Durham astronomers' doubts about the 'dark side'

Jun 14, 2010 by Robert Massey
The unresolved radio sources used by Sawangwit & Shanks to measure the effect of telescope smoothing are marked on the WMAP CMB map (open circles). Sawangwit and Shanks found that the radio sources implied stronger telescope smoothing than previously found, suggesting that the CMB ripple size may be smaller. Click the image for larger version (Credit: NASA/WMAP plus Durham University).

(PhysOrg.com) -- New research by astronomers in the Physics Department at Durham University suggests that the conventional wisdom about the content of the Universe may be wrong. Graduate student Utane Sawangwit and Professor Tom Shanks looked at observations from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite to study the remnant heat from the Big Bang. The two scientists find evidence that the errors in its data may be much larger than previously thought, which in turn makes the standard model of the Universe open to question.

The team publish their results in a letter to the journal .

Launched in 2001, WMAP measures differences in the (CMB) radiation, the residual heat of the Big Bang that fills the and appears over the whole of the sky. The angular size of the ripples in the CMB is thought to be connected to the composition of the Universe. The observations of WMAP showed that the ripples were about twice the size of the full Moon, or around a degree across.

With these results, scientists concluded that the cosmos is made up of 4% ‘normal’ matter, 22% ‘dark’ or invisible matter and 74% ‘’. Debate about the exact nature of the ‘dark side’ of the Universe - the dark matter and dark energy - continues to this day.

Sawangwit and Shanks used astronomical objects that appear as unresolved points in to test the way the WMAP telescope smoothes out its maps. They find that the smoothing is much larger than previously believed, suggesting that its measurement of the size of the CMBR ripples is not as accurate as was thought. If true this could mean that the ripples are significantly smaller, which could imply that dark matter and dark energy are not present after all.

Prof. Shanks comments “CMB observations are a powerful tool for cosmology and it is vital to check for systematic effects. If our results prove correct then it will become less likely that dark energy and exotic dark matter particles dominate the Universe. So the evidence that the Universe has a ‘Dark Side’ will weaken!”

In addition, Durham astronomers recently collaborated in an international team whose research suggested that the structure of the CMB may not provide the robust independent check on the presence of dark energy that it was thought to.

The standard cosmological model which predicts that the Universe is dominated by 74% dark energy and 22% dark matter. The remaining 4% are the atoms of ordinary matter that we see around us. Thus in this model 96% of the Universe is dark. (Credit: NASA/WMAP Science Team)

If dark energy does exist, then it ultimately causes the expansion of the Universe to accelerate. On their journey from the CMB to the telescopes like WMAP, photons (the basic particles of electromagnetic radiation including light and radio waves) travel through giant superclusters of galaxies. Normally a CMB photon is first blueshifted (its peak shifts towards the blue end of the spectrum) when it enters the supercluster and then redshifted as it leaves, so that the two effects cancel. However, if the supercluster galaxies are accelerating away from each other because of dark energy, the cancellation is not exact, so photons stay slightly blueshifted after their passage. Slightly higher temperatures should appear in the CMB where the photons have passed through superclusters.

However, the new results, based on the Sloan Digital Sky Survey which surveyed 1 million luminous red galaxies, suggest that no such effect is seen, again threatening the of the Universe.

Utane Sawangwit says, “If our result is repeated in new surveys of galaxies in the Southern Hemisphere then this could mean real problems for the existence of dark energy.”

If the Universe really has no ‘dark side’, it will come as a relief to some theoretical physicists. Having a model dependent on as yet undetected exotic particles that make up dark matter and the completely mysterious dark energy leaves many scientists feeling uncomfortable. It also throws up problems for the birth of stars in galaxies, with as much ‘feedback’ energy needed to prevent their creation as gravity provides to help them form.

Prof. Shanks concludes “Odds are that the standard model with its enigmatic dark energy and will survive - but more tests are needed. The European PLANCK satellite, currently out there collecting more CMB data will provide vital new information and help us answer these fundamental questions about the nature of the Universe we live in.”

Explore further: Spitzer telescope witnesses asteroid smashup

More information: The research on the WMAP “ripples” will appear as a letter in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. A preprint of the paper can be seen at: arxiv.org/abs/0912.0524
The research on the test for dark energy has also appeared in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The paper can be found either at ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/abs/2010MNRAS.402.2228S or arxiv.org/abs/0911.1352

Related Stories

Planck Satellite ready to measure the Big Bang

May 11, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The last tests of the Ariane 5 rocket system have been finished and ESA's Planck satellite is sitting ready for launch at the Guiana Space Centre in Kourou. Together with ESA's space telescope ...

Cosmologists 'see' the cosmic dawn

Feb 11, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The images, produced by scientists at Durham University's Institute for Computational Cosmology, show the "Cosmic Dawn" - the formation of the first big galaxies in the Universe.

Dark energy -- 10 years on

Nov 30, 2007

Three quarters of our universe is made up of some weird, gravitationally repulsive substance that was only discovered ten years ago – dark energy. This month in Physics World, Eric Linder and Saul Perlmutter, both at the ...

Recommended for you

How can we find tiny particles in exoplanet atmospheres?

11 minutes ago

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

16 hours ago

(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 ...

Witnessing the early growth of a giant

Aug 27, 2014

Astronomers have uncovered for the first time the earliest stages of a massive galaxy forming in the young Universe. The discovery was made possible through combining observations from the NASA/ESA Hubble ...

User comments : 72

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Modernmystic
4.2 / 5 (19) Jun 14, 2010
I've no doubt that people 200 years from now will get no end of amusement from our view of the universe as we do those who once thought the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.
joefarah
1.9 / 5 (12) Jun 14, 2010
True enough - we'll find that what we hypothesized, without evidence, is fine for experimental work, but not for a basis of theory. Especially when the evidence should be overwhelming, but instead is tenuous at best. There is no (or little) dark matter and dark energy. There's no ether. The world is not flat.
TheOldenOne
2.3 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2010
There are those who will imagine just about anything to make the current "model" true. Dark matter and dark energy. That which is unseen and undetectable. Brilliant! And trying to confirm that the universe is expanding ..... just wait a few years when some researcher finds that the red shift has nothing to do with expansion, but rather has to do with light losing energy as it traverses to wide expanse of space. We are limited to a sphere in space. We are at the center, which is at point where light emitted in every direction comes to a point at us. We cannot see beyond this sphere because the energy from the light from further objects has gone below the limit of our observation. Of course there are an infiniate number of objects outside this sphere, but we cannot detect them. This leaves us with an infinite universe, no expansion, and no contraction. The propagation of galaxies is unending. Galaxies die, and new galzxies are born to replace them. No beginning and no end.
CSharpner
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2010
Hey look, there's a small article attached to NisaJ's posts!
Au-Pu
1.5 / 5 (11) Jun 14, 2010
It is sad that Prof. Shanks should conclude that the standard model will still survive.
Clearly it has achieved the status of a religion with some
Shootist
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 14, 2010
Actually, there are many sociopsychologic phenomena, which effectively prohibits the reconciliation of particular theories.


Please just admit it, you just don't have the math to challenge Einstein/Rosen/Schwarzschild/Kerr.
Yes
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 14, 2010
How curved nothing can differ from uncurved one, if its nothing? It must be something.

See this simple concept you start with is not true.
Space is not equal to nothing.
Space may be something with nothing in it. The nothing is something that we cannot observe.
We observed space and gave it a name, hence space is not nothing. Therefore it may curve (who knows?)
Falsehood is something that does not exist and we gave it a name. Then that may be nothing.
If nothing existed, then we will never discover it. So nothing we know not but our ignorance. Feel ye?:)
Yes
not rated yet Jun 14, 2010
Another funny consequence of the above dependencies is, the physicists are confused by lack of gravitational lensing for microwaves

I am still looking for some solid evidence of chromatic aberration of gravitational lensing. What is your source? Who observed what? Where? When?
malapropism
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2010
Hi all, I was just wondering if anyone has heard from Polemos recently? (Since his/her "singularity event" of 31 May 2010 (?date) has come and gone and we're all still here, I was intrigued as to the excuse.) In a weird way I kind of miss the bizarre quasi-mystical posts... this seemed the kind of article he'd be right onto, to propound his ideas.
emergent
not rated yet Jun 15, 2010
great conversations. im no expert but i do speculate. if dark matter/energy is common it would be seen at the atomic level between electrons/protons or protons/neutrons. as atoms are universes of there own. the "space" between all matter, in my opinion, would be governed by the torsion field of a systems core. universal expansion, to me, means plenty of new stars and galactic systems are still being born. but im aware that the science is emergent, but believe the truths will be self evident.
emergent
not rated yet Jun 15, 2010
yyz
5 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2010
"It is sad that Prof. Shanks should conclude that the standard model will still survive."

No. "Prof. Shanks concludes “Odds are that the standard model with its enigmatic dark energy and dark matter will survive - but more tests are needed."".

As Prof. Shanks points out, further observations, like more detailed future results from PLANCK, confirmation(or not) of his results from his analysis of the WMAP 5 database, and new data from a planned Southern Hemisphere survey, will all be needed to place his results in context. Calling for more tests doesn't sound like religion to me.

mattytheory
4.5 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2010
A very interesting and clever experiment! I hope that this IS repeated with similar results in the Southern skies.
Gene_H
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2010
I am still looking for some solid evidence of chromatic aberration of gravitational lensing.
Such aberration can be observed at the case of extreme gravity field near black holes - long wavelength light passes through even horizon, the short one is dispersed or reflected back. But the dark matter effect is invariant to gravitational lensing - we can actually observe it even at seemingly free space (search for "dark matter galaxies" on the web).

http://iopscience...1/2/1292
http://www.spring...784x751/

you just don't have the math to challenge
OK, but some predictions can be made qualitatively. For example, order of Venus phases enabled Galileo to refuse geocentric model, despite it already contained pile of math about epicycles... You're not required to know about epicycle math, if you have such simple & logical counterargument.
Gene_H
1 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2010
..if dark matter/energy is common it would be seen at the atomic level between electrons/protons or protons/neutrons...
I presume, it actually is - Casimir force near atoms or Yukawa coupling observed between heavy quarks inside of atom nuclei are probably of the same mechanism. Virtually every material object is behaving, like it would be surrounded by layer of more dense vacuum (dark matter, virtual photons or virtual quark coat) at all distance scales.
Bog_Mire
1 / 5 (1) Jun 15, 2010
Great work people, NisaJ, I think you may be the master of the Universe! But can you tell me how to improve my Laptop's battery life (Li ion)? And Yes, that was most profound; was it you own work, or a quote? It sounded like some ancient mystic riddle....
Bog_Mire
1 / 5 (2) Jun 15, 2010
Great work people, NisaJ, I think you may be the master of the Universe! But can you tell me how to improve my Laptop's battery life (Li ion)? And Yes, that was most profound; was it you own work, or a quote? It sounded like some ancient mystic riddle....
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (3) Jun 15, 2010
So, we have about 15 posts from alizee and nothing of any merit whatsoever.

Gentlemen, this is a simple redistribution of matter based on enhanced precision. We're elevating the purported dark energy percentage by a significant amount while reducing the dark matter content of the Universe. This will tease some interesting math out of the fabric of reality when it comes to gravitational interaction.

Effectively, we're missing more forces than we thought.
otto1923
5 / 5 (5) Jun 15, 2010
Now I'm the only man, who is trying to extrapolate it to new findings in physics - as far I know. Oliver Lodge of course hasn't dealt with CMB noise, because this phenomena wasn't known in his time.
ahemm... and youre a legend in your own mind.

Whos to bet that I couldnt go back to some previous thread and dig up one of your aether explanations which purports to explain the very phenomena youre now claiming it refutes in light of this new evidence?

Or why dont you play the professional you claim to be and cite your previous erroneous conclusions and how they have changed in concert with this new evidence? How about it? Something like 'Although I claimed in my posts in the article ___ dated _____that aether theory explained phenomena which we now know is wrong, aether theory can explain that...' -or somesuch.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2010
Wow! I move that anytime anyone gets that many one star votes we say that they got NisaJ'd. We can work on the specifics and I'm not married to the name, so we can change it, but you get the idea. That must have been a record.

NisaJ'd-
1.) Having ridiculous amounts of one star votes.
2.) To fail immensely at making points.

Example:
"kevinrtrs got NisaJ'd on the Io article."
Skeptic_Heretic
3.2 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2010
I'm not a professional, because I'm not taking money of tax payers or private sector for my activity regarding physics.
Because your "activity" isn't worth a dime.
Aether model isn't dependent to some private interpretations. The situation at the water surface is clear: the waves larger then 2 cm would disperse to larger waves, the waves smaller then 2 cm would disperse to smaller one. The waves at 2 cm would keep their wavelength during dispersion.
Tub farts are not cosmological physics research.
The situation at vacuum should remain the same, because water actually IS the phase of vacuum.
Something that is cannot mirror somethign that isn't. You do not have a mathematical similacrum to vacuum physics utilizing water. Second, we know that there is no such thing as a vacuum as even the "vacuum" of space is filled with trillions of WIMPs per square meter. You cannot model a weakly or nonreactive particle by utilizing the physics of strong polar molecules.
Gene_H
Jun 16, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 16, 2010
Wow! I move that anytime anyone gets that many one star votes we say that they got NisaJ'd. We can work on the specifics and I'm not married to the name
Neither is he-
otto1923
5 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2010
Did I said something, which actually violates what I've said already in my blog or in some other web discussion?
You tell me. Or rather, tell the people who may have been trying to follow your explanations.

All I know is that you always claim to be able to explain phenomena with your theory, and when new evidence arises to change our perception of this phenomena, your theory conveniently adapts. How is this possible? You should have been able to look at earlier data and say 'well this makes no sense according to my theory because it predicts something different', and thus anticipate further discoveries. Explain, citing please specific examples from prior posts. For those who may recognize them.
otto1923
5 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2010
I'm not a professional, because I'm not taking money of tax payers or private sector for my activity regarding physics.
Professionalism is not a matter of money, it is a certain level of integrity. Refute yourself like any good professional would. Show that you're prepared to surrender your theory should it prove defective, by being your critic.

If your theory is so pliable that it never needs to be adjusted, then maybe there's something fundamentally wrong with it. Falsifiable, I think they call it.
Gene_H
1 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2010
..you always claim to be able to explain phenomena with your theory, and when new evidence arises to change our perception of this phenomena, your theory conveniently adapts..
Well, again - do you have some example for it? Do you have some example, I contradicted here with something written previously?

And please, don't ask me for telling me about it again... It's your accusation, your proof...

Regarding the predictions, which are violating existing experiments & theories, you can read above, for example, that:

1)gravitational waves are forming CMB noise (no-one has considered this so far, physicists are filtering out this noise from their detectors, instead...)
2)there should be a blue shift & amplification for radiowave sources (no-one has predicted this so far with respect to Big Bang inflation models)
3)Dispersion of gamma rays by CMB leads to violation of LS at short distances
4)Dark matter isn't composed of WIMPS (which can occur only at proximity of observable matter)
Gene_H
1 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2010
5)Long wavelength photons are tachyons, radiowaves should spread in superluminal speed with compare to photons of visible light in the same way, like the gravitational waves.
6)Universe is unlimited, we should detect another galaxies after event horizon when using radiowaves
7)Galaxies are evaporating and emerging from dark matter streaks continuously, we are just observing them younger in distant parts of Universe.
8)The wavelength of capillary waves with minimal speed for fluids should converge to the wavelength of CMB microwaves with decreasing density
9)The wavelength of neural brain waves becomes adopted to this wavelength during life evolution
10)The Universe expands in light of wavelength shorter then the CMB and its entropy increases. Bellow CMB wavelength distance/energy density scale Universe collapses and its entropy decreases, entropic time runs backward.
11)Dark matter manifest with weak deceleration, equal to product of Hubble constant and speed of light.
Gene_H
Jun 16, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 16, 2010
..we know that there is no such thing as a vacuum as even the "vacuum" of space is filled with trillions of WIMPs per square meter...
Actually we don't know about it - WIMPS are still just a speculation.

http://www.physor...261.html

So I'm not required to model any nonreactive particles here. In fact, the dense aether model would work for liquid hellium and another fluids, too. It's invariant to nature of particles, which are forming such fluid, because it's geometric model.

Neutrinos are not debated and yes, you would need to model for them.
Gene_H
1 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2010
Neutrinos aren't generally considered WIMPs, i.e. weakly interacting MASSIVE particles. Neutralinos, like the fotinos are. But suspended particles play no role in water surface models, as the manifest quite weakly at the water surface (which is the reason, why we cannot detect them so easily). The flux of primordial neutrinos is lower then 100 relic neutrinos with mass in 30 eV range (upper limit) per cubic centimeter - i.e. it's relatively small number.
Yes
5 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2010
Alizee.
Look at this picture.
http://i30.tinypi...ko7c.jpg
If you look at it long enough, you can see all kinds of forms in it. The forms can then form objects or faces, or whatever. Everybody sees other objects and other forms according to their frame of reference they built up during life. The reason is that the mind recognizes figures and shapes and then completes them with things that are not there if it recognize a percentage of it. Feel ye?
Yes
5 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2010
You have three options.
1) Find yourself a practical application from your theory and shut up everybody.
2) Get somebody who understands what you are saying and listens to you, or does not understand, but wants to listen to you. Most of the time that will be a spouse.
3) Get professional/spiritual help, and pray they will make you see that you are not at GUT, or that you arrive at point 1 and/or point 2.
Yes
5 / 5 (3) Jun 16, 2010
You have three options.
1) Find yourself a practical application from your theory and shut up everybody.
2) Get somebody who understands what you are saying and listens to you, or does not understand, but wants to listen to you. Most of the time that will be a spouse.
3) Get professional/spiritual help, and pray they will make you see that you are not at GUT, or that you arrive at point 1 and/or point 2.
otto1923
5 / 5 (3) Jun 16, 2010
Of course, there are many other predictions of aether theory, related to anti-gravity character of dark matter
Dark matter. Does your theory account for a certain value associated with this? And if this value is revised according to the above article, do you predict your theory will have already accounted for it?

If your theory is better than the standard model it should be able to point out value differences that real research confirms over time.

All I have seen you do is confirm existing evidence and predict nothing which has since proven out. Your theory should be able to make predictions, and if they are proven wrong you should be able to own up to it.

Has this happened yet? Unfortunately you are the only one here who can answer this.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2010
Neutrinos aren't generally considered WIMPs, i.e. weakly interacting MASSIVE particles.

I never said they were, I said you need to account for them, and you do not.

Current theory accounts for both neutrinos and WIMPs as well as MACHOs and every other particle type we're aware of. You account for NOTHING. Your "theory" is a guess, scientific theories are not guesses, regardless of what your backwater teachers told you.
Yes
5 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2010
I will try to explain what I understand of your theory.
1)In water (liquid) there is waves.
2)The deeper the water, the faster the waves.
3)There's group velocity, there is phase velocity and interference in the waves.
4)The dense eather you propose behaves like this water. There is group velocity, phase velocity and interference in the eather.
5)You understand this liquid concept and apply this to everything.
6)And to you it appears that it explains everything.

Who knows and Good luck, but I fear that nobody here will listen until you start supplying LA with electricity from your backyard through a cold fusion plant based on your theory or something similar.
yyz
5 / 5 (3) Jun 16, 2010
"Do you have some example, I contradicted here with something written previously?"

Yeah, on this very thread!

"Aether model isn't dependent to some private interpretations. "

vs

"I'm the only person, which deals with dense aether model for now."

It's like trying to nail down (4 types of) Jello.

"You didn't understood the whole point of article."

Guess you didn't, either. The astronomers here are looking into the validity of certain assumptions made in the course of interpreting data from a specific WMAP product (here meaning the WMAP 5 dataset). No more, no less, at this point. Yet some here takes this as an invalidation of ALL work into DM or DE, or this being the case in all data from WMAP. This is why a renewed analysis of of the WMAP 5 dataset would be in order to confirm or deny this outcome. IIRC, at least 2 findings in the past year concerning WMAP datasets were later found to be errors in the reduction and interpretation of the data. (con't)

yyz
5 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2010
(con't) Reduction and interpretation of this data is a complex task, not to be entered into lightly. Beyond the reanalysis, improved datasets are on the way with Planck and the proposed southern hemisphere survey. I'll choose to wait and see what a reanalysis of this dataset turns up.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.8 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2010
Actually every scientific theory is based on postulate set. Postulates are axioms, the validity of which is assumed without further proof in context of particular theory.
Wrong.
They can be supported with experiments (for example the light speed invariance or equivalence principle in relativity) - but they mustn't
Wrong.
For example string theory is based on assumption of extra-dimensions and some strings, which weren't observed yet (at least in belief of string theorists).
Wrong.
We cannot imagine or even observe such stuff, but we can imagine the behavior of very dense gas, for example the condensing supercritical fluid, in which energy and mass densities are in balance.
Wrong.
And we can extrapolate the behavior of such system to even much higher densities.
Wrong.

Go get an education.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (9) Jun 16, 2010
OK, how the light would propagate through photons of CMB noise?
The "CMB Noise" was the first appearance of propagating light due to the decreased energy density during inflation.

You based 3 posts on your misunderstanding of this fundamental fact. GET AN EDUCATION.
otto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jun 16, 2010
Dark matter. Does your theory account for a certain value associated with this?
I explained above, the anomalous deceleration of Pioneer spacecraft should be equal to product of Hubble constant and speed of light, which actually is with some 10% error.
..and predict nothing which has since proven out..
Points 1) to 10) in my above posts 2 hours ago weren't proven out - or yes?

"They find that the smoothing is much larger than previously believed, suggesting that its measurement of the size of the CMBR ripples is not as accurate as was thought. If true this could mean that the ripples are significantly smaller, which could imply that dark matter and dark energy are not present after all."

So if this is true or even partially true then the aether reason for this anomaly is also bogus... yes? Not as much dark matter = no aether theory.
MorituriMax
3 / 5 (2) Jun 16, 2010
Okay, so if these guys have demonstrated evidence that there is no dark matter, what have they come up with as an alternative explanation for why the stars orbiting at the edges of the galaxy don't fly out into space since they aren't affected enough just by the gravity of the overall mass of the visible matter in the galaxy?

I thought one of the reasons that people were talking about dark matter is because without it, there just isn't enough mass to hold onto the stars at the edge? They didn't know WHAT the dark matter was, just that SOMETHING with a lot more mass than we can detect was holding on to all those stars.

What is their alternative explanation for this?
Gene_H
1 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2010
What is their alternative explanation for this?
Of course, these effects are all real, they just cannot be observed in microwave light. In the same way, like the dispersion of waves (blue or red shift) cannot be observed at water surface for the waves of the same wavelength.

http://www.tinyurl.cz/s39
otto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2010
Okay, so if these guys have demonstrated evidence that there is no dark matter, what have they come up with as an alternative explanation
In order to develop and present their data, they dont have to do this. Do they -?
otto1923
4 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2010
So if this is true or even partially true then the aether reason for this anomaly is also bogus... yes? Not as much dark matter = no aether theory.
C'mon Gene, youve had plenty of time to respond, whats your answer?
Jigga
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2010
In gradient reality you cannot observe any effect within environment, which has caused it. If waves at the water surface are the result of particles of water, you cannot observe particles of water by using of surface waves. If dark matter is a result/product of dispersion of light with CMB noise, you cannot observe it just with using of CMB noise.

The fact, we cannot observe fog or dispersion of light with microwaves or in infrared light doesn't mean, this fog isn't real. Of course, we can still observe dark matter effect in visible light, which is sufficient reason for belief in dark matter existence.

The fact, I cannot observe you under my conditions doesn't mean, you're not existing at all.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jun 17, 2010
In gradient reality you cannot observe any effect within environment, which has caused it. If waves at the water surface are the result of particles of water, you cannot observe particles of water by using of surface waves. If dark matter is a result/product of dispersion of light with CMB noise, you cannot observe it just with using of CMB noise.

The fact, we cannot observe fog or dispersion of light with microwaves or in infrared light doesn't mean, this fog isn't real. Of course, we can still observe dark matter effect in visible light, which is sufficient reason for belief in dark matter existence.

The fact, I cannot observe you under my conditions doesn't mean, you're not existing at all.
Nice poetry. Your theory posits a value for dark matted which you say corresponds with earlier observations, which are now under revision. If they change, your theory will be invalid. Yes or no?

Answer the question please.
Jigga
1 / 5 (8) Jun 17, 2010
Dark matter is real effect and my theory just explains why it cannot be observed in microwave light. You cannot erase eighty years of dark matter observations.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (6) Jun 17, 2010
Your choice of screen name shows both your immaturity and ignorance.
Gene_H
Jun 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RobertKLR
Jun 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MorituriMax
1 / 5 (1) Jun 19, 2010
otto1923,
In order to develop and present their data, they dont have to do this. Do they -?


Well no, I guess they don't. But if they can't offer a reason why we should accept their ideas over other ideas which DO offer an explanation for it, why is their work an improvement?

I mean, before plate tectonics came along, they were using geosynclinal theory to explain why the Earth was structured the way it was. Now if they came along and said, "No, Plate Tectonics is a better theory. We can't explain WHY you should use our idea over the other one, it just seems to us like you guys haven't got all the details down with yours." How many scientists would have just dropped the existing theory if the new one didn't offer AT LEAST as good an explanation for the Earth's structure?

Hmmm?
dtxx
1 / 5 (1) Jun 19, 2010
An alternate explanation does not need to be provided to shoot down one that is disproven. For example, if you say x + y = 9 and provide values of 10 and 20 respectively for x and y, I don't need to provide values for x and y to show that 10+20 = 30 and not 9 and that you are WRONG.
MorituriMax
1 / 5 (1) Jun 19, 2010
That's pretty good, IF what they come up with disproves anything. I don't see anything here that does. Yet. It'll be interesting to see if they come up with anything more than well educated conjecture.
Bloodoflamb
not rated yet Jun 19, 2010
@Skeptic Heretic:
Actually every scientific theory is based on postulate set. Postulates are axioms, the validity of which is assumed without further proof in context of particular theory.
Wrong.
Uh... No, YOU'RE wrong. That's EXACTLY what a scientific theory is. For example: special relativity assumes, without proof, that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant in all inertial reference frames and that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames. Not only are these postulates NOT proven within special relativity, they CAN'T be proven.
brainiac125
not rated yet Jun 20, 2010
I'm not seeing any posts by this NisaJ on this article or any other. Did he get banned?
Weir
Jun 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Jigga
1 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2010
I'm not seeing any posts by this NisaJ on this article or any other. Did he get banned?
Yes, he was banned and all his posts were deleted from here.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jun 20, 2010
I'm not seeing any posts by this NisaJ on this article or any other. Did he get banned?
Yes, he was banned and all his posts were deleted from here.

1 down, 400 more sockpuppets to go.
Uh... No, YOU'RE wrong. That's EXACTLY what a scientific theory is. For example: special relativity assumes, without proof, that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant in all inertial reference frames and that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames. Not only are these postulates NOT proven within special relativity, they CAN'T be proven.

That's not accurate in the least. A theory is a statement that is composed of all facts and observations. These facts may be experimental evidences or may be mathematical postulates.

You're narrowing the scope to greatly. Alizee/sockpuppet are trying to state that all theories are guesses as created by made up math. You're not reading his actual words, the context is necxessary to understand my meaning.
Jigga
1 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2010
that all theories are guesses as created by made up math
Every formal theory is based on derivation of theorems from fixed postulate set, i.e. axioms. Of course, many physical theories aren't built so strictly and as the result, they're inconsistent often - but strictly formal theory should be quite clear in it. As an example of relatively coherent physical theory is quantum theory, which is based on six postulates.

http://vergil.che...e20.html

You cannot add new postulates into existing theory, neither remove some - or you'll working with another theory from this moment. Every theory is defined by its postulate set. These postulates may be guessed from experiments, or ad-hoced or borrowed from another theories - but they're not provable by the particular theory, which is using them.
fullbony
1 / 5 (3) Jun 20, 2010
FACT : to obtain a FULL understanding of cosmology, we NEED to be able to OBSERVE ALL parts of the cosmos at a fair sampling rate.
this is IMPOSSIBLE due to the SPEED OF LIGHT limit.
phyiscists NEED to work on a WARP DRIVE NOT ASSUME that things are equivalent in areas of the cosmos not yet observed.
we either accept that a theory of everything could never be possible OR we break the lightspeed barrier and GO where NO man has gone before !
axemaster
5 / 5 (1) Jun 21, 2010
FACT : to obtain a FULL understanding of cosmology, we NEED to be able to OBSERVE ALL parts of the cosmos at a fair sampling rate.
this is IMPOSSIBLE due to the SPEED OF LIGHT limit.
phyiscists NEED to work on a WARP DRIVE NOT ASSUME that things are equivalent in areas of the cosmos not yet observed.
we either accept that a theory of everything could never be possible OR we break the lightspeed barrier and GO where NO man has gone before !


Incorrect. We are already observing with an excellent sample rate.

Also, warp drives are most likely impossible to make, and even if they weren't, would be impossible to make practical.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 21, 2010
So let me get this straight. The article is suggesting that dark matter and dark energy may not exist based on a single CMB measurement alone? What about Fritz Zwicky's observations of galaxy rotations which first pointed us in the direction of dark matter - aren't they still valid? What about the supposedly observed dark matter halos and dark matter galaxies? Aren't these observations also valid? What about the dark matter weak gravitational lensing observations, aren't they still valid? What about the Bullet Cluster observations...

It seems the case for dark matter (in some form or other) is independently strong. Dark energy, on the other hand is another matter (pun intended!) altogether. It's observation is largely dependent on the very same type of observations which are discussed in the article.

Whatever eventually comes of their result, it should make for some interesting reading...
bluehigh
1 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2010
C'mon kids. Simple logic dictates that having not directly detected dark matter or dark energy then the universe should be assumed to consist of 100% real matter and real energy to the best of our provable knowledge, so far. Again for the slow and ignorant - for all intents and purposes there is no dark side. Stop chasing shadows.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 21, 2010
So let me get this straight. The article is suggesting that dark matter and dark energy may not exist based on a single CMB measurement alone? What about Fritz Zwicky's observations of galaxy rotations which first pointed us in the direction of dark matter - aren't they still valid? What about the supposedly observed dark matter halos and dark matter galaxies? Aren't these observations also valid?
No, this has to do with the percentage of compositions, not the presences of.
Again for the slow and ignorant - for all intents and purposes there is no dark side. Stop chasing shadows.
Only someone wholly ignorant of theoretical physics and evidential observation would say this. How hypocritical of you to proclaim others ignorant when you have no idea what you're talking about. Uba stated it nicely above, there are multiple observational phenomina that demand the presences of dark matter.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Jun 21, 2010
Uba stated it nicely above, there are multiple observational phenomina that demand the presences of dark matter.
These phenomena demand an explanation. They don't necessarily imply this explanation to be what is termed "dark matter".
Gravitation itself is not as well understood as the other known interactions. In the realm of distances between 10**(-2) cm and 10**(-33) cm we have no data on the strength of gravitation. All we have are assumptions. We should not be too sure about the strength of gravitation on large scales either.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Jun 21, 2010
These phenomena demand an explanation. They don't necessarily imply this explanation to be what is termed "dark matter".
Gravitation itself is not as well understood as the other known interactions.
Agreed however, if you remove the functional statement that gravity follows the inverse square law then we wouldn't have been able to accurately plot celestial paths within the solar system at all, let alone to the degree over which we have. This would introduce ptolemaic math back into the mainstream.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Jun 21, 2010
if you remove the functional statement that gravity follows the inverse square law then we wouldn't have been able to accurately plot celestial paths within the solar system at all, let alone to the degree over which we have.
True. We know the functionality of gravity quite well for scales between 1 mm and the solar system. On galactic scales, however, we can't be sure whether a simple extrapolation of gravity's working on much smaller scales fits observations. While I'm not favouring the MOND concept I'm not ready to concede the same certainty to our knowledge about gravity as to the other three interactions. Obviously there is something undisclosed about gravity as long as the standard model has no answer to the hierarchy question.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) Jun 21, 2010
It is not Science or Physics to concoct explanations that have no basis testable in reality. To suggest that the dark side is an established fact based on indirect evidence is shoddy reasoning at best. We have no evidence that the dark side hypothesis is any more likely to be valid than other wild specualtion. Fortunately the brave researchers featured in this article have enquiring and open minds, while some dull arrogant people wallow in ignorance professing righteousness.

As the researchers explain ..

... Having a model dependent on as yet undetected exotic particles that make up dark matter and the completely mysterious dark energy leaves many scientists feeling uncomfortable.

If you feel that there are multiple observational phenomina that demand something then a verifiable explanation would be a good start.
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2010
So let me get this straight. The article is suggesting that dark matter and dark energy may not exist based on a single CMB measurement alone? What about Fritz Zwicky's observations of galaxy rotations which first pointed us in the direction of dark matter - aren't they still valid? What about the supposedly observed dark matter halos and dark matter galaxies? Aren't these observations also valid?
No, this has to do with the percentage of compositions, not the presences of.
The article clearly states, "...which could imply that dark matter and dark energy are not present after all."

Therefore, it seems the article is indeed dismissing the aforementioned dark matter observations.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2010
Uba stated it nicely above, there are multiple observational phenomina that demand the presences of dark matter.
These phenomena demand an explanation. They don't necessarily imply this explanation to be what is termed "dark matter".
Gravitation itself is not as well understood as the other known interactions. In the realm of distances between 10**(-2) cm and 10**(-33) cm we have no data on the strength of gravitation. All we have are assumptions. We should not be too sure about the strength of gravitation on large scales either.
If dark matter (as a gravity variation) had such an effect at the galactic scale, wouldn't this necessarily be a universal truth? Did you know some galaxies are observed to have differing amounts (or effects of) dark matter?

Therefore, for it to strictly be a gravitational effect would imply that gravity varies randomly from location to location. This seems unlikely.
Weir
Jun 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Gene_H
1 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2010
..a spinning top does not fall over...
Yep, this apparently violates the gravity. After all, gravity force has always a center of action (usually the center of mass of gravitating objects) - whereas the inertial force hasn't. Gravity could be distinguished from inertial force with pair of plumb lines near black hole in such way.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2010
While I'm not favouring the MOND concept I'm not ready to concede the same certainty to our knowledge about gravity as to the other three interactions. Obviously there is something undisclosed about gravity as long as the standard model has no answer to the hierarchy question.
No disagreement here. We can already see that gravity doesn't act the same on superdense objects due to the revelation that blackholes orbit each other as suspected primordial atoms would as opposed to how current matter does. I'd be more willing to state that dark energy and dark matter are mechanisms forced into existence in order to save the standard cosmological model from self destruction. We need some dark flow research.

And Alizee, stop quoting yourself and trying to make it look like two different people. We already know you are both Weir and Gene_H. A foucault pendulum has no issue with GR and neither does a gyro. Center of gravity and inertial frame of reference explain both.
snapoli
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2010
When civilization was confident that the earth was the center of the universe, the apparent retrograde motion of some of the planets was explained by 'epicycles'. Basically a patch on an otherwise 'working' theory of the universe. Eventually there was a paradigm shift to a sun-centered orbital system.

The same will happen with DARK matter, DARK energy and DARK flow. There will be a paradigm shift that will make this stuff really dark (disappear). Remember the ether?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2010
Actually, Dark flow is what is breaking the standard model. It is a factual observation that is contrary to the big bang theory. Hence why we have usurped it with the inflation theory.
Weir
1 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2010
Skeptic Heretic: I am not Gene or Alizee and do not know them. You are also mistaken that GR can explain why the arc of the swings of Foucaults pendulum is determined by the position of stars countless light years distant and is unaffected by the earths rotation even though Earth's gravity sets it in motion. This failure of GR is well known yet overlooked. You can find it in text books.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 25, 2010
Skeptic Heretic: I am not Gene or Alizee and do not know them. You are also mistaken that GR can explain why the arc of the swings of Foucaults pendulum is determined by the position of stars countless light years distant and is unaffected by the earths rotation even though Earth's gravity sets it in motion. This failure of GR is well known yet overlooked. You can find it in text books.
I fail to understand why you think Foucault pendulums violate GR.

Please explain, and provide references.