Hubble provides new evidence for dark matter around small galaxies

Mar 12, 2009
These four dwarf galaxies are part of a census of small galaxies in the tumultuous heart of the nearby Perseus galaxy cluster. The galaxies appear smooth and symmetrical, suggesting that they have not been tidally disrupted by the pull of gravity in the dense cluster environment. Larger galaxies around them, however, are being ripped apart by the gravitational tug of other galaxies. The images, taken by NASA/ESA's Hubble Space Telescope, are evidence that the undisturbed galaxies are enshrouded by a "cushion" of dark matter, which protects them from their rough-and-tumble neighborhood. Dark matter is an invisible form of matter that accounts for most of the Universe's mass. Astronomers have deduced the existence of dark matter by observing its gravitational influence on normal matter, consisting of stars, gas, and dust. Observations by Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys spotted 29 dwarf elliptical galaxies in the Perseus Cluster, located 250 million light-years away and one of the closest galaxy clusters to Earth. Of those galaxies, 17 are new discoveries. The images were taken in 2005. Credit: NASA, ESA and C. Conselice (University of Nottingham, U.K.)

Peering into the tumultuous heart of the nearby Perseus galaxy cluster, Hubble discovered a large population of small galaxies that have remained intact while larger galaxies around them are being ripped apart by the gravitational tug of other galaxies.

The Hubble images provide further evidence that the undisturbed are enshrouded by a "cushion" of that protects them from their rough-and-tumble neighbourhood.

Dark matter is an invisible form of matter that accounts for most of the Universe's mass. Astronomers have deduced the existence of dark matter by observing its gravitational influence on normal matter, such as stars, gas and dust.

"We were surprised to find so many in the core of this cluster that were so smooth and round and had no evidence at all of any kind of disturbance," says astronomer Christopher Conselice of the , UK, and leader of the team that made the Hubble observations. "These dwarfs are very old galaxies that have been in the cluster for a long time. So if something was going to disrupt them, it would have happened by now. They must be very, very dark-matter-dominated galaxies."

The dwarf galaxies may have an even higher amount of dark matter than spiral galaxies. "With these results, we cannot say whether the dark matter content of the dwarfs is higher than in the Milky Way Galaxy," Conselice says. "Although, the fact that spiral galaxies are destroyed in clusters, while the dwarfs are not, suggests that this is indeed the case."

First proposed about 80 years ago by Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky, dark matter is thought to be the glue that holds galaxies together. Astronomers suggest that dark matter provides a vital scaffolding for the Universe, forming a framework for the through gravitational attraction.

Observations by Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys spotted 29 dwarf in the Perseus Cluster, located 250 million light-years away and one of the closest galaxy clusters to Earth. Of these galaxies, 17 are new discoveries.

Because dark matter cannot be seen, astronomers detected its presence through indirect evidence. The most common method is by measuring the velocities of individual stars or groups of stars as they move randomly in the galaxy or as they rotate around the galaxy. The Perseus Cluster is too far away for telescopes to resolve individual stars and measure their motions. So Conselice and his team derived a new technique for uncovering dark matter in these dwarf galaxies by determining the minimum additional mass contribution from dark matter that the dwarfs must have to protect them from being disrupted by the strong, tidal pull of gravity from larger galaxies.

Studying these in detail was possible only because of the sharpness of Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys. Conselice and his team first spied the galaxies with the WIYN Telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory. These observations, Conselice says, only hinted that many of the galaxies were smooth and therefore dark matter dominated. "Those ground-based observations could not resolve the galaxies, so we needed Hubble imaging to nail it," he says.

The Hubble results appeared in the 1 March issue of Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Source: ESA/Hubble Information Centre (news : web)

Explore further: Magnetar discovered close to supernova remnant Kesteven 79

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Dark matter mystery deepens in cosmic 'train wreck'

Aug 16, 2007

Astronomers have discovered a chaotic scene unlike any witnessed before in a cosmic “train wreck” between giant galaxy clusters. NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory and optical telescopes revealed a dark ...

The dark matter of the universe has a long lifetime

Oct 01, 2007

New research from the Niels Bohr Institute presents new information that adds another piece of knowledge to the jigsaw puzzle of the dark mystery of the universe – dark matter. The research has just been ...

Hubble Telescope Finds Ring of Dark Matter

May 15, 2007

US astronomers on Tuesday presented the most solid proof yet of the existence of dark matter, a mysterious substance believed to make up more than a quarter of the universe.

Recommended for you

How can we find tiny particles in exoplanet atmospheres?

Aug 29, 2014

It may seem like magic, but astronomers have worked out a scheme that will allow them to detect and measure particles ten times smaller than the width of a human hair, even at many light-years distance.  ...

Spitzer telescope witnesses asteroid smashup

Aug 28, 2014

(Phys.org) —NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has spotted an eruption of dust around a young star, possibly the result of a smashup between large asteroids. This type of collision can eventually lead to the ...

User comments : 38

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TimESimmons
1.2 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2009
No such thing as dark matter!

http://www.presto...ndex.htm
SciTechdude
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2009
No such thing as dark matter!


Sure thing Genius, where's your math?
TimESimmons
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2009
have a look around brane
TimESimmons
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2009
Oh sorry take a look around Scitechdude
yyz
4.5 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2009
After reading the original paper & studying the accompanying images, I see no reason that these dwarf galaxies couldn't be the tidally-stripped remnants of what were once larger, old galaxies in the cluster. This would still be consistent with high concentrations of Dark Matter. Notice also that all 4 dwarves contain a bright, star-like nucleus. It's really remarkable that these ancient galaxies still exist at all in this huge, swarming galaxy cluster and have not succumbed to galactic cannibalism.
jeffsaunders
4 / 5 (1) Mar 12, 2009
Nice deductive logic - yes sounds quite reasonable.

When we talk dark matter I get the sense that most of the time the person is meaning some kind of exotic matter and that this conclusion is reached without due consideration.

When people start to talk about dark matter as just being matter that is not in stars it seems to me incredibly stupid that anyone would think that most of the matter in the universe would be matter that exists in stars.

Why wouldn't 90 or for that matter 99% of all matter in the universe be dark. The natural state of matter is not to be hot and enclosed in glowing fiery balls of plasma. Matter is naturally dark and only glows when it reaches a high temperature.

So in that sense of course a large proportion of matter in the universe is not going to be in stars - why should it? What would make people think that it should be?

It just annoys me when the theorists come out and say that the dark matter must be something exotic otherwise it would not be dark duh. No logic in that at all.
frajo
2.5 / 5 (2) Mar 13, 2009
If I understand this reasoning correctly, they set up an algorithm based on the assumption that DM is the reason for the small galaxies not being disrupted. Then they applied this algorithm to the observed data and concluded that there must be DM?

Second question:
Why are small galaxies assumed to be shielded from disruption by the existence of DM but not large galaxies? Shouldn't we assume that larger galaxies are surrounded by larger amounts of DM?
Noumenon
4.8 / 5 (47) Mar 13, 2009
Jeff, I agree, the DM thing is odd and I don't understand it either. Perhaps given the age of the universe, by far most normal matter 'should' have collapsed into blobs forming stars and planets and galaxies and clusters, but there is this other matter maybe nutrinos that for some reason takes much longer or won't collect into blobs.
smiffy
not rated yet Mar 13, 2009
I'd have thought that a halo of dark matter would have enhanced the dwarf galaxies' chances of colliding with, and being disrupted by, a large galaxy.

It's possibly because they are what they appear to be - simple dwarf galaxies - that they've managed to skim past the attentions of their bigger neighbours.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2009
Dark matter could consist of very large amounts of "entangled" matter. Each "lump" (over parsecs large) is then a single boson-type wave of matter through which "particles" can move with impunity; except for experiencing the gravitational energy of the dark matter: A "particle", like an electron, is also just a localised wave. Bohr with his principle of complementarity and Heisenberg with his wrong interpretation of the uncertainty relationship of position and momentum, have misled physics now for more than 80 years. Heisenberg's interpretation violates the principle of inertia. The uncertainties do nothing more than to define the size of a wave in position and momentum space: AS IT DOES FOR ALL OTHER KNOWN WAVES. Why should it be different for an electron-wave? REALLY!!
Velanarris
not rated yet Mar 15, 2009
When people start to talk about dark matter as just being matter that is not in stars it seems to me incredibly stupid that anyone would think that most of the matter in the universe would be matter that exists in stars.
The reasoning for this is simple. What we've observed in the Universe is the majority of visible matter is in stars. Our solar system's mass is 99.8% sun. So if we assume space is the same everywhere you go then logically the same ratio is probably the case everywhere else.



Then we did the math to explain what we're seeing in the Universe in terms of motion and we had a big, big problem. Galaxies are too round. Dark matter is the explanation they came up with as being the most sound, unfortunately everyone focuses on the exotic part rather than the un-illuminated part.





Why wouldn't 90 or for that matter 99% of all matter in the universe be dark. The natural state of matter is not to be hot and enclosed in glowing fiery balls of plasma. Matter is naturally dark and only glows when it reaches a high temperature.

You'd expect to see a different behavior when we send items into space in that case. Now we could also be completely wrong and gravity could work differently than we think it does. We have more than enough evidence to suggest that our understanding (slight as it is) of gravity is entirely wrong.

It just annoys me when the theorists come out and say that the dark matter must be something exotic otherwise it would not be dark duh. No logic in that at all.


Although I agree with you, even matter that isn't illuminated with visible light will absorb energy in space. Based off of vaccuum energy these atoms would at least give off some sort of radiation, be it ultraviolet, infrared, xray, etc through which we could detect it's presence. Since we can't detect a direct presence it's assumed that the matter doesn't interact with baryonic matter, or behave as baryonic matter does leaving the assumption of exotic matter as the most probably reason.

Realistically I'd wager my money on our lack of knowledge about gravity causing these abnormalities as we see them, meaning a lot of our calculations about the size, shape, and composition of the universe are wrong.
Ladislaus
not rated yet Mar 15, 2009
All These calmly sitting small galaxies may have simply massive Black Holes in their centers.The big amount of BM.,if there is at all such matter,
should not enshroud the galaxies bat concentrate in their central regions.
ladislaus.
My2cents
not rated yet Mar 15, 2009
I wonder if a stable halo of black holes would produce the same effect?
jeffsaunders
not rated yet Mar 15, 2009
I have another problem with Heisenberg and his uncertainty principle. My problem is that the principle does, or should, apply across all sizes of matter - not just the ultra small.

Any object that is moving can not be pinned down to be in any one location at any one time. It is all an illusion.

Because moving objects can not be in any one location at any time. If they could they would not be moving. This ties back directly to momentum and all the other expressions we use for the same thing.

There is no such thing as an instant of time - it is a analog concept and can thus be divided up forever without ever reaching the smallest part of it.

Therefore we can only approximate the location of an object anywhere - since all objects are moving.

If we have two objects that are stationary relative to each other then we can define their location in that frame of reference only.

We don't have to look at electrons around an atom to get confused about location and mass.
Suzu
not rated yet Mar 16, 2009
I name it, "Transparent Matter".
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2009
I have another problem with Heisenberg and his uncertainty principle. My problem is that the principle does, or should, apply across all sizes of matter - not just the ultra small.


It does. But mass counts and the greater the mass the greater the certainty. Protons are two thousand times as massive as an electron and hence there is far less uncertainty to them.

There is no such thing as an instant of time - it is a analog concept and can thus be divided up forever without ever reaching the smallest part of it.


For YOU it is an analog concept. For some the whole idea of time is an illusion. I don't see any need for it to be analog. At present it looks like Plank's constant applies and thus there is a Plank Instant of time.

Do you think electrons orbit the nucleus?

Ethelred
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2009
Because moving objects can not be in any one location at any time. If they could they would not be moving. This ties back directly to momentum and all the other expressions we use for the same thing.



"movement of an object with mass is a type of illusion since each object is "at rest" within its own inertial reference frame (see Newton's first law): i.e. both its position and momentum is known simultaneously: If not, the principle of inertia will be null and void. This would imply that all physics created since Newton must crumble: For this resaon Heisenberg's interpretation of his uncertainty in postion and momentum as actual uncertainties in the centre of mass of a particle is poppycock!
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Mar 17, 2009
"at rest" within its own inertial reference frame (see Newton's first law)


Newton's Theory of Gravity has been superseded by Einstein's.

For this resaon Heisenberg's interpretation of his uncertainty in postion and momentum as actual uncertainties in the centre of mass of a particle is poppycock!


Amazing just how well the 'poppycock' works. Josephson junction devices for instance could not work if there was no uncertainty.

Get over it. Newton's mechanical universe is an outmoded model. Claiming that QM is wrong based on quotes from Newton is silly.

Ethelred
Thecis
not rated yet Mar 17, 2009
If I may add. When you take all the formula's of Quantum Mechanics and when you use it for really large masses (for example, daily based life) the formula's can be stripped down to the formula's that Newton found.
I know it does not account for all the phenomena in the world (and beyond) but it will work fairly well.

But fairly is unfortunately not enough to explain these kind of events. However, with Newtonian Physics one can see why there has to be some matter that we can't detect. It will probably take QM or something even more sophisticated to explain it but the one is not better than the other. The one is more complete than the other but that does not mean better.
Have you ever tried to calculate a moving car using QM?
Me neither ;-)
Velanarris
not rated yet Mar 17, 2009
If I may add. When you take all the formula's of Quantum Mechanics and when you use it for really large masses (for example, daily based life) the formula's can be stripped down to the formula's that Newton found.



I know it does not account for all the phenomena in the world (and beyond) but it will work fairly well.
Effectively anything that's built upon the premise of a predecessor can be stripped down to the predecessor's formula. Typically the "stripping down" requires stripping away the advances in understanding that the newer formula adds to the lacking predecessor.

No one is saying Newton's formulas are wrong. Incomplete would be a better descriptor.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2009
[

Amazing just how well the 'poppycock' works. Josephson junction devices for instance could not work if there was no uncertainty.



Get over it. Newton's mechanical universe is an outmoded model. Claiming that QM is wrong based on quotes from Newton is silly.



Ethelred




I did not claim that quantum mechanics is wrong. What I claimed is that Heisenberg's interpretation of the uncertainty in position and momentum as actual uncertainties of a "point-particle" is wrong. All that this relationship gives is the simultaneous sizes of a Schroedinger-wave in position and momentum spaces: This is the case for all knwon waves, so why should it be any different for Schroedinger waves?



Josephson tunnelling obviously depends on Heisenberg's uncertainty relationship BUT NOT ON THE ONE FOR POSITION AND MOMENTUM: It is determined by the uncertainty relationship for energy and time.

In fact, superconduction occurs because of the latter relationship. A charge-carrier borrows energy for the allowed time interval and moves to the position of the next charge-carrier, which borrows energy etc. If this energy was not on loan, it would have dissipated as heat thus causing electrical resistivity.

A charge-carrier moves through a Josephson junction in exactly the same manner, but since the distance it travels is now different from the average distance within the superconsuctor, a phase change is caused: i.e. the phase relationship is between the positions of the charge-carriers as one would find for any periodic system.

According to the normal description of Josephson tunnelling it breaks down when the electric-field in tha junction breaks up the Cooper pair. This implies that there is always an electric field within the junction but without a voltage over the junction; until the Cooper pairs break up. It is impossible to have an electric field within any material without being able to measure a voltage: This violates the most basic proven physics ever!

Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2009
did not claim that quantum mechanics is wrong. What I claimed is that Heisenberg's interpretation of the uncertainty in position and momentum as actual uncertainties of a "point-particle" is wrong.


According to the Bell's Inequality experiments Heisenberg was right.

This is the case for all knwon waves, so why should it be any different for Schroedinger waves?


Mass. Less mass more uncertainty.

BUT NOT ON THE ONE FOR POSITION AND MOMENTUM: It is determined by the uncertainty relationship for energy and time.


All the complementary characteristics are covered by the same idea. Why do you think position and momentum are special?

A charge-carrier borrows energy for the allowed time interval and moves to the position of the next charge-carrier, which borrows energy etc.


That isn't the Cooper Pair model. That has electrons pairing up and exhibiting boson like behavior.

http://en.wikiped...per_pair

Nowhere there can I see anything about borrowing energy. I do see that an energy gap might be created.

According to the normal description of Josephson tunnelling it breaks down when the electric-field in tha junction breaks up the Cooper pair.


Would you care to post a link covering that? I am having a very hard time finding anything that actually goes into modeling the Josephson Junction. Some equations but no models and unfortunately those equations are quite beyond me. The only thing I could find was by someone that was not a physicist and he had the same ideas I do. That is that the junction is dependent on the uncertainty of position in an electron's waveform.

It is impossible to have an electric field within any material without being able to measure a voltage: This violates the most basic proven physics ever!


Oddly enough current flows in a JJ when there is no voltage.

In any case why do you think position and momentum are special? Why quote Newton when you are not dealing with classical mechanics?

Ethelred
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2009
According to the Bell's Inequality experiments Heisenberg was right.

Not at all! Einstein was and is still right: Two "particles" CANNOT communicate faster than the speed of light. "Entanglement" thus means that the "entangled particles" are NOT "particles" but a single wave-entity. This violates the principle of complementarity.

Mass. Less mass more uncertainty.


Sorry I cannot follow this argument: If it is one!

All the complementary characteristics are covered by the same idea. Why do you think position and momentum are special?


Because there are no "particles": Only waves!

That isn't the Cooper Pair model. That has electrons pairing up and exhibiting boson like behavior.


I know it is NOT the Cooper pair model. Supercondution does not require bosons! Cooper pairs do not exist since they cannot cancel an applied static conservative electric-field. For the latter one needs static polarisation at the position of each and every charge-carrier. Cooper pairs are supposedly held together by transient polarisation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_pair
Nowhere there can I see anything about borrowing energy. I do see that an energy gap might be created.

Obviously not; because BCS is without a C: The energy gap is a constant gap which is generated by a metal-insulator transition: The localised electron-orbitals in thw insulator-phase then move by borrowing energy. Explain to me why the electronic heat capacity jumps at the critical temperature while the "binding energy" of Cooper pairs is still zero! There is NO reason at all why the phase has to need more heat to break-up a Cooper pair.

Would you care to post a link covering that? I am having a very hard time finding anything that actually goes into modeling the Josephson Junction. Some equations but no models and unfortunately those equations are quite beyond me. The only thing I could find was by someone that was not a physicist and he had the same ideas I do. That is that the junction is dependent on the uncertainty of position in an electron's waveform.

You are starting to put your thumb on it: Josephson's model is obscure because he used quantum field theory. But any text book will tell you that a Cooper pair supposedly breaks up when moving through a J-junction when it is accelerated so that its kinetic energy equals the binding energy of the Cooper pair. This is not possible because there is no electric field within the junction which can accelerate it

Oddly enough current flows in a JJ when there is no voltage.

Exactly; just as it flows through the superconductor itself when there is no electric-field. This requires a cancellation of the applied static electric-field; which is not possible for Cooper pairs: See above!

In any case why do you think position and momentum are special? Why quote Newton when you are not dealing with classical mechanics?


Because even quantum mechanics is based on Galileo's and Newton's principle of inertia which demands that any body with mass must be at rest within its own inertial reference frame: That means that the position and momentum of a free electron MUST be known simltaneously at all times.



Velanarris
not rated yet Mar 18, 2009
As soon as you stated that you can't follow the basic tennet of "More mass, less uncertainty" I started to question if you know exactly what you're talking about.

Then I looked back and saw that you've claimed you can create Bose Einstein condensates at room temperature in a prior commentary post.
http://www.physor...483.html

At least that's what it looks like, and your lack of commentary afterwards is somewhat telling.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2009
As soon as you stated that you can't follow the basic tennet of "More mass, less uncertainty" I started to question if you know exactly what you're talking about.



Then I looked back and saw that you've claimed you can create Bose Einstein condensates at room temperature in a prior commentary post.

http://www.physor...483.html



At least that's what it looks like, and your lack of commentary afterwards is somewhat telling.


Thanks, now I understand what was meant by more mass less uncertainty. I was probably just tired. But it is, of course not actual uncertainties in position of a particle with mass. It is only the simultaneous sizes of the relevant wave in position and momentum spaces: Only when the boudary conditions change do these sizes change: It has NOTHING to do with actual uncertainties in the position and momentum of a point particle.

To answer your comment on Bose-Einstein condensate I would like to know whether you consider a laser beam as a Bose-Einstein condensate. The problem as I see it comes from Bohr' principle of complementarity which implies that a laser beam consists of many photons. It is not the case: It is just a single coherent wave: THe photons have entangled and do not exist as entities anymore. By analogy, a Bose Einstein condensate of "paired electrons" must then also be a single coherent wave: I have generated such a wave in my laboratory: It is of course superconducting but has no separate charge-carriers (just as a laser beam has no separate "light-particles").

The other superconductors which have been discovered to date have separate charge carriers: Although the charge-carriers must have the same energy to convey a supercurrent, this does not require from them that they form a Bose-Einstein condensate. Localised electron-states within a material can also have the same energy even though they are fermions. This collection of charge-carriers is not a "coherent-wave" like a laser beam or the superconducting phase I can generate by entangling many electrons. When superconduction occurs by the movement of actual charge-carriers they are separate entities which move in a correlated manner. This is made possible by Heisenberg's uncertainty relationship for energy and time and not because the charge-carriers have formed a coherent wave.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2009
Not at all! Einstein was and is still right: Two "particles" CANNOT communicate faster than the speed of light.


I don't see that happening. I see a probability function and either it collapses or a universe is chosen. It works cleaner with the Many-Worlds model.

"Entanglement" thus means that the "entangled particles" are NOT "particles" but a single wave-entity. This violates the principle of complementarity.


No. Complementarity is a poor conception in my view. Its all a probability function. Not two properties but one. Not a particle or a wave just a probability function. Kind of like Fuzzy Logic. One property that can be expressed in more than one way at least to our thinking.

Sorry I cannot follow this argument: If it is one!


Valinarus covered that in his post. I agree with him. You really don't understand at all if you don't understand that. So to give you a clue:

The uncertainty of any particle or group of particles is dependent on the mass of the particle. The greater the mass the greater the certainty. The electron has one two-thousandth of the mass of a proton. So its probability wave is spread out over a larger volume of space than a proton.

I learned that in high school physics in 1968. Its not exactly post grad stuff these days. Sure I didn't actually believe it then but I have since discovered the meaning of synchrotron radiation and now accept it.

Because there are no "particles": Only waves!


Not if you go with complementarity as you did above. Choose one or the other. Said he who doesn't. I use whatever model seems to best fit the situation. Its just probabilities and the model chosen is a tool for understanding them.

Supercondution does not require bosons


Just boson like behavior.

Cooper pairs are supposedly held together by transient polarisation.


No. By reactions from the lattice. Dynamic reactions.

The localised electron-orbitals in thw insulator-phase then move by borrowing energy.


This is your own idea. Its not supported by evidence.

Explain to me why the electronic heat capacity jumps at the critical temperature while the "binding energy" of Cooper pairs is still zero!


Why should I explain that to you since you said it? Sorry but maybe I missed a lot. I don't see where that came from. Perhaps you could post a link. To something I that isn't from you. Or Alexa, Yep, Zephir, or any of the other people that can't be trusted to make any sense. Sorry but Alexa has used stuff from you and it made no sense. So it has to be from someone that does.

But any text book will tell you that a Cooper pair supposedly breaks up when moving through a J-junction when it is accelerated so that its kinetic energy equals the binding energy of the Cooper pair


So if that is standard why can't I find it. Post a link. Same request for competence as above.

This requires a cancellation of the applied static electric-field; which is not possible for Cooper pairs:


What static field? There is CURRENT. Its dynamic.

Because even quantum mechanics is based on Galileo's and Newton's principle of inertia


Inertia is Newton's and not from Galileo. And inertia isn't involved in QM. At all, unless they find the Higg's Boson. If it isn't found QM has a serious hole in it.

That means that the position and momentum of a free electron MUST be known simltaneously at all times.


You really don't have a clue do you? The position of an electron and its momentum are never known simultaneously. Newton is long dead. Your idea is stillborn.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2009
Then I looked back and saw that you've claimed you can create Bose Einstein condensates at room temperature in a prior commentary post.


Velanarris, He has claimed superconduction in a vacuum via a Bose-Einstein condensate at room temperature. He claims them together.

Because these 'orbitals' have zero spin, they are boson-like charge carriers, and because they are as near to each other as is physically possible, they automatically constitute a Bose%u2013Einstein condensate; i.e. they constitute a superconducting phase.


I just figured out who he is. Alexas posted a link in a previous discussion. I am afraid I tore it apart and I stand by what I said then. Bad science and zero evidence of superconduction. Just a long string of dubious suppositions supported by no experiments concluding in a bizzare claim of superconduction in a VACUUM.

The diamond%u2013vacuum interface: II. Electron extraction from n-type diamond: evidence for superconduction at room temperature

Johan F Prins 2003 Semicond. Sci. Technol. 18 S131-S140

http://www.iop.or...18/3/319

That has some seriously strained concepts. Its no wonder he posted this on the thread you linked to:

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!


I can attack his physics. I did already in the discussion with Alexa.

http://www.physor...523.html

I had no idea that the author was posting on this site. I have to stand by what I said in my critique.

Sorry Johan but I think you are wrong in a lot of ways. Even if you weren't wrong the technique you used had no commercial applicability. The world isn't going to bend to your desires. You have to PROVE superconduction and not claim it happened by based on a series of dependent speculations about what was going on. Especially if those speculations appear to have a special version of physics that is only known to you.

Ethelred
Velanarris
not rated yet Mar 19, 2009
To answer your comment on Bose-Einstein condensate I would like to know whether you consider a laser beam as a Bose-Einstein condensate.
Seeing as a laser is energy based and Bose-Einstein condensates are typically referred to as a laser like matter counterpart I can see where someone not engrossed in the subject would believe one to be. I, however, do not. Simply because, according to Einstein, matter is energy in another form does not mean that terms and conditions applicable to energy are applicable to matter.

The problem as I see it comes from Bohr' principle of complementarity which implies that a laser beam consists of many photons. It is not the case: It is just a single coherent wave: THe photons have entangled and do not exist as entities anymore.
That's not supportable under any framework other than AWT and it's basis in Newtonian physics.

Also you're missing a really big flaw in your ideology. In a BEC the wave packets of each atom, probability of location in a given area, begin to overlap. In a condensate the wave packets have become so broad that they overlap to the extent that the identity of each is indistinguishable.

To state that a laser is a BEC is an inncorrect application as although the photons may become entangled under certain circumstances, they are still in fact distinguishable from one another as has been proven experimentally several times.

The confusion you're encountering with BEC frameworks are due to the fact that you're disregarding some of the basic tennets of QM and assuming that the HUP dictates all aspects of the system. You're completely missing what the actual attempt to create a BEC is. Creating a BEC entails removing a suffcient amount of energy from the matter involved as to bring it to the point of "breaking down" into component energy, effectively taking a collapsed wave form and returning it's wave properties while maintaining the properties of mass and physical interaction.

By analogy, a Bose Einstein condensate of "paired electrons" must then also be a single coherent wave: I have generated such a wave in my laboratory: It is of course superconducting but has no separate charge-carriers (just as a laser beam has no separate "light-particles").
Incorrect, a BEC is a conglomeration of absolutely identical probability waves, paired electrons do not exhibit this behavior as "paired" electrons do not overlap. 1 paired electron allows you determine the resultant probability of the wave form of other. This is very basically known as indirect measurement and this is why you can determine the characteristics of 1 wave form if you have some knowledge of it's paired form without violating the HUP.
The other superconductors which have been discovered to date have separate charge carriers: Although the charge-carriers must have the same energy to convey a supercurrent, this does not require from them that they form a Bose-Einstein condensate.
A Bose-Einstein condensate would have no conduction ability, let alone be super conducting as the conditions of a BEC mean that there is no set of interconnected wave forms through which the energy can travel, and by all rights, adding any energy to a BEC causes the BEC to cease to exist and regain it's former individual wave characteristics.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2009
I don't see that happening. I see a probability function and either it collapses or a universe is chosen. It works cleaner with the Many-Worlds model.


It is not just a probability function If it were, it would mean that when I use a very small apparatus to measure the "position of a particle" and the "probabilty function is much larger than the apparatus, then the wave can collapse at any point within the wave's intensity: Thus also those points outside the apparatus. This is obviously nonsensicale. To observe the particle, the wave must collapse at the position of the apparatus. Thus the position of collapse is jointly determined by the apparatus and the intensity of the wave. The interaction takes place when there is a resonance between the wave and the apparatus. The wave will have a greater probability to resonate at those positions hwere its intensity is highest.



No. Complementarity is a poor conception in my view. Its all a probability function. Not two properties but one. Not a particle or a wave just a probability function. Kind of like Fuzzy Logic. One property that can be expressed in more than one way at least to our thinking.




We at least agree that complemenrarity is BS! But why stick to a "fuzzy" "probability function". If its is all "a function" (which I wholeheartedly agree with) why can it not be a wave which like all other waves change its shape and size when its boundary conditions change. When making a measurement one changes the boundary conditions and therefore the wave "collapses" (no BS required like multiple universes). In fact it is not just able collapse instanateneously but can also inflate instantaneously: for example when an atomic transition occurs from a lower-energy electron-orbital to a higher-energy orbital (what Bohr called a quantum jump". This probably explains Alan Guth's inflation.

Valinarus covered that in his post. I agree with him. You really don't understand at all if you don't understand that. So to give you a clue:.




I already understood this long before you were born. It was just the way the question was put. so I will not dwell on this any longer

Not if you go with complementarity as you did above. Choose one or the other. Said he who doesn't. I use whatever model seems to best fit the situation. Its just probabilities and the model chosen is a tool for understanding them.:.


I do NOT go with complemetarity since there are no particles only waves. What we model as particles are localised waves. As already answered above the wave-function cannot be a probability distribution since it will then collapse anywhere no matter how one measures its position.

Just boson like behavior.:.


Here you are wrong. This is not the case in the conventional low- and high temperature superconductors. It only happens for the superconductor that I have discovered when electrons form a single macro wave akin to a lase beam.



No. By reactions from the lattice. Dynamic reactions.:.


The phonons being exchanged are transient and thus represent transien polarisation of the lattice.



This is your own idea. Its not supported by evidence.:.


I Never claimed that it was not my model. It is supposrted by ALL the published data on superconduction and it explains aspects which models like BCS etc. cannot. It models superconduction in the ceramics as well as the low temperature metals

Why should I explain that to you since you said it? Sorry but maybe I missed a lot. I don't see where that came from. Perhaps you could post a link. To something I that isn't from you. Or Alexa, Yep, Zephir, or any of the other people that can't be trusted to make any sense. Sorry but Alexa has used stuff from you and it made no sense. So it has to be from someone that does.:.


A link: Unfortunately I do not have my son's primary school physics books anymore. But try "Physics for Scientists and engineers" by Serway. It might be too advanced for you but try. Seway explains physics very well: Even you might follow him!



The fact is that a sudden jump in the electronic heat capacity requires the electrons to absorb more energy per degree. But according to BCS one has that just above the critical temperature the electron-spectrum is exactly the same as just below the critical temperature. This is so since at the critical temperature the binding energy of the electron-pairs is zero. So why will the heat capacity suddenle icrease if there is not a sudden gap forming in the electron spectrum?







So if that is standard why can't I find it. Post a link. Same request for competence as above.:.


Try Serway or any other first year yext book on physics





What static field? There is CURRENT. Its dynamic. :.


When you switch in a superconducting element within a circuit and the superconductor is above the critical temperature there is a staic electric field within the supercopnductor which drives the steady-sate current. When you cool through the critical temperature this static field is immediately cancelled. No mdel to date can explain how this happens. Now don't be foolish and try and argue that it must be so from Ohm's law. Ohm's law is not defined for zero resistivity.



Inertia is Newton's and not from Galileo. And inertia isn't involved in QM. At all, unless they find the Higg's Boson. If it isn't found QM has a serious hole in it.:.


Galileo was the first to ppoint out that a body on the surface of the earth can be stionary relative to earth while the earth is moving: This is inertia. Newtin quantified this concept in terms of mass. Schroedinger's eauation has mass in it so it is inherently built on the concept of inertia which requires simultaneous knowledge of the postion and momentum of any particle with mass

After spending billions they will find the Higg's boson even though like the vector bosons it does not exist.





You really don't have a clue do you? The position of an electron and its momentum are never known simultaneously. Newton is long dead. Your idea is stillborn.:.




Do you think YOU have a clue? I insulted you back, but I do not believe it is neccessary to be insulting when discussing physics. Logic is more important
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2009
I just figured out who he is. Alexas posted a link in a previous discussion. I am afraid I tore it apart and I stand by what I said then.:.

Can you give me a link so that I can read the poppycock which yopu claim is "tearing me apart"

Bad science and zero evidence of superconduction. Just a long string of dubious suppositions supported by no experiments concluding in a bizzare claim of superconduction in a VACUUM.:.


Bad science? No experiments. The experiments are clearly described. Did nyopu attempt to repeat it? My my you must be quite a visionary to be so cocky for somebody who proved above that you do not even know first year physics!
The diamond%u2013vacuum interface: II. Electron extraction from n-type diamond: evidence for superconduction at room temperature:.

It is five years and nobody has publsihed a papaer to prove me wrong! In the meantime I have repeated the experiment and am now generating room-temperature superconducting layers which operate in a air.
I had no idea that the author was posting on this site. I have to stand by what I said in my critique.:.

I ask again: have you done the experiment or are you just like the vatican who argued that they do not need a sun-centered Universe since Ptolemy's model works well enough?:
Sorry Johan but I think you are wrong in a lot of ways. Even if you weren't wrong the technique you used had no commercial applicability. The world isn't going to bend to your desires. You have to PROVE superconduction and not claim it happened by based on a series of dependent speculations about what was going on. Especially if those speculations appear to have a special version of physics that is only known to you.


It is your right to think that I am wrong, but since you are not God (although it is clear that you think you are) your opinion does not prove me wrong. If you are able to understand semicondutor physics of electronic interfaces you will realise that I have proved superconduction at room temperature. I am not expecting the world to bend to me but for scientists to be open-minded.
When I am vindicated one day will you be willing to go public and apologise?


Velanarris
not rated yet Mar 19, 2009
It is not just a probability function If it were, it would mean that when I use a very small apparatus to measure the "position of a particle" and the "probabilty function is much larger than the apparatus, then the wave can collapse at any point within the wave's intensity: Thus also those points outside the apparatus. This is obviously nonsensicale.
It might seem like nonsense but it's the basis of QM, and it's been experimentally observed many, many times.
The wave will have a greater probability to resonate at those positions hwere its intensity is highest.
Yet it has the potential to resonate anywhere.
As already answered above the wave-function cannot be a probability distribution since it will then collapse anywhere no matter how one measures its position.
This is also false. It means that under direct observation the probability distribution will shrink to a single point. This is fairly straightforward in explanation.

As you say, there are no particles, only waves.
Now this is where we diverge.
As I say, there are no particles, only waves, until the system is observed at which point in time the probability wave form peaks at the localized observation bringing a particle out of a wave through wave form collapse. This is basic QM.
Here you are wrong. This is not the case in the conventional low- and high temperature superconductors. It only happens for the superconductor that I have discovered when electrons form a single macro wave akin to a lase beam.

I'm going to give you a chance to explain this to me. If your transfer medium is a BEC what proof do you have for super conductivity if you cannot distinguish one wave from another? Effectively a BEC can never be super conductive as when you add energy, it ceases to be a BEC and the wave forms diverge and regain their individuality.
Schroedinger's eauation has mass in it so it is inherently built on the concept of inertia which requires simultaneous knowledge of the postion and momentum of any particle with mass
Which means it cannot be applied to QM functions.

As for the Higgs boson, I doubt we'll find one as I have an alternate framework as well. Difference is I don't ignore current physical observations.
It is five years and nobody has publsihed a papaer to prove me wrong! In the meantime I have repeated the experiment and am now generating room-temperature superconducting layers which operate in a air.
And I would like to see this from methodology to math, the whole thing. At which time I'll give your theories more merit, however, at this time I cannot see how they're feasible.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2009
Dear Velanarris,

To give an answer to all your argumenst would require a long discussion. Threfore I will not answer your arguments one by one here. If we can get together for an intense discussion I am sure that I can satisfy all your queries. I, however, realised that I have confused you just as much with the way I used "entanglement" than you have confused me with your one-liner about mass.

So what I am going to do is to take us back to the double slit diffraction of an electron. According to the probability interpretation, a single electron can only add to the diffraction pattern if we do not "know" through which slit it has moved. Surely this implies that the "probability wave" must then have two equal fractions moving through both slits? But these two fractions represent a single electron so they must be in instantaneous contact with each other. This means they are "entangled". Thus entanglement should be interpreted as two fractions of a single wave-entity that is in instantaneous contact with each other.

This must be so since when detecting through which slit an electron has moved, one must do a measurement. The wave has to "collapse". It has a 50/50 probability to collapse and record its presence as if it moved through one or the other slit. A stupid observer will thus conclude that "the electron" only moves through a single slit. But since the wave has collapsed it does not exist of two fractions anymore: Therefore there is no diffraction pattern.

If there is no measurement to determine through which slit ann electrons has moved, the two "probability" lobes move on and interfere so that the wave arrives at the observation screen consisting of even more than two fractions; which must still be in immsdiate contact with each other. When the wave resonates with an "observer" atom within the screen it collapses to be observed at the position of the observer atom. The wave is more likely to resonate at positions where its intensity is high: Therefore, after many identical electrons have passed through the slits the diffraction pattern appears.

When two electrons entangle, they form a single enity-wave which can also split into two fractions which are in instantaneous contact with each other. These two fractions are NOT the original two electrons. When one makes a measurement on one fraction, the entanglement collapses (just as it does for an electron moving through both slits) and two separate correlated electrons appear. These entities can then not communicate with each other faster than light speed anymore: Just as Einstein has claimed.

To conclude: You stated that: To state that a laser is a BEC is an inncorrect application as although the photons may become entangled under certain circumstances, they are still in fact distinguishable from one another as has been proven experimentally several times."

Where was this proven experimentally? Obviously, when you make a measurement the laser beam can disentangle into separate photons, but this does not mean that the laser-beam consists of separate single photons!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Mar 19, 2009
Dear Velanarris,
I have only seen your last posting now and will attend to it point-by-point tomorrow. It is late in South South africa at the moment.
Regards,
Johan
Velanarris
not rated yet Mar 19, 2009
Where was this proven experimentally? Obviously, when you make a measurement the laser beam can disentangle into separate photons, but this does not mean that the laser-beam consists of separate single photons!
Nor does it imply that under lack of measurement the "entanglement persists". I'll pull some source work and we can discuss at length in a more appropriate format.

The PM system here is acceptable under most circumstances.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Mar 20, 2009
Dear Velanarris,
I must thank you that you ask logical questions based on existing physics. Physicsts like you are VERY scarce nowadays. You rather get Ethelreds who think that they are "Gods" who know everything and must thus protect existing dogma in any way possible. If you want to see one of the ugliest examples of this mentality, visit the blogg of Bob Parks.
It might seem like nonsense but it's the basis of QM, and it's been experimentally observed many, many times.

It is not possible to observe collapses outside your measuring apparatus; thus there cannot be experimental evidence that it happens. Of course if the wave does not resonate with your apparatus it can move on to collapse when observed by another apparatus: But the latter collapse is not generated by the initial apparatus.
Yet it has the potential to resonate anywhere.

Provided that there is "something" it can resonate with.
This is also false. It means that under direct observation the probability distribution will shrink to a single point. This is fairly straightforward in explanation.

The wave function can only shrink into a point when it is observed by an apparatus which has the size of a point. Such an apparatus does not exist. The wave function collapses when the boundary conditions presented by the appratus with which it resonates require it to become smaller in position space. If the boundary conditions require it to become larger, if will inflate, and if required it can even fragment into pieces which stay in immediate contact with each other (the wave is an entangled enity). This happens during diffraction of a single-electron wave.
As you say, there are no particles, only waves.
Now this is where we diverge.
As I say, there are no particles, only waves, until the system is observed at which point in time the probability wave form peaks at the localized observation bringing a particle out of a wave through wave form collapse. This is basic QM.

It seems that we agree that a "particle" is a localised wave and not a "particle" in the sense of classical mechanics. A "localised particle-wave" has a centre-of-mass which must be stationary within its own inertial refrence frame: i.e. both its position and momentum are known simultaneously. A force accelerates the localised wave according to Ehrenfest's theorem.
I'm going to give you a chance to explain this to me. If your transfer medium is a BEC what proof do you have for super conductivity if you cannot distinguish one wave from another? Effectively a BEC can never be super conductive as when you add energy, it ceases to be a BEC and the wave forms diverge and regain their individuality.

Congratulations: Excellent logic; You are correct that when injecting an electron into a single (Bose-Einstein) macro-wave it will increase its energy. What you forgot is that Heisenberg's uncertainty relationship for energy and time allows this to happen for a limited time-interval. Thus when injecting an electron at one end of the superconducting phase, the wave has a time interval after which it must eject an electron on the other side. The electron entering the Bose-Einsten condensate immediately loses its identity since it entangles with the macro-wave. Thus the charge is transferred without the actual movement of the electron from the injection contact to the target contact. Charge-transfer is non-local. This insight led me to realise that charge transfer within superconducting materials which have charge-carriers must also be governed by Heisnberg's uncertainty relationship for energy and time: i.e. a charge-carrier borrows energy for a limited time to move to the position of the next charge carrier which then borrows energy etc. Since the kinetic energy for the movement of charge-carriers is on loan, it does not dissipate to generate heat. It is ONLY for this reason that superconduction is at all possible. By the way, my model explains all the datat which have been published on superconduction to date PLUS data that the BCS model canno: For example, why there are metals in which the isotope effect does not manifest.
Which means it cannot be applied to QM unctions.

When an electron interacts with other materials, Schroedinger's equation is a good approximation. It is not, however, applicable to a free solitary electron since the rest mass of such an electron must surely be the ground-state energy of the electron-wave. It is absurd to use a wave equation to calculate the rest mass while using the rest mass as input. The wave equation for a free solitary electron cannot be the equations of either Schroedinger or Dirac. Another wave equation is required which should follow from Eisntein's general theory of relativity. This theory should provide the boundary conditions which cause the wave-function of a free solitary wave to stay localised and thus have a centre of mass and a zero momentum of this centre of mass.
As for the Higgs boson, I doubt we'll find one as I have an alternate framework as well. Difference is I don't ignore current physical observations.

Where have I ignored current physical observations? All I am doing is to interpret them in a diffrent manner just like Galileo interprted the universe in a different manner that Ptolemy had done. And just as you must be doing if you came to the conclusion that the Hogg's boson does not exist. So please don't spoil your admirable objectivity by accusing me falsely!

And I would like to see this from methodology to math, the whole thing. At which time I'll give your theories more merit, however, at this time I cannot see how they're feasible.

Great: That is how a true scientist must talk. It is refreshing after all the BS I had to endure during the last 8 years. If you are willing to let me know who you are so that I know I can really trust you, I will supply you with all the information I have. And if you can shoot me down, I will still be grateful since it will stop me from wasting my time. My direct e-mail is johanprins@cathodixx.com


Velanarris
not rated yet Mar 20, 2009
Great, I look forward to our comming discussions.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2009
Dear Velanarris,

I have not yet heard from you!?
Velanarris
not rated yet Mar 29, 2009
Dear Velanarris,

I have not yet heard from you!?

Odd I haven't heard back. I'll resend.