Dark Matter May be Easier to Detect than Previously Thought

Does any one speak crazy?

Does any one speak crazy?

Does any one speak crazy?

Talking of speaking crazy....How for pity's sake can a particle be its own anti-particle? Can/cannot anyone enlighten/confuse us a little on the subject?

It is quite puzzling to me how we could separate out the signal from ordinary matter/anti-matter annihilation and dark matter ones. I mean, what is being reported are actually signals from electron/positron events. Anything that explains a higher than expected density of positrons in the halo would also account for the increased signal. If for example, as has been reported, positrons were emitted from supernova at a higher than expected velocity they would have a longer mean path before encountering an electron.



At any rate, whether this is or is not true is not the point. The question is... how could the possibility be eliminated?

Odd that a (dark matter) particle could be it's own anti-particle,...hmm, kind of like if I were my own evil twin.

yet another computer simulation

If someone were to propose a hypothesis that virtual particles are constantly "popping" into and out of existence couldn't he/she start trying to prove it by looking for their possible effect on gravity based on their accumulated (albeit temporary) increase in mass? It may not be something that you could directly observe without knowing exactly when/where to look, but if you have enough activity throughout the galaxy, it could tip the scales.

I'm just trying to turn the argument around to see if it makes more sense that way. Something I've been thinking about for a while and thought I'd throw it out there. Maybe it's already been proposed and tossed out as junk.

Dark Matter is a hypothetical concept to paper over the butts of physicists who's gravitation formulae come shy for what the mass of the universe should be. So rather than chasing possibly non-existent matter, why aren't we making better formulae to predict the behavior of gravitation?

The latter of these 3 violating the conservation of energy postulate as you've witnessed the creation of an antiparticle from nothing.

How come their equations dont tell them what dark matter is??

How come their equations dont tell them what dark matter is??

Equations can't tell us what something is.

We don't know what an electron is, but we can observe it. The same goes for dark matter.

It is quite puzzling to me how we could separate out the signal from ordinary matter/anti-matter annihilation and dark matter ones. I mean, what is being reported are actually signals from electron/positron events. Anything that explains a higher than expected density of positrons in the halo would also account for the increased signal. If for example, as has been reported, positrons were emitted from supernova at a higher than expected velocity they would have a longer mean path before encountering an electron.



At any rate, whether this is or is not true is not the point. The question is... how could the possibility be eliminated?

The self-annihilation events of DM particles meeting in the dark are not "the same" as electron/positron encounters. The bandwidth of gamma emission possibilities and signals is immense; I'm sure they will be distinct.

..the "ether" was supposed to fill all of space and all spaces between everything ..

..the "ether" was supposed to fill all of space and all spaces between everything ..

In AWT Aether isn't pervading the space, but it forms a space instead in similar way, like water is forming surface for wave spreading. It's true luminiferous Aether, not just some obstacle in space, which the light wave is supposed to overcome during its travel through ordinary space. That's a subtle, but significant difference in concepts.



Aether concept is indeed adhoced in the same way, like Flat Earth hypothesis - but Flat Earth cannot explain so much problems and questions of contemporary physics, like the dense Aether concept. In fact, dense Aether introduces logical solution of "small problem" (how Universe got into small singularity and why it exploded) by substantially large problem (where we got infinitely hot and dense Aether from?) at the price.

Well, exactly. In formal math you should prove every theorem by robust predicate logics first, before it can be used in further derivations. So we should understand subject at the level of predicate logics first, after then we can derive some formal model.