modern society in which we live.
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2015
There is only one magnetic force,

Well, no. You could say there is one magnetic FIELD, but there is a magnetic force for every current in a magnetic field.
if you are trying to claim that it is interchangeable with electricity then you have a lot of phenomena to explain with regards to missing electricity.

I know you were taught this in school, so I can't fault you.

Because we all know school is for pussies. Real scientists learn by divining the laws of the universe psychically, and cut their teeth on becoming more and more enraged on the internet when people correct them on basic concepts.
I can just name them if you are unsure of examples where there is magnetism without electricity.

Please, do. While we're at it, I would also appreciate it if you could direct me to a gateway to Narnia.
Or do you have light bulbs that work off a magnetic field?

Magnetic induction? What's that?
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2015
So people need to infer what you are saying although speaking directly to you because you can't actually say what you mean....gotcha. Sounds exhausting.

I am sorry I didn't account for people without short term memories. I will try harder, next time, to take this into account. For example, "this", in the last sentence refers to you having a short term memory. The last sentence referred to in the last sentence refers to the 2nd sentence in this paragraph. This paragraph refer--oh Bollocks!
Why are opposite charges attracted to each other again? Energy levels?

The Coulomb force attracts opposing charges. The discreteness of energy levels keeps charges in stable "orbits".

Would it help if I wrote that all at once? Sorry, I am not acquainted with debating people with no short term memory.
my2cts
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2015
Coulombs law is a product of the mainstream inability to separate electricity and magnetism, this is why it is used to derive gauss. Hence why I asked small change for one example of electricity binding anything together without magnetism. There is no "binding current"...ever.

A new first: Maxwell Denial.
Any crazy idea appears here first !
my2cts
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2015
Protons and electrons mate up....without magnetism according to you....

Magnetism plays only a small role. It cause the hyperfine splitting that gives rise to the famous 21 cm line.
If you deserve a title it should be Rambo of Science.
Improve yourself and study https://en.wikipe...gen_line
bschott
2 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2015
Magnetism plays only a small role. It cause the hyperfine splitting that gives rise to the famous 21 cm line.
If you deserve a title it should be Rambo of Science.


A small roll.....Why are SA particles attracted to one another? Without magnetism no elements exist. I'd say that is more than a small roll. But hey, we all attach importance to different things.

The Coulomb force attracts opposing charges. The discreteness of energy levels keeps charges in stable "orbits".


Magnetism attracts opposing charges. The "coulomb force" is the name given to this when calculated at the quantum level. The energy levels, as you said, determine the electron shell.

Well, no. You could say there is one magnetic FIELD, but there is a magnetic force for every current in a magnetic field.


Actually you have this backwards ( figures). There is one magnetic force, but there is a field for every current in a base magnetic field.

bschott
2 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2015
magnetism is an intrinsic property of matter and that it goes all the way up, and down without the pesky electro part.


This is a statement with volumes of observational and experimental validation when in regard to stable SA particles, which are the building blocks of EVERYTHING. Speaking of, you still doing your little jester dance around the room yelling and screaming about permanent Z-pinches, and Birkeland currents? Still no experiments eh? Are they proving to be too complicated for you set up?

Maybe try etching a new canyon somewhere.

thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2015
A small roll.....Why are SA particles attracted to one another? Without magnetism no elements exist.

Without electrical forces, no elements exist. What's your point?
Magnetism attracts opposing charges.

Absolutely, positively, no. Magnetism only has an effect on MOVING charges. In particular, the force on a charge from magnetism is always orthogonal to both the velocity of the charge and the B field.
The "coulomb force" is the name given to this when calculated at the quantum level.

No, the coulomb force is the name given to the force the E field exerts on charges. Classically, it is the force between charges.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2015
Because we all know school is for pussies.


Depends on what school. But the one you are strawmanning me about is the one where you focus so intently on math which describes systems that every single one of you who leaves does so believing theoretical math over physical reality. And we can see here at this forum the mass Dunning -Krueger effect this has. You can say magnetic attraction isn't what takes place between opposing charges and actually believe what you are saying, then claim it is a pseudo force because of an energy level calculation that describes certain attributes of it.

Please, do. While we're at it, I would also appreciate it if you could direct me to a gateway to Narnia.


Fridge magnet, lode stone, electron, proton, thermo magnetism.

Apparently the gateways to Narnia are at every physics institution...and are labelled "Entrance".
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2015
Well, no. You could say there is one magnetic FIELD, but there is a magnetic force for every current in a magnetic field.


Actually you have this backwards ( figures). There is one magnetic force, but there is a field for every current in a base magnetic field.

Ugh. Ok, so, I am going to assume that you aren't completely unaware of 200 year old physics (which will likely be a mistake). Do you mean to say that magnetism is ONE of the fundamental forces? Then you'd be half correct. It's more like Electromagnetism is ONE of the fundamental forces. Also, yes, there is a field for every current, but Magnetic fields are ADDITIVE. It really doesn't make a difference whether you treat the magnetic field as a sum of fields or one field. It has the same effect.
bschott
2 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2015
Without electrical forces


Electrical force...electricity as a force which influences motion. You are ...insane. Electricity IS the movement of SA particles it doesn't cause the movement.

Magnetism only has an effect on MOVING charges.


Magnetism has an effect on anything with a charge, whether still or moving. Are you really this fucked up?

The "coulomb force" is the name given to this when calculated at the quantum level. The energy levels, as you said, determine the electron shell.

No, the coulomb force is the name given to the force the E field exerts on charges. Classically, it is the force between charges.


LOL....putting "no" in front of something and then re-wording it to say basically the same thing anyways....your a goddamn genius Gump!

thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2015
But the one you are strawmanning me about is the one where you focus so intently on math which describes systems that every single one of you who leaves does so believing theoretical math over physical reality.

Um, nooo...I am not focusing on math. I am focusing on what has been experimentall observed. By the way, THAT was a straw man.
And we can see here at this forum the mass Dunning -Krueger effect this has.

A person suffering from Dunning-Krueger accusing everyone else of having Dunning-Krueger, thereby verifying that he has Dunning-Krueger. It's like a Strange Loop of incompetence.
You can say magnetic attraction isn't what takes place between opposing charges and actually believe what you are saying, then claim it is a pseudo force

...nobody's claiming it is a pseudo force.
because of an energy level calculation that describes certain attributes of it.

Word salad. Please rephrase.
bschott
2 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2015
It really doesn't make a difference whether you treat the magnetic field as a sum of fields or one field. It has the same effect.


Nobody who has worked with magnetic fields, plasma and electricity would say this. A stable current in a magnetic field creates a magnetic structure, the fields only sum at boundary points. CD85 has a better understanding of this topic than you do, and look at the stupid shit he says.

Do you mean to say that magnetism is ONE of the fundamental forces? Then you'd be half correct. It's more like Electromagnetism is ONE of the fundamental forces.


From the curriculum at Narnia...not even wrong.

thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2015
Fridge magnet, lode stone, electron, proton, thermo magnetism.

...
HAHAHAHAHAHA.

I know I have said this before, but, dude, don't hurt yourself with that physics.

First of all, the magnetism of lodestones and the like comes from the fact that spins in the electrons (charges) are all oriented mostly in one direction. We have confirmed this experimentally. The spins are the quantum mechanical equivalent of magnetic moments, and have been confirmed to carry angular momentum. See the Stern-Gerlach experiment, for example(https://en.wikipe...riment). Second of all, due to an argument by Hestenes (http://geocalc.cl...ac.pdf), spin is quite possibly a result of a hypothetical rapid motion known as Zitterbewgung (https://en.wikipe...wegung), predicted by the Dirac equation, which HAS been confirmed experimentally.

So, no. You don't know what you're talking about. As usual.
my2cts
3 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2015
bs, go to the nearest clinic.
You completely lost your marbles.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2015
Electrical force...electricity as a force which influences motion. You are ...insane. Electricity IS the movement of SA particles it doesn't cause the movement.

Electrical forces are the Coulomb force. You buffoon.
Magnetism has an effect on anything with a charge, whether still or moving. Are you really this fucked up?

And yet, it is always perpendicular to the velocity of the charge. The only way it has an effect is if the charge has a net magnetic moment (it is rotating, hence moving), or if it is moving relative to the field (hence moving).

Ugh. Amateur!

LOL....putting "no" in front of something and then re-wording it to say basically the same thing anyways....your a goddamn genius Gump!

Well, no, I didn't. One is attributing the Coulomb force to originating in the E field, and one is attributing it to the original interpretation as an inverse squared force, which is the older interpretation.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2015
Nobody who has worked with magnetic fields, plasma and electricity would say this. A stable current in a magnetic field creates a magnetic structure, the fields only sum at boundary points.

Well, there is a very simple way to resolve this. Provide evidence. Direct me to an experiment whose results have been independently confirmed by people with degrees in physics. I am not going to continue correcting you, when it is clear that you are communicating from deep within a personal rabbit hole that nobody else has had the misfortune of falling into.
bschott
3 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2015
Electrical forces are the Coulomb force. You buffoon.


Electricity isn't a force you buffoon. An energy level does not constitute an electrical presence. Describing it with a frequency in EV doesn't make it electricity or an "electrical force".

And yet, it is always perpendicular to the velocity of the charge.


Orientation means nothing.

The only way it has an effect is if the charge has a net magnetic moment (it is rotating, hence moving)


Charge is + or - as a magnetic moment, rotation and motion do not effect this.

Well, there is a very simple way to resolve this.


Indeed there is. But it isn't trying to prove how magnetism works to people educated in Narnia.

So as the evidence/observations provided by reality continue to fly in the face of mainstream theories we can just sit here and cross the ways you think things work off the list. Shall we count how many times it happens per day on this one site as a barometer?

bschott
3 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2015
bs, go to the nearest clinic.
You completely lost your marbles.


Based on your understanding of physics and some of the remarks you have made here over the last couple of days, I will happily take this diagnosis from you. It means you think I am nothing like you and that you are using yourself as measuring stick for "normal".

Perfect.
bschott
3 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2015
Direct me to an experiment whose results have been independently confirmed by people with degrees in physics.


Read any work related to plasma instabilities in a tokamek. Specifically focus on how the instabilities occur. The base field maintains the torroidal current, an instability arises when the plasma motion generates a field strong enough to impinge on the confining field and once plasma flows through the instability it amplifies until it contacts the reactor wall. The "hot points" are the instabilities which ALWAYS manifest at the field boundaries.

Or you can watch the Primer fields video series and learn how and why these structures form. Yes I know you won't, and that is OK.

Refusal to acknowledge the gaping holes and contradictions in the theories is what gives the mainstream it's character. It makes pointing them out more fun than if you actually did acknowledge them. Why go forward when spinning your wheels is so cool....

cantdrive85
4.5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2015
Electrical forces are the Coulomb force. You buffoon.

Electricity isn't a force you buffoon. An energy level does not constitute an electrical presence. Describing it with a frequency in EV doesn't make it electricity or an "electrical force".

Bschott not only disregards the known physics of EM Theory, Maxwell, Ampere, Ohm, Faraday, Telsa, along with all other electrical experimentalists over the last 200+ years, that are directly responsible for our modern electronic society, he also is obviously ignorant of even basic scientific terminology that describes such things while at the same time claiming expertise. Laughable!
cantdrive85
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2015
watch the Primer fields video series

Magic bowl time!
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2015
watch the Primer fields video series

Magic bowl time!

Oh, I forgot, the bowls are "intrinsically" magnetic...
bschott
5 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2015
Thank you for remaining opposed to the physics I apply to reality CD85.

Although your claims of what physics I disregard are, as per usual, off the mark and exaggerated, those two words personify the EU in every way. I look forward to your continued posts that haven't changed for, what is it...four years or so?

LMAO....what exactly are you doing to further the acceptance of EU theory? To prove it's validity? I mean other than just saying the same thing for a rediculous amount of time without accomplishing or proving anything.

Claim that every filamentary structure is a Birkeland current? Claim that every plasmoid is a stable pinch and claim all canyons everywhere have been electrically etched?

GO THUNDERBOLTS!!!!!
my2cts
3 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2015
bs, go to the nearest clinic.
You completely lost your marbles.


Based on your understanding of physics and some of the remarks you have made here over the last couple of days, I will happily take this diagnosis from you. It means you think I am nothing like you and that you are using yourself as measuring stick for "normal".

Perfect.

I just say this because absolutely NOTHING you say makes any sense.
You come here rejecting all of physics and you have nothing to show for.
This is a clear symptom that something serious is wrong with you.
Get diagnosed by a professional, I am just an amateur.
my2cts
3 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2015
... the physics I apply ...

Your belief system is unrelated to physics.
You are welcome to believe any mumbo-jumbo you like,
but do not call it "physics".
It's insulting.
CD85 is 100% right on you.
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2015
It really doesn't make a difference whether you treat the magnetic field as a sum of fields or one field. It has the same effect.


Nobody who has worked with magnetic fields, plasma and electricity would say this.

I have never heard such nonsense in my life.
Can you name even one other nutcase who agrees with you?
bschott
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2015
I just say this because absolutely NOTHING you say makes any sense.


Yes, it has proven to be above your head since the first time to tried to understand it.

You come here rejecting all of physics and you have nothing to show for.


My rejection of aspects of mainstream THEORETICAL physics is only disputed by people like you, admitted amateurs or die hard followers who treat it like religion. Or complete idiots like CD85.

This is a clear symptom that something serious is wrong with you.


Once again, that we completely disagree about how things work is comforting to me. You were completely stupid enough to post in a comment section of a science site that stars are immune to magnetic forces. Nothing you can possibly say from a science standpoint deserves more attention than an elephant would give a flea.

I am just an amateur.


A massive insult to competent amateurs everywhere...you are a child.

bschott
3 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2015
Or complete idiots like CD85.


Glad you agree with him...you two fit nicely together.

my2cts
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2015
I am just an amateur.

A massive insult to competent amateurs everywhere...you are a child.

I am an amateur in psychiatry, so get somebody competent to diagnose you for real.
In my amateur opinion you are stark raving mad.
my2cts
3 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2015
Or complete idiots like CD85.

Glad you agree with him...you two fit nicely together.

I usually disagree strongly with CD85 but his assessment that you dismiss the entire body of physics just to feed your narcissism is 100% correct.
Even if we were both idiots, which at least I am not, we could still see that you are obviously mad.
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2015

My rejection of aspects of mainstream THEORETICAL physics is only disputed by people like you, admitted amateurs or die hard followers who treat it like religion. Or complete idiots like CD85.

This statement is inconsistent as by construction your views will be rejected by the overwhelming majority of physicists all over the world.
You must be 100% mad to believe you can reject "aspects of mainstream physics" (understatement of the century) and have only me and CD85 disagree with you.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2015
Thank you for remaining opposed to the physics I apply to reality CD85.

You must work for Willie Wonka in his Chocolate Factory, or Lapoint in his magical bowl funhouse.
My rejection of aspects of mainstream THEORETICAL physics

I'm all for the rejection of the theoretical physics such that of the pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo of astrophysicists, but you're going off the deep end with the denial of EM Theory, Maxwell, Ampere, etc... These principles have been developed by physicists and engineers for over 200 years and are the foundation of just about every major discovery/advancement in the period. Magnetism is not magic, and it is not it's own force, it's referred to EM because an endless array of experiments, engineering, and experience for 200+ years now. I've personally debated with Lapoint in these very threads, there is absolutely no chance that dolt is going to turn physics on it's head because of his magic bowls and a beaker of plasma.
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2015
This might clear one point up. In bschott's defense regarding magnetism without electricity- the way it was worded a while back by CD was "there is no magnetism without an electric current".

While quantum spin is *analogous* to normal physical angular momentum, it has nothing to do with an actual spinning movement and is not a current. So, while the movement of charge (current) does result in magnetism, things like permanent magnets have a magnetic field without current.

If you want to say there is no magnetism without electricity, that's perfectly valid because electrons fall under the umbrella term of "electricity", but it's kind of a useless statement.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Dec 22, 2015
This might clear one point up. In bschott's defense regarding magnetism without electricity- the way it was worded a while back by CD was "there is no magnetism without an electric current".

While quantum spin is *analogous* to normal physical angular momentum, it has nothing to do with an actual spinning movement and is not a current. So, while the movement of charge (current) does result in magnetism, things like permanent magnets have a magnetic field without current.

If you want to say there is no magnetism without electricity, that's perfectly valid because electrons fall under the umbrella term of "electricity", but it's kind of a useless statement.

Could you say - "There is no electricity without magnetism".?
anonymous_9001
5 / 5 (1) Dec 22, 2015
Could you say - "There is no electricity without magnetism".?


I wouldn't. Think of a basic electrochemical cell. The electromotive force is driven by redox reactions in the half cells, not magnetism.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2015
This might clear one point up. In bschott's defense regarding magnetism without electricity- the way it was worded a while back by CD was "there is no magnetism without an electric current".

While quantum spin is *analogous* to normal physical angular momentum, it has nothing to do with an actual spinning movement and is not a current. So, while the movement of charge (current) does result in magnetism, things like permanent magnets have a magnetic field without current.

If you want to say there is no magnetism without electricity, that's perfectly valid because electrons fall under the umbrella term of "electricity", but it's kind of a useless statement.

The context I'm referring to is plasma, astrophysical plasma specifically. There are no bar magnets in space.
TabulaMentis
not rated yet Dec 23, 2015
Leonard Morrison from the Conversation blog added this "The WIMP, para. 1, line 3: should this say "would NOT interact"?"

Related link: http://theconvers...er-51516
bschott
3 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2015

My rejection of aspects of mainstream THEORETICAL physics is only disputed by people like you, admitted amateurs or die hard followers who treat it like religion. Or complete idiots like CD85.

This statement is inconsistent as by construction your views will be rejected by the overwhelming majority of physicists all over the world.
You must be 100% mad to believe you can reject "aspects of mainstream physics" (understatement of the century) and have only me and CD85 disagree with you.


Hey little guy, there was a whole sentence there. You even quoted all of it. The "physicists all over the world" fall into the group of "die hard followers who treat it like religion".

Nice to see you keeping up the standards of comprehension, reading skill, and scientific understanding that are reflected by your comments like the one about stars.

I don't think you should be advising others about mental health and treatment until you have had A LOT of your own.
bschott
3 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2015
Anonymous - I have described the functional mechanism of a permanent magnet to Sparky numerous times, he has to ignore it otherwise he has to admit the fallacy of EU theory. Specifically the lack of a current while there is a magnetic field present in a permanent magnet and the impossibility of a plasma current without a magnetic field to confine it.

An electron as a unit of electricity works when part of a current, as you alluded to above. Is it still electricity as part of a neutral Hydrogen atom? Not really....

One more thing for Furlong, is it the "reverse coulomb force" that causes 2 protons to repel each other, or can we say that is the repulsive magnetic field between particles with like charges?

bschott
3 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2015
I almost missed this one:

there is absolutely no chance that dolt is going to turn physics on it's head because of his magic bowls and a beaker of plasma.


I love that you said this. Only because my experiences with tech utilizing those magnetic bowls have been nothing short of amazing and my immature side likes rubbing dogs noses in their own crap.

Lapoint is personal friend, one of my best.

Do you think you haven't heard anything from him because he got caught up watching TV? The time it takes to test tech in an official capacity,independent peer review by qualified PHD's (not theorists, working ones who are worthy of respect) and lab support is long and arduous. You wouldn't know this or we'd have seen more from you than physorg posts.

I have mentioned in previous comments the direction the "magic bowls" have taken. I'll post the link to the results when published....just for you Sparky.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2015
I prefer the dark matter idea I created years ago called WEIRDOs (Weak Elementary Interacting Rotational Dynamic Objects) over WIMPs and MACHOs.

So far none of the other dark matter ideas add up.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2015
Preatomic and post-atomic particles are also part of the WEIRDO group.

They work really great with Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2015
WEIRDOs will put you in the spirit of things around the holidays. They are also great for Halloween and the Day of the Dead celebrations too. Ideal for quantum teleportation and replicators.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2015
Another thing I like about the WEIRDO family is that they are perfect for flying saucers.

And for many people the best thing about WEIRDOs is that they do not change the Standard Model.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2016
@anonymous_9001
While quantum spin is *analogous* to normal physical angular momentum, it has nothing to do with an actual spinning movement and is not a current.

Actually, that isn't quite right.

First, spinning movement is not the only source of angular momentum. Orbital movement is another form, and let's not forget that an object moving in a straight line also has angular momentum.

Second, it isn't necessarily true that it isn't a current. In fact, some arguments suggest that spin arises from Zwitterbewgung, which, in some interpretations, (see Hestenes' argument) is rapid movement of charges.

Third, spin isn't just analogous to angular momentum. It is intrinsic angular momentum. If all the spins in a ferromagnet were to flip, it would begin rotating. This suggests there there IS something involving rotation or spinning happening at the quantum level, even if it is quantized.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2016
Electricity isn't a force you buffoon.

I didn't say electricity is a force. I said electrical forces are the Coulomb force. What is English, and how does it work?
An energy level does not constitute an electrical presence. Describing it with a frequency in EV doesn't make it electricity or an "electrical force".

I don't know what you are arguing here. Please rephrase.
And yet, it is always perpendicular to the velocity of the charge.

Orientation means nothing.

What is a dictionary, and how does IT work?
Charge is + or - as a magnetic moment, rotation and motion do not effect this.

Well, no. Two electrons can have opposite spins. This is why you are allowed two electrons per orbital.
So as the evidence/observations provided by reality

You mean stuff you made up?
continue to fly in the face of mainstream theories

Via youtube videos with vague hypotheses.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (1) Jan 04, 2016
Read any work related to plasma instabilities in a tokamek...blah blah blah

All I see you describing is a feedback loop. I don't see anything that indicates that B fields are not superposable. Direct me to a specific source, please.

Or you can watch the Primer fields video series and learn how and why these structures form. Yes I know you won't, and that is OK.

Been there, done that. The Primer field videos don't actually submit an actual hypothesis. All they seem to claim is that one can use fields to make structures in plasma that mirror cosmic structures. Big deal. I don't see how this helps us understand the nature of magnetic fields. Does the author of the primer field videos actually provide a research paper?

Refusal to acknowledge the gaping holes

You have yet to show there are any gaping holes. All you are doing is making stuff up, especially stuff that doesn't conform to experiment.

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.