Physicists on the prowl for dark matter

Jul 23, 2009 by Sheeraz M. Hyder weblog
Milky Way Galaxy. Image: NASA/JPL-Caltech

(PhysOrg.com) -- 95%. That is the percentage of the known Universe that is missing. As in it is not there. Or at least if it is there, we can't see it. We call this unseen stuff "dark matter". That has been well known for sometime. What is trickier in answering is why? Why is it that 95% of the universe is made up of this so-named "dark matter?" An even trickier question is where? As in where is this dark matter? It is those two questions that have plagued physicists for decades. Dark matter, by its own definition cannot be seen, hence its name. So how do we "see" it, how do we know "where" to look?

Physicists have been trying to think of various "indirect" ways to "see" dark matter for decades. Now physicists at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NJ and the Max Planck Institute for Physics in Munich are ready to test their methods, The Economist reports.

Even though we have not been able to see dark matter, that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist. For one thing, there is the issue of velocity. spin with such high velocity that if there was not a force holding them together, they would fly apart. The name of this invisible force? Dark Matter. However it may no longer be "invisible". At least not at the subatomic scale, where for the first time, a team of physicists has gathered evidence.

Evidence that is of high energy positrons from space. Positrons are of course the antimatter versions of electrons. Some theorists posit that they are formed through the mutual annihilation of WIMPs. WIMPs are weakly interacting massive particles and they are a type of dark matter. Physicists have done calculations which would suggest that the product of interactions between WIMPs and antiWIMPS would be positrons.

Dr. Michael Kuhlen at IAS has been working on this problem for sometime. Now they have an explanation that lends credence to this theory. Along with his team Kuhlen has been working on a of the halo of dark matter in which the Milky Way is thought to be entrenched. Kuhlen takes us to 50 million years after the Big Bang. This is around the time the first galaxies are forming. From this vantage point Kuhlen and his team calculate the ensuing interacting of 1 billion WIMPS over the following 13.7 billion years.

In this model, Kuhlen also makes use of the Sommerfeld effect. Proposed by German physicist Arnold Sommerfeld in the 1930s who said that there is a quantum-mechanical process that causes particles to interact with each other more so in some circumstances and less so in others. The model found that with the effect in place dark matter should annihilate much more readily than previously thought. Kuhlen and his team report their work in the current edition of Science.

If Kuhlen and his team are found to be correct, they would have explained the overt prescence of high energy positrons. They would have also found a second signal from the deteriorating dark matter. These would be in the form of gamma rays emanating from the Milky Way. Satellite based telescoes such as Fermi should pick these up with relative ease.

Halfway around the globe, Pierre Colin of the Max Planck Institute for Physics in Munich are using a very different source to figure out the same problem. While Kuhlen is using Milky Way Galaxy as a whole, Colin is concerned with a very small slice of the galaxy. Colin and his colleagues believe that using the shadow of the moon in order to work out whether the positrons actually come from the conflicting dark matter. They are using telescopes looking for Cherenkov radiation, created when cosmic rays hit the upper-level atmosphere.

On July 9th, Dr. Colin presented his research to the International Cosmic Ray Conference in Lodz, Poland. He showed that the moon blocks electrons and positrons in the same way it blocks light creating electron and positron shadows. However, since these particles are charged, they also interact with the Terran magnetic field. These interactions deflect the two types of particles in different directions due to opposite charges.

This results in separate electron and positron shadows. While it is normally impossible to discern Cherenkov radiation generated via positrons with those generated via , Colin thinks it can be done. This would be done by looking at the edges of the shadows when the moon is between the telescope and the cosmic ray source. Through this they would determine whether the high-energy positrons math the theoretical value. They would be able to bring out of the shadows.

© 2009 PhysOrg.com

Explore further: Physicists consider implications of recent revelations about the universe's first light

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

What if dark matter particles aren't WIMPs?

Dec 12, 2008

(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 – ...

Proposed Particle Help Explains Odd Galactic Photons

Jul 25, 2008

In 2002, a satellite called INTEGRAL was launched by the European Space Agency with an instrument on board to detect and measure gamma rays from space. Four years later, it yielded some intriguing data: An unusually high ...

What Will GLAST Tell Us?

Jan 23, 2007

The identity of dark matter—the mysterious stuff that makes up a quarter of the universe—continues to elude scientists, even decades after they first inferred its existence. The leading candidate that might ...

Is Dark Matter a Source of High Energy Gamma Rays?

Dec 08, 2006

“We know there is much more matter in the universe than what we see. For instance, the rotation velocity of observed spiral galaxies is much faster than the visible mass could explain,” says Joachim Ripken, ...

Recommended for you

Grasp of SQUIDs dynamics facilitates eavesdropping

17 hours ago

Theoretical physicists are currently exploring the dynamics of a very unusual kind of device called a SQUID. This Superconducting Quantum Interference Device is a highly sensitive magnetometer used to measure ...

UK's lead in physics healthy but insecure

19 hours ago

The quantity and quality of scientific papers produced by UK physicists indicates that the UK remains in an elite group of nations contributing at the leading edge of physics research.

Atom probe assisted dating of oldest piece of earth

Apr 21, 2014

(Phys.org) —It's a scientific axiom: big claims require extra-solid evidence. So there were skeptics in 2001 when University of Wisconsin-Madison geoscience professor John Valley dated an ancient crystal ...

Could 'Jedi Putter' be the force golfers need?

Apr 18, 2014

Putting is arguably the most important skill in golf; in fact, it's been described as a game within a game. Now a team of Rice engineering students has devised a training putter that offers golfers audio, ...

User comments : 87

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Yes
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2009
95% is missing wow.
If Dark Matter is not very very heavy very localized stuff, then it must be around everywhere.
Compare:
Its like dealing with cheese with 5% of holes and 95% of actual cheese and you could only perceive the holes and not see any of the cheese.

You would be puzzled. Well You understand why physicists are puzzled.
RayCherry
4.1 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2009
If Cheese did not exist, somebody would have to invent it.

Has anybody seen the Oort cloud?
Around another solar system?
Surrounding a galaxy?

How much observation of the cosmos is recorded for the sky perpendicular above, and below, the solar ecliptic? Are the different areas of sky being examined with equal detail and effort?

Is anybody seriously spending their telescope time looking into the dark? "When you look into the abyss, the abyss looks back at you" About as much fun as analysing white noise and hoping to find a Tom and Jerry transmission from an extra terrestrial television station.

Helium, so they say, is the most abundant element in the Universe. But they have only measured what they have observed, and estimated (extrapolated) the total amount based on those observations. How can we detect it in interstellar space, where it could be laying in every possible observable direction and yet distributed with such a low density that light emitted or reflected from distant objects pass through it seemingly unchanged? Helium is massive in comparisson to other particulate matter that may be suspended in deep space.

Seems to me that we are trying to discover America without setting sail (nor walking) to France.
Ant
4 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2009
A better question is would they know it as matter if they were able to see it?



Surely what you define it as is as important as what you believe you see. If cheese had been originally defined as dark matter would scientists now be trying to locate cheese?



Does it really matter, dark or otherwise? Perhaps its not as dark as they believe just an explanation they cant accept.

el_gramador
4 / 5 (1) Jul 23, 2009
O.o So we must build cheese detectors to prove the existence of the cheese to prove that the cheese exists? Or infer the presence of said cheese via indirect measurement...

Good analogy though :D
omatumr
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2009
SERENITY PRAYER FOR SCIENTISTS

"Grant me the serenity to accept WHAT IS.
Courage to change my attitude toward WHAT IS.
Wisdom to know that attitudes may distort perception of WHAT IS,
But attitudes cannot change WHAT IS."
- - - adapted from Reinhold Niebuhr

My perception of WHAT IS, from 50 years of measurements and contemplation:

(a.) Neutron-neutron interactions are repulsive, NOT attractive.
(b.) Neutron stars are highly energized, NOT "dead" nuclear embers.
(c.) Neutron repulsion prevents their collapse into Black Holes
(d.) Neutron repulsion primarily powers the Sun and the cosmos.
(e.) After neutron-emission, neutron-decay makes Hydrogen (H) in the Sun.
(f.) The Sun discards 50,000 billion metric ton of solar wind H annually.
(g.) Hydrogen (H) covers stellar surfaces, but stars are NOT balls of H.
(h.) Compact nuclear objects dissociate to fill interstellar space with H.
(i.) Interstellar H is a waste product of, not fuel for, the cosmic engine.
(j.) Massive neutron stars at galactic centers produce cosmic explosions.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
wiyosaya
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2009
With the difficulties that are being encountered, maybe "Big Bang Theory" is not completely correct. Maybe there is something else behind the origins of the universe, and some of the mathematics associated with "Big Bang Theory" correctly fit what is actually going on, thus convincing mainstream science that "Big Bang Theory" _HAS TO_ be correct.

If that is the case, the trick is to come up with the correct theory. Unfortunately, it would seem that this, to a scientific career, is suicide, so few, if anyone, ventures there.

I can imagine what will happen if they see objects beyond the boundaries of the edge of the "known universe" with the new 30 meter telescope they are building in Hawaii. Instead of changing theory, I can imagine that they will change the cosmological constant.

Eventually, our science will come up with the right answer - I hope.
deatopmg
4.5 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2009
@wiyosaya "Eventually, our science will come up with the right answer - I hope." Me too, but I suspect that several generations of consensus cosmologists will have to kick the bucket before the theory is adjusted or re-written to fit the evidence.
Ant
2 / 5 (1) Jul 23, 2009
Surely if the percentage estimations are correct then its no good looking an analogy, dark matter has to be all pervasive and universal. The 95 percent has to be the scaffold of the universe. So we are not trying to find some mouse-hole in a tiny corner of the universe. To me this says an underlying matrix framework which holds all the other particles of the universe. The particles of a body move from one cell to the next the minimum time of this movement is light speed. This framework distorts with proximity to a large celestial body such as earth because of this distotion gravity is produced toward the centre of the large body. Necause of this framework any straight line isnt straight it is created by the interaction of one cell to the next creating a repeating patern and the cause of einsteins spooky action at a distance because the slightest interferance with a point on the line is reflected along the whole linear pattern. More later, I guess.
E_L_Earnhardt
1 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2009
Alas! BIAS forments blindness! The "Whole" IS the sum of its parts!- ALL its parts! INTELIGENCE did NOT begin with us! "Positron" is a very good name for the 95% of the universe that affects the rest. They seem to be increasing at about our deathrate!
omatumr
1.9 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2009
CONCLUSIONS FROM THE ROAD LESS TRAVELLED

With the difficulties that are being encountered, maybe "Big Bang Theory" is not completely correct. Maybe there is something else behind the origins of the universe, and some of the mathematics associated with "Big Bang Theory" correctly fit what is actually going on, thus convincing mainstream science that "Big Bang Theory" _HAS TO_ be correct.

If that is the case, the trick is to come up with the correct theory.

Unfortunately, it would seem that this, to a scientific career, is suicide, so few, if anyone, ventures there.


It is in fact suicide for a scientist to go along with the crowd shouting "me too," although that path is paved with grants, awards, tenure, and recognition.

I am glad that data guided me down "the road less traveled" 50 years ago to these conclusions:

CONCLUSIONS:

If there was a 'Big Bang" it produced massive neutron stars, the most compact form of nuclear matter, rather than Hydrogen - the most dispersed form of nuclear matter.

Today nuclear dissociation, rather than fusion, powers the Sun and the cosmos.

[See: "The sun's origin, composition and source of energy", in Lunar and Planetary Science XXIX, Abstract 1041, available as 1041-pdf from Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, TX (CD-ROM, 2001); "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy", Journal of Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001); "Nuclear systematics: III. The source of solar luminosity", Journal of Radio-analytical and Nuclear Chemistry 252, 3-7 (2002); "The standard solar model versus experimental observations" in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Beyond Standard Model Physics - BEYOND 2002 (IOP, Bristol, editor: H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus) pp. 307-316 (2003); "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", Journal of Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2003); . . . . "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass", Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, number 11, pp. 1847-1856 (Nov 2006); Yadernaya Fizika 69, number 11, (Nov 2006); PAC: 96.20.Dt; ISSN 1063-7788; DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X; http://arxiv.org/...609509v3 etc.]

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance%u2014that principle is contempt prior to investigation" Herbert Spencer

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
WhiteJim
3.3 / 5 (3) Jul 23, 2009
So perhaps space-time has a mass of its own. With enough space the slightest conceivable mass to it will be as significant an amount as 95% of everything.
GregHight
1 / 5 (1) Jul 23, 2009
I'm not a physicist by any means but I enjoy reading these sort of articles. I would like to ask, "Why can't dark matter simply consist of particle strings as in described in String Theory"? It's prpbably a silly question and I'm sure one of you physicists have a simple answer .
Boeotian
4.5 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2009
If our favorite universe had a hyper-dimensional sibling, would it be detectable and, if so, how?
PinkElephant
3.5 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2009
@WhiteJim,

So perhaps space-time has a mass of its own. With enough space the slightest conceivable mass to it will be as significant an amount as 95% of everything.


That wouldn't work, as such mass would be evenly distributed in all directions, and thus the net gravitational effect from it would be precisely 0.

@GregHight,

I'm not a physicist either, but I know enough to say that in String Theory the strings *are* the particles (i.e. matter, or energy quanta.) There's no such thing as "particle strings".
Yes
2 / 5 (1) Jul 23, 2009
Yeah PEleph & WJim back to ether, where this new ether clusteres around mass.
Why not actually.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 23, 2009
It um, has something to do with, uh, scalar physics. Nazi saucers.
omatumr
2 / 5 (6) Jul 24, 2009
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF NEUTRON REPULSION

The Naked Science Forum has figures of nuclear mass data that show repulsive interactions between neutrons in all 3,000 known nuclei.

http://www.thenak...4739.200

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
WhiteJim
3 / 5 (1) Jul 24, 2009
yes but space-time warps and bends around masses. So the mass of space would be higher around massive objects and more difuse between them. It can be all a matter of callibration of the figure for the mass (of space-time) and the value of the clumping (crimping) (folding) of space-time as it gets closer to massive objects. Say make the clumping exponentially increase with distance so that the mass of space-time around galaxies equals the amount necessary to balance observation that acounts for the missing mass.
ArtflDgr
4 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2009
been looking at this for a while, and here is something that has to be accounted for that i know isnt accounted for. that the idea of dark matter may be an effect of our tools getting mroe and more precise at looking at things.

as this precision increases more of the inherent variables become apparant and so the sums and generalities from before and their margins of errors seem not to work out when you try to tease and account for each part.

in the case of dark matter studies, the effect is most pronounced in large galaxies which we can look at as a whole.

i am sorry to the gentleman who mentioned oort cloud and things. such things can be determined and accounted for, and so such a simple missing variable is not going to be what this will turn on.

here is my hypothesis that may add one more variable towards the accounting.

we now know of hawking radiation. that at the event horizon for particles, virtual particles appearing can split and sheer, and rather than come back together anihilatng each other, one falls into the star, one falls out of the star... (and i wonder if there is a slight difference between matter and antimatter that would make antimatter more likely to be on the losing side).

anyway... this is an incredible theoretical break through. and from that there is more, but i have yet to actually read such.

hawking radiation as stated is generally the perfect condition. however, there is a much wider range of outcomes that create a span of such outcomes.

for instance, and i dont know if this is covered. if there is another particle there, or two pairs of virtual particles interact. and then there is a whole maneagerie of things on the edge that will go way way way out into space and fall back in... they didnt quite make it (despite the aniliation of its other)


most of dark matter we see is an agregate we see when looking at massive galaxies.

well, inside massive galaxies are super massive black holes. these beasties are a bit diffeent than their solar sized counterparts.

in a mature galaxy, they have pretty much sucked up all the matter around them for a very very very wide arc.

that is they are a violent island with a moat of nothingness around them that creates an empty beach.

the material outside this area will go around for billions of years before they lose enough energy to fall in.

and this is where things get VERY interesting.

taking hawking radiation to the next level what is going on in this area?

the black hole is not taking in matter as much as it did long ago is it?

and there is a good change that there is what i woudl call a "hawking stellar wind" flying out from that black hole that is made up of all the hawking radiation and the other radiation in the broader definition of what happens.

in essence, most of the material that is not in the plane of the galaxy will be ejected away. the stuff in the plane will be absorbed and will add mass to the outside.

ultimately what you have is a black hole evaporating. and most of the material is escaping in all directions.

matter is being transfered away from the black hole, and some matter is now adding more angular momentum to the material in the area of the galaxies disks.

this would mean that this radiation would clear out pretty much all the matter that is in the dead zone. the dead zone would not be filled with gases slowly dropping in, it would be dead as the molecules get hit with the hawking radiation and create instability that falls in, or flys out. either as more particles, or as light... (of which the black hole then gets some energy back as the wavlengths lengthen).

i have reems of paper describing whats going on in detail, like a gedanken, but have not the time to sit and start applynig the math to it...

the point is that my hypothesis is that at least part of the energy that dark matter is made up from may be hawking radiation and second order effects like that.

ultimately a black hole and galaxy may have a huge pulse system going. the hole evaporates, and pushes out... the system expands a bit, and does so till the black hole evaporates... and the galaxy is now rotating around a small hole but a large gravitational well at the center.

even if it doesnt evaporate completely, what you will end up seeing is a pulsing system. in which the loss of matter and outward pressure pushes material and holds it back.. then since surface area and internal mass cahnge at different rates a threshold is reached, and the stuff collapses back in again in a quick pulse... this quick pulse recharges the black hole, and the process continues slowly.

if charted it would look like a sawtooth wave.. long low outward pressure, fast small collapse like a pulse (could this be what causes gamma ray pulses?), and then a long slow process again..

i have lots more in my notes..
and would love to flesh it out a bit to see if its worth working on even just for fun.

but i dont want to be labeled a crank by sending it off...

its just that this area has not really been fully explored. the reason simply cause its a new realization and it takes time to understand the implications of such a realization... and a lot of imagination of processes too far and violent for us to really experience.

while i am not so sure of the pulsing, i am sure that hawking radiation will at least take away a bit of the energy account...

at least the broom sweep effect of the radiation, even those pairs that just end up taking a long trip before they fall in, might be a way to detect hawking radiation...

i have other work in trying to lay out the orbitals of a black hole.. for instance.. a black hole that is isolated does not just emite hawking radiation!!!

that is, at some point internally each type of particle and grouping would hace a natural orbital

if you can imagine them not interfering with each other you can then define them... THEN you can imagine how they interfere whether the hole is old with almost nothing around it any more, and if the hole has a lot of material around it.

in those with a lot less, these orbitals start to gel out of the condititions... with lots of matter, the conditions are in constant transitory flux and so its hard to determine that such a thing is ther.

so like a infinite atom of the classical era, the black hole has orbital bands. we are often only concerned with the energy that has mass... but given the great forces, things are ground up and move down in orbitals (whose integrity is turmoiled by events between matter as it falls in).

but ultimately regular matter gets hotter and hotter and it smashes up more and more... and as it does its being taken apart.

there is a band of matter.. there is a band where positrons orbit, a band where light orbits!!!!

that last is important.. cause as things calm down, these orbitals become clearer, and each orbital is the grinder for the orbital above it. with lots of matter its just oto much of a mess to see it working.

but once the black hole is isolated and matter is not falling in as fast, it starts to be sorted this way. and its lower parts get struck by the material orbiting at its highest capture point.

so the lowest material will be hit with the material that is held on most tenuously at that point. this stuff is what slams into the matter, and takes it apart into protons and those materials.

and so the interactions push the top material down as the new material takes its place, but there should be a outflow of material that through interaction got bumped.

so there is not juts hawking radiation...which dominates the less matter that falls in, but there is also radiation that comes from when material crossses the various bands..

ay carumba... too much for one post..

now if only i could work with someone :)




Yes
1 / 5 (1) Jul 24, 2009
yes but space-time warps and bends around masses. So the mass of space would be higher around massive objects and more difuse between them. It can be all a matter of callibration of the figure for the mass (of space-time) and the value of the clumping (crimping) (folding) of space-time as it gets closer to massive objects. Say make the clumping exponentially increase with distance so that the mass of space-time around galaxies equals the amount necessary to balance observation that acounts for the missing mass.

Ok resumed:
1-Dark matter is the weight of space(time)
2-Every weight no matter how small of space(time) would add up to an immense (22%) or (95%) of total weight of the universe, because the total space(time) size is big.
3-While dark matter is 'matter' it is attracted to things made of physical matter like galaxies. So dark matter concentration is higher around physical masses and lower in the space in between the galaxies.
4-While dark matter is concentrated around galaxies it diminishes the expansion on the galaxies.

I think there are enough variables to calculate the weight of space(time) in this one cent theory.



Sounds simple.

ArtflDgr
4 / 5 (1) Jul 24, 2009
there is no weight of space time.
wiyosaya
2.8 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2009
Here's a thought exercise:

What could explain cosmic background radiation? With this exercise, the answer "the big bang" is not one of the choices.
WhiteJim
4 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2009
Just like Hawking Radiation working at the event horizon, in the known frothing of space where mater-antimater pairs form spontaniously and aniliate each other, if there is a small bias in the particles enough may survive to create the small mass required to give space-time a mass. Any mass no matter how small will account for 95% of the mass of the universe provided one attributes a size to the universe that corresponds to the mass of space-time.

Furthermore there is no reason why we cannot say the space-time thicknes (4D or 26D) as it approaches massive object (part of the folding and bending if looked at as a brane)... a thicker brane develops corresponding to the mass of the massive object. Why not consider the Black Hole as having trasformed its spacial volume into densifying of the space-time withing its suroundings. This also provides a mechanism for accounting for the missing spacial volume for the singularity wich has no spacial volume.
RayCherry
1 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2009
Let us put the cheese down in the bathroom, and invite everyone into the living room. Tell everyone that cheese exists. Ask everyone to estimate the mass (yes, not the weight) of the cheese without leaving the living room.

This is not Sherlock Holmes, nor Murder She Wrote.

There is simply not enough evidence for everyone to believe the cheese exists, let alone to guess its percentage mass compared to the mass of the entire house and everyone in it.

By the way, if you close and cover all the windows and doors, and tell everyone that there is another house next door: they may or not believe you, based on the facts that they have not found the cheese and cannot see the house next door, (if it exists).

To further use this analogy, (yes, I know you are enjoying it so far) you need to consider that 'this house' and everyone and everything in it are in fact made of cheese, (so, yes, everyone is standing in a hole in the cheese).

Everyone wants to know the mass of the cheese that is sitting in the bathroom where it can not be seen, described, touched or measured.

Now tell everyone that based upon the size and the mass of everything that everone can see, (describe, touch and measure), within the living room, plus that which they can see (and describe, but not touch or measure conclusively) through the door of the living room into the hallway (where a cheese mirror is hanging, permitting a reflected view of the old kitchen at the end of the hall) that you have a fairly certain figure for the mass of the house and everything and everyone in it.

Having everyone's attention, please go on to inform everyone that everything that everyone can see within and from the living room is estimated at 5% of the total mass, (of the house and everthing and everyone in it).

Then tell them that the only explanation is that the cheese in the bathroom (weight for it) must account for 95% of the mass of everything in this house ... (unless of course the cheese is in fact in the bathroom of the house that may or may not exist next door).

Forgetting the cheese, finally, (Yes, we thank you for the original analogy) we are still discovering objects within orbit around our own sun - some the size of planets. The number of objects in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter has increased dramatically in recent years, and the Kuiper Belt of similar objects (where Pluto and companion take their walk) is slowly revealing its secret stash of things that have significant mass. These belts are in the ecliptic. The Oort cloud is much further away and is not restricted to the ecliptic, but is apparently evenly distributed in every direction around the sun. ArtflDgr, this is not 'a variable'. It is a large amount of objects that we only have estimates for in terms on number, chemical/mineral composition ... and mass.

If we are still finding planets in the Kuiper belt, how many Jupiters dancing around in that huge empty space between Pluto and the Oort cloud?

In truth, we have no idea how much mass exists in the tiny space of the Universe between here and the nest star in our own Galaxy. That space is almost certainly not empty, but what is there, we cannot 'see', (nevermind describe, touch or measure).

Let's drop the "95% of the Universe is Dark Matter" murder mystery ... and tell everyone that we still have at least 95% of the Universe to discover, and we need to move out of the living room to find it.
WhiteJim
1 / 5 (1) Jul 24, 2009
It may be that what we perceive as a warping or bending or space may in fact be a thickening of space when looked at in mutiple dimensions. We see it as warping and bending becose we cannot perceive the other dimensions relative to our position inside it. Experimentally it may be possible to measure the thicknening of space as objects would appear bigger when in a thicker part of space to observers located a thinner part of space. Granted we may have to observe things close to extreemly massive objects to notice the small difference in spacial dimensions attributed to a thicker or thinner space.
PinkElephant
not rated yet Jul 24, 2009
@WhiteJim,

You're proposing essentially a modified law of gravitation (that's what your putative feedback from space curvature really amounts to.) There have been a number of attempts to do this, and mathematically speaking one doesn't even have to propose a specific mechanism for the modification. If you could just tweak the formulas exactly so that they match precisely the measurements at both local and cosmic scales, then perhaps you could back-derive the mechanism from the math. Obviously, nobody has yet succeeded with that approach.
Weir
1 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2009
Current theories of astrophysics and cosmology assume a spacetime continuum which Einstein himself questioned late in life. In a discontinuous universe a different methodology presents itself which complements traditional approaches to the empirical evidence. Space and time are implicitly defined a posterior by the synchronous projection of atoms as structurally independent space frames in a cosmic holographic movie. There is no real justification for raising space-time to a priori status to explain creation. External linear space is defined by light emission with respect to the internal spherical space of each atom in each space frame that defines a primary interval of time. There is no other universal measuring rod out there. That is why light speed is universal. Where there is no light there is a black hole.

EM radiation is the only activity in each still space frame. Relative motions occur as quantum jumps in relative position between space frames. The integrated fabric of space time becomes warped by relative motions which introduce synchronous space frame skipping consistent with relativity effects and also with the foundations of quantum theory and wave mechanics. This requires that inertial velocity is distinct from gravitational mass as demonstrated by Foucaults pendulum. This means that matter in patterns of cyclic motion is not totally at the mercy of Gravity as demonstrated by the gyro-compass. A spinning top does not fall over. There is no need to introduce arbitrary inventions such as dark matter. Gravity is associated with the universally synchronous projection of atomic matter. It is not determined by a priori spacetime curvatures, nor is it a force transmitted a posteriori through the integrated fabric of discontinuous space-time. There are skipped frame sequences associated with relative motions that implicitly account for the missing mass.

This offers alternate mechanisms for galactic dynamics, stellar creation and migration. Website articles freely available at www.cosmic-mindreach.com explore this new methodology consistent with the empirical evidence. The article Gravity, Quantum Relativity & System 3 introduces a method of Historic Coordinates to derive the Lorentz Transformations in a direct transparent way. The article Unified Theories, Fantasy and Cosmic Order is a good introduction to the methodology which explores all possible structural varieties of phenomenal experience. Although it is not possible to conceive of anything apart from it the methodology is not a theory of everything. It requires direct confirmation in phenomenal experience, thus complementing traditional approaches to the physical and biological sciences.
JukriS
1 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2009
Space dont expand!

Atoms expand.

Also stars and galaxys expand and thats why there is no dark matter at all.

because stars was more density billions years ago, time was then slow and thats why we can see redshift old light!

http://onesimplep....com/296
KBK
1 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2009
The truth is in going back to the original Maxwellian explanations of the original math. the math that existed before Heaviside shortened it to 4 equations.

Originally it was 20 equations, in Twenty unknowns. This was in what Maxwell called Quaternion notation.

At the time, it was considered (obviously) to be very unwieldy. Heaviside reduced it to the 4 equations so engineers could use the math to design electric motors--so the story goes. Just so the math was more workable or usable on a daily basis, as all that was available at the time was pen and paper.

HERE'S THE PROBLEM:

The original quaternion notation was for vortex motion that completed a circular path in space and time for each particle or 'wave/vortex'. The path traced brought it back to very, very, very near the original starting point, but it specifically had a rotational curl or curve to it. IT WAS ALL ROTATIONAL COMPONENTS. Then Heaviside corrected it to some shit hack job of simple vectoral summing as an end result, and lost the incredibly important aspect of 99.999 of the ORIGINAL motion that the component traced or completed.

the reality is that the universe in this 3-d aspect we integrate with is made up of infinite amplitude 2-d stress fields that oscillate in their potential domains..and then integrate to form opposing but in near balance vortexes. Riding on top of that is our so-called 3-d universe 'vantage point'. Thus, matter, time gravity. the uni-directionality of time, the uni-directionality of thermodynamics, etc. It is all merely enforced by the point that the opposing vortexes are in near perfect balance and there is a small egress of energy from this interaction that is unidirectional. The leakage is our 3-d universe.

This also ends up covering the aspects that scientists -for the most part- don't like to deal with. Spooky action at a distance, psychic phenomena, time travel, multiple universes, etc, etc.
Slotin
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2009
original quaternion notation was for vortex motion that completed a circular path in space and time for each particle or 'wave/vortex'
I don't know, whether Maxwell's equations were recursive. If yes, they were in fact isomorphous with contemporary heterotic SO(3,2) stringy model of vacuum.

http://www.aether...roup.gif

But such model isn't still exact model of vacuum foam, which is based on Lie group symmetry, rather then ad-hoced rectangular symmetry of nested vortices.
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 25, 2009
@ArtflDgr
I will work with you my friend. Send me much money for all expenses. We will build a machine.
omatumr
2 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2009
WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?

According to this news report ninety-five percent (95%) of the known Universe that is "missing".

That is reported to be the opinion of physicists at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NJ and the Max Planck Institute for Physics in Munich.

To find the missing 95%, physicists need to study rest mass data on the 5% that is available

They will discover for themselves that Dark Matter, Ghosts, Vanishing Solar Neutrinos, Hobgoblins, and Mysterious Cosmic Explosions belong to the Dark Ages. [See: Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source, Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2001) pages 197-201: http://tinyurl.com/38un57 ]

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
snwboardn
2 / 5 (1) Jul 26, 2009
Why don't they just stay on Einstein's theory of relativity? Maybe black holes are so massive that time actually moves slower near the black hole and speeds up on its way out away from it, only making the outskirts of galaxies appear to be moving faster than they should.
JukriS
2.5 / 5 (4) Jul 26, 2009
Very very simple



Dense and massive piece.

The slow time.

The beginning was a dense concentration of energy,

whose time was slow.

Therefore, the background radiation is very stretched. the radiation waves began to move less frequently.

Relative to existing energy-waves.

During the first stars, the energy was more frequent than the current stars.

During the first stars, the time was slow relative to the current time, the stars.

Therefore, the old light is known. generally redshifting

Old light waves came less frequently in relation to the existing light waves.

Space has always been there.

Space is not expanding or curving

The energy change of less high-density energy.

Even/also nucleus of atoms


http://onesimplep....com/296


.
NameIsNotNick
not rated yet Jul 26, 2009
Obviously it is being masked by the Aether...
snwboardn
3 / 5 (1) Jul 26, 2009
This isn't the poetry club Jukris, I bet you tell great bedtime stories though.
SmartK8
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
What if gravity is affecting local "present" time dimension, according to the distance from "past" and "future" time dimension. I mean, present is the 5%, and previous and future "frames" are 95%, with less effect from the distant ones (away from present time in both directions). OR maybe our estimates are just wrong (thus 5% = ~100%).
ben6993
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
Particles can be modelled as strings where the energy of the vibration of the string is associated with its mass. The stronger the vibration the greater the mass.

I have read, though, unfortunately, that there is a limit to the largeness of a particle modelled in this way.

Ignoring that limit, if the universe started on a small scale, could it still be vibrating very enegetically? Could the mass of the BB universe be associated mainly with its vibrational energy? Or could the vibrational energy of the universe only be detected outside the BB universe? That is, is the energy in a vibrating body only felt through the external medium through which it vibrates, and therefore not detectable within the vibrating body?

If the spacetime fabric, whatever that is, of the BB universe is vibrating, could the effects of that be seen as inflation?

As a digression, I suspect that inflation causes gravity to be attractive, as that attraction resists the separation caused by inflation. If inflation is caused by the universe vibrating, then there will be other places deflating. Gravity in a deflating system could be expected to be repulsive.
Alexa
1 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2009
could the effects of that be seen as inflation
It depends on the model used. In my opinion inflation was a phase transition, simmilar to condensation of droplets from saturated vapor, as being observed from inside. Try to imagine, we are living at surface of droplet which has condensed from dense environment. In its very beginning the surface of such droplet undulated as a single wave and whole universe appeared very small. As the droplet condensed, the space-time formed by droplet surface increased rapidly. This model is based on condensation of black holes and gallaxies, which we can observe inside of our Universe, it's just way way more extensive.

At the very general level it may be possible, something like inflation has never occured, it's just observational perspective following from dispersive nature of space-time fluctuations, where energy propagates with increasing speed from observer in longitudinal waves in account to transversal light waves and both models / perspectives are converging into single one. It means, we are not living inside of black hole, but it appears so from every place of our Universe. We can compare it to the observation of reality in/through fog : whatever place we get, we are always observing herself at the center of large sphere.
Razy
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
I think they just fill in the gaps with a theorized dark matter...

Perhaps the Universe is actually bigger than the mathematical calculation suggests. There are millions of calculations that would insist on the existence of unfinished qualities or inverse relational synopsis. Perhaps the antimatter is the explanation that space takes due to it;s continued expansion.

The energy missing in the quantifying maths could be the fact that the universe undergoes constant change approaching both positive and negative infinity. And time only exists in the past moments to the perceiver yet stretches out beyond time itself. Is time a factor when calculating the size of the universe? Why is it so? Perhaps time shouldn't be in the equation at all, and perhaps the equation is actually a non mathematical value in true existence of any such formula.

Does anyone else get this feeling?
Razy
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
you talk about vibration making mass... is it possible that some particles do not vibrate... do not interact with dimensional matter... how could you measure energy as such when there is no reaction to it? The energy missing is the rate of the expansion of space in my humble opinion. As matter moves apart the forces felt between them is weaker... but the overall force acting between the two instances is actually greater, just spread over a much greater distance... the connection is still there, and it's still much greater than we realize, but the measured effect of the energy between two vastly separated particles is much less than really exists.... or much more than we can measure with modern day mechanics.

I propose that two suns held apart by millions of miles of space actually maintain a greater magnetic hold over each than two suns colliding with each other.... The whole picture is always bigger than the microscopic one...

On from that, if a particle is formed in the greatest outskirts of the universe, acquiring a standing mass yet with zero energy, will the mass of such a particle actually exist in reality? We can't perceive it, yet we know it's there... just like an electron.
Razy
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
which brings me back to light.

A photon accelerating outside the universe exhibits no reaction to the universe, yet how much energy does it maintain... for light to accelerate surely there is en exponential factor to how much energy light can maintain on a different measure to what we hold as modern day assumptions.

Red light travels the fastest, but what exists beyond that? Are there colors that exist outside the universe that we have no understanding of.

The very notion that we can perceive all of the universe by sight and sound is completely fabricated.
nxtr
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
It seems that if the mass is needed to keep the galaxies from flying apart, it must be at the middle of them. Or it is not needed after all.
ben6993
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
Colour only exists in the mind. It is an excellent example of the creativity of life.

There is no obvious limit to the number of colours or the number of senses that can be created.
But it is very difficult to imagine a new colour. It would be difficult or impossible to imagine 'red' without a distant ancestor organism having had the necessary creative moment.
WhiteJim
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
My personal feelings is that Gravity is a property of the space-time and not of mater or energy and it relates to the thickening of space-time (perceived as bending and warping and as black holes when it thickenes to an infinite thickness at a singularity). Mater and energy is the vibrating strings that resonate at different harmonic frequencies and live on space-time and that give off particle attributes when they are at specific tune frequency. When out-of-tune all kinds of strange behaviour is manifested which creates the uncertainty in quantum effects till the strings get back in-tune which is the state when they are in harmony with other strings in tune. Hence when one tries to measure a particle the tune is compromised and strange behaviour witnessed in the transition between frequencies of strings and they appear to act unreal.

It is most likely wrong ... but from reading the state of the arts these days ... this is as plausible a philosophy to believe in as others.

The dark matter philosophy arrises because of the underlying philosophy that gravity is a property of matter and energy rather than a property of space-time. There is no scientific proof that gravity is a property of mater and energy and that it is not a property of space-time caused by the presence of matter as far as I know.
WhiteJim
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
Actually the inability of the greatest minds to tie gravity together with Energy in unified theory points more to the likelyhood that they are properties of different things and cannot be unified because of this.
ben6993
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
If inflation is the expansion of the spacetime fabric, then we could all get bigger together and not notice any change?

For us to notice a change, inertia could be at work such that matter resists the expansion. So the space within matter inflates less quickly than for space far away from matter. And so we can observe an inflation of space.

The space within matter can be inflating, but less quickly than in inter-galactic space. If that were all that were suggested, then matter would appear to repel matter as matter (or the space within matter) expanded less rapidly than the space around it.

A dodgy next step is to assume that matter reacts strongly with space and the inflation of space near to matter is the slowest expansion of all.

The slow inflation of space near matter would account for gravity being an attraction.

If deflation were at work, all the arguments could be reversed as they are all based on resistances of matter to the changes undergone by spacetime. And I think that would result in a repulsive gravity.

To test that we just need to find a part of spacetime which is deflating? So I guess that makes it untestable.
austux
3 / 5 (2) Jul 27, 2009
(i.) Interstellar H is a waste product of, not fuel for, the cosmic engine.
Agree.

If the matter were less political, we would simply understand that our pet _theories_ are wrong, so devise better theories to fit the data.

Welcome to human nature. It starts with the _assumption_ that we know what we're doing, which is wrong far more often than not. Until we admit that we _don't_ know, we can never learn, we can never acquire real knowledge.
Lena
1 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2009
Could this illusive dark matter and energy, have come from the big bang, which was actually a blackhole implosion or explosion in another universe? So dark energy and matter were the contents of the blackhole. When the Big Bang, went BANG and time began in our universe this dark energy triggered the expansion.
Lena
1 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2009
Could the Big Bang singularity actually have been a Blackhole singularity?
Razy
not rated yet Jul 27, 2009
Why does it have to "come" from anywhere (dark matter)... who's to say it's just not growing and dying all the time, just like our minds eye's, our collective conscience.... Matter and anti-matter is in a perpetual flow effect on to each others non-existence... creating and destroying what we think we know.





Razy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2009
The consistent growth in balance of both dark and light creates all that is seen and unseen. Calculus decides.
Razy
1 / 5 (1) Jul 27, 2009
our relative point of view creates the differential. Intellect is reason, and knowledge is the point of reference. Made up of both anti-matter and matter of fact.
Razy
not rated yet Jul 28, 2009
how do you know that the universe didn't create the black holes?


Nuevo
not rated yet Jul 28, 2009
The universe was created out of huge release of energy

what is dark matter
we can see around the object so we no it has magnetic field around it but what is it ?
simple pure carbon so dense and with its charge of magnetic conductor atoms that surround the matter is what we are seeing or not seeing .
so dark matter is waiting till it interacts with an object to will create an explosion of energy thus evolving into a different form of matter and the determining factors comes down to the d n a of the matter .
At one time are own sun star was made up of dark matter creating the super nova and the release of energy created are galaxy and created are ever changing universe

the one constant force at work in the universe is the transfer of energy be it thermal electric magnetic gravitational.

I have hypothesis is that it is possible to transfer electrical energy from a source to another if made of the same conductive matter as the transfer material in a wave form that require no wires to transmit or receive the energy into a storage systems batteries.

The universe acts and reacts to energy streams that create chaos in predictable forms and some unpredictable when you mix all the atoms that allow life to exist on this planet at this moment in are history.
ben6993
1 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2009
Thank you, Alizee, for including the aetherwave link. I have looked at it but don't understand much. I will have to look further to find out why you suggest matter is "preexpanded", and what that means. My own suggestion of matter expanding is very naive and involves an aether but I had the idea as a student in the later 1960s. I very quickly dropped the idea as the it seemed mad. But when inflation was discovered it did not, perhaps, seem so mad.

I am not really clear how small the elements of the aether are in aetherwave theory. Are they at the Planck length? Or at the larger (I think) scale of string theory manifolds?

As gravity seems to be connnected with the structure of spacetime, and it seems to me that a body trying to be at rest ought to stay where it is in that structure, the spacetime framework should be falling with it when an apple falls to earth under gravity?

So where is all the spacetime fabric going? Is it all scrunched up at the centre of each bit of matter?

Inflation helps with this point as the fabric of spacetime is expanding. It is, I believe, expanding fastest in empty space. Medium expansion is in matter, and slowest expansion is in space nearby to matter. So there is no exponentially increasing of spacetime fabric scrunched within matter. The earth expands to meet the apple. The space around the apple ie expanding, taking the apple in a direction away from the earth. But not fast enough as the earth catches up.

Too near a black hole, the spacetime fabric cannot escape? Thus inflation is halted? Probably not, as the black hole would seem to shrink quickly with respect to the size of other matter as all other matter is stll inflating. What happens to the fabric undergoing this inflation? Is it filled in with new elements of fabric (this reminds me of the old steady state theory)? Or is it just getting very stretched?

Near to a black hole, but just outside its event horizon, much of the fabric would be restrained in its expansion by the black hole? There the spacetime fabric would be stretched thinest? (And would appear to be inflating the most?)

If the universe started from a very small but super energetic string, or suchlike, could perhaps only a small part of the energy have gone into the BB universe? What if a lot of energy were left over and it sank back to a small size, but still incredibly massive. Suppose a huge black hole was around for a while at the scene of the BB event. Could not a BB remnant black hole have stretched the spacetime fabric, pulling it back to it, or at least slowing its progress soon after the BB event occurred? (Could the early inflation of the universe have been caused by the effects of a remnant super black hole causing a back pull on the spacetime fabric?)

And leaving a lot of the mass of the universe still at the centre. Someting like a super-galactic black hole.
Slotin
1 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2009
how do you know that the universe didn't create the black holes?
We are disputing a question, whether Universe at global scale is formed by black hole by itself or not - not whether if it could create black holes or not (we know already, it could).

This former question is related to question, whether existing black holes at the center of galaxies can harbor daughter Universes or not and whether these black holes are interconnected mutually through large extradimensions of space-time.

I simply want to understand this stuff clearly by Aether particle foam model without pile of poorly conditioned math to become able to predict correct answer for sure.
Slotin
1 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2009
am not really clear how small the elements of the aether are in aether wave theory. Are they at the Planck length?
Currently AWT has no apparent constrain in size of Aether fluctuations both at large, both at small scale. We are just at the center of dimensional scale and because we are fluctuation of limited size, we cannot see/interact with very small or large fluctuations, as here exists a geometrical constrains in doing it. We can compare it to nested hierarchy in society: as the number of hierarchy levels increases, local government cannot influent situation effectively both at global (geopolitical), both at local scale (inside of families).

Another example: if we compress system of colliding/repulsing particles, these particles forms aggregates and nested aggregates of aggregates gradually. But after certain level of compression some particular fluctuation cannot affect the motion of particles inside of aggregates, which are of too remoted in nested hierarchy and from their local perspective these aggregates would behave like completely random, chaotic objects with no apparent causality.

In my opinion just this effect limits the number of nested dimensions inside our observable universe.
Slotin
1 / 5 (2) Jul 28, 2009
..spacetime fabric would be stretched thinest..
Concerning your other questions, the only possible way, how to answer these questions by mean of AWT is to make experimental or computer simulation of nested aggregate formation inside of dense and large field of colliding particles and to extrapolate their behavior to even larger scope. Or you should try ad-hoced formal models of existing theories under hope, they postulates remains valid as the scope of model increases in size.
Slotin
1 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2009
it is possible to transfer electrical energy from a source to another if made of the same conductive matter as the transfer material in a wave form that require no wires to transmit or receive the energy into a storage systems batteries
This is not hypothesis, as my electrical toothbrush is charged in such way (i.e. via noncontact induction) - so you're just reinventing wheel here.
ben6993
not rated yet Jul 28, 2009
Aether size.

I think I can glimpse what you mean, though I still like to think of sizes.

A fractal analogy could be where a very simple formula analagous to the theory of everything?) can be used to create a fractal pattern which gives similar shapes at different scales, ad infinitum. You can see the same shapes recurring in fractal pictures but they are not at any particular size you care to specify. They are only in the particular sizes determined by the formula creating them?
Nuevo
not rated yet Jul 28, 2009
it is possible to transfer electrical energy from a source to another if made of the same conductive matter as the transfer material in a wave form that require no wires to transmit or receive the energy into a storage systems batteries
This is not hypothesis, as my electrical toothbrush is charged in such way (i.e. via noncontact induction) - so you're just reinventing wheel here.

well i was thinking on a much grander scale like a house or an automoble
Slotin
1 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2009
They are only in the particular sizes determined by the formula creating them
In my opinion the answer for Universe size is in combinatoric: the system of roughly 10E 23 atoms representing human brain can be formed by number of 10E{23x23}=10E 500 atoms, which roughly corresponds the number of atoms in observable Universe. I.e. it's related to size of human brain, because we can ask, how large of random pile of particles like Tetris is required to create a random fluctuation, the complexity of which corresponds the complexity of human brain capable to observe it.
After then the size of Universe expands accordingly to observer, for example if all people on the word would cooperate successfully in construction of large gravitational or neutrino telescope, we could see our Universe a much larger, then before, because of many brains will be involved in this interaction.
ben6993
not rated yet Jul 28, 2009
Thank you Slotin for useful suggestions re experiments and simulations. I will need to go away and take it in. I have begun studying the zeta function recently wrt prime numbers, so that reference is interesting.

I certainly agree that the larger the system, the greater the potential to make more complex subsystems.
Nuevo
not rated yet Jul 28, 2009
we are searching in the wrong places for wimps correct me if i am wrong a wimp is a magnetic field i e gravity
the closes wimps should be found in are gravitational field some ware between earth and are moon and again between are atmosphere and earth it self
maybe we need a different way of measuring the space of the black matter maybe if we could send electrical energy into it we could see a response again a computer simulation would be suggested some times it is better not to mess with the forces of nature
it would be nice to know just what magnitude of magnetic field is in black matter wholes and just how random it is really is to have enough d n a to create and Sustainable life on a planet and maybe just maybe that crackle sound on am radios are not created from space but are really created from are own gravity or electrical magnetism of wimps on are planet earth
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 28, 2009
@alizee
You forgot one- all elemental particles are black holes. Not my idea, read it in a recent sci mag- forget which. Somebodys workin on it.
http://www.youtub...EhpsfR14
Geil
Lena
1 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2009
Alizee,

How about

5) Universe is formed by blackhole and other blackholes in our universe form wormholes to our parent universe, so they are both inside & outside of it.

During the Big Bang (Whatever is was) , would all of the hidden extra dimensions have been created in that instant? Would each dimension have a different timeframe than our observable 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time dimension? Would these dimensions vibrate at different frequencies?
Lena
1 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2009
otto1923
If all elemental particles are actually mini blackholes could these mini BH's possibly be entry ways into the hidden dimensions?
Lena
1 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2009
or what connection would they have to the hidden extra dimensions?
Lena
1 / 5 (1) Jul 28, 2009
Is Everything Made of Mini Black Holes?

(PhysOrg.com) --
otto1923
not rated yet Jul 29, 2009
Ich weiß nicht- I suggest some research via google. I did read the article very recently in scientific American, science, physics today, or somesuch. It was only a paragraph in a much larger 'state of current research' kind of tract- not very informative tho it did name names.
Nuevo
not rated yet Jul 29, 2009
Is Everything Made of Mini Black Holes?



(PhysOrg.com) --

there are forces in nature that remain constant true such as gravitational energy and magnetism light waves and a spectrum of wavelengths of energy's gases and radio waves x rays and some of these waves are deadly when actively charged into a ray of energy even though they do interact on some level they coexist in the same reality another evidence that we have wimps in are gravity is the creation of flash power by nature created bye the friction of atoms traveling up and down are gravity fields thats leads to another force in nature the wind that is created in water ways controlled by the tides that are influenced by our moon and our planet uses it to help charge particles of wavelengths in our environment

one would assume that what is at the heart of black matter is a carbon based element charged with negative energy the surface of witch would be pitted with gravity smashing it what is cool about black wholes of energy is that we might be able to use it as sling shot for space craft

it is important to refine green technology to aid in space travel and the survival of our planet and yes i have a plan to try and save the planet if you are interested
JukriS
1 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2009
How this is possible?

The distance to Earth 10 light-years.

Moving almost at the speed of light towards the Earth and the Earth in one year, your time is spent on just one second.

Findings Globe and see the Earth rotating under the sun, you second.

When you measure what kind of trip Globe is moving under you per second, you will notice the earth moving a lot more than the speed of light.

This should not be possible in your theory appropriate. Still, this is your theory appropriate?

a contradiction!

I try with my terrible english.

You move almost light speed. You come closer and closer earth.

Yours time is going only one second and same time earth time is going one year.

You looking how earth to go around sun one time when going under one second.

When you look how long way earth move, you understund, earth move over light speed?

?
Baseline
3 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2009
I am inclined to believe that Oliver is on the correct path. Please continue to advocate your observational and theoretical conclusions and perhaps just as the Vatican was finally convinced that indeed the earth does revolve around the sun the scientific community may accept n-n repulsion is at the heart and it is not just a ball of H.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy? Indeed, Fundamental physics is all that would appear to be required here and most importantly the willingness to admit that we may have been wrong about what we thought we knew.

Perhaps once we have a real understanding of the process in our own sun we can begin to understand the rest of the universe as well without the need to create such exotic solutions.
Alexa
1 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2009
..is Everything Made of Mini Black Holes?
..
I don't think, photons or neutrinos are black holes as such. While I can agree with idea, elementary particles are composed of dense clusters of another particles like black holes and they've a similar mass/energy density inside, the other characteristics differs from black holes - for example common particles doesn't absorb light undeniably like black holes.
Nuevo
not rated yet Jul 29, 2009
..is Everything Made of Mini Black Holes?

..
I don't think, photons or neutrinos are black holes as such. While I can agree with idea, elementary particles are composed of dense clusters of another particles like black holes and they've a similar mass/energy density inside, the other characteristics differs from black holes - for example common particles doesn't absorb light undeniably like black holes.

photons and neutrons are atoms that exists on a different wave length of created energy
are they black wholes no is gravity a black whole no it is a different wavelength of energy

we do know black matter dose not reflect light and we assume what we see around the sides of it are wimps or gravity
you know for all we know it could be reflecting energy of space particles it has no moons that orbit black wholes
i believe like are sun it is waiting for the change in energy to transmit its energy to the universe
i believe in possibility of other universes yes life is possible to happen the question is there a limit to space
we measure time by the speed of light waves or photons from are sun so time relative to your position to the sun

is it possible to travel at the speed of light the only way this will happen is if you use a wave length of energy to generate the power in a non gravitational environment

so if we are traveling at the speed of light away from the sun are time remains relative to the sun and relative to are starting gravitational time if i went 1000000 miles away at lite speed one day there is like 30 years hear it is not the trip that increases the time it is the stay and id still be held to the reality of the d n a of any environment ware ever i ended up on are space trip
ben6993
not rated yet Jul 29, 2009
Some thoughts about conservation of energy.

If the BB universe started as a microscopic string, or as an element of spacetime, did it contain all the fabric of the universe at its outset? The smaller the string, the greater the energy so it must have been the smallest around.

The fabric must be getting more and more stretched as time passes. Or is the fabric tearing and being replaced by new elements? And if so, would this not contravene conservation of energy?

The BB universe itself could be a repair of a tear in the fabric of the larger environment before the BB event. Its energy being borrowed from the vacuum (ie the larger environment?) Does the BB event not contravene the conservation of energy? I suppose not if you take the larger environment into account also? But isn't conservation of energy supposed to apply within the BB universe?

Particles can apparently be created out of the vacuum and eventually retreat to it, so the net energy gain in our spacetime is zero. But how long can the articles last? If the BB universe started out as a string popping out of the vacuum, is not that a big and fairly long term contravention of the conservation of energy?

Some people look for signs of alien life in the universe. But there is no point to that as proof of the possibility of life, as humans are already in the universe. The universe has intelligent life in it, and just the one instance is enough proof that it can and did happen.

Similarly the BB event, if energy was taken out of the vacuum to form the BB universe, is enough proof to show it can be a recurrent event with large-scale and permanent energy popping into our universe. So does the conservation of energy only apply to the larger environment, as the BB universe seems to be increasing its energy if this were to be the case?

The universe seems to be, I think I have read, continuously inflating. But it also had an extra super fast initial inflation.

I have read that inflation also showed itself by galaxies separating faster than light. That is because light speed is a barrier within our spacetime whereas inflation is the separation of the spacetime fabric elements themselves, which adds an extra component from outside our framework. Inflation would seem to put a great strain on the fabric and require new energy from the vacuum to repair the tears, if any.


If the elements of the BB spacetime fabric are separating, i.e. inflating, how can that be so unless there is a greater exterior framework within which our BB universe is inflating or vibrating?

The concept of inflation seems to imply a net input of energy.
Lena
1 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2009
The exterior framework could be that we live in a multidimensional universe, but my question is whether or not these hidden extradimensions are explanding and if so, would they be expanding at the same rate as our observable universe? Any Physicists here?
Lena
1 / 5 (1) Jul 29, 2009
The exterior framework could be that we live in a multidimensional universe, but my question is whether or not these hidden extradimensions are expanding and if so, would they be expanding at the same rate as our observable universe? Any Physicists here?
HenisDov
2 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2009
On The Origin Of Origins

Dark Matter-Energy And %u201CHiggs%u201D?
Energy-Mass Superposition
The Fractal Oneness Of The Universe
All Earth Life Creates and Maintains Genes


A. On Energy, Mass, Gravity, Galaxies Clusters AND Life, A Commonsensible Recapitulation
http://www.the-sc...age#2125
The universe is the archetype of quantum within classical physics, which is the fractal oneness of the universe.

Astronomically there are two physics. A classical physics behaviour of and between galactic clusters, and a quantum physics behaviour WITHIN the galactic clusters.

The onset of big-bang's inflation, the cataclysmic resolution of the Original Superposition, started gravity, with formation - BY DISPERSION - of galactic clusters that behave as classical Newtonian bodies and continuously reconvert their original pre-inflation masses back to energy, thus fueling the galactic clusters expansion, and with endless quantum-within-classical intertwined evolutions WITHIN the clusters in attempt to delay-resist this reconversion.


B. Updated Life's Manifest May 2009
http://www.physfo...ic=14988&st=480&#entry412704
http://www.the-sc...age#2321

All Earth life creates and maintains Genes. Genes, genomes, cellular organisms - All create and maintain genes.

For Nature, Earth's biosphere is one of the many ways of temporarily constraining an amount of ENERGY within a galaxy within a galactic cluster, for thus avoiding, as long as possible, spending this particularly constrained amount as part of the fuel that maintains the clusters expansion.

Genes are THE Earth's organisms and ALL other organisms are their temporary take-offs.

For Nature genes are genes are genes. None are more or less important than the others. Genes and their take-offs, all Earth organisms, are temporary energy packages and the more of them there are the more enhanced is the biosphere, Earth's life, Earth's temporary storage of constrained energy. This is the origin, the archetype, of selected modes of survival.

The early genes came into being by solar energy and lived a very long period solely on direct solar energy. Metabolic energy, the indirect exploitation of solar energy, evolved at a much later phase in the evolution of Earth's biosphere.

However, essentially it is indeed so. All Earth life, all organisms, create and maintain the genes. Genes, genomes, cellular organisms - all create and maintain genes.


Dov Henis
(Comments from 22nd century)
omatumr
1 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2009
SERENITY PRAYER FOR SCIENTISTS

"Grant me the serenity to accept WHAT IS.
Courage to change my attitude toward WHAT IS.
Wisdom to know that attitudes may distort perception of WHAT IS,
But attitudes cannot change WHAT IS."
- - - adapted from Reinhold Niebuhr

My perception of WHAT IS, from 50 years of measurements and contemplation:

(a.) Neutron-neutron interactions are repulsive, NOT attractive.

(b.) Neutron stars are highly energized, NOT "dead" nuclear embers.

(c.) Neutron repulsion prevents their collapse into Black Holes

(d.) Neutron repulsion primarily powers the Sun and the cosmos.

(e.) After neutron-emission, neutron-decay makes Hydrogen (H) in the Sun.

(f.) The Sun discards 50,000 billion metric ton of solar wind H annually.

(g.) Hydrogen (H) covers stellar surfaces, but stars are NOT balls of H.

(h.) Compact nuclear objects dissociate to fill interstellar space with H.

(i.) Interstellar H is a waste product of, not fuel for, the cosmic engine.

(j.) Massive neutron stars at galactic centers produce cosmic explosions.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com


See also the discussion of the energy source for Betelgeuse at

http://www.physor...163.html

ben6993
1 / 5 (1) Jul 30, 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Fractal Oneness Of The Universe
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The universe appears to follow an unknown fractal formula, perhaps the TOE. It must have a random element in it as simple fractal images, without a random element, do not allow deviations from a rigid mathematical pattern. That is, without a random element, how can you re-arrange matter to make things if all is determined by a fractal formula.
Yes
1 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2009
God,
grant me the strength
to change that which
I need to change,
the patience to accept
that which I cannot change,
and above all,
the wisdom to know
the difference.

St. Francis of Assisi
jamesrm
not rated yet Jul 30, 2009
Scalar%u2013tensor%u2013vector gravity
http://en.wikiped..._gravity
Tissa_Perera
1 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2009
The last sentence "They would be able to bring dark matter out of the shadows."
As a matter of fact I show how Dark matter is in reality just a shadow of real matter. shadows have no substance of any kind therefore trying to find dark matter is a waste of time. Check my web site to see how nature create the stuff.
at: http://cosmicdark...ics.html
omatumr
1 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2009
See also the discussion on the Naked Science Forum:

http://tinyurl.com/ozer5b

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com
HeyZeuss
not rated yet Sep 01, 2009
The exterior framework could be that we live in a multidimensional universe, but my question is whether or not these hidden extradimensions are expanding and if so, would they be expanding at the same rate as our observable universe? Any Physicists here?


No reason that the extra dimensions are expanding or not in space or time. Could be different rules for each. We only guessing about how much Dark Matter there is because of the missing mass. Could be lots more even darker stuff that doesn't interact gravitationally.

More news stories

Grasp of SQUIDs dynamics facilitates eavesdropping

Theoretical physicists are currently exploring the dynamics of a very unusual kind of device called a SQUID. This Superconducting Quantum Interference Device is a highly sensitive magnetometer used to measure ...

UK's lead in physics healthy but insecure

The quantity and quality of scientific papers produced by UK physicists indicates that the UK remains in an elite group of nations contributing at the leading edge of physics research.

Mantis shrimp stronger than airplanes

(Phys.org) —Inspired by the fist-like club of a mantis shrimp, a team of researchers led by University of California, Riverside, in collaboration with University of Southern California and Purdue University, ...

Volitional control from optical signals

(Medical Xpress)—In their quest to build better BMIs, or brain-machine-interfaces, researchers have recently begun to look closer at the sub-threshold activity of neurons. The reason for this trend is that ...