What if dark matter particles aren't WIMPs?

Dec 12, 2008 By Miranda Marquit feature

(PhysOrg.com) -- For years, many physicists have accepted that dark matter is composed of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs). The fact that WIMPs can naturally explain the amount of dark matter in the universe – left over from the Big Bang – has been described as the “WIMP miracle.”

Not everyone, though, thinks that this phenomenon represents an ironclad prediction that dark matter is made of WIMPs. “We know little about dark matter, since we can’t measure it directly,” Jonathan Feng tells PhysOrg.com. “But there are theories and models. WIMPs are attractive because they happen to appear in many popular theories of new particles and interactions. But what if there are other well-motivated possibilities for dark matter besides WIMPs?”

Feng, a physicist at the University of California, Irvine, worked with Jason Kumar (now at the University of Hawaii) to re-examine physics models to find additional possibilities for dark matter. Their work, published in Physical Review Letters and titled “Dark-Matter Particles without Weak-Scale Masses or Weak Interactions,” suggests that dark matter could be composed of heavier, strongly interacting particles, or even particles that are lighter and more weakly interacting than WIMPs.

“WIMPs are a very specific example of dark matter,” Feng continues, “but there is a broader class of particles. We found that some of the models also predicted the right amount of dark matter for the universe, but with dark matter that was much more strongly or weakly interacting than WIMPs. We are wondering if almost-exclusive attention for WIMPs is really warranted.”

Feng says that WIMPs are thought to be right around 100 GeV in mass. However, there is evidence that dark matter particles could be as light as 1 GeV. This puts them far below WIMP range. “An experiment called DAMA has been recording dark matter signals, and there is evidence that they are seeing light dark matter particles. We have perfectly good 1 GeV candidates,” he says, “and now we can accommodate such light particles.”

Some models seem to support a stronger degree of interaction between particles, Feng believes. In order to get to the level of dark matter we have in the universe now, though, these particles would have to be annihilating each other now. “These models imply that experiments looking for very energetic photons may be very promising.”

But the idea of WIMP-less dark matter gets a little more interesting than simply considering weaker or stronger dark matter candidates. Feng says that WIMP-less dark matter could provide some support for the idea of a hidden sector – a so-called shadow world. “There are theories that there is a shadow world behind ours. It is a mirror world that is like ours, but doesn’t interact with ours. With WIMP dark matter, that possibility is remote.”

“WIMP-less dark matter requires new forces that we don’t really know much about. If you could have evidence of this type of dark matter, it might be a hint that this shadow world exists.”

Mirror worlds and hidden sectors aside, Feng believes that his and Kumar’s findings warrant a close look. “Perhaps the millions of dollar spent on WIMPs is not the most productive way to use the money. This opens up a whole bunch of different avenues for discovering what dark matter is.”

More information: Jonathan L. Feng and Jason Kumar. “Dark-Matter Particles without Weak-Scale Masses or Weak Interactions.” Physical Review Letters (2008). Available online: link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.231301.

Copyright 2007 PhysOrg.com.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or part without the express written permission of PhysOrg.com.

Explore further: Experiment with speeding ions verifies relativistic time dilation to new level of precision

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Modified theory of dark matter

Sep 12, 2014

Dark matter is an aspect of the universe we still don't fully understand. We have lots of evidence pointing to its existence (as I outlined in a series of posts a while back), and the best evidence we have point ...

On the hunt for dark matter

Aug 22, 2014

New University of Adelaide Future Fellow Dr Martin White is starting a research project that has the potential to redirect the experiments of thousands of physicists around the world who are trying to identify the nature ...

Ultracold atoms juggle spins with exceptional symmetry

Sep 03, 2014

The physical behavior of materials is strongly governed by the many electrons which can interact and move inside any solid. While an individual electron is a very simple object, carrying only mass, electric ...

Recommended for you

How Paramecium protozoa claw their way to the top

16 hours ago

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

User comments : 71

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

DanontheMoon
4.1 / 5 (16) Dec 12, 2008
That shadow world is crazy. I've been there - I defeated Ganon, rescued Zelda and found found the Triforce while I was at it.
Velanarris
3.6 / 5 (7) Dec 12, 2008
That shadow world is crazy. I've been there - I defeated Ganon, rescued Zelda and found found the Triforce while I was at it.


Excellent. Utterly excellent.
Pointedly
4.6 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2008
Why not consider the possibility that what is observed is true, and investigate how it is that gravity can remain in areas where grouped particles of matter have annihilated? Clumps of matter seem to be necessary for gravity to form, but does matter need to be there for gravity to remain?
GuruShabu
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 12, 2008
All these fuzz about dark matter and dark energy are based on one assumption: that gravity behaves as we know it down in our neighborhood. What if it doesn't?
There are very interesting new gravity models that could cope with the behavior observed without these messy dark things...
Pointedly
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2008
In the last sentence of my earlier comment, I should have said "does either normal matter or dark matter need to be there for gravity to remain?" For example, if a person uses a normal cupcake mold, makes some cupcakes, and then discards the mold, does the fact cupcakes remain after the normal mold has been discarded mean there is a "dark" mold that is retaining the cupcakes? I think we all have a better explanation for the continued existence of the cupcakes. I think there may be a better explanation for the continued existence of gravity...one that requires neither normal nor dark matter.
agg
3.9 / 5 (8) Dec 12, 2008

What if dark matter doesn't exist?

hmmm

Enron accounting principles CAN be applied in other areas!
TimESimmons
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 12, 2008
Doh! What if dark matter doesn't exist and the effect is actually caused by an absence of anti-gravity matter?

http://www.presto...ndex.htm
theophys
3.8 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2008
For example, if a person uses a normal cupcake mold, makes some cupcakes, and then discards the mold, does the fact cupcakes remain after the normal mold has been discarded mean there is a "dark" mold that is retaining the cupcakes? I think we all have a better explanation for the continued existence of the cupcakes. I think there may be a better explanation for the continued existence of gravity...one that requires neither normal nor dark matter


Well, if general realativity is at least a little correct, then it would be theoretically possible for gravitational effects to remain after the matter causing it is removed. This would be for a fraction of a second though, and would not explain any of the obsereved effects of dark matter. Gravity is just a bending of spacetime, it isn't an actual physical entity like the cupcake is.
magpies
1 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2008
energy light negates energy light right? - = solid zero. plazma zero is - . So what is - then?
fujitas
3 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2008

>What if dark matter doesn't exist?
We need a different theory.
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2008
>What if dark matter doesn't exist?
We need a different theory.

We _have_ different theories. I'm in favor of Steinhardt's ekpyrosis.
fujitas
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2008
"Energy" is the emission of light. If Energy has the Separation force, There will be a different theory.
http://www.geocit...y01.html
JerryPark
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2008
I am continually amused by science's acceptance of 'dark matter' when science cannot even agree on what form 'dark matter' takes and when not a single atom of 'dark matter' has ever been seen.

These are often the same scientists who are adamantly opposed to an unseen entity involved in the operation of the universe, but unseen matter and unseen energy are OK with them.

At some point, science will doubtless devise theories based on the observed movement of masses without invoking magic particles.
TimESimmons
1 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2008
JerryPark Don't know why you're complaining about magic particles as if the rest of the universe is so well understood. Anti-gravity matter provide explanations for many current mysteries including dark matter, dark energy, galaxy disc-and-core shapes, spiral and reverse spiral arms, globular clusters, molecular clouds, supernova remnant rings, pulsar kicks, drag tails, and more.

http://www.presto...ndex.htm
theophys
5 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2008
"Energy" is the emission of light. If Energy has the Separation force, There will be a different theory.


Energy is not the emission of light, as anybody who has taken the first two months of a high school physics class can tell you. Energy does *cause* the emission of light from atoms, but that is not the sole action of energy.

These are often the same scientists who are adamantly opposed to an unseen entity involved in the operation of the universe, but unseen matter and unseen energy are OK with them.


There's nothing wrong whith making up a substance to fit known observations. We made up photons before we ever had proof that light had a particle nature. We made up atoms centuries before we had any expirimental proof that they existed. And early scientists made up the aether, which turned out to be false, but was their best explanation at the time.
superhuman
3 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2008
For example, if a person uses a normal cupcake mold, makes some cupcakes, and then discards the mold, does the fact cupcakes remain after the normal mold has been discarded mean there is a "dark" mold that is retaining the cupcakes? I think we all have a better explanation for the continued existence of the cupcakes. I think there may be a better explanation for the continued existence of gravity...one that requires neither normal nor dark matter


Well, if general realativity is at least a little correct, then it would be theoretically possible for gravitational effects to remain after the matter causing it is removed. This would be for a fraction of a second though, and would not explain any of the obsereved effects of dark matter. Gravity is just a bending of spacetime, it isn't an actual physical entity like the cupcake is.


All it takes to bend space is energy. Mass is not required (in fact all mass could just be a form of gravitationally trapped electromagnetic energy).

As for dark matter, there are countless possibilities. In fact quantum physics is obviously incomplete (although most physicists would like to think otherwise). It's biggest failures are the inability to predict particle masses (and obvious relations between them like Koide Formula for example) from first principles, *infinite* vacuum energy, Landau pole, the need for renormalization tricks, decoherence, etc.

There is no freaking way you can say anything meaningful about dark matter and dark energy without calculating vacuum energy! Infinite vacuum energy simple leads to infinite gravitation.

Without a proper theory of matter we can't say anything certain about the Universe as a whole, most of cosmology is just wild speculation.

Physics is in really bad shape. The biggest problem is that the real scientific problems the field faces are simply too hard for most of them so they came up with substitutions on which to work like string theory.
String theory is so popular because it can't be falsified, there are countless versions of it and the framework is so vast that everyone can find a niche for himself and keep churning out papers - the only measure of scientific ability these days. You can build your whole career on string theory and many do, you know you will get grants cause those grants are managed by other string theorists, you know you will publish cause peer reviewers are string theorists.
This whole deal is a terrible waste of money and talent.
bue
1 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2008
I believe the answer is quite different than what their current speculations indicate above.
Dark matter would accordingly be made up of stings of fundamental particles of thousands of different lengths down to a single fundamental particle. Even the largest of these dark matter string lengths, which also include just single fundamental particles, are much smaller than the smallest size they are proposing in the above article.

Another big problem I believe is that General Relativity is an incorrect model of gravity at stellar distances. First gravity is a pushing rather than a pulling force or warp in space, secondly gravity's dark matter currents are non-linear at stellar and galactic distances and move in a vortex manner when viewing its motions relative to a galaxy's stars.

Although this does not seem like the simplest model, it is one that can account not only for internal galactic stellar motions but also the motion of galaxies within a cluster as well as the Newtonian version of it within a galaxy's core and even the planetary motions of our solar system without resorting to an uneven distribution of dark matter in just the right places to account for a spiral galaxy's retention of form.

see pantheory.org for the whole theory.
TimESimmons
1.3 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2008
Hmm maybe I should write a book too. Or maybe T-shirts. Anyone interested?
theophys
5 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2008
As for dark matter, there are countless possibilities. In fact quantum physics is obviously incomplete (although most physicists would like to think otherwise). It's biggest failures are the inability to predict particle masses (and obvious relations between them like Koide Formula for example) from first principles, *infinite* vacuum energy, Landau pole, the need for renormalization tricks, decoherence, etc.

I don't think there is a physicist alive who beleives quantum theory is complete. We all know that we don't know every thing there is to know. the reason why so many people research string theory is because they think that it actualy might be worth something if it ever gets worked out all the way.

First gravity is a pushing rather than a pulling force or warp in space,

No it isn't. Tell me one example where gravity pushes instead of pulls.

Alizee
Dec 13, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
fujitas
1 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2008
Everyone knows E=mc^2. m creates gravity. But I think E would create a separation force (equivalent and negative) instead.
http://www.geocit...y01.html
Alizee
Dec 13, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
brant
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2008
Darth Vader knows what dark matter is!!!
earls
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 13, 2008
Darth Matter
Pointedly
1 / 5 (1) Dec 14, 2008
If one were to view the Casimir force (which is clearly a push) as gravitational, then the Casimir force would be an example of a gravitational push.
frajo
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 14, 2008
In fact quantum physics is obviously incomplete (although most physicists would like to think otherwise).


Most physicians, I think, adhere to the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM, which means they are quite aware of its incompleteness.

String theory is so popular because it can't be falsified,


No - this is a shortcoming which to overcome is only a question of time. When ether theory was formulated, it appeared to not be falsifiable at first, too, and it took several decades and the experimental ingenuity of michelson & morley to falsify the theory. And the genius of AE to build a revolutionary new theroy upon the ashes of ether theory.
The real attraction of string theory is its inherent beauty. You know, BigBang theory with its patchwork of dark matter, dark energy, inflation, and other magic entities has become old and lost the beauty of its infancy.

there are countless versions of it and the framework is so vast that everyone can find a niche for himself and keep churning out papers - the only measure of scientific ability these days. You can build your whole career on string theory and many do, you know you will get grants cause those grants are managed by other string theorists, you know you will publish cause peer reviewers are string theorists.
This whole deal is a terrible waste of money and talent.


This is not a fair complaint because the same can be said of all the searching for a dark matter particle which is postulated by no theory.
frajo
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 14, 2008
There's another aspect to this discussion, a metaphysical, which is seldom mentioned, because science exclusively deals with falsifiable theories, whereas metaphysics is the realm of belief, of those notions which are not falsifiable. (Ever seen the lilac dragon in my garage? Of course not - it's only me who can see it.)

It is the aspect that BigBang Theory fits very nicely into the world as the monotheistic religions see it. To leave BigBang Theory for good comes very gruesome for all those believers of "In The Beginning There Was ...". That's why they cling to it so desperately.
theophys
3 / 5 (2) Dec 14, 2008
Everyone knows E=mc^2. m creates gravity

What a horridly ignorant statement. E=mc^2 is a relation of energy to mass and vice versa. Einstein wrote that equation along with special relativity, years before publishing his paper on general relativity, which is the one about gravity.
If one were to view the Casimir force (which is clearly a push) as gravitational, then the Casimir force would be an example of a gravitational push.

The Casimir force doesn't resemble a push even a little. A push requires a force behind each object being moved or two objects being pushed away from eachother. The Casimir force and gravity both have two objects pulling oneanother towards eachother. If gravity pushed, the sun, and therefore Earth, would never have been able to form.
It is the aspect that BigBang Theory fits very nicely into the world as the monotheistic religions see it. To leave BigBang Theory for good comes very gruesome for all those believers of "In The Beginning There Was ...". That's why they cling to it so desperately.

Why would we leave big bang theory?
CaptBarbados
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 14, 2008
Physics studies are at the "Flat Earth" stage of history. If 95% of what we need to explain accelerating universal expansion is nonexistent, then something is wrong at the foundational level. We need to reconsider some hard fought, but as yet unproven theories. Dogma creeps in...
zevkirsh
1 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2008
wimps exist only in the center of planets and stars. they cannot be found anywhere else.
Pointedly
1 / 5 (1) Dec 14, 2008
The Casimir force results from differences in the push within space, itself. The push of space surrounding two objects is stronger than the push of space between two infinitesimally close objects. Since the particles of matter making up bodies such as the sun and Earth are infinitesimally close, one could argue that it is a difference in push between the space within those bodies and the surrounding space that keeps those bodies together. The argument could be extended to include the forces that accompany acceleration, which, as Einstein noted, are equivalent to gravity.
theophys
not rated yet Dec 14, 2008
The Casimir force results from differences in the push within space, itself. The push of space surrounding two objects is stronger than the push of space between two infinitesimally close objects. Since the particles of matter making up bodies such as the sun and Earth are infinitesimally close, one could argue that it is a difference in push between the space within those bodies and the surrounding space that keeps those bodies together. The argument could be extended to include the forces that accompany acceleration, which, as Einstein noted, are equivalent to gravity.

Two things:
1.The Casimir force has been observed by objects in a void. You seem to think that means the void is only between the two objects. It isn't.

2. Einstein said that all gravity is acceleration, not vice versa. If all acceleration were gravity, than any acceleration caused by magnetism would prove that gravity and magnatism are the exact same, which they most certainly, as far as modern physics has been able to work out, are not.
Alizee
Dec 14, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Dec 14, 2008
It is the aspect that BigBang Theory fits very nicely into the world as the monotheistic religions see it. To leave BigBang Theory for good comes very gruesome for all those believers of "In The Beginning There Was ...". That's why they cling to it so desperately.


Why would we leave big bang theory?


Because several of the "alternative" cosmologies - especially the ekpyrotic theory which I'm in favor of - don't need an initial state of infinite density, infinite temperature and without any scientific explanation of its genesis.
theophys
not rated yet Dec 14, 2008
It is the aspect that BigBang Theory fits very nicely into the world as the monotheistic religions see it. To leave BigBang Theory for good comes very gruesome for all those believers of "In The Beginning There Was ...". That's why they cling to it so desperately.


Why would we leave big bang theory?


Because several of the "alternative" cosmologies - especially the ekpyrotic theory which I'm in favor of - don't need an initial state of infinite density, infinite temperature and without any scientific explanation of its genesis.


The Big Bang Theory and the Ekpyrotic Theory are the exact sma ein all respects except one. The Big Bang claims that the universe was once a singularity, much like the ones theorized to be at the center of black holes, while the Ekpyrotic theory claims that the universe started out very cold and empty, but due to a collision of multidimesional branes, began an expansion of space, matter, energy and all the good stuff that we have observed today. I think both theories are interesting and neither should be thrown out. However, I personaly would tend to beleive the model with a singularity more than the model involving something outside our universe.
Pointedly
not rated yet Dec 14, 2008
Theophys, a "void" is only a concept. I wouldn't describe any portion of space as a void. With regard to the Casimir effect, I was only indicating that as particles become extremely close to each other, the energy level displayed by the space between the particles is reduced relative to the energy level of (excluding the space between the particles) the surrounding space. It might not be correct to say the space between the particles contains less energy; it might be more correct to say the space between the particles "displays" less energy.
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Dec 15, 2008
Could it be that there are no particles? Only waves? What we accept as "particles with mass" might be localised waves which are localised by the boundary conditions which constitute space-time. Dark matter could thus be massive boson-type waves stretching over parsecs: Each being a single wave-entity!

Since it is a single entity it is in immediate contact with itself over the whole volume it occupies. The initial inflation of the Universe could have been caused by such a single dark matter wave. Other matter precipitated out after inflation and are able to move through dark matter only interacting with it mass-energy: i.e. gravity.

Bohr should not have stated that particles and waves are "complementary" but should have asked the following questions: (i) Can a particle act like a wave (ANSWER NO!) (ii)Can a wave act like a particle (ANSWER YES!) A localised electron wave will have a centre-of mass and will move according to Ehrenfest's theorem like a particle; unless the boundary conditions change e.g. when it encounters a double slit!

But if the Copenhagen-group did not come up with a statistical Universe, uncertainty in position and momentum of a "point-electron", and complementarity, ALL THE HONOUR WOULD HAVE GONE TO SCHROEDINGER! DO I SMELL POLITICS OR NOT?
fujitas
1 / 5 (2) Dec 15, 2008
The Void is a very large region of space with containing few, or no, galaxies. It is the empty space between galaxy filaments. There is nothing but the light, or energy. And the Void is like the White Mountain. Unlike White holes which are thought to be similar to black holes except white holes are ejecting matter verses black holes are absorbing matter, the White Mountain, the Void, is a mountain growing up at the light speed. It means that the peek of the mauntain or the center of the Void ejects an expansion of space at the light speed. So the light from outside can not reach to the center of the Void. Then the void looks like a concave lens which diffuses the light, while the strong gravity acts as a convex lens.
http://www.geocit...y01.html
theophys
5 / 5 (1) Dec 15, 2008
Theophys, a "void" is only a concept. I wouldn't describe any portion of space as a void. With regard to the Casimir effect, I was only indicating that as particles become extremely close to each other, the energy level displayed by the space between the particles is reduced relative to the energy level of (excluding the space between the particles) the surrounding space. It might not be correct to say the space between the particles contains less energy; it might be more correct to say the space between the particles "displays" less energy.

I'm sorry, you're right. 'Void' is a purely conceptual state in which a region of space is completely empty. I should have said 'a region of space devoid of everything but virtual particles,' but I think 'void' sounds better. And thank you for clarifying on Casimir. That sounds much more reasonable now. However, I don't think you could apply the same concept on a cosmic scale.

Bohr should not have stated that particles and waves are "complementary" but should have asked the following questions: (i) Can a particle act like a wave (ANSWER NO!)

Yes they can. You yourself recognize that electrons behave as particles most of the time, and as waves some of the time. All other particles also have a wave nature, it's one of the basic concepts of quantum physics.
But if the Copenhagen-group did not come up with a statistical Universe, uncertainty in position and momentum of a "point-electron", and complementarity, ALL THE HONOUR WOULD HAVE GONE TO SCHROEDINGER! DO I SMELL POLITICS OR NOT?

Nope. You smell paranoia.
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 15, 2008
Yes they can. You yourself recognize that electrons behave as particles most of the time, and as waves some of the time. All other particles also have a wave nature, it's one of the basic concepts of quantum physics.


You are not following what I am saying: YES we all know that an electron can sometimes be modelled as a "particle" and sometimes as a "wave". What Bohr's complemenrtarity is saying is that when an electron is a particle it is really a particle with a point-charge, and when an electron is a wave it is really a wave. It is much simpler, and make more physical sense to realise that a wave changes when boundary conditions change, and that an electron can thus ALWAYS be a wave which seems to act like a particle when the boundary conditions are such that Ehrenfest's theorem can apply: i.e. when the wave becomes localised. The latter is physics, the principle of complementarity is "Alice in Wonderland".
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 15, 2008
[What Bohr's complemenrtarity is saying is that when an electron is a particle it is really a particle with a point-charge, and when an electron is a wave it is really a wave.


Ooops! sorry, the Copenhagen interpretation does NOT believe in real waves! Nature supposedly consists of "mischievous particles" which statistically behave like a wave: Oh my!!! And which can even detect a magnetic vector potential when it does not exist!! Wow! Real 'virtual reality" is it not?
theophys
not rated yet Dec 15, 2008
Yes they can. You yourself recognize that electrons behave as particles most of the time, and as waves some of the time. All other particles also have a wave nature, it's one of the basic concepts of quantum physics.


You are not following what I am saying: YES we all know that an electron can sometimes be modelled as a "particle" and sometimes as a "wave". What Bohr's complemenrtarity is saying is that when an electron is a particle it is really a particle with a point-charge, and when an electron is a wave it is really a wave. It is much simpler, and make more physical sense to realise that a wave changes when boundary conditions change, and that an electron can thus ALWAYS be a wave which seems to act like a particle when the boundary conditions are such that Ehrenfest's theorem can apply: i.e. when the wave becomes localised. The latter is physics, the principle of complementarity is "Alice in Wonderland".

But ther electrons aren't actual waves. There wave nature come into play as a probability of the particle's location. The nodes improbabilities and the antinodes are highly probable. Besides, if all particles were actual waves all of the time, they would interfere constructively and destructively on a day to day basis. As I have never heard of two neutrons canceling eachother out, I don't really think the neutrons always act as waves.
Alizee
Dec 15, 2008
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2008
But ther electrons aren't actual waves. There wave nature come into play as a probability of the particle's location. The nodes improbabilities and the antinodes are highly probable. Besides, if all particles were actual waves all of the time, they would interfere constructively and destructively on a day to day basis. As I have never heard of two neutrons canceling eachother out, I don't really think the neutrons always act as waves.


You are thinking in terms of classical waves. Schroedinger waves are complex (imaginary numbers)entities since time is an imaginary dimension.

The probability interpretation is claptrap. The spatial intensity of the wave only give probalistic measurements when your measuring equipment allows it to resonate with different absorbers. By itself it is NOT a probability distribution. This is where the Copenhagen group succeeded to bamboozle both Einstein and Schroedinger as well as the theoretical physicits who ame after them. I still cannot believe that two of the most intellegent theoretical physicists we ever had, could have fallen for this red herring!

Alizee is on the right track, except for the "foam' concept. A "free electron" is a localised wave because space-time is curved around mass. The curved space-time causes the boundary conditions which localises a "free electron" so that its wave-ground-state is equal to its rest mass. After all there is no such thing as a "free electron". An electron far away from other material is bound within its own inertial refeence frame within which it is stationary: Both the position and momentum (which is zero) of its centre of mass is known simultaneously! This is also predicted by Ehrenfest's theorem!
Alexa
1 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2008
Alizee is on the right track, except for the "foam' concept
Foam concept is the simplest and most natural way, how to explain wave-particle duality/controversy. Basically it explains, why the space-time "is curved around mass" both for QM, both for relativity (by AWT just this curvature is the mass, the space-time curved around it is rather gravitational and charge field of particle).
earls
not rated yet Dec 16, 2008
Everything is waves.

Nested waves form the "density foam."

Particles are simplified models of the waves.

Particles are wave packets.

These statements can be debated?
theophys
not rated yet Dec 16, 2008
You are thinking in terms of classical waves. Schroedinger waves are complex (imaginary numbers)entities since time is an imaginary dimension.

I'm pretty sure time is not an imaginary dimension. If my understanding of time is lacking, please correct me.
The probability interpretation is claptrap. The spatial intensity of the wave only give probalistic measurements when your measuring equipment allows it to resonate with different absorbers. By itself it is NOT a probability distribution.

So by your definition, what is a probability distribution and what real world examples are there of it?
"free electron" is a localised wave because space-time is curved around mass. The curved space-time causes the boundary conditions which localises a "free electron" so that its wave-ground-state is equal to its rest mass.

Ok, I'm positive that spacetime will not curve around an electron so dramaticaly as to stop a wave of any sort. Basically what you are describing is the curvature around a singularity. spacetime is not a solid object for waves to be cut off by.
Everything is waves.

Nested waves form the "density foam."

Particles are simplified models of the waves.

Particles are wave packets.

These statements can be debated?

I agree with everything except the first statement. It should be, "everything has a wave nature." I have yet to see a convincing argument for a complete lack of particles.
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 16, 2008
I'm pretty sure time is not an imaginary dimension. If my understanding of time is lacking, please correct me.


x(1)=x, x(2)=y, x(3)=z and x(4)=-ict
What is i?

So by your definition, what is a probability distribution and what real world examples are there of it?


Any wave has to resonate with an apparatus to be observed. Thus when a diffracted wave approaches a screen with many absorbers, it will be absorbed by the one with which it resonates first. Many identical waves will thus be absorbed at different points which will give the wave intensity. This does not imply that the wave-intensity on its own is a probability distribution. The measuring apparatus determines the distribution of "collapse-points". If not it will mean that a photon from a far away star with an area of hundreds of kilometers will collapse all over the place instead of in your eye when it encounters your eye as the only measuring apparatus. This is patently absurd! Obviously there is a probability that it will not collapse in your eye, but this is totally determined by resonsnce (energy and time) not by actual uncertainties in the position and momentum of a particle!
Ok, I'm positive that spacetime will not curve around an electron so dramaticaly as to stop a wave of any sort. Basically what you are describing is the curvatur"e around a singularity. spacetime is not a solid object for waves to be cut off by.

OK I should have put it better: A "free electron" is stationary relative to its own inertial reference frame. For a wave to be a stationary, localised wave, it requires to be bound just as it has to be bound around a nucleus in order to be localised and stationary. Since its rest mass is inertia: i.e. resistance to being moved, it must find itself within a potential well which resists movement as soon as a force is applied. Such a well can be modelled as a virtual positive charge: Since this charge "appears" and increases in "free space" the potential well must relate to the structure of space-time.

Everything is waves.

Nested waves form the "density foam."

Particles are simplified models of the waves.

Particles are wave packets.

These statements can be debated?

I agree with everything except the first statement. It should be, "everything has a wave nature." I have yet to see a convincing argument for a complete lack of particles.


Rather state it that everything is a field. There are no singular particles; only localised fields which can be accelerated like particles owing to Ehrenfest's theorem.
theophys
not rated yet Dec 16, 2008
x(1)=x, x(2)=y, x(3)=z and x(4)=-ict

Ok, I'm stumped. I've seen the first three parts of that before. However, I have never seen x(4)=-ict. If you would be so kind as to tell me where that was derived, I would be very appreciative.
Any wave has to resonate with an apparatus to be observed. Thus when a diffracted wave approaches a screen with many absorbers, it will be absorbed by the one with which it resonates first. Many identical waves will thus be absorbed at different points which will give the wave intensity. This does not imply that the wave-intensity on its own is a probability distribution. The measuring apparatus determines the distribution of "collapse-points". If not it will mean that a photon from a far away star with an area of hundreds of kilometers will collapse all over the place instead of in your eye when it encounters your eye as the only measuring apparatus. This is patently absurd! Obviously there is a probability that it will not collapse in your eye, but this is totally determined by resonsnce (energy and time) not by actual uncertainties in the position and momentum of a particle!

You make a good point, howewver, nobody beleives that the fact that light from a star may or may not reach your eye is soley dependent on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. But if we know exactly where the light come from, exactly where you will be when the light comes near your position, and all the factors that could mess with the photon's path along the way, we would still be unable to determine whether or not the photon will hit your eye because of the uncertainty in velocity and position. What we can come up with is a series of where the photon might be, and that data is what makes up the probability wave. Uncertaintiy is not absurd at all.
OK I should have put it better: A "free electron" is stationary relative to its own inertial reference frame. For a wave to be a stationary, localised wave, it requires to be bound just as it has to be bound around a nucleus in order to be localised and stationary. Since its rest mass is inertia: i.e. resistance to being moved, it must find itself within a potential well which resists movement as soon as a force is applied. Such a well can be modelled as a virtual positive charge: Since this charge "appears" and increases in "free space" the potential well must relate to the structure of space-time.

You're still talking about a well in spacetime. What causes this well? The only thing I know of that could create a well in spacetime is a singularity. Since you claim the particles are waves, I will assume that these particles are not supposed to be singularities. What then causes spacetime to warp around the wave in question to the point where the wave is forced to stay localized? For that matter, how is that we can observe things that are inside spacetime wells? Any part of a well that would allow the electron wave to give off a photon would also allow the electron wave to escape and delocalize.
earls
not rated yet Dec 16, 2008
x(4)=-ict is the fourth dimension, time. Negative time in this case?

Any mass will create a "dent" or "well" in spacetime... As you know. It's not exclusive to singularities. It doesn't have to be a deep well, only slight negative or positive curvature of spacetime.
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2008
x(1)=x, x(2)=y, x(3)=z and x(4)=-ict

Ok, I'm stumped. I've seen the first three parts of that before. However, I have never seen x(4)=-ict. If you would be so kind as to tell me where that was derived, I would be very appreciative.


Sorry, a typing error: As Earls pointed out it should be x(4)=ict
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2008
You make a good point, howewver, nobody beleives that the fact that light from a star may or may not reach your eye is solely dependent on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. But if we know exactly where the light come from, exactly where you will be when the light comes near your position, and all the factors that could mess with the photon's path along the way, we would still be unable to determine whether or not the photon will hit your eye because of the uncertainty in velocity and position. What we can come up with is a series of where the photon might be, and that data is what makes up the probability wave. Uncertaintiy is not absurd at all.


It is here where we obviously differ. What Born's postulate says is that when you measure the positions of electrons represented by identical "waves" one will obtain a distribution of positions NO MATTER IN WHICH WAY WE MEASURE:
Thus if your eye is the only measuring apparatus in the Universe that the "photon-wave" encounters after it has left the star, then the measurements made by your eye on an ensemble of waves will, according to Born, give a distribution of collapses over an area of hundreds of square kilometers. Your eye is in Perth and the photon appears in Sydney.

Since, according to this thought experiment, the only apparatus that can make the wave collapse is your eye; then I believe that one must have that it will have to be in your eyse. It might not collapse when reaching your eye because at that time it is not resonating with your eye (Fermi's golden rule), but this does NOT mean that it collapses elsewhere because a measurement has been made.

You're still talking about a well in spacetime. What causes this well? The only thing I know of that could create a well in spacetime is a singularity. Since you claim the particles are waves, I will assume that these particles are not supposed to be singularities. What then causes spacetime to warp around the wave in question to the point where the wave is forced to stay localized? For that matter, how is that we can observe things that are inside spacetime wells? Any part of a well that would allow the electron wave to give off a photon would also allow the electron wave to escape and delocalize.


Good arguments: How the well might be able to form I will come to below; but first: Experimentally we know that a "free electron" moving with a constant speed is in reality stationary within its own inertial reference frame. We also know that it moves as "a prticle": i.e. an entity with a centre of mass. We also know that when we want to move such an entity from rest within its own inertial reference frame it resists because mass also acts as inertia. How does mass do this? There must be an opposing force coming into action as soon as we apply a force in order to move it. This means that the "electron" finds itself within an harmonic potential well. One can model this well as being caused by an opposite charge situated over a perpendicular fourth space dimension. By then solving a harmonic wave equation one gets a localised wave with a ground-state energy which can be equated to the mass of an electron AND because this ground-state energy relates to an opposing force, it is clear why mass acts as inertia. Furthermore, for such an interaction over a fourth space dimension, there are no electric-field lines around a solitary electron in three-dimensional space: Thus no "infinite vacuum energy" does not come into play which has to be removed by the magic of renormalistion. When accelerating the electron it "pulls" its inertial opposite charge along, thus causing vibrations relative to this charge which generate an electro-magnetic wave within three-dimensional space. Within the "core" of the wave function time does not exist because the fourth dimension is a perpendicular space-dimension At a critical radius, of the wave space-time-curvature sets in. I have done calculations as far as I can go. The problem is to calculoate the interaction energy over the fourth space dimension (could it be dark-energy?): I believe that the answer must lie witin general relativity.
fujitas
1 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2008
The modified metric:

(ds%u03C3 e^(i %u03C3))^2 = (dx%u03C7 e^(i %u03C7))^2 (dy%u03C8 e(i %u03C8))^2 (dz%u03C9 e(i %u03C9))^2 c^2(dt%u03C4 e^(i (%u03C4 - %u03C0/2)))^2

%u03C7 = %u03C8 = %u03C4 = 0 and %u03C9 = %u03C0/4 then

ds^2 = dx^2 dy^2 i*dz^2 - c^2dt^2

http://www.geocit...y01.html
theophys
not rated yet Dec 17, 2008
This means that the "electron" finds itself within an harmonic potential well

Why exactly must the electron be in an harmonic potetial well?
By then solving a harmonic wave equation one gets a localised wave

It seems presumptive to me to solve an equation for waves using the data of a particle to prove that the particle is actualy a wave. Was there a step that I missed?
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2008
Hi Theophys,
No you did not miss a step! I was hoping you will raise these issues. The fact is that those wave equations (Schroedinger and Dirac) which incorporates the mass a priori cannot model a "free electron" because they already incorporate the ground-state energy which should emerge as a solution as an input.

There must thus be a wave equation which do not have mass as an input parameter but give it as the ground-state solution. Such a wave equation should interface with general relativity. The Schroedinger equation is a good approximation when calculating how an electron-wave will respond when the potential energy and boundary-conditions change; but I believe that it relates to a more general wave equation. Thus using it to calculate a free stationary electron is not correct since as pointed out by you: one is then "using the data of a particle to prove that the particle is actually a wave">
theophys
not rated yet Dec 18, 2008
One thing I still don't get is the potential well. I'm just an undergrad, so I haven't been introduced to everything quite yet. I tried looking it up, but I just got a few really cool pictures and a usely string of equations. Do you think you could explain conceptualy what they are or give me a link to an explanation so I can further understand yopur theory?
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2008
OK! the fact is that Hooke's law is far more important than anyone ever realised. It basically states that when you want to move an entity from equilibrium you find an opposite force opposing this. Obviously Hooke's law only applies for small displacements but this is what defines "harmonic motion" and thus harmonic waves (which models light and matter).

So what does mass and its associated inertia tells you? It tells you that when you apply a force to move a particle with mass, this force is resisted. Where does this force come from? It can only be a Hooke-type force. Such a force is the result of a potential well which can be approximated at its minimum by a parabolic-curve with a minimum. This is why I am postulating that every "free-electron" must be within such a potential well. The quantum mchanical "vibration" within such a well causes the mass-energy of an electron. This vibration is not caused by "a particle" with mass vibrating, but it is a localised Gaussian wave which we observe as a particle.

You say you are an undergraduate: I AM REALLY IMPRESSED BY YOUR SHARP LOGIC: Keep it up there is a great future ahead of you provided we can change the policies being applied by physics-journals. Einstein would not have been able to publish his seminal papers today. We must change this culture or else future Einsteins (and I believe you could be one) will NEVER again succeed to generate paradigm shifts in physics!
theophys
not rated yet Dec 18, 2008
It makes sense that Hooke's law would be involved. I never really thought about it, but general relativity does suggest an elastic nature to space time and would therefore have an eleastic force on all matter. I guess that would mean gravity causes an increase in elastic potential energy. Thank you very much for clearing that up for me.
That is why I am postulating that every "free-electron" must be within such a potential well.

Every free-electron? That makes me wonder what a whole atom would look like.
magpies
1 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2008
Its a world full of ones and zeros but the ones are a lie. Nothingness can divide itself so why would we assume we are anything but the void itself in division? Order and Chaos can be grand illusions of the real. Order assumes no change but change assumes no order yet we know change is effected by change itself and thus the grand enigma is discovered.
theophys
4 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2008
Its a world full of ones and zeros but the ones are a lie. Nothingness can divide itself so why would we assume we are anything but the void itself in division? Order and Chaos can be grand illusions of the real. Order assumes no change but change assumes no order yet we know change is effected by change itself and thus the grand enigma is discovered.

That was almost poetic. Very well woven nonsense. Good job.
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2008
That makes me wonder what a whole atom would look like.


Well an atom is a superposition of matter waves: It is thus also a single wave-entity with mass and therefore I would think that it will thus also experience a restoring force causing inertia.

We need a more general wave equation which does not require mass as an input parameter and which is commensurate with general relativity.
theophys
not rated yet Dec 19, 2008
Well an atom is a superposition of matter waves: It is thus also a single wave-entity with mass and therefore I would think that it will thus also experience a restoring force causing inertia.

Wouldn't that do weird things to the protons, though. Either the waves would reinforce eachother and make it look like one really big particle or they would cancel eachother out and there would be no particle. I would think that there would be an interaction between the potential wells and the particle/waves would never actualy meet.
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2008
Mass waves can superpose in two distinct ways: They can superpose (add) like all waves do to generate a wave we observe as a single entity (for example an atom at room temperature) or they can entangle to REALLY form a single entity. The latter happens when two electrons form a covalent bond. I have found experimentally that millions of electrons can entangle in this manner: The single entity that forms in such a case is then a "non-local" superconductor: When you inject an electron at one end an electron pops out the other end without any current flowing through the wave. Nobody wants to believe this since it would mean that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is wrong as well as quantum field theory. About 20 Nobel Prizes will have to be reconsidered.

Obviously when the electron and proton waves add, they form an entity: They will not add when they interfere destructively. This is why we have atoms. But at a low enough temperature such atoms can be formed by entanglement: This allows them to be diffracted as is experimentally observed.
theophys
not rated yet Dec 19, 2008
The single entity that forms in such a case is then a "non-local" superconductor:

Could that be done at room temperature? That could lead to some very exciting breakthroughs computer sciences, comunications, military developement, and energy technology.
They will not add when they interfere destructively.

Well either there would eventualy be a destructive interference or there would have to be some special force that keeps them from interating destructively.
fujitas
1.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2008
The modified metric:

(dsa e^(i*a))^2 = (dxb e^(i*b))^2 (dyc e(i*c))^2 (dzd e(i*d))^2 c^2(dtf e^(i*(f - pai/2)))^2

a = b = c = f = 0 and d = pai/4 then

ds^2 = dx^2 dy^2 i*dz^2 - c^2dt^2

http://www.geocit...y01.html
johanfprins
2.3 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2008

Could that be done at room temperature? That could lead to some very exciting breakthroughs computer sciences, comunications, military developement, and energy technology.


Yes I discovered this phase at toom temperature for electrons extracted by an anode from a cold "diamond-cathode"; and it persists to high enough temperatures so that the cathode and anode fails before the phase fails: i.e. the estimate is that this phase persists up to a temperature at which the cathode reaches 500 C. One cannot ascribe a temperature to the phase itself since it is not composed of individual entities which require a statistical distribution to model it. It is a single macro-wave.

It is easy to prove using Solid-State interface-models which have proved their worth in modelling electronic chips that in my experiment the voltage over the cathode and anode MUST become zero for thermodynamic equilibrium to manifest. Experimentally it is found that after thermodynamic equilibrium has been reached a current still flows around the circuit: This means that electrons are transferred from the cathode to the anode "through" the electron cloud between them without an electric field being present: This defines superconduction. It has NEVER been proved before that a current actually flows through a superconductor without an electric field driving it. In fact, the accepted models on superconduction cannot even explain how this would be possible within a superconductor! My experiment is thus the FIRST that gives incontrovertible proof that it actually does happen.

I have been trying for nearly 10 years to tell industry that I have superconduction at room temperature: They then ask the "experts" on superconduction to advise them. These experts then claim that what I claim is impossible because the accepted models on superconduction like the BCS model will become invalid if I am correct. They NEVER attack my physics though. Thus it is more mportant to the "physics-church" to protect accepted dogma than to argue physics!

What is even worse for them to contemplate, is that my experimental result proves that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics has all along been wrong!

So they rather excommunicate me as if I have become a leper. Thank God one is not burnt at the stake anymore. Nonetheless the mental pain I have suffered is probably just as bad.
theophys
3 / 5 (1) Dec 20, 2008
That's pretty rough. I would try to publish your experiment in one of the science journals and grab a patent for the conductor. Worst case scenario, somebody starts arguing physics with you. And if all else fails, just get it out there yourself. See if a university will let you use their faciluties, that will get you attention from academia. Just ignore industry for now and keep trying.
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2008
I have done it all already; but got blocked all the way! Or if I can get funding the "Angel" wants to own everything afterwards! Nonetheless, I am not giving up and will win this battle. I have started writing a book about my experiences entitled: "The Physics Delusion". The Physics Institutions are far worse than organised religion is or ever has been. Something has to be done. At present the "scientific church" is more dogmatic than the Vatican was in the time of Galileo. It is unbelievable!! But it is unfortunately true. If Einstein would have tried to publish his 1905 manuscripts today, he would not have succeeded to get them past the Editors.
TimESimmons
1 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2008
Amen to that!
theophys
3 / 5 (1) Dec 21, 2008
I'm not too sure about that. I haven't been in the game very long, but I haven't encountered very many closed minds at all. The few closed minded people I have met have been openly ridiculed and outright shunned. I will admit that there is some surpresive emotions out there, but I have yet to see them used in a way that stifles progress. I could be mistaken, I hope I am not. In any case, I wish you the best of luck and look forward to reading your book when it is published.
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2008
I could be mistaken, I hope I am not.

If you follow the flock you will be happily contributing NOTHING NEW. If you do not, you will find out in time that we are back to censorship of original thinking. Maybe it is because the journals are inundated with nonsense since the PC made it possible for everybody to slap together a paper in record time! Whatever the real cause, the babies are being thrown out with the bath water. Thanks for your good wishes. I wish you the same. If you want a peaceful life choose a physics-cult figure and lick up his backside until you dissappear so that you can fill his chair when he dies off! Good luck!
theophys
3 / 5 (1) Dec 22, 2008
That sounds mildly unpleasent, but I'll take it as a wish of good luck anyway. Thank you.
NeilFarbstein
1 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2008
Dark matter is proabaly
A. Unlit up dust, asteroids, brown dwarfs and black dwarfs.
B. Low energy neutrinos that increase the mass of the universe while still being invisible.
brant
1 / 5 (2) Dec 28, 2008
The Aether has never been falsified.

See the work of Dayton Miller.
http://www.orgone...ller.htm
Velanarris
4 / 5 (1) Dec 29, 2008
I could be mistaken, I hope I am not.

If you follow the flock you will be happily contributing NOTHING NEW. If you do not, you will find out in time that we are back to censorship of original thinking. Maybe it is because the journals are inundated with nonsense since the PC made it possible for everybody to slap together a paper in record time! Whatever the real cause, the babies are being thrown out with the bath water. Thanks for your good wishes. I wish you the same. If you want a peaceful life choose a physics-cult figure and lick up his backside until you dissappear so that you can fill his chair when he dies off! Good luck!



One cannot ascribe a temperature to the phase itself since it is not composed of individual entities which require a statistical distribution to model it. It is a single macro-wave.

I'm sorry, but I've read a lot of your posts. Are you claiming that you've created room temp Bose-Einstein condensate? If so the world would be giving you a medal, not slandering you. I'm in a rather heavy state of doubt.

Seeing as you've performed this and accomplished it, you should already have a patent for the process, meaning you're well protected telling us exactly how you've done it. So how exactly did you do it?